LAX772LR wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

What exactly has DL done regarding HND that, say, AA hasn't?

Has any carrier asked for as many changes? Requested as many slots due to their lack of JV and then screwed around with them as many times? Been ordered to maintain service levels or lose their slots?

....... you didn't answer the question.

You'll find that the answer is: nothing.

Pedantry is your calling card. How many filings does AA have for skirting the rules like DL did on SEA-HND?

SFOtoORD wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Has any carrier asked for as many changes? Requested as many slots due to their lack of JV and then screwed around with them as many times? Been ordered to maintain service levels or lose their slots?

....... you didn't answer the question.

You'll find that the answer is: nothing.

Pedantry is your calling card. How many filings does AA have for skirting the rules like DL did on SEA-HND?

SFOtoORD while AA may not have the same number of filings as DL does, AA is playing the same game as DL just in a different market. The foundation of DL's argument for HND has always been that both AA and UA have a competitive advantage because of their partnerships with JL and NH. AA as it relates to their 2 now unused Chinese frequencies are making essentially the same argument. AA claims in their filing with the DOT they should be granted a dormancy waiver because they are at a competitive disadvantage to DL and UA in China, do to partnerships both DL and UA have forged with Chinese carriers. It may be comparing apples to oranges, but the one thing they have in common is they are both fruit. The same is true here we may be talking about China (AA) and Haneda (DL) but the one thing these airlines have made abundantly clear, is one of the reasons DOT should side with them is because one or more U.S. airlines has a competitive advantage. Failure to side with them (AA, DL) would put them into an a deeper competitive disadvantage and would not be beneficial to the flying public.
In the end both of these airlines are asking for flexibility, but in different forms. AA wants dormancy, while DL wants freedom to move frequencies to any gateway. How the DOT will rule on both these request is anyone's guess but one thing is for sure it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

LAX772LR wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Pedantry is your calling card.

...funny, you say that as if we weren't referencing an industry where attention to minutia can be the difference between compliance and breach.

But your ridiculous tangent aside, allow me to redirect you to the (demonstrable) fact that you still don't seem able to point out a single thing that DL does or has done regarding regulatory requests, that its peers don't also do when they feel it's to their advantage; most notably AA, as mentioned.

jayunited wrote:

SFOtoORD while AA may not have the same number of filings as DL does, AA is playing the same game as DL

So you don’t like facts (ie far more filings for DL). Not sure how else to cover DLs abuse of HND slots. They are the ultimate squatters in this market.

LAX772LR wrote:

....... you didn't answer the question.

You'll find that the answer is: nothing.

It was somewhat answered, but you simply didn't like the truth.

To more fully answer your question, here's a list of what DL has done over AA, and I may not have them all:

1) Bait-and-switching by downgauging HND flights.
2) Moved a frequency to another city
3) Used HND frequencies to replace an NRT flight, a hypocritical act considering they picked on AA for the mere threat of that at LAX with proposed identical flight numbers as NRT
4) Now the latest proactive request for frequency "flexibility".

Although the DOT is ultimately in charge, when the police don't have the guts to reign in a crook, the guilty party is still a crook.

The other issue that no one mentions is that the Japanese carriers seem to be free to move their HND slots around to whichever US airport they want. As the Japanese carriers are direct competition for DL on HND routes... why should DL be put at a disadvantage against competition who can freely move their slots?

LAX772LR wrote:

You'd be dangerous if you had half a clue what you were talking about.

1) There was no requirement for minimum gauge in applications, therefore that choice was theirs (and any other winning airline's) to make.
2) AA failed on JFK-HND, then cried for LAX... that's sooo different, huh?
3) Right, so I guess we'll just quietly sweep AA's intention to replace an NRT with HND to DFW should they won the daytime bids announced in July 2016, right under the rug.
4) Uh-huh, because AA totally didn't scream for "flexibility" in October 2015 when they hadn't inaugurated HND and faced an inquiry deadline from the DOT.

