Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US DOT Merges DL/NW Route Authorities  
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6668 times:

By order DOT-OST-2008-0162-0012 today, DL and NW's route authorities will be merged as soon as the President signs the order.

There is a list of all the route authorities DL holds after the merger so it might be interesting to some of you.

You can find the document using this thread.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...mponent/main?main=AdvancedDocument

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJasonmiller From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6430 times:

http://tinyurl.com/8czypx
direct link to PDF


User currently offline77411 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6248 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Thread starter):
There is a list of all the route authorities DL holds after the merger so it might be interesting to some of you.

Thanks for the info. Upon reading the document some of the routes are operated by Continental and Alaska. How does that work? Does it mean DL can say to CO in the future we want our route back and then begin to fly it or are they required to wait until these other airlines stop flying them before they can reuse them.


User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1812 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6112 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

On the one hand, i wonder how easy it would be, once the operating certificates are merged for DL to basically punch CO in the gut in terms of their latin america operations by revoking the NW owned authorities?

On the other hand, i have to assume that CO, has paid or continues to pay for the use of those authorities, so maybe it's a good deal financially to let them keep them unless DL wants to actually set up a hub in houston to use those authorities. the NY authorities could easily be transferred to JFK, could the houston authorities be transferred to Atl? that might be a pretty good competitive punch in the gut if DL can pull that off.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16693 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6099 times:



Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 3):
once the operating certificates are merged for DL to basically punch CO in the gut in terms of their latin america operations by revoking the NW owned authorities?

On the other hand, i have to assume that CO, has paid or continues to pay for the use of those authorities, so maybe it's a good deal financially to let them keep them unless DL wants to actually set up a hub in houston to use those authorities. the NY authorities could easily be transferred to JFK, could the houston authorities be transferred to Atl? that might be a pretty good competitive punch in the gut if DL can pull that off.

Those are not NWA authorities, those are NWA codeshares. DL is mearly taking over NWA's authorities to codeshare with CO, it's a moot point as UA will be codesharing on those routes soon. DL has no more control over CO's Latin American operation from IAH then CO does over NWA's operation from NRT.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineOcracoke From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5847 times:

Interesting DL route number 114:

SFO/LAX/Houston/MSY ---> Cuba. DL still has this authority after all of these years, and:

route number 152:

USA-Haiti. I didn't realize that DL has rights to Haiti, and:

route number 562:

MIA-MEX. Where did that one come from? Granted, that is probably codeshare with AM, but does if DL has the codeshare authority, it means DL can also fly the route, right?


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9081 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5782 times:



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 5):
SFO/LAX/Houston/MSY ---> Cuba. DL still has this authority after all of these years, and:

Right but means next to nothing at this point in time.

Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 5):
MIA-MEX. Where did that one come from? Granted, that is probably codeshare with AM, but does if DL has the codeshare authority, it means DL can also fly the route, right?

Could be something DL got when they where big in MIA. Could also be something they got from Pan Am.
It would be nice if DL would go down to MIA and set up a hub and take the fight on to AA. I would think MIA would be able to have two Airlines. (MAH? your thoughts on this)



yep.
User currently offlineJohnclipper From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2005, 826 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5603 times:

My understanding is that UA got all South American and Caribbean authorities when they purchased the LatAm division. DL got Africa and Europe except x/London authorities.

User currently onlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5815 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5557 times:



Quoting Johnclipper (Reply 9):
My understanding is that UA got all South American and Caribbean authorities when they purchased the LatAm division. DL got Africa and Europe except x/London authorities.

UA got all the Pacific and Latin American route authorities except JFK-MEX and all of LHR except LHR-DTW and LHR-MIA (operated for a short time on UA metal but reverted to PA)

LH got the Internal German Service based in TXL

DL got PAs FRA and JFK hub excluding JFK-Latin America & Asia
The PA Shuttle
JFK-MEX
LGW-MIA (I don't know if DL ever operated the route or simply sold if off to AA)
LGW-DTW (DL operated it for a time but I believe they sold it to NW)



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5396 times:



Quoting 77411 (Reply 2):
Thanks for the info. Upon reading the document some of the routes are operated by Continental and Alaska. How does that work?

glad you all are enjoying it.

There are many codeshare authorizations in the document. Each of the categorizations represents a different kind of authority. Category A for both DL and NW is certificates of public convenience and necessity which is the underlying authority a carrier needs to serve another country. Note that many of these authorities are 1991 or earlier indicating DL gained them from Pan Am. It includes routes that DL once flew even if they are not active but they are generally less specific than exemptions which is category B which more accurately lists the curent routes which are operated. C is frequency allocations which are the specific number of times per week DL or NW can operate a specific route in limited access countries. These get most of the attention on a.net. D is codesharing authorizations - it is NOT interchangeable with the other categories. E is small aircraft (regional carrier) codesharing authorizations for NW and F is antitrust immunity (again listed only for NW).

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 3):
On the other hand, i have to assume that CO, has paid or continues to pay for the use of those authorities,

the US government does not charge any airlines fees to use international aviation rights. They are awarded on the basis of which carrier presents the most compelling case to the DOT.

