enilria wrote:

KSAAirliner wrote:

I think Delta here is trying to create its own empire by getting closer to many airlines in their JVs, !!!

I wonder if the future of this industry will rely on such practice! those who don't belong to any groups wouldn't survive the competition!

We are really seeing the formation of a new SkyTeam from the inside-out with Delta as King and peripheral airlines like Aeroflot and Saudia locked out. I expect Delta to take a lot more control than the stake implies.

I disagree this is just keeping up with JL/NH, I think they will leapfrog them. The NRT/HND situation makes it very difficult for JL/NH to grow. ICN is the premier gateway to connect and can grow.

JAMBOJET wrote:

Asia: ...They can't do one in China

abrelosojos wrote:

enilria wrote:

KSAAirliner wrote:

I think Delta here is trying to create its own empire by getting closer to many airlines in their JVs, !!!

I wonder if the future of this industry will rely on such practice! those who don't belong to any groups wouldn't survive the competition!

We are really seeing the formation of a new SkyTeam from the inside-out with Delta as King and peripheral airlines like Aeroflot and Saudia locked out. I expect Delta to take a lot more control than the stake implies.

I disagree this is just keeping up with JL/NH, I think they will leapfrog them. The NRT/HND situation makes it very difficult for JL/NH to grow. ICN is the premier gateway to connect and can grow.

= If ICN was such a premier gateway, KE would have been in the black - and, so would OZ. Despite their economic success, ICN remains #2 to NRT to generate business demand, and premium leisure demand. True, KE has been a basket case of management, and DL will help here, but I don't think KE/DL can successfully challenge JL/AA or UA/NH, especially with no China. I am sure JL/NH/UA/AA are more than happy with DL/KE being the dominant carrier on the US-MNL itinerary ...

Saludos,
Alex

abrelosojos wrote:

enilria wrote:

KSAAirliner wrote:

I think Delta here is trying to create its own empire by getting closer to many airlines in their JVs, !!!

I wonder if the future of this industry will rely on such practice! those who don't belong to any groups wouldn't survive the competition!

We are really seeing the formation of a new SkyTeam from the inside-out with Delta as King and peripheral airlines like Aeroflot and Saudia locked out. I expect Delta to take a lot more control than the stake implies.

I disagree this is just keeping up with JL/NH, I think they will leapfrog them. The NRT/HND situation makes it very difficult for JL/NH to grow. ICN is the premier gateway to connect and can grow.

= If ICN was such a premier gateway, KE would have been in the black - and, so would OZ. Despite their economic success, ICN remains #2 to NRT to generate business demand, and premium leisure demand. True, KE has been a basket case of management, and DL will help here, but I don't think KE/DL can successfully challenge JL/AA or UA/NH, especially with no China. I am sure JL/NH/UA/AA are more than happy with DL/KE being the dominant carrier on the US-MNL itinerary ...

Saludos,
Alex

JAMBOJET wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think any reasonable person who is an av geek has to stand back in awe of DL's strategic decisions. They never miss a beat. There were many who have said DL 's partnership with KE will pale in comparison to the UA and AA alliances in Japan.

The reality in NRT is not really Tokyo and Haneda is a tightly slot constricted airport with very limited opportunities for growth.

An alliance with KE is a masterstroke in that KE has one of the best route networks in Asia with one of the best transfer airports in the world in ICN. Anyone who speculated DL was not poised for growth in Asia has not been paying attention.

KE and DL now fly from virtually every major city in North American to ICN with convenient one stop connecting to almost anywhere in Asia.

As so often with DL a brilliant move imho.

Delta makes a lot of great decisions, including their strategic investments, but I don't know that anyone would stand in awe of it... Delta is forced to make these investments because Skyteam is so weak relative to partners in OneWorld and Star.

South America: Only Delta Partner was the mess, Aerolineas Argentinas, so Delta buys (invests in) another mess, GOL, and tries to keep them financially alive. AA has LATAM. United has AV and now Azul. Neither needed to do what Delta did

Mexico: Delta has no IAH or DFW to go into the interior of Mexico and also has no other South American partner outside of GOL and Aerolineas Argentinas so they invest 49% and send a team to MEX to reorient the network to help Delta's weakness. AA can use DFW and MIA to serve North American customers to Mexico easily. UA can use IAH. Neither needed to do what Delta did. Still a great move by Delta to do that though and shore up a weakness to MEX.