.....try again.

Now you're resorting to your other debate tactic - personal attacks to make the perception that you know what you're talking about for the purpose of a superiority aura.

What I presented what factual differences between DL and AA in the HND history. You have your answer. You can either accept the facts presented to you, or you can bury your head in the sand and pretend they didn't happen.

LAX772LR wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

So you don’t like facts (ie far more filings for DL).

So in essence then what you're saying, is that reading comprehension isn't exactly your strong suit...... shocking, an utter surprise.

But as another user just a few posts above, attempted to explain in the simplest terms possible:
DL has not engaged in any activity that its peers, again most notably AA have not.

That they've done it a number of times that you, in your utter insignificance, deem excessive... is immaterial to the FACT (weren't you just talking about that word?) that there's nothing DL has done on the issue of route authorities that AA hasn't.

They are a repeat offender. They’ve taken advantage of the process. They’ve been given the strictest orders to continue SEA service or lose the route. And yes they’ve filed these requests far more than any other carrier. They are abusers of the system.

LAX772LR wrote:

2) AA failed on JFK-HND, then cried for LAX... that's sooo different, huh?

First of all, AA admitted defeated on JFK-HND and returned the slots/route authority.
On the other hand, DL did not admit defeat on SEA-HND and attempted to hoard the slots.
When AA objected to DL's usage of the slots, Delta was the one who de-cried a new route case.
AA was awarded the slots after DL failed to meet its commitment for year-round service the second time around.

Yes, very different.

Delta did indeed operate SEAHND the minimum allowed by the rules to keep the slot.

Like it or not, they were following the rules.

When AA objected, DOT issued new guidance, which Delta followed, operating the route daily.

Eventually they decided to return the authority to the DOT, which gave it to AA.

Let's not act like Delta defied the DOT. They did what they could within the rules, but they never broke the rules.

PWMRamper wrote:

Delta did indeed operate SEAHND the minimum allowed by the rules to keep the slot.

Like it or not, they were following the rules.

When AA objected, DOT issued new guidance, which Delta followed, operating the route daily.

Eventually they decided to return the authority to the DOT, which gave it to AA.

Let's not act like Delta defied the DOT. They did what they could within the rules, but they never broke the rules.

Did DL technically satisfy the rule? Barely. Were they utilizing the frequency as advertised during the route award process? No. Has DL been by far the noisiest player in this process and yet made the poorest use of their frequencies? Yes. DOT was right to change the terms of their award.

If you got back to the award process DOT always talked about maximizing these authorities for the flying public. Again something DL has undermined at every stage. Their strategy is to say anything to win then when they control the authority to bend it to their needs without letting other carriers compete again for the authority.

SFOtoORD wrote:

PWMRamper wrote:

Delta did indeed operate SEAHND the minimum allowed by the rules to keep the slot.

Like it or not, they were following the rules.

When AA objected, DOT issued new guidance, which Delta followed, operating the route daily.

Eventually they decided to return the authority to the DOT, which gave it to AA.

Let's not act like Delta defied the DOT. They did what they could within the rules, but they never broke the rules.

Did DL technically satisfy the rule? Barely. Were they utilizing the frequency as advertised during the route award process? No. Has DL been by far the noisiest player in this process and yet made the poorest use of their frequencies? Yes. DOT was right to change the terms of their award.

If you got back to the award process DOT always talked about maximizing these authorities for the flying public. Again something DL has undermined at every stage. Their strategy is to say anything to win then when they control the authority to bend it to their needs without letting other carriers compete again for the authority.

No arguments there. Delta played around with the process, but they didn't break any rules. We can go back and forth as to WHY they did what they did, but frankly, they were trying to make poor times work. No other airline made any request for the route authority until AA did, so I honestly don't see what harm came from it, as once AA objected, Delta obeyed the updated guidance from DOT until ceding the authority.

