The Delta Master Executive Council of ALPA filed comments with the DOT raising their concerns about granting ATI for the carriers proposed expanded Atlantic joint venture with AF-KL-VS.

While MEC expressed its previous support for JVs with as they promised to "produce new flying opportunities for Delta and its employees", they now instead express "serious concerns raised by the inequitable allocation of service growth within the existing immunized alliance. The MEC urges the Department to condition final approval of the Amended JVA on mandatory time-limited review of the alliance’s impact on the balance of Delta-operated flying opportunities and U.S. aviation jobs in joint venture markets."

The MEC argues for example in the UK market, "Delta-operated flying in the critical New York-London market has actually decreased since the Delta-Virgin joint went into effect. This use of the JV mechanism to effectively outsource Delta flying to a foreign carrier whose flight crews work under substantially less favorable wages and work rules is fundamentally inconsistent with the Department’s public interest objectives of strengthening the competitive position of US air carriers relative to foreign air carriers, and encouraging fair wages and working conditions."

So much for the labor love at DL.


OST-2013-0068-0077

Is there a non-obvious law I’m missing that would allow consideration of pilots’ interests in antitrust analysis? Competition law is supposed to be about consumer benefits.

The DL pilots may well have a valid beef, but it seems to me they need to take it up in bargaining with the company, not with DOT.

So this made my day. I’m not a big fan of unions, but I am a big fan of the consumer. These JVs have been used to reduce capacity and competition in order to raise fares. It never made sense that the pilots supported them. It always reduced their opportunities.

Pilots are asking for the DOT to maintain a 5-year review period of the ATI and as part of the review assess the balance of flying under the alliance and also the impact on US aviation jobs.

They also bring up that DOT public interest analysis requires consideration about the competitive position of US air carriers relative to foreign air carriers, and to encourage fair wages and working conditions.

The VS JV has helped DL grow in LHR, absent that JV DL would be much smaller than AA/BA and UA at LHR. The main TransAtlantic JV’s have helped the airlines grow their European footprint in different ways. From an outsider POV the JV has benefited DL and it’s employees tremendously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

enilria wrote:

So this made my day. I’m not a big fan of unions, but I am a big fan of the consumer. These JVs have been used to reduce capacity and competition in order to raise fares. It never made sense that the pilots supported them. It always reduced their opportunities.

Yeah, but the pilots don’t give a flip about customer benefit.

Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.

Even if they don't achieve anything directly with the DOT the pilots publicly call out DL and make it pretty clear what their opinion of these JVs are. Not good for DL PR and illusion that everything is fine.

if anything, its Asia that has been demolished by JV

Cubsrule wrote:

Is there a non-obvious law I’m missing that would allow consideration of pilots’ interests in antitrust analysis? Competition law is supposed to be about consumer benefits.

The DL pilots may well have a valid beef, but it seems to me they need to take it up in bargaining with the company, not with DOT.

It may come under the pilot and flight attendant contracts. They normally have provisions only permitting aircraft of a certain size on company routes have to be performed by employees (also known as a scope clause). This is essentially to stop the parent airline to bring in wet lease aircraft to do the flying of the airline. The airline employees I guess are seeing a double edge attack here, domestically less flying is being done by the mainline aircraft, flying being replaced by regional jets, and internationally JV seeing some drastic cutbacks in networks being flown. I have noticed a lot of retraction in Asia with actual DL metal as they have expanded their JV agreements with KE etc.

The JV with VS is an interesting one that is attracting a lot of attention. As I understand it is a 50:50 JV, however DL own 49% of VS. This means that DL is effectively controlling 74.5% of those routes (50%+49%*50%, however the are scaling back flying being done by DL.I had heard unsubstantiated rumors that "someone" was looking for injunctive relief under the bilateral air services agreement. I dont know the fine details, I guess it has to do with VS not having majority control over those routes under the bi-lateral agreement when it is supposed to be a UK carrier.

zeke wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Is there a non-obvious law I’m missing that would allow consideration of pilots’ interests in antitrust analysis? Competition law is supposed to be about consumer benefits.