Oceania: Delta literally has no partner whatsoever so they do a JV with Virgin Australia to help make things slightly better. AA has QF. UA has their strong Oceania position already + NZ.

Asia: Try to buy JL into Skyteam: Fail. Try to buy the other failing Japanese carrier with the two a380s (forgot the name): Fail. So Delta does a JV with the one carrier in Skyteam where they can: KE. They can't do one in China and I doubt they'd want to risk doing one with a Taiwanese carrier (they can't even call it Taiwan on their website without angering China) but who knows... And, all the while, they push one of the Chinese sky team carriers into American's waiting arms. AA has JL which was clearly Delta's first choice all along and CX. UA has basically every other premier Asian airline in Star.
Delta's bid for JAL makes it rather obvious that KE wasn't their first choice for a partner in Asia. Not to mention their well-documented attempt at forcing the Japanese government to allow the Delta Narita hub to move to Haneda. They wanted a hub in HND, not ICN. And their investment in KE's holding company has been mentioned on this thread as an attempt to hold off activist investors in Korea.

Europe: KLM is a great airline and partner. AF is a disaster. Delta is growing in NYC (years ago) but barely flies to the most important market from there, LHR, so they buy Singapore's failing position in Virgin and Delta turns Virgin into Delta Atlantic and reorients most, but not all, of Virgin toward supporting Delta North American fliers. UA already had a strong position in LHR given their history and has an extremely strong partner in LH Group. AA has the biggest partner in the most slot controlled airport in the world, LHR & BA + IAG with MAD to complement their MIA hub well.

Canada: Westjet seems like a coup for DL relative to AA. But UA obviously already had AC.

I just don't know that it's so much of a "Wow Delta!!!" but more of a they kind of had to... but props to Delta for shoring up weaknesses.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

JAMBOJET wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think any reasonable person who is an av geek has to stand back in awe of DL's strategic decisions. They never miss a beat. There were many who have said DL 's partnership with KE will pale in comparison to the UA and AA alliances in Japan.

The reality in NRT is not really Tokyo and Haneda is a tightly slot constricted airport with very limited opportunities for growth.

An alliance with KE is a masterstroke in that KE has one of the best route networks in Asia with one of the best transfer airports in the world in ICN. Anyone who speculated DL was not poised for growth in Asia has not been paying attention.

KE and DL now fly from virtually every major city in North American to ICN with convenient one stop connecting to almost anywhere in Asia.

As so often with DL a brilliant move imho.

Delta makes a lot of great decisions, including their strategic investments, but I don't know that anyone would stand in awe of it... Delta is forced to make these investments because Skyteam is so weak relative to partners in OneWorld and Star.

South America: Only Delta Partner was the mess, Aerolineas Argentinas, so Delta buys (invests in) another mess, GOL, and tries to keep them financially alive. AA has LATAM. United has AV and now Azul. Neither needed to do what Delta did

Mexico: Delta has no IAH or DFW to go into the interior of Mexico and also has no other South American partner outside of GOL and Aerolineas Argentinas so they invest 49% and send a team to MEX to reorient the network to help Delta's weakness. AA can use DFW and MIA to serve North American customers to Mexico easily. UA can use IAH. Neither needed to do what Delta did. Still a great move by Delta to do that though and shore up a weakness to MEX.

Oceania: Delta literally has no partner whatsoever so they do a JV with Virgin Australia to help make things slightly better. AA has QF. UA has their strong Oceania position already + NZ.

Asia: Try to buy JL into Skyteam: Fail. Try to buy the other failing Japanese carrier with the two a380s (forgot the name): Fail. So Delta does a JV with the one carrier in Skyteam where they can: KE. They can't do one in China and I doubt they'd want to risk doing one with a Taiwanese carrier (they can't even call it Taiwan on their website without angering China) but who knows... And, all the while, they push one of the Chinese sky team carriers into American's waiting arms. AA has JL which was clearly Delta's first choice all along and CX. UA has basically every other premier Asian airline in Star.
Delta's bid for JAL makes it rather obvious that KE wasn't their first choice for a partner in Asia. Not to mention their well-documented attempt at forcing the Japanese government to allow the Delta Narita hub to move to Haneda. They wanted a hub in HND, not ICN. And their investment in KE's holding company has been mentioned on this thread as an attempt to hold off activist investors in Korea.