We could debate whether SEA-HND, even seasonally, is better or worse for the flying public than adding AA on the crowded LAX-HND route years ago. It probably isn't, but it's a reasonable debate to have.

Since daytime slots have become available, Delta has not deviated from their proposal. MSP and LAX were proposed on the 777, and that's what they have flown as (okay, to be fair, LAX is on the A330-300, but that was an increase of 2 seats).

For what it's worth, I don't fully agree wtih Delta's flexibility request here. I can see the argument that if the Japanese carriers have flexibility, the US carriers should too.

But if, for example, the DOT award Delta 2 authorities for ATL and SEA, for serving Southeast/Northwest regions, I don't think it'd be fair for Delta to then be able to move then to say, Detroit and JFK, as it undermines the reason they got the routes in the first place.

What happened to the Asia network acquired with the NW merge.?You had to NRT JFK,ATL,MSP,DTW,PDX,SEA,LAX,HNL, then connections to BKK,MNL Guam,Saipan etc.Plus the flight to China and Korea. And most of those routes were 747’s did DL make mistakes because fuel wasn’t very high or was it the Japanese Economy. The planes going over weren’t empty flights. What happened?

DL757NYC wrote:

What happened to the Asia network acquired with the NW merge.?You had to NRT JFK,ATL,MSP,DTW,PDX,SEA,LAX,HNL, then connections to BKK,MNL Guam,Saipan etc.Plus the flight to China and Korea. And most of those routes were 747’s did DL make mistakes because fuel wasn’t very high or was it the Japanese Economy. The planes going over weren’t empty flights. What happened?

You still have TYO to all of those US cities except JFK.

The Interport flights were never going to last, for several reasons. MNL and SIN are still around, but the writing is on the wall for them to be sure.

DL757NYC wrote:

What happened to the Asia network acquired with the NW merge.?You had to NRT JFK,ATL,MSP,DTW,PDX,SEA,LAX,HNL, then connections to BKK,MNL Guam,Saipan etc.Plus the flight to China and Korea. And most of those routes were 747’s did DL make mistakes because fuel wasn’t very high or was it the Japanese Economy. The planes going over weren’t empty flights. What happened?

1. The NRT hub was a product of WWII, winners get the spoils.
2. Range of aircraft at the time pretty much prevented overflying Japan. Things have changed.
3. NW historically had to offer junk fares NRT-Asia to fill planes via consolidators and travel agencies.
4. AS failed to purchase equipment to fly SEA-Asia, leaving the newly merged DL/NW an opportunity to overfly NRT from an enlarged SEA base, now a DL hub.
5. Alliances have changed the structure of air travel. No need to operate 5th freedoms when you can turn your pax over to a partner. Remember the UA/LHR hub, TWA/CDG hub, PA then DL/FRA hub? Where are they now?

Many other factors as well but you get the idea.

SFOtoORD wrote:

If you got back to the award process DOT always talked about maximizing these authorities for the flying public. Again something DL has undermined at every stage. Their strategy is to say anything to win then when they control the authority to bend it to their needs without letting other carriers compete again for the authority.

In addition to their past shenanigans with these routes, DL has no feed in Japan and no partner airlines to offer connections at HND. So if the goal is maximizing benefits for the flying public, all of the US mainland-HND routes should be divided equally between AA and UA. Which I asked my representatives to suggest to the DOT.

LAX772LR wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

To more fully answer your question, here's a list of what DL has done over AA, and I may not have them all:

1) Bait-and-switching by downgauging HND flights.
2) Moved a frequency to another city
3) Used HND frequencies to replace an NRT flight, a hypocritical act considering they picked on AA for the mere threat of that at LAX with proposed identical flight numbers as NRT
4) Now the latest proactive request for frequency "flexibility".

You'd be dangerous if you had half a clue what you were talking about.