The DL pilots may well have a valid beef, but it seems to me they need to take it up in bargaining with the company, not with DOT.

It may come under the pilot and flight attendant contracts. They normally have provisions only permitting aircraft of a certain size on company routes have to be performed by employees (also known as a scope clause). This is essentially to stop the parent airline to bring in wet lease aircraft to do the flying of the airline. The airline employees I guess are seeing a double edge attack here, domestically less flying is being done by the mainline aircraft, flying being replaced by regional jets, and internationally JV seeing some drastic cutbacks in networks being flown. I have noticed a lot of retraction in Asia with actual DL metal as they have expanded their JV agreements with KE etc.

The JV with VS is an interesting one that is attracting a lot of attention. As I understand it is a 50:50 JV, however DL own 49% of VS. This means that DL is effectively controlling 74.5% of those routes (50%+49%*50%, however the are scaling back flying being done by DL.I had heard unsubstantiated rumors that "someone" was looking for injunctive relief under the bilateral air services agreement. I dont know the fine details, I guess it has to do with VS not having majority control over those routes under the bi-lateral agreement when it is supposed to be a UK carrier.

I understand that. My point is that scope is a labor (or, I guess labour for you) law issue, not a competition law issue.

enilria wrote:

So this made my day. I’m not a big fan of unions, but I am a big fan of the consumer. These JVs have been used to reduce capacity and competition in order to raise fares. It never made sense that the pilots supported them. It always reduced their opportunities.

VS being allowed into the DL/AF/KL JV always seemed like a sketchy proposition to me. It almost creates an unfair advantage for DL, especially if VS gets a decent amount of slots in the LHR expansion, they could essentially have three major European hubs.

SierraPacific wrote:

Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.

What about CDG?

BNAMealer wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.

What about CDG?

I forgot about CDG but my original point still stands

On the flip side, the JV’s contribute to DL’s profitability from which employees benefit through profit sharing.

I’d also argue that the JV’s help create a competitive network with breadth and frequency that allows DL to capture, ie, win, profitable corporate contracts. Without the JV’s DL would be cost challenged to build a similar network and it would take much longer.

SierraPacific wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.

What about CDG?

I forgot about CDG but my original point still stands

In fairness, doesn’t DL fly more traffic on their own metal to their jv partner hubs than AA/UA does? I mean, unlike AA/BA and UA/LH, most of DL/AF/KL’s their secondary US city flying to AMS and CDG is done on DL metal, and their hubs such as DTW/MSP/SLC have limited AF/KL/KE flying

BNAMealer wrote:

In fairness, doesn’t DL fly more traffic on their own metal to their jv partner hubs than AA/UA does? I mean, unlike AA/BA and UA/LH, most of DL/AF/KL’s their secondary US city flying to AMS and CDG is done on DL metal, and their hubs such as DTW/MSP/SLC have limited AF/KL/KE flying

Doesn't DL also own more stock in those JV partners, eg 5% of KE, 49% of VS, 10% of AF (who also own 31% of VS).

enilria wrote:

So this made my day. I’m not a big fan of unions, but I am a big fan of the consumer. These JVs have been used to reduce capacity and competition in order to raise fares. It never made sense that the pilots supported them. It always reduced their opportunities.

Agreed. Around 2007 Delta was running tons of flights to Europe from ATL, JFK, and CVG. We had a lot of nonstop options to secondary cities. Now they are doing everything they can to force passengers through AMS and CDG.

enilria wrote:

So this made my day. I’m not a big fan of unions, but I am a big fan of the consumer. These JVs have been used to reduce capacity and competition in order to raise fares. It never made sense that the pilots supported them. It always reduced their opportunities.