Europe: KLM is a great airline and partner. AF is a disaster. Delta is growing in NYC (years ago) but barely flies to the most important market from there, LHR, so they buy Singapore's failing position in Virgin and Delta turns Virgin into Delta Atlantic and reorients most, but not all, of Virgin toward supporting Delta North American fliers. UA already had a strong position in LHR given their history and has an extremely strong partner in LH Group. AA has the biggest partner in the most slot controlled airport in the world, LHR & BA + IAG with MAD to complement their MIA hub well.

Canada: Westjet seems like a coup for DL relative to AA. But UA obviously already had AC.

I just don't know that it's so much of a "Wow Delta!!!" but more of a they kind of had to... but props to Delta for shoring up weaknesses.

Very interesting analysis, it does makes sense.
I wonder what AA/JL and NH/UA will do about the situation.

I also wonder why DL hasn't tried harder to acquire Skymark or even bail out the CEO/founder before Airbus forced it into bankruptcy. With the slots that Skymark hold in HND and the slots that DL now got, they could have built their own hub in HND.
Heck, with the slots available at night they could be running a decent hub.
I also don't understand how a non-customer like NH could convince Airbus more than a super-customer like DL. In the end NH also ordered B779's rather than A350's and left Airbus in the cold.

I think that DL made quite a mistake there letting that deal go. If I were DL I would have taken up the entire Skymark A380 order book and set up a night hub with a bank departing Asian cities to HND in the evening and arriving in Asian cities in the morning. The A380 would have been perfect for a reverse hub fleet to JFK, LAX, ATL, DTW with hubs at both ends.
Perhaps they could even have combined it with a day bank in NRT, giving them not one, but two hubs in Tokyo.

Perhaps DL regret that and that's why they have decided to make this unorthodox move into KE.
A good move, but Skymark would have been better as it would have been much more than a joint venture and given them direct access to the most lucrative market in Asia.

ITSTours wrote:

abrelosojos wrote:

enilria wrote:

We are really seeing the formation of a new SkyTeam from the inside-out with Delta as King and peripheral airlines like Aeroflot and Saudia locked out. I expect Delta to take a lot more control than the stake implies.

I disagree this is just keeping up with JL/NH, I think they will leapfrog them. The NRT/HND situation makes it very difficult for JL/NH to grow. ICN is the premier gateway to connect and can grow.

= If ICN was such a premier gateway, KE would have been in the black - and, so would OZ. Despite their economic success, ICN remains #2 to NRT to generate business demand, and premium leisure demand. True, KE has been a basket case of management, and DL will help here, but I don't think KE/DL can successfully challenge JL/AA or UA/NH, especially with no China. I am sure JL/NH/UA/AA are more than happy with DL/KE being the dominant carrier on the US-MNL itinerary ...

Saludos,
Alex

ICN is almost as twice large as NRT...

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I think that DL made quite a mistake there letting that deal go.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

If I were DL I would have taken up the entire Skymark A380 order book and set up a night hub with a bank departing Asian cities to HND in the evening and arriving in Asian cities in the morning. The A380 would have been perfect for a reverse hub fleet to JFK, LAX, ATL, DTW with hubs at both ends.Perhaps they could even have combined it with a day bank in NRT, giving them not one, but two hubs in Tokyo.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

ITSTours wrote:

abrelosojos wrote:

= If ICN was such a premier gateway, KE would have been in the black - and, so would OZ. Despite their economic success, ICN remains #2 to NRT to generate business demand, and premium leisure demand. True, KE has been a basket case of management, and DL will help here, but I don't think KE/DL can successfully challenge JL/AA or UA/NH, especially with no China. I am sure JL/NH/UA/AA are more than happy with DL/KE being the dominant carrier on the US-MNL itinerary ...

Saludos,
Alex

ICN is almost as twice large as NRT...

I think that the metric of "international passengers" skews the facts.
For instance, AMS is right up there but given AMS's positioning, international flights also include a huge number of 1 hour flights to nearby cities.
Also in terms of demand, very few of those people actually O&D to/from AMS, so you are counting many pax twice, while NRT is a major O&D airport first and a connecting hub second.

About the same can be said about ICN. A lot of international pax but mostly connecting and few O&D, so you count everything twice.

Aso, if you look at the busiest routes from ICN, you already have 3 routes to Japan in the top 5 accounting for some 9 million pax and that's without GMP across the beach where most of the Japan-Seoul O&D is.