1) There was no requirement for minimum gauge in applications, therefore that choice was theirs (and any other winning airline's) to make.
2) AA failed on JFK-HND, then cried for LAX... that's sooo different, huh?
3) Right, so I guess we'll just quietly sweep AA's intention to replace an NRT with HND to DFW should they won the daytime bids announced in July 2016, right under the rug.
4) Uh-huh, because AA totally didn't scream for "flexibility" in October 2015 when they hadn't inaugurated HND and faced an inquiry deadline from the DOT.

.....try again.

You are correct. AA does the same thing (including their current attempt with ORD-China frequencies). I’m of the opinion that in all cases, the requests should be granted only if there aren’t other requests out there. If there are other requests out there, DOT should evaluate the flexibility request with all other competing requests at that time

By the way, I see all of this talk about promised equipment. Given that use of a particular fleet size is more fine-tuning and fleets will come and go (eg DL’s original 744 promise), DOT should not give any serious consideration to aircraft type unless all other factors of the competing requests are exactly the same

lavalampluva wrote:

MSP-HND is an odd route. It runs high loads on Friday-Sunday and suffers the rest of the week. It did better to NRT even though HND is a much more convienent airport to Tokyo city center.

Please define "Tokyo City Center". I would think in general most people are not heading to Tokyo Station as their final destination...and in reality Tokyo has many many "city centers". Yes HND is close to the city, but NRT works well for many people. It's like LHR or LGW (both work well for most parts of London.

*****

IF DL's MSP flight is not working, its DLs fault. NW successfully ran this flight for years (yes different set up and era) but it seems like DL prefers to drive its connections through ATL and DTW sooo they just have to figure it out. It's obvious they want to move all their flights to HND since they have no partner in Japan. Too bad, their Asian partner is KE and China will work massively in their favor in the coming years.

LAXLHR wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

MSP-HND is an odd route. It runs high loads on Friday-Sunday and suffers the rest of the week. It did better to NRT even though HND is a much more convienent airport to Tokyo city center.

Please define "Tokyo City Center". I would think in general most people are not heading to Tokyo Station as their final destination...and in reality Tokyo has many many "city centers". Yes HND is close to the city, but NRT works well for many people. It's like LHR or LGW (both work well for most parts of London.

*****

IF DL's MSP flight is not working, its DLs fault. NW successfully ran this flight for years (yes different set up and era) but it seems like DL prefers to drive its connections through ATL and DTW sooo they just have to figure it out. It's obvious they want to move all their flights to HND since they have no partner in Japan. Too bad, their Asian partner is KE and China will work massively in their favor in the coming years.

I meant is as the city itself. NRT is quite a distance out.

Yes. NW did a much better job flying to NRT. 747 10x per week at its peak.

Hawaiian filed a response with the DOT.

Carrier says it supports the notion of gateway flexibility though this needs to be weighed against DOT established process in allocating rights that promote access for all carriers and benefit the public interest. It believes the DL motion request is premature since Haneda access is very limited and DOT has spent much effort reviewing and spreading out the current route allocations to maximize public benefit.

Additionally, it believes any future selections process of new authority should not imperil established services, which would undermine existing carriers. DOT should also continue considering the promotion of market access by supporting new entrants and smaller carriers.

Ultimately HA believes the DL motion should be deferred until such time an agreement has been reached allowing for additional HND access, and when the size of the pool of available Haneda authorities has been established and any operating restrictions better understood.

OST-2016-0048

lavalampluva wrote:

LAXLHR wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

MSP-HND is an odd route. It runs high loads on Friday-Sunday and suffers the rest of the week. It did better to NRT even though HND is a much more convienent airport to Tokyo city center.

Please define "Tokyo City Center". I would think in general most people are not heading to Tokyo Station as their final destination...and in reality Tokyo has many many "city centers". Yes HND is close to the city, but NRT works well for many people. It's like LHR or LGW (both work well for most parts of London.

*****

IF DL's MSP flight is not working, its DLs fault. NW successfully ran this flight for years (yes different set up and era) but it seems like DL prefers to drive its connections through ATL and DTW sooo they just have to figure it out. It's obvious they want to move all their flights to HND since they have no partner in Japan. Too bad, their Asian partner is KE and China will work massively in their favor in the coming years.