I second this. The pilots don't care about the consumer and this is typical ALPA throwing a fit but I have to side with them in this situation because if it's fixed/altered/looked into, it indirectly helps the consumer out.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Agreed. Around 2007 Delta was running tons of flights to Europe from ATL, JFK, and CVG. We had a lot of nonstop options to secondary cities. Now they are doing everything they can to force passengers through AMS and CDG.

Perhaps that is true, but how many new US routes have been added to AMS and CDG since 2007? They cannot operate from every US city to every European city. The JV can increase available city pairs, even though not everything is direct.

SierraPacific wrote:

Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.

You think VS has lower costs than an American carrier? You obviously have never done business in the UK.
And to suggest DL would also give up routes to all over the world to places like PEK, JNB, FCO, SYD, EZE etc is
kind of crazy when they're making good profits from them. And have ordered more aircraft for them. VS works of
the UK market well because the UK expects certain standards and VS found a way to beat AA/BA by interlining
with Delta and marketing it in a trendy way that probably wouldn't work in most DL markets, however the interline
agreement does.

Opaque wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Agreed. Around 2007 Delta was running tons of flights to Europe from ATL, JFK, and CVG. We had a lot of nonstop options to secondary cities. Now they are doing everything they can to force passengers through AMS and CDG.

Perhaps that is true, but how many new US routes have been added to AMS and CDG since 2007? They cannot operate from every US city to every European city. The JV can increase available city pairs, even though not everything is direct.

I'd much rather fly TPA-ATL-GVA than TPA-AMS-GVA. We all know there is enough demand for an ATL-GVA flight with the 900+ flights DL has at ATL. But DL sees more money by making AF/KLM take those passengers. Screw the bleary eyed passengers who have to connect in a foreign airport after a 10 hour flight.

Lufthansa wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.

You think VS has lower costs than an American carrier? You obviously have never done business in the UK.
And to suggest DL would also give up routes to all over the world to places like PEK, JNB, FCO, SYD, EZE etc is
kind of crazy when they're making good profits from them. And have ordered more aircraft for them. VS works of
the UK market well because the UK expects certain standards and VS found a way to beat AA/BA by interlining
with Delta and marketing it in a trendy way that probably wouldn't work in most DL markets, however the interline
agreement does.

Virgin pilots and flight attendants make less than their Delta counterparts so I am not sure where the lower costs come from unless their logistics are dramatically more expensive than a US carrier (I doubt it). If you look at a route map from 15 years ago, you will see that Delta is rapidly shrinking its overseas portfolio to only other JV partners hubs so it makes absolute sense to say that they are outsourcing their international flying

Delta also has the smallest widebody fleet which isnt a coincidence to the fact they have more JV's than other legacies.

There is a fine line for both sides of the argument that needs to stay in balance for all parties.

The JV arrangment for consumers makes it very easy to connect to markets of all size on either side of the arrangement.
The DL-KL/AF is one of the most seamless travel experiences there is, but I'll say was even better when it was simply NW-KL. Its very easy to book one ticket and have a seamless end-to-end trip via AMS and its almost as easy as making a domestic connection.

As long as the JV stays in balance and doesn't act as a defacto-outsourcing arrangement then that's fine. Frankly, I prefer to fly on DL metal TATL than either KL or AF but its naive to thing that DL could fly to many of these places.

The data might help show, just how many Europe-based travelers are flying on DL flights TATL and on connecting flights that it indirectly helps their case in other ways.

This just initially comes across as saber-rattling, but its good to know they are going to enforce the rules of their contract.

SierraPacific wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.

What about CDG?

I forgot about CDG but my original point still stands

Umm, not quite. Exactly how is AF "lower cost"

Lufthansa wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.

You think VS has lower costs than an American carrier? You obviously have never done business in the UK.
And to suggest DL would also give up routes to all over the world to places like PEK, JNB, FCO, SYD, EZE etc is
kind of crazy when they're making good profits from them. And have ordered more aircraft for them. VS works of
the UK market well because the UK expects certain standards and VS found a way to beat AA/BA by interlining
with Delta and marketing it in a trendy way that probably wouldn't work in most DL markets, however the interline
agreement does.