If we have to compare NRT/ICN, for an operator like DL, it makes more sense to have an Asian hub with a max. amount of O&D to each of their U.S. hubs as a first priority, second priority would be pax originating at that Asian hub and connecting in a DL hub to other destinations within the Americas. Pax originating at the DL hubs are best served with direct flights to their Asian destinations rather than via ICN on KE. Pax originating in the America's outside the DL hubs are also best served by direct flights, otherise we are talking about 2-stop itineraries.
In that sense, ICN will fall short because Seoul isn't much of a destination and as an origin market it's meeeeh.

When landing in NRT in the morning, I always see 6 or 7 Delta tails parked at the satellite.
Soon that action will move to HND, but while ICN will have significance in the DL network especially for the secondary destinations that DL doesn't operate, I think that DL is increasing the minority stake as a defensive move because they just doesn't want to see KE change management and strategies from being a Delta and Skyteam partner. That would unfold as a nightmare for DL but also AF/KLM.

I would be surprised if DL isn't thinking about buying AA or UA someday and merging into OW. At their current rate of profits, they are dwarfing both so I'm sure that the thought is crossing their minds.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

ITSTours wrote:

abrelosojos wrote:

= If ICN was such a premier gateway, KE would have been in the black - and, so would OZ. Despite their economic success, ICN remains #2 to NRT to generate business demand, and premium leisure demand. True, KE has been a basket case of management, and DL will help here, but I don't think KE/DL can successfully challenge JL/AA or UA/NH, especially with no China. I am sure JL/NH/UA/AA are more than happy with DL/KE being the dominant carrier on the US-MNL itinerary ...

Saludos,
Alex

ICN is almost as twice large as NRT...

I think that the metric of "international passengers" skews the facts.
For instance, AMS is right up there but given AMS's positioning, international flights also include a huge number of 1 hour flights to nearby cities.
Also in terms of demand, very few of those people actually O&D to/from AMS, so you are counting many pax twice, while NRT is a major O&D airport first and a connecting hub second.

About the same can be said about ICN. A lot of international pax but mostly connecting and few O&D, so you count everything twice.

Aso, if you look at the busiest routes from ICN, you already have 3 routes to Japan in the top 5 accounting for some 9 million pax and that's without GMP across the beach where most of the Japan-Seoul O&D is.

If we have to compare NRT/ICN, for an operator like DL, it makes more sense to have an Asian hub with a max. amount of O&D to each of their U.S. hubs as a first priority, second priority would be pax originating at that Asian hub and connecting in a DL hub to other destinations within the Americas. Pax originating at the DL hubs are best served with direct flights to their Asian destinations rather than via ICN on KE. Pax originating in the America's outside the DL hubs are also best served by direct flights, otherise we are talking about 2-stop itineraries.
In that sense, ICN will fall short because Seoul isn't much of a destination and as an origin market it's meeeeh.

When landing in NRT in the morning, I always see 6 or 7 Delta tails parked at the satellite.
Soon that action will move to HND, but while ICN will have significance in the DL network especially for the secondary destinations that DL doesn't operate, I think that DL is increasing the minority stake as a defensive move because they just doesn't want to see KE change management and strategies from being a Delta and Skyteam partner. That would unfold as a nightmare for DL but also AF/KLM.

I would be surprised if DL isn't thinking about buying AA or UA someday and merging into OW. At their current rate of profits, they are dwarfing both so I'm sure that the thought is crossing their minds.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think any reasonable person who is an av geek has to stand back in awe of DL's strategic decisions. They never miss a beat. There were many who have said DL 's partnership with KE will pale in comparison to the UA and AA alliances in Japan.

The reality in NRT is not really Tokyo and Haneda is a tightly slot constricted airport with very limited opportunities for growth.

An alliance with KE is a masterstroke in that KE has one of the best route networks in Asia with one of the best transfer airports in the world in ICN. Anyone who speculated DL was not poised for growth in Asia has not been paying attention.

KE and DL now fly from virtually every major city in North American to ICN with convenient one stop connecting to almost anywhere in Asia.

As so often with DL a brilliant move imho.

enilria wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

It would be difficult for me to imagine a more disastrous business decision that this ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ one. DL is a fiscally conservative company that is focused on achieving a good ROI, so for them to join the conga line of airlines salivating to have their logo and livery on the A380 would have been inconsistent with their business philosophy.