I meant is as the city itself. NRT is quite a distance out.

Yes. NW did a much better job flying to NRT. 747 10x per week at its peak.

Was O&D from MSP-TYO ever very much? I know that Mall of America tourism from Japan was a thing at one point but beyond that I can't imagine there was business traffic to or from Japan 30 years ago that doesn't exist today.

LAXintl wrote:

Hawaiian filed a response with the DOT.

Carrier says it supports the notion of gateway flexibility though this needs to be weighed against DOT established process in allocating rights that promote access for all carriers and benefit the public interest. It believes the DL motion request is premature since Haneda access is very limited and DOT has spent much effort reviewing and spreading out the current route allocations to maximize public benefit.

Additionally, it believes any future selections process of new authority should not imperil established services, which would undermine existing carriers. DOT should also continue considering the promotion of market access by supporting new entrants and smaller carriers.

Ultimately HA believes the DL motion should be deferred until such time an agreement has been reached allowing for additional HND access, and when the size of the pool of available Haneda authorities has been established and any operating restrictions better understood.

OST-2016-0048

I think I understand where HA is coming from in there response. HA already flies to HND from both HNL and KOA. I think HA would like another HND slot to go daily double HNL-NRT temporarily until OGG can support international flights to Japan at which time HA would probably like to have the flexibility to just move one of the (if they get another HND slot) from HNL to OGG at that time all 3 major gateways would then be connected to HND. I think this might be part of the reason why HA supports gateway flexibility.
I could be interpreting this wrong but while HA supports gateway flexibility they also say any future new authority should not imperil established services. This is where DL may have a problem and its just my opinion. I think it all comes down to how HA, DL, AA, UA, the DOT (and people on this thread although our voices don't matter) define "established service". There is no question DL's LAX-HND is established service that frequency hasn't been move. On the other hand could an argument be made that DL's MSP-HND is not "technically" established service because the route has been moved from DTW to SEA to MSP and now DL wants the flexibility to move it again? HA response could provide an opening for HA, AA and UA to exploit when the DOT is examining who wins what in the next allocation race which is why I think DL should have waited until after the future frequencies were allocated.
As much as I'm against the current approach airlines have to win the frequency at all cost then apply to move it later. I could see HA in the future making the argument on their application they want an additional HND slot now with flexibility to move that slot from HNL to OGG. The difference would be would be leaving their established routes at their current gateways of HNL and KOA. In another thread people seem to believe that by sometime in 2020-2021 OGG maybe ready for international flights to Japan. To be honest I have really kept up with whats going on in OGG as it relates to future international long haul travel. Having said that after the future HND frequencies are allocated (many expect those allocations to take place in 2019) if HA doesn't apply for one of the current frequencies which will be available as some point this year, they would have to wait until whenever the next round of HND slot are made available to U.S. carriers. Looking at HA's response I'm thinking they want to snag a frequency now and have the flexibility to move just that one frequency to OGG in 2020 or 2021.

jayunited wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Hawaiian filed a response with the DOT.

Carrier says it supports the notion of gateway flexibility though this needs to be weighed against DOT established process in allocating rights that promote access for all carriers and benefit the public interest. It believes the DL motion request is premature since Haneda access is very limited and DOT has spent much effort reviewing and spreading out the current route allocations to maximize public benefit.

Additionally, it believes any future selections process of new authority should not imperil established services, which would undermine existing carriers. DOT should also continue considering the promotion of market access by supporting new entrants and smaller carriers.

Ultimately HA believes the DL motion should be deferred until such time an agreement has been reached allowing for additional HND access, and when the size of the pool of available Haneda authorities has been established and any operating restrictions better understood.