I’m confused, how did VS beat BA/AA? BA/AA are much larger out of LHR to the US, than VS/DL. VS footprint outside the TransAtlantic market seems to be on the shrinking.

If you mean in trendy advertising, sure, not sure what other metric VS is beating BA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NWADTWE16 wrote:

if anything, its Asia that has been demolished by JV

you have stats to back that up? Just look at all the lines that connect Delta hubs to PVG, PEK, TYO, ICN, and KIX that are flown on DL metal. Definitely more than what they were flying 5 -7 years ago.

TTailedTiger wrote:

. Screw the bleary eyed passengers who have to connect in a foreign airport after a 10 hour flight.

Um, whats the big deal, being on a plane for 10 hours, so what/. Walk off said plane, go through customs and proceed to the next gate. I mean, its not like running a marathon and then being asked to make a connection at some foreign airport. And besides, DL is in the business of making money. If shuffling a gazillion passengers through AMS/CDG makes then more money than a non stop to GVA, more power to them.

Those saying DL serves fewer TATL destinations than they did 10 years ago are likely correct, but unless DL's TATL capacity/total flights are also lower I'm not buying the pilots' argument. Pilot jobs are tied to total flights, not unique destinations served.

jumbojet wrote:

you have stats to back that up? Just look at all the lines that connect Delta hubs to PVG, PEK, TYO, ICN, and KIX that are flown on DL metal. Definitely more than what they were flying 5 -7 years ago.

Delta has shrunk in Asia in both service points, capacity and revenue.

RPMs
2010 - 20,560m
2015 - 23,882m
2018 - 20,430m

Revenue
2010 - $2,806m
2015 - $3,002m
2018 - $2,543m

(source DOT T100/Form41)

Delta pilots have put up a website with lots more detail.

http://dalscope.org/

I guess Delta has been in violation for 25 months in current contract cycle with DL portion of JV flying falling short of contractual minimums.

LAXintl wrote:

The Delta Master Executive Council of ALPA filed comments with the DOT raising their concerns about granting ATI for the carriers proposed expanded Atlantic joint venture with AF-KL-VS.

While MEC expressed its previous support for JVs with as they promised to "produce new flying opportunities for Delta and its employees", they now instead express "serious concerns raised by the inequitable allocation of service growth within the existing immunized alliance. The MEC urges the Department to condition final approval of the Amended JVA on mandatory time-limited review of the alliance’s impact on the balance of Delta-operated flying opportunities and U.S. aviation jobs in joint venture markets."

The MEC argues for example in the UK market, "Delta-operated flying in the critical New York-London market has actually decreased since the Delta-Virgin joint went into effect. This use of the JV mechanism to effectively outsource Delta flying to a foreign carrier whose flight crews work under substantially less favorable wages and work rules is fundamentally inconsistent with the Department’s public interest objectives of strengthening the competitive position of US air carriers relative to foreign air carriers, and encouraging fair wages and working conditions."

So much for the labor love at DL.


OST-2013-0068-0077

The same argument can be made by the Virgin Atlantic and AF/KL unions.
Sorry boys, you cannot have it both ways. If Delta pilots demand the right to fly the most JFK-LHR frequencies than VS pilots can also demand THEY must fly the most frequencies (LHR-JFK).

Antarius wrote:

Umm, not quite. Exactly how is AF "lower cost"

Because the “cost” of operating those flights are not from Delta’s pot. So in theory those flights are “free” for Delta to operate. Can’t get much lower “cost” than free.

This is why the unions have to resist this kind of thing spreading, because management would rather market the JV flights than to bear the actual cost of operating it themselves thereby disenfranchising the core employee group.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Opaque wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Agreed. Around 2007 Delta was running tons of flights to Europe from ATL, JFK, and CVG. We had a lot of nonstop options to secondary cities. Now they are doing everything they can to force passengers through AMS and CDG.