Put another way, DL is all about constraint of capacity to drive up fares. The A380 is anathema to that strategy.

lightsaber wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think any reasonable person who is an av geek has to stand back in awe of DL's strategic decisions. They never miss a beat. There were many who have said DL 's partnership with KE will pale in comparison to the UA and AA alliances in Japan.

The reality in NRT is not really Tokyo and Haneda is a tightly slot constricted airport with very limited opportunities for growth.

An alliance with KE is a masterstroke in that KE has one of the best route networks in Asia with one of the best transfer airports in the world in ICN. Anyone who speculated DL was not poised for growth in Asia has not been paying attention.

KE and DL now fly from virtually every major city in North American to ICN with convenient one stop connecting to almost anywhere in Asia.

As so often with DL a brilliant move imho.

ICN is quite the hub opportunity when paired with DL.

Japan effectively made NRT a limited opportunity, so instead of NRT or another Japanese hub being the gateway to Asia, ICN has that chance. Kimpo needs to be merged into ICN, perhaps fast rail into the city? Split hubs water down connectivity. Hopefully Korea learns from the lesson Japan decided to teach themselves.

MIflyer12 wrote:

A carrier can certainly chase passenger counts. (Emirates, as an example.) A carrier can use a bunch of small aircraft to chase yields (by high frequency to appeal to business passengers, or by serving very thin routes where enough passengers will pay a price for nonstops). Look at UA's still-extensive use of E145s and CR2s (compared to AA or DL). DL seems to find a better balance - compare its margins to UA or Emirates.

What do people think is the better measure of success for a capitalist business - passenger counts, TRASM, or Return on Invested Capital (among others)?

ITSTours wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think any reasonable person who is an av geek has to stand back in awe of DL's strategic decisions. They never miss a beat. There were many who have said DL 's partnership with KE will pale in comparison to the UA and AA alliances in Japan.

The reality in NRT is not really Tokyo and Haneda is a tightly slot constricted airport with very limited opportunities for growth.

An alliance with KE is a masterstroke in that KE has one of the best route networks in Asia with one of the best transfer airports in the world in ICN. Anyone who speculated DL was not poised for growth in Asia has not been paying attention.

KE and DL now fly from virtually every major city in North American to ICN with convenient one stop connecting to almost anywhere in Asia.

As so often with DL a brilliant move imho.

ICN is quite the hub opportunity when paired with DL.

Japan effectively made NRT a limited opportunity, so instead of NRT or another Japanese hub being the gateway to Asia, ICN has that chance. Kimpo needs to be merged into ICN, perhaps fast rail into the city? Split hubs water down connectivity. Hopefully Korea learns from the lesson Japan decided to teach themselves.

The Korean government (hopefully) knows well about the failure of NRT.
GMP will be restricted to domestic and shorthaul routes as it has been since ICN opened.
Some want more international, mid-/longhaul routes from GMP while others prefer total elimination of international routes.
The government will balance out these contrasting opinions--which means they will do nothing.
While GMP-CJU is the busiest route in the world, that's almost entirely domestic O&D travels so there's no need to move that traffic to ICN.
The other domestic routes are not that significant. The express trains (KTX & SRT) already dominate them.

I agree that there is a need for the fast rail to the city, and it is already in the plan.
The maximum speed of AREX (Airport Railroad Express) from ICN to Seoul Station will be increased from 110km/h to 150km/h. In 2023.
Another plan is to operate a through service between AREX and Line 9 to directly connect ICN and Gangnam. Also in 2023.

abrelosojos wrote:

My point has nothing to do with the size of ICN's international traffic or the split of traffic at TYO. All I am saying is that if ICN provided the economics to be a super hub, the home carriers (KE and OZ) would be consistently profitable. Sure, ICN has a lot of traffic - but, what's the point of having traffic without providing profit to airlines based there. Sure, ICN, and KE can provide DL feed -- but, as Asia grows and key premium traffic bypasses hubs, what role does a KE/DL JV that excludes China really bring?

Let's see how things go. So far, I do not see a single DL investment having made money - VS is still in the red; AM has gone from being solidly black to being break even best; AF has not turned around.

Again, let's see. Ed and Glen make a whole lot more money than I do.