OST-2016-0048

I think I understand where HA is coming from in there response. HA already flies to HND from both HNL and KOA. I think HA would like another HND slot to go daily double HNL-NRT temporarily until OGG can support international flights to Japan at which time HA would probably like to have the flexibility to just move one of the (if they get another HND slot) from HNL to OGG at that time all 3 major gateways would then be connected to HND. I think this might be part of the reason why HA supports gateway flexibility.
I could be interpreting this wrong but while HA supports gateway flexibility they also say any future new authority should not imperil established services. This is where DL may have a problem and its just my opinion. I think it all comes down to how HA, DL, AA, UA, the DOT (and people on this thread although our voices don't matter) define "established service". There is no question DL's LAX-HND is established service that frequency hasn't been move. On the other hand could an argument be made that DL's MSP-HND is not "technically" established service because the route has been moved from DTW to SEA to MSP and now DL wants the flexibility to move it again? HA response could provide an opening for HA, AA and UA to exploit when the DOT is examining who wins what in the next allocation race which is why I think DL should have waited until after the future frequencies were allocated.
As much as I'm against the current approach airlines have to win the frequency at all cost then apply to move it later. I could see HA in the future making the argument on their application they want an additional HND slot now with flexibility to move that slot from HNL to OGG. The difference would be would be leaving their established routes at their current gateways of HNL and KOA. In another thread people seem to believe that by sometime in 2020-2021 OGG maybe ready for international flights to Japan. To be honest I have really kept up with whats going on in OGG as it relates to future international long haul travel. Having said that after the future HND frequencies are allocated (many expect those allocations to take place in 2019) if HA doesn't apply for one of the current frequencies which will be available as some point this year, they would have to wait until whenever the next round of HND slot are made available to U.S. carriers. Looking at HA's response I'm thinking they want to snag a frequency now and have the flexibility to move just that one frequency to OGG in 2020 or 2021.

MSP-HND did not come from DTW/SEA-HND. Delta ceded that authority back to the DOT before daytime allocations became available. Technically MSP-HND is just 2ish years old.

AA filed its response to the Delta motion today.

AA says its supports principle of gateway flexibility to all U.S.carriers that hold slots at Tokyo’s Haneda airport, however only under similar and consistent conditions imposed on China Zone-1 frequencies by DOT.
Also, AA says carriers should only be able to shift their gateway if operated for at least 2-years on the originally awarded market to avoid carriers applying for routes likely to be awarded with the intent of switching it shortly after an award to what might be perceived by DOT and public interest as a less desirous market.

AA says such limitation on grants of flexibility strikes the right balance between providing carriers more tools to respond to changes in the market and preserving the DOTs important role in allocating frequencies and other limited rights mindful of public benefit.

UA has also chimed in. Basically, it declines to take a position on the matter and will not submit its own pleadings regarding the DL motion.

LAXintl wrote:

AA filed its response to the Delta motion today.

AA says its supports principle of gateway flexibility to all U.S.carriers that hold slots at Tokyo’s Haneda airport, however only under similar and consistent conditions imposed on China Zone-1 frequencies by DOT.
Also, AA says carriers should only be able to shift their gateway if operated for at least 2-years on the originally awarded market to avoid carriers applying for routes likely to be awarded with the intent of switching it shortly after an award to what might be perceived by DOT and public interest as a less desirous market.

AA says such limitation on grants of flexibility strikes the right balance between providing carriers more tools to respond to changes in the market and preserving the DOTs important role in allocating frequencies and other limited rights mindful of public benefit.

This is rich. All the people saying DL was the only one playing "games" when AA is unquestionably trying to get the rule to apply to the ORD-PEK/PVG frequencies.

jbs2886 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

AA filed its response to the Delta motion today.

AA says its supports principle of gateway flexibility to all U.S.carriers that hold slots at Tokyo’s Haneda airport, however only under similar and consistent conditions imposed on China Zone-1 frequencies by DOT.
Also, AA says carriers should only be able to shift their gateway if operated for at least 2-years on the originally awarded market to avoid carriers applying for routes likely to be awarded with the intent of switching it shortly after an award to what might be perceived by DOT and public interest as a less desirous market.