Perhaps that is true, but how many new US routes have been added to AMS and CDG since 2007? They cannot operate from every US city to every European city. The JV can increase available city pairs, even though not everything is direct.

I'd much rather fly TPA-ATL-GVA than TPA-AMS-GVA. We all know there is enough demand for an ATL-GVA flight with the 900+ flights DL has at ATL. But DL sees more money by making AF/KLM take those passengers. Screw the bleary eyed passengers who have to connect in a foreign airport after a 10 hour flight.

Not I. I would much rather do TPA-AMS-GVA-AMS-TPA. On my outbound trip, I'm usually full of energy and excitement. On my return, all I want to do is go home. I can do that right after the long leg, instead of a layover in ATL when I'm so close to home.

LAXintl wrote:

. This use of the JV mechanism to effectively outsource Delta flying to a foreign carrier ... is fundamentally inconsistent with the Department’s public interest

Hallelujah! Management has for years been beating the drums about the Middle East carriers stealing Delta routes while what was actually happening in reality was just this.

Management has been systematically handing Delta’s flying to foreign carriers while trying to convince the workgroups that the decline in routes was caused by predatory foreigners. Smoke and mirrors.

And not to mention that the benefits for frequent flyers are not standardized across the JV. DL passengers get screwed over on AF/KLM/VS flights. And even when you are supposed to get some reciprocal benefits it seems to be at the mercy of employee. Especially at AMS. Lots of complaints of DL passengers not being permitted in KLM lounges even with appropriate credentials.

aeropix wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Umm, not quite. Exactly how is AF "lower cost"

Because the “cost” of operating those flights are not from Delta’s pot. So in theory those flights are “free” for Delta to operate. Can’t get much lower “cost” than free.

This is why the unions have to resist this kind of thing spreading, because management would rather market the JV flights than to bear the actual cost of operating it themselves thereby disenfranchising the core employee group.

Bingo! JV's are just outsourcing flights to the bane of Delta employees. I would think every Delta employee would be concerned about seeing the rapid growth of JV partnerships and the growth of foreign widebodies in Delta hubs.

I have traveled extensively international on Delta Skymiles and it has been difficult to find a trip that I am not put onto a JV partner on at least one leg of the journey.

They never cease to amAze me. So is the argument that without JVs there would be more flying? Yes they may be flying to Less exotic places, but they are flying to places that are less prone to take a hit during a economic downturn. Perhaps delta should just fly to places that sound good and say to hell with the money they are printing. Take a look at AA TATL margins or hell anywhere international outside of Latin AM.international.

aeropix wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Umm, not quite. Exactly how is AF "lower cost"

Because the “cost” of operating those flights are not from Delta’s pot. So in theory those flights are “free” for Delta to operate. Can’t get much lower “cost” than free.

This is why the unions have to resist this kind of thing spreading, because management would rather market the JV flights than to bear the actual cost of operating it themselves thereby disenfranchising the core employee group.

Most JVs share not only revenue but also costs. It may be beneficial to have the “cheapest” carrier operate but it’s never “free”.

questions wrote:

On the flip side, the JV’s contribute to DL’s profitability from which employees benefit through profit sharing.

I’d also argue that the JV’s help create a competitive network with breadth and frequency that allows DL to capture, ie, win, profitable corporate contracts. Without the JV’s DL would be cost challenged to build a similar network and it would take much longer.

Profit sharing does no good when you don't have a job.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Agreed. Around 2007 Delta was running tons of flights to Europe from ATL, JFK, and CVG. We had a lot of nonstop options to secondary cities. Now they are doing everything they can to force passengers through AMS and CDG.

What nonsense. Sure, CVG has been replaced by DTW post-merger but DL metal still touches up to 34 TATL destinations (by next summer based on known plans today), compared to 36 in the summer of 2007. What the heck are BRU, CPH, ZRH, AGP, NCE, PRG, ATH, PDL, LIS, SNN, GLA, EDI, TXL, MUC, STR, DUS, KEF and others doing on the schedule then if the aim is to push everything through AMS and CDG considering all of them (except for KEF and PDL) can be pushed through AMS or CDG if DL really wanted to?