Saludos,
Alex

abrelosojos wrote:

My point has nothing to do with the size of ICN's international traffic or the split of traffic at TYO. All I am saying is that if ICN provided the economics to be a super hub, the home carriers (KE and OZ) would be consistently profitable. Sure, ICN has a lot of traffic - but, what's the point of having traffic without providing profit to airlines based there. Sure, ICN, and KE can provide DL feed -- but, as Asia grows and key premium traffic bypasses hubs, what role does a KE/DL JV that excludes China really bring?

Let's see how things go. So far, I do not see a single DL investment having made money - VS is still in the red; AM has gone from being solidly black to being break even best; AF has not turned around.

Again, let's see. Ed and Glen make a whole lot more money than I do.

Saludos,
Alex

MIflyer12 wrote:

enilria wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

It would be difficult for me to imagine a more disastrous business decision that this ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ one. DL is a fiscally conservative company that is focused on achieving a good ROI, so for them to join the conga line of airlines salivating to have their logo and livery on the A380 would have been inconsistent with their business philosophy.

Put another way, DL is all about constraint of capacity to drive up fares. The A380 is anathema to that strategy.

A carrier can certainly chase passenger counts. (Emirates, as an example.) A carrier can use a bunch of small aircraft to chase yields (by high frequency to appeal to business passengers, or by serving very thin routes where enough passengers will pay a price for nonstops). Look at UA's still-extensive use of E145s and CR2s (compared to AA or DL). DL seems to find a better balance - compare its margins to UA or Emirates.

What do people think is the better measure of success for a capitalist business - passenger counts, TRASM, or Return on Invested Capital (among others)?

DL747400 wrote:

People (cough, cough.... pilots) need to open themselves to the idea that there are alternate ways to define successes within the scope of airline JVs.

Many people forget that the USA is considered a mature air travel market. That's not to say that there will not be growth, but it is already exceptionally well served compared to the rest of the world. Global airline JVs are funneling new customers into a mature air travel network which otherwise would not see them. And guess what? Those new customers are coming from your foreign JV partners and are originating their travel outside of the USA. Those JV partners which the unions despise are actually bringing new customers to fill seats on YOUR traditional core domestic and international markets.

People question why DELTA is so successful and so profitable. Could it be related to the fact that DELTA currently has a much deeper level of cooperation with AF/KL, VS, AM, (soon to include G3 and WS) than UA and AA enjoy with their respective partners?

DL747400 wrote:

People (cough, cough.... pilots) need to open themselves to the idea that there are alternate ways to define successes within the scope of airline JVs.

Many people forget that the USA is considered a mature air travel market. That's not to say that there will not be growth, but it is already exceptionally well served compared to the rest of the world.

enilria wrote:

Your definition of "mature" requires a lack of competition because that is what stifles growth and makes the market "mature". It's a circular argument.

enilria wrote:

The population of Europe is almost exactly double the USA, but they have 20,000 non-stop routes, nearly 3x the USA. 35% have competition, so that's 7,000 competitive routes to only 2,250 in the USA and even adjusting for the population the USA is much less competitive.

enilria wrote:

In Asia there is competition in 42% of markets served non-stop. So, I'd argue the USA is now the least competitive market in the world. I think the "exceptionally well served" meme is 15-20 years out of date.

DL747400 wrote:

People (cough, cough.... pilots) need to open themselves to the idea that there are alternate ways to define successes within the scope of airline JVs.

Many people forget that the USA is considered a mature air travel market. That's not to say that there will not be growth, but it is already exceptionally well served compared to the rest of the world. Global airline JVs are funneling new customers into a mature air travel network which otherwise would not see them. And guess what? Those new customers are coming from your foreign JV partners and are originating their travel outside of the USA. Those JV partners which the unions despise are actually bringing new customers to fill seats on YOUR traditional core domestic and international markets.

People question why DELTA is so successful and so profitable. Could it be related to the fact that DELTA currently has a much deeper level of cooperation with AF/KL, VS, AM, (soon to include G3 and WS) than UA and AA enjoy with their respective partners?

DL747400 wrote:

Wow.... Where to start. OK, Pilots were hired to fly the planes! Nowhere was there ever any promise, either written or implied, that you are entitled to “primo destinations.” Your employer is in business to make a profit. End of story. Overall a rather weak and disappointing argument based on fear of fewer jobs rather than focusing on a bigger pie, which benefits everyone. HINT: That means more profit sharing if you work for DELTA.