AA says such limitation on grants of flexibility strikes the right balance between providing carriers more tools to respond to changes in the market and preserving the DOTs important role in allocating frequencies and other limited rights mindful of public benefit.

This is rich. All the people saying DL was the only one playing "games" when AA is unquestionably trying to get the rule to apply to the ORD-PEK/PVG frequencies.

What was said is that DL has been playing the most games when it comes to Haneda.

You guys are funny. Acting like airlines are sentient beings with morality and conscience, who like high school girls, play games. It’s business. The decision makers and planners at DL, AA, and UA will do what they feel makes the most money. You can’t blame them for trying. Either the DOT says yes or no, simple as that, but you can’t fault them for trying to improve the bottom line. You all make it sound like DL wants to break up with their girlfriend, that they stole from AA, but who really likes UA, who is trying to create drama so HA doesn’t ask DLs girlfriend out, because you want to see AA end up with her, or whatever other 10th grade drama you think is going on here.

SFOtoORD wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

AA filed its response to the Delta motion today.

AA says its supports principle of gateway flexibility to all U.S.carriers that hold slots at Tokyo’s Haneda airport, however only under similar and consistent conditions imposed on China Zone-1 frequencies by DOT.
Also, AA says carriers should only be able to shift their gateway if operated for at least 2-years on the originally awarded market to avoid carriers applying for routes likely to be awarded with the intent of switching it shortly after an award to what might be perceived by DOT and public interest as a less desirous market.

AA says such limitation on grants of flexibility strikes the right balance between providing carriers more tools to respond to changes in the market and preserving the DOTs important role in allocating frequencies and other limited rights mindful of public benefit.

This is rich. All the people saying DL was the only one playing "games" when AA is unquestionably trying to get the rule to apply to the ORD-PEK/PVG frequencies.

What was said is that DL has been playing the most games when it comes to Haneda.

Okay so lets ignore that all the airlines do it... As people have explained numerous times to you specifically above, no one disputes DL has had the most requests and changes, but in many instances there have been extenuating circumstances (e.g., nighttime slots, etc.). You clearly have an ax to grind with DL, so please take it elsewhere.

B737900ER wrote:

You guys are funny. Acting like airlines are sentient beings with morality and conscience, who like high school girls, play games. It’s business. The decision makers and planners at DL, AA, and UA will do what they feel makes the most money. You can’t blame them for trying. Either the DOT says yes or no, simple as that, but you can’t fault them for trying to improve the bottom line. You all make it sound like DL wants to break up with their girlfriend, that they stole from AA, but who really likes UA, who is trying to create drama so HA doesn’t ask DLs girlfriend out, because you want to see AA end up with her, or whatever other 10th grade drama you think is going on here.

100%. They will do what is best for them. To call asking for changes fraud is laughable.

Didn't DOT reject AA's motion to move HAV slots? I see this and the AA China request going the same way.

jbs2886 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

This is rich. All the people saying DL was the only one playing "games" when AA is unquestionably trying to get the rule to apply to the ORD-PEK/PVG frequencies.

What was said is that DL has been playing the most games when it comes to Haneda.

Okay so lets ignore that all the airlines do it... As people have explained numerous times to you specifically above, no one disputes DL has had the most requests and changes, but in many instances there have been extenuating circumstances (e.g., nighttime slots, etc.). You clearly have an ax to grind with DL, so please take it elsewhere.

“Ax to grind” - nice non-factual comeback. Delta is an excellent airline who has squandered HND authorities. You don’t like facts so you resort to making stuff up. As you say, Delta has by far the most requests and changes because they continue to ask for authorities they can’t properly leverage. They do it because they know other carriers can actually make these authorities work and they don’t want to see that. And in the end, the flying public has lost out.