In fact, it is because of the JV that service to many of these places can even be sustained. Without the help of AF-KL-VS on the European side to shore up the European point-of-sale, DL would not have been able to keep up a 30+ destination TATL network. For example, without VS, DL would not even be at 10 daily flights out of LHR, or even in GLA, or EDI.

NWADTWE16 wrote:

if anything, its Asia that has been demolished by JV

Ha, Asia didn't need any help being demolished, it was self-destructing with an archaic network model. The KE JV and the MU cooperation are the key to restructuring it. The whole TPAC is still a work in progress (after all, the KE JV has only been in play for slightly more than 1 year) - UA has had at least an 8 year head start (launching its JV with NH in 2011) in that area...

TTailedTiger wrote:

enilria wrote:

So this made my day. I’m not a big fan of unions, but I am a big fan of the consumer. These JVs have been used to reduce capacity and competition in order to raise fares. It never made sense that the pilots supported them. It always reduced their opportunities.

Agreed. Around 2007 Delta was running tons of flights to Europe from ATL, JFK, and CVG. We had a lot of nonstop options to secondary cities. Now they are doing everything they can to force passengers through AMS and CDG.

There is a huge misconception in this thinking.

For DL pilots the number of DL operated flights counts, and that number is significantly higher in 2019, than it was in 2007.
Delta has significantly more flights into AMS (21x daily), than KL has into the USA (only 12x daily), so the advantage is with DL pilots.

In addition DL flies into many secondary Euopean airports, DL pilots should have good look here and compare that to their operation in 2007:

https://news.delta.com/route-map-between-us-europe

TTailedTiger wrote:

Opaque wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Agreed. Around 2007 Delta was running tons of flights to Europe from ATL, JFK, and CVG. We had a lot of nonstop options to secondary cities. Now they are doing everything they can to force passengers through AMS and CDG.

Perhaps that is true, but how many new US routes have been added to AMS and CDG since 2007? They cannot operate from every US city to every European city. The JV can increase available city pairs, even though not everything is direct.

I'd much rather fly TPA-ATL-GVA than TPA-AMS-GVA. We all know there is enough demand for an ATL-GVA flight with the 900+ flights DL has at ATL. But DL sees more money by making AF/KLM take those passengers. Screw the bleary eyed passengers who have to connect in a foreign airport after a 10 hour flight.

So all the tickets are sold in the USA and none at all in Europe? Don't you think your logic applies just as well to passengers originating in GVA who have to endure ATL after a lengthy flight?

Especially since passengers originating in the US only have to go through immigration in AMS on this route and don't need to clear security again, baggage goes through to GVA without any need to reclaim it in AMS. Travelling from GVA via ATL, they need to clear US immigration, reclaim their bags, clear US Customs, deposit their bags again at the transfer area, and then clear TSA security. Efficient airport as ATL is, this inevitably extends the overall journey time compared to the much simpler procedures in AMS.

chepos wrote:

Lufthansa wrote:

SierraPacific wrote:

Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.

You think VS has lower costs than an American carrier? You obviously have never done business in the UK.
And to suggest DL would also give up routes to all over the world to places like PEK, JNB, FCO, SYD, EZE etc is
kind of crazy when they're making good profits from them. And have ordered more aircraft for them. VS works of
the UK market well because the UK expects certain standards and VS found a way to beat AA/BA by interlining
with Delta and marketing it in a trendy way that probably wouldn't work in most DL markets, however the interline
agreement does.

I’m confused, how did VS beat BA/AA? BA/AA are much larger out of LHR to the US, than VS/DL. VS footprint outside the TransAtlantic market seems to be on the shrinking.