They can be revoked by the DOT and carriers can agree to have codeshare authority terminated - which will likely happen when CO leaves Skyteam with the subsequent impact on CO's finances. DL has asserted that CO gains more from its relationship with DL and NW than it contributes. I don't want to get into an argument about it but that is what DL has said. The bottom line is that there will be some loss to both CO and DL/NW and how each carrier deals with those holes that are left will help determine their success.

Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 5):
if DL has the codeshare authority, it means DL can also fly the route, right?

No. Codeshare authority is considered separate authority and does not necessarily allow for operating with your own metal. Generally only countries with Open Skies consider codesharing and service with your own metal as the same thing since there is nothing stopping you from flying as much as you want. In limited access country, codesharing is also limited and there are route cases for it just like there is for service with your own metal. Between the US and some countries, codeshare authority is used up while service with one's own metal is still available.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16693 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4999 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 10):
when CO leaves Skyteam with the subsequent impact on CO's finances. DL has asserted that CO gains more from its relationship with DL and NW than it contributes. I don't want to get into an argument about it but that is what DL has said. The bottom line is that there will be some loss to both CO and DL/NW and how each carrier deals with those holes that are left will help determine their success.

The fact of the matter is UA is a much larger airline than NWA, and Star accordingly is a much larger Alliance with more premier carriers than Skyteam. I don't argue there will not be an impact when CO changes from NWA and Skyteam to UA and Star, however I think the impact will be positive where as you feel it will be negative.

Btw..

Thank you for explaining the documentso clearly for us, I laughed when a couple posters were actualy thinking DL was going to be able to take with them dozens of CO's International route authorites from IAH to Mexico and Latin America.

[Edited 2008-12-30 09:59:28]


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4807 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 11):
The fact of the matter is UA is a much larger airline than NWA, and Star accordingly is a much larger Alliance with more premier carriers than Skyteam. I don't argue there will not be an impact when CO changes from NWA and Skyteam to UA and Star, however I think the impact will be positive where as you feel it will be negative.

the statement I made was CO vs DL/NW. When you compare alliances, it becomes more balanced but neither CO or UA have a presence in the SE which is why US is needed. The question will be for how long US wishes to be of value solely for a presence in the SE and whether they are able to provide enough of a presence against DL which is clearly far larger.

Also, market size is not as significant as how/if the revenue is shared. CO is obviously interested in a revenue sharing arrangement with UA (whether that occurs will remain to be seen but the US DOT has not allowed revenue sharing by large domestic airlines) but not with US so DL/NW will still have an advantage in that they will have a more complete global network under one financial umbrella while parts of Star will have financial ties and others will just have marketing ties.

again, I'm not wanting to pit DL/NW against others but there is a clear benefit in any country of having a single airline vs. of having an alliance. Alliances are the next best thing to having a unified carrier but there are clear advantages of unity - CO and UA will try to narrow the advantage DL will have but it will still be there. And the biggest obstacle to unification is also an obstacle to closer alliance cooperation - unions traditionally are opposed to cooperation that eliminates jobs which is what moving flying around between carriers and consolidating airport operations can do.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 11):
Thank you for explaining the documentso clearly for us, I laughed when a couple posters were actualy thinking DL was going to be able to take with them dozens of CO's International route authorites from IAH to Mexico and Latin America.

[Edited 2008-12-30 09:59:28]

glad to help. in reality, the US treaty w/ Mexico allows multiple carriers on nearly all routes so DL could apply for routes from IAH to Mexico if it thought it could make money - just as CO could from ATL or any other carrier could do in another carrier's hub.

CO's route authorities are CO's and when the "divorce" occurs property will be divided the way it came into the marriage. Each carrier used it for the benefit of the alliance while they were in the alliance and when they leave, the authority will still be theirs to use with whatever benefit they share with whoever else.


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4680 times:



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 5):
Interesting DL route number 114:

SFO/LAX/Houston/MSY ---> Cuba. DL still has this authority after all of these years, and:

route number 152:

USA-Haiti. I didn't realize that DL has rights to Haiti

Cuba (Havana), Haiti (Port au Prince), Dominican Republic (Santo Domingo, then known as Ciudad Trujillo), Jamaica (Kingston) and Venezuela (Caracas) were DL's first international routes, inherited from the merger with Chicago and Southern in 1952. They were operated from MSY and IAH.


User currently offlineXdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 612 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3893 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 13):

100% correct.... could these be moved to be operated from ATL???


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9081 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3834 times:



Quoting Xdlx (Reply 14):

100% correct.... could these be moved to be operated from ATL???

I'm sure they could find away but No one will be flying to Cuba from the US anytime soon. If they ever let airlines start back they may just "start over" and put X new of flights up for bid and trash these right.



yep.
User currently onlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5815 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3751 times:



Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 15):
Quoting Xdlx (Reply 14):

100% correct.... could these be moved to be operated from ATL???

I'm sure they could find away but No one will be flying to Cuba from the US anytime soon. If they ever let airlines start back they may just "start over" and put X new of flights up for bid and trash these right.