B737900ER wrote:

You guys are funny. Acting like airlines are sentient beings with morality and conscience, who like high school girls, play games. It’s business. The decision makers and planners at DL, AA, and UA will do what they feel makes the most money. You can’t blame them for trying. Either the DOT says yes or no, simple as that, but you can’t fault them for trying to improve the bottom line. You all make it sound like DL wants to break up with their girlfriend, that they stole from AA, but who really likes UA, who is trying to create drama so HA doesn’t ask DLs girlfriend out, because you want to see AA end up with her, or whatever other 10th grade drama you think is going on here.

I’m personally not shocked DL is doing what they’re doing. It’s completely logical. However, what they’re doing isn’t in the public interest and DOT should be far less lenient with them including looking harder at any future frequencies requested and potentially putting their MSP-HND authority back up for all airlines to pursue from the city of their choice.

SFOtoORD wrote:

what they’re doing isn’t in the public interest and DOT should be far less lenient with them including looking harder at any future frequencies requested

DL isn’t in the public interest business, they’re in the money business. As for the DOT, well, let’s just say insight has never been their strong suit.

B737900ER wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

what they’re doing isn’t in the public interest and DOT should be far less lenient with them including looking harder at any future frequencies requested

DL isn’t in the public interest business, they’re in the money business. As for the DOT, well, let’s just say insight has never been their strong suit.

Reread my posts. I was clear that DL is doing what is good for DL. DOT needs to change the rules of the game because it’s clear DL is taking advantage. DOT is charged with protecting public interest.

LAXintl wrote:

UA has also chimed in. Basically, it declines to take a position on the matter and will not submit its own pleadings regarding the DL motion.

UA had a lot to say about AA and their request for dormancy but when it comes to flexibility UA declines to take a position. This just continues to prove that these airlines are not interested in what's in the best interest of the flying public but what in the best interest of their bottom line. I've stated several times on this thread that I thought DL should have waited till AA's China request and the future HND slots had been settled, but I see now I was wrong. DL played this beautifully neither AA, HA or UA can object to DL request because they all have done it in the past. However; this isn't really about the past this is about the future and the reason why none of these airlines are firmly objecting to DL's request is because they can't. Any airline that files an firm concrete objection to DL's request risks opening Pandora box if at any point in the future they acquire highly valuable frequencies that are regulated by the DOT. Their own object to DL's current request can be used against them if they at some point in the future they would want to move a frequency from one gateway to another. The DOT should put an end to this game once and for all and truly put whats best for the flying public above the bottom line of airlines. This game of win the frequency at all cost then apply 2-3 years later to move it needs to end, UA's lack of any type of substantial response or objection to DL's request is all the proof the DOT needs.

Bravo Delta Bravo!!!

The DTW fan boys are wetting themselves that DTW will get a do-over for the HND route.

SFOtoORD wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

You guys are funny. Acting like airlines are sentient beings with morality and conscience, who like high school girls, play games. It’s business. The decision makers and planners at DL, AA, and UA will do what they feel makes the most money. You can’t blame them for trying. Either the DOT says yes or no, simple as that, but you can’t fault them for trying to improve the bottom line. You all make it sound like DL wants to break up with their girlfriend, that they stole from AA, but who really likes UA, who is trying to create drama so HA doesn’t ask DLs girlfriend out, because you want to see AA end up with her, or whatever other 10th grade drama you think is going on here.

I’m personally not shocked DL is doing what they’re doing. It’s completely logical. However, what they’re doing isn’t in the public interest and DOT should be far less lenient with them including looking harder at any future frequencies requested and potentially putting their MSP-HND authority back up for all airlines to pursue from the city of their choice.

Why on Earth would MSPHND get taken away? Delta's flown the route exactly as they said they would.

DOT today denied this motion.

DOT says granting such motion "would introduce a complex and controversial element to the Department’s standard approach to deciding carrier selection proceedings."
It also says inlight of newly available HND slots starting in 2020, the motion could also delay that carrier selection process and would not be in the public interest.