If you mean in trendy advertising, sure, not sure what other metric VS is beating BA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hell yeah, your not the only one that is confused. Would love to see those numbers...….

Andy33 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Opaque wrote:

Perhaps that is true, but how many new US routes have been added to AMS and CDG since 2007? They cannot operate from every US city to every European city. The JV can increase available city pairs, even though not everything is direct.

I'd much rather fly TPA-ATL-GVA than TPA-AMS-GVA. We all know there is enough demand for an ATL-GVA flight with the 900+ flights DL has at ATL. But DL sees more money by making AF/KLM take those passengers. Screw the bleary eyed passengers who have to connect in a foreign airport after a 10 hour flight.

So all the tickets are sold in the USA and none at all in Europe? Don't you think your logic applies just as well to passengers originating in GVA who have to endure ATL after a lengthy flight?

Especially since passengers originating in the US only have to go through immigration in AMS on this route and don't need to clear security again, baggage goes through to GVA without any need to reclaim it in AMS. Travelling from GVA via ATL, they need to clear US immigration, reclaim their bags, clear US Customs, deposit their bags again at the transfer area, and then clear TSA security. Efficient airport as ATL is, this inevitably extends the overall journey time compared to the much simpler procedures in AMS.

Well of course passengers originating in GVA would have the ability to connect in AMS, CDG, LON, etc to the US. That's always been the case. Why shouldn't US customers have the option to fly nonstop from multiple US gateways to GVA? People are more comfortable on airlines from their home country. Not to mention many of us don't want to endure the atrocities of European business class. All it consists of is a blocked middle seat. With a US carrier I can be in the premium cabin for all legs.

Yes, I'd be delighted to see lots more flights to GVA from US cities. Delta should bring on JFK, DTW, MSP, SLC, SEA etc as well. Wonder why the US airlines (all of them) don't see things your way. Maybe because GVA is not the financial centre of Switzerland, that's ZRH, nor the capital which is nominally Berne (airport BRN), and the biggest business class demand is normally driven by financial and political interests. Apart from United Nations activities, which would suggest flights from New York rather than Atlanta (which Delta could do easily of course), Geneva is more of a leisure destination.

SierraPacific wrote:

Finally, JV's directly hurt pilots and flight attendants with less and less destinations served with Delta metal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all JV's are is the shuffling of flights to foreign carriers that have cheaper costs. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if in 10 years the only international destinations served by Delta (Excluding the Carribean and Canada) would be ICN, AMS, and LHR.

I am glad that Delta pilots are standing up for Delta employees and are trying to limit the amount of outsourcing that is occurring now.

Is Delta there for its pilots or are their pilots there to serve Delta and its interest?

I am all for strong unions, but in aviation it is ridiculous, it seems everywhere that pilots feel that they are entitled to special treatment. In the core, they are employees, nothing more. Sure their rights need to be protected. I can't imagine that the operating cost of KLM of Air France is lower than Delta.

Geneva is not a leisure destination, 80pct of its hosts are here for business. It is not a hub, so it has no transfer traffic, only local. And it has one of the best yield, with a lot of business traffic. Being finance (Zurich is bigger), commodity (Geneva is among the top 4 globally with London, Singapore and Houston), a big center for luxury industry (Rolex, richemont), and a lots of multinationals in the Geneva lake area (starting with nestle, Switzerland’s and Europe’s largest company by market cap, and many others).

United totally fills its business class on its 2 dailies (above 85% load, which is huge for C class). So does Swiss to jKF and AC to YUL. And so do most of the long/haul airlines in GVA (starting with EK, QR, AC). So, no, Geneva is not at all a leisure destination.

TTailedTiger wrote:

People are more comfortable on airlines from their home country. Not to mention many of us don't want to endure the atrocities of European business class.

1. that is an assertion, not fact.
2. who cares for a 1-hour flight k

Super80fan

Not sure how this will help consumers.

If the cost of operating these flights is higher when operated by DL, this will likely mean higher prices, less flight options or both.