Cactusjuba wrote:

I was merely referencing that flying longhaul international for pilots represents the highest step in the career. A threat to future WB growth is impactful not only on earning potential, but seniority movement throughout all steps of the pilot list. For this reason many pilots feel threatened by JVs. Not inherently by the JVs themselves, but if agreements are structured to shift future flying away from mainline. This also affects flight attendants, mechanics, ACS, you name it.

IPFreely wrote:

Cactusjuba wrote:

I was merely referencing that flying longhaul international for pilots represents the highest step in the career. A threat to future WB growth is impactful not only on earning potential, but seniority movement throughout all steps of the pilot list. For this reason many pilots feel threatened by JVs. Not inherently by the JVs themselves, but if agreements are structured to shift future flying away from mainline. This also affects flight attendants, mechanics, ACS, you name it.

You have a good point. Looking at airlinepilotcenteral.com, Delta's outsourcing means they offer little opportunity for pilots who wish to advance to crew the highest paid widebody planes.

The top paying pilot gig at United is $352/hr for 777, 787, and 767-400 captains. United has 139 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

The top paying pilot gig at American is $342/hr for 777 and 787 captains. American has 100 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

The top paying pilot gig at Delta is $354/hr for 777 and A350 captains. Delta has a measly 31 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

IPFreely wrote:

Cactusjuba wrote:

I was merely referencing that flying longhaul international for pilots represents the highest step in the career. A threat to future WB growth is impactful not only on earning potential, but seniority movement throughout all steps of the pilot list. For this reason many pilots feel threatened by JVs. Not inherently by the JVs themselves, but if agreements are structured to shift future flying away from mainline. This also affects flight attendants, mechanics, ACS, you name it.

You have a good point. Looking at airlinepilotcenteral.com, Delta's outsourcing means they offer little opportunity for pilots who wish to advance to crew the highest paid widebody planes.

The top paying pilot gig at United is $352/hr for 777, 787, and 767-400 captains. United has 139 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

The top paying pilot gig at American is $342/hr for 777 and 787 captains. American has 100 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

The top paying pilot gig at Delta is $354/hr for 777 and A350 captains. Delta has a measly 31 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

SteelChair wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

Cactusjuba wrote:

I was merely referencing that flying longhaul international for pilots represents the highest step in the career. A threat to future WB growth is impactful not only on earning potential, but seniority movement throughout all steps of the pilot list. For this reason many pilots feel threatened by JVs. Not inherently by the JVs themselves, but if agreements are structured to shift future flying away from mainline. This also affects flight attendants, mechanics, ACS, you name it.

You have a good point. Looking at airlinepilotcenteral.com, Delta's outsourcing means they offer little opportunity for pilots who wish to advance to crew the highest paid widebody planes.

The top paying pilot gig at United is $352/hr for 777, 787, and 767-400 captains. United has 139 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

The top paying pilot gig at American is $342/hr for 777 and 787 captains. American has 100 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

The top paying pilot gig at Delta is $354/hr for 777 and A350 captains. Delta has a measly 31 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

Care to compare the profitsharing (not just the % but the profits also)?

toobz wrote:

I think their Asian network is just fine actually with KE. If not amazing. Skyteam...well thats an opinion i suppose.

jbs2886 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

You have a good point. Looking at airlinepilotcenteral.com, Delta's outsourcing means they offer little opportunity for pilots who wish to advance to crew the highest paid widebody planes.

The top paying pilot gig at United is $352/hr for 777, 787, and 767-400 captains. United has 139 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

The top paying pilot gig at American is $342/hr for 777 and 787 captains. American has 100 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

The top paying pilot gig at Delta is $354/hr for 777 and A350 captains. Delta has a measly 31 planes with crews making the top possible rate.

Care to compare the profitsharing (not just the % but the profits also)?

This is a false equivalency. The pilot categories have nothing to do with "outsourcing." DL also has 764s (even more than UA), but have a different pilot category. Same for A330s. Moreover, AA and UA have the same type JVs.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

KE stock price took a hit on virus concerns, opportunistic time for DL to make their move

MIflyer12 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

KE stock price took a hit on virus concerns, opportunistic time for DL to make their move

That's an interesting thesis but you can readily chart Hanjin KAL's stock price for the last three months and see it's not true.

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/s ... trycode=kr