They would probalby have too as only UA, CO and DL have route authorities to fly to Cuba.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9964 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3024 times:



Quoting United1 (Reply 8):
LGW-MIA (I don't know if DL ever operated the route or simply sold if off to AA)

DL did operate it for a short time, using an A310-300, I believe.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16693 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3003 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 16):
DL did operate it for a short time, using an A310-300, I believe.

I think it was an L-1011-500 that originated in MCO (IIRC), I believe DL operated DTW-LGW with the A310.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9964 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2964 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 17):

Well, we flew out of LGW in late November of '91 and the DL flight next to us was an A310-300 going to MIA.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineOcracoke From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2808 times:



Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 14):
I'm sure they could find away but No one will be flying to Cuba from the US anytime soon. If they ever let airlines start back they may just "start over" and put X new of flights up for bid and trash these right.

If/when Cuba ever opens up to scheduled US passenger flights, I'm sure the Cuban government will have something to say about 'trashing' airline rights, and 'starting over.'
It will be in the best interest of Cuba to protect Cubana from the US onslaught, so Cuba is just not going to roll over and say to the US airlines,....here you go boys...have at it.

If the US government allowed Bermuda II to last as long as it did without challenging it, I don't have much hope for the USA strongly pushing for new rights to Cuba.

Probably what will happen is whoever currently holds the rights, let them fly the new routes; let Cubana get stronger and update their fleet, and then when the market is stabalized, let the other airlines in.

I wonder which alliance Cubana would possibly join? HAV would be almost the perfect hub for SKY/S* to take on AA in the Caribbean.


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9081 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2749 times:



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 19):
It will be in the best interest of Cuba to protect Cubana from the US onslaught, so Cuba is just not going to roll over and say to the US airlines,....here you go boys...have at it.

This i know but i'd say we will see cuba say you can have X number of flights and the DOT lets the airlines re-bid for them. Just like they do with China.



yep.
User currently offlineXdlx From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 612 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2445 times:



Quoting United1 (Reply 15):

I was under the impression AA/Eagle goes there regularly out of MIA.


User currently offlineOcracoke From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2306 times:



Quoting Xdlx (Reply 21):
I was under the impression AA/Eagle goes there regularly out of MIA.

Charter flights only, because AFAIK, AA has no regular rights to Cuba.


User currently onlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5815 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2272 times:



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 22):
Quoting Xdlx (Reply 21):
I was under the impression AA/Eagle goes there regularly out of MIA.

Charter flights only, because AFAIK, AA has no regular rights to Cuba.

AA/Eagle ca only fly charter flights to and from Cuba, UA actually has the only MIA-Cuba scheduled rights which of course they can't use until the embargo is lifted.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2968 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2240 times:



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 19):
It will be in the best interest of Cuba to protect Cubana from the US onslaught, so Cuba is just not going to roll over and say to the US airlines,....here you go boys...have at it.

Wouldn't it be in the country of Cuba's overall best interest to let as many carriers/pax as
they can safely handle fly in/out? They'd make a killing in fees, tourism, etc. How many people, other than Cubans themselves, fly Cubana to/from Cuba anyway?



Finally made it to an airline mecca!
25 Nwaesc : I could have sworn UA has done the occasional MIA-HAV charter as well?
26 Ocracoke : I suppose you could ask the same thing of SQ not being able to fly Australia-USA. Or why it took so long for BDA II to be replaced. Or why does the M
27 United1 : They have, sorry I should have been clearer.... UA can't use the scheduled route authority that they own because of the embargo however they can and
28 GSPSPOT : Are these gov't charters or something? US citizens without Cuban heritage can't go to Cuba, can they?
29 Post contains links United1 : They're not government charters but those flights are full of people who have been authorized by the US Government to travel to Cuba (VFR basically)
30 DeltaL1011man : IIRC CO has does it. (MIA-HAV charters)
31 United1 : It wouldn't surprise me allot of airlines do MIA-HAV as charters.
32 STT757 : They also had JFK-Cuba for a while, also CO Connection carrier Gulfstream has a few Cuba routes.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Merger: AA, US Outcome If DL/NW, UA/CO Merge? posted Sun Apr 13 2008 17:54:32 by IliriBDL
NW/DL 787 Route Question posted Thu Jul 3 2008 10:12:47 by Rwex414
When Will LHR Open Up To DL/NW/US Etc posted Fri May 19 2006 11:17:55 by BHXDTW
US DOT Approves New F9, UA, DL Routes posted Tue Jun 7 2005 17:47:09 by PVD757
US-Mexico Route Authorities posted Wed Aug 11 2004 04:53:40 by FLY777UAL
AA,UA,DL,NW,CO,US. Choose Your Pick. posted Mon Oct 13 2003 22:06:13 by GoAibusGo
When Will The DOT Rule On DL/NW/CO posted Sun Dec 1 2002 15:49:00 by DeltAirlines
DOT Extends Review DL/NW/CO Code-share posted Tue Oct 22 2002 18:29:04 by UALPHLCS
US Carrier's International Route AUthorities posted Fri Mar 2 2001 04:56:03 by Redraider
DL, NW, US, HP Just Plane Bad? posted Mon Jan 29 2001 02:27:01 by ContinentalEWR