Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
kavok
Posts: 812
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 3:02 pm

RvA wrote:
bfitzflyer wrote:
onwFan wrote:
JFK and LAX are pretty much everyone's hubs. And to the crux of this thread, most foreign carrier partners will already be flying to JFK and LAX irrespective of DL having a hub there, and they all want to make money on the O/D there. SEA and BOS are barely budding hubs, and everything seems to suggest that they are not even profitable yet. The truth is that DL has seriously been attempting to bolster SEA & BOS to compensate for their lack of presence in bigger premium markets, which is where the business demand is. We are still to see how COVID impacts BOS & SEA. And by the way, ATL & DTW are what they are only because DL has a hub there.


AA has nothing at PHL & DFW? Not have a clue what you mean, but whatever... ORD may not have become as big of a hub as UA's, but AA's partners (BA, JL, CX, QR, RJ, FY) have all had great success at ORD with AA's feed. By the way, I would really love to know which are those foreign carriers who have heard about Atlanta, Minneapolis, Detroit and Salt Lake City before Dallas & Philly.


That's brand new information. The last time I heard, AS had double the market share of DL.


No contesting there.


How is JFK a hub for AA, down to what 50 flights pre covid.. PHL and DFW are huge for AA, just insignificant to international travelers. ATL world's largest airport, enough said. MSP, DTW and SLC are domestic hubs as I stated. SEA, let's see how many overseas flights does AS have, oh, that would be zero. Glad we agree on UA


Not sure I agree with your remarks here. PHL and DFW are insignificant for international travellers? Given they are two big gateways connecting many international destinations to many domestic and international destinations how is that insignificant? MSP/DTW do a similar job for DL albeit at a smaller scale, mostly to AMS/MSP but I wouldn’t say that’s insignificant, how many transatlantic flights are flying there for the main purpose of connecting people onwards into the Domestic network. Similar to what DFW and PHL do for AA except at a smaller scale.


You can basically break the US down in a series of tiers:
Tier 1: LAX/NYC(JFK+EWR). Everyone has a hub, lots of partner flights.
Tier 2: ORD/IAD/SFO. Very significant international demand from many airlines for both TATL and TPAC.
Tier 3: MIA/BOS/SEA. Significant international destinations and demand from both domestic and abroad, with heavy international focus on a certain region. Natural geographic hubs because of being in their “corner” of the USA. (Ie MIA to Latin America, BOS to Europe, SEA to Asia).
Tier 4: DFW/ATL/IAH/PHL/DTW. Major hub for one airline, in major market, with good international demand. The hub airline serves many destinations, and there are a few other international flights from non-alliance carriers. The hub airline, while providing more international service than could be supported on its own, likely also keeps away a few international flights from other alliances. (i.e., if not for AA then AF would probably serve PHL, if not for DL then BA would probably serve DTW, etc.)
Tier 5: DEN/CLT/MSP/PHX/SLC. Large domestic hub that attracts some international service, mostly on the hub carrier’s alliance. Less local international O/D than Tier 4.
Wildcard Tier: MCO/LAS/HNL/FLL. Large leisure markets that attract service from many carriers and LCC because of local leisure attractions.
 
n9801f
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:29 am

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 4:29 pm

kavok wrote:
You can basically break the US down in a series of tiers

That's a cool model.

Suggest moving MIA up to Tier 2. While it's not so big overall it has huge importance for Latin/South America.
 
CaptainObvious1
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:22 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 4:31 pm

They should also look at their regional partners as well. Get rid of Skywest, and Republic. Roll all regional flying into Delta, thus merging Endeavor into one pool of pilots. Yes there would be a higher cost but in the end it shows commitment to their inflight crews and provides control of all aspects of the Delta experience. :wave:
 
theasianguy
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:31 am

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:16 pm

kavok wrote:
RvA wrote:
bfitzflyer wrote:

How is JFK a hub for AA, down to what 50 flights pre covid.. PHL and DFW are huge for AA, just insignificant to international travelers. ATL world's largest airport, enough said. MSP, DTW and SLC are domestic hubs as I stated. SEA, let's see how many overseas flights does AS have, oh, that would be zero. Glad we agree on UA


Not sure I agree with your remarks here. PHL and DFW are insignificant for international travellers? Given they are two big gateways connecting many international destinations to many domestic and international destinations how is that insignificant? MSP/DTW do a similar job for DL albeit at a smaller scale, mostly to AMS/MSP but I wouldn’t say that’s insignificant, how many transatlantic flights are flying there for the main purpose of connecting people onwards into the Domestic network. Similar to what DFW and PHL do for AA except at a smaller scale.


You can basically break the US down in a series of tiers:
Tier 1: LAX/NYC(JFK+EWR). Everyone has a hub, lots of partner flights.
Tier 2: ORD/IAD/SFO. Very significant international demand from many airlines for both TATL and TPAC.
Tier 3: MIA/BOS/SEA. Significant international destinations and demand from both domestic and abroad, with heavy international focus on a certain region. Natural geographic hubs because of being in their “corner” of the USA. (Ie MIA to Latin America, BOS to Europe, SEA to Asia).
Tier 4: DFW/ATL/IAH/PHL/DTW. Major hub for one airline, in major market, with good international demand. The hub airline serves many destinations, and there are a few other international flights from non-alliance carriers. The hub airline, while providing more international service than could be supported on its own, likely also keeps away a few international flights from other alliances. (i.e., if not for AA then AF would probably serve PHL, if not for DL then BA would probably serve DTW, etc.)
Tier 5: DEN/CLT/MSP/PHX/SLC. Large domestic hub that attracts some international service, mostly on the hub carrier’s alliance. Less local international O/D than Tier 4.
Wildcard Tier: MCO/LAS/HNL/FLL. Large leisure markets that attract service from many carriers and LCC because of local leisure attractions.


Thanks for summarizing this! It's probably the most insightful, yet obvious comment I've seen in this whole thread.
 
bigb
Posts: 1104
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:48 pm

kavok wrote:
RvA wrote:
bfitzflyer wrote:

How is JFK a hub for AA, down to what 50 flights pre covid.. PHL and DFW are huge for AA, just insignificant to international travelers. ATL world's largest airport, enough said. MSP, DTW and SLC are domestic hubs as I stated. SEA, let's see how many overseas flights does AS have, oh, that would be zero. Glad we agree on UA


Not sure I agree with your remarks here. PHL and DFW are insignificant for international travellers? Given they are two big gateways connecting many international destinations to many domestic and international destinations how is that insignificant? MSP/DTW do a similar job for DL albeit at a smaller scale, mostly to AMS/MSP but I wouldn’t say that’s insignificant, how many transatlantic flights are flying there for the main purpose of connecting people onwards into the Domestic network. Similar to what DFW and PHL do for AA except at a smaller scale.


You can basically break the US down in a series of tiers:
Tier 1: LAX/NYC(JFK+EWR). Everyone has a hub, lots of partner flights.
Tier 2: ORD/IAD/SFO. Very significant international demand from many airlines for both TATL and TPAC.
Tier 3: MIA/BOS/SEA. Significant international destinations and demand from both domestic and abroad, with heavy international focus on a certain region. Natural geographic hubs because of being in their “corner” of the USA. (Ie MIA to Latin America, BOS to Europe, SEA to Asia).
Tier 4: DFW/ATL/IAH/PHL/DTW. Major hub for one airline, in major market, with good international demand. The hub airline serves many destinations, and there are a few other international flights from non-alliance carriers. The hub airline, while providing more international service than could be supported on its own, likely also keeps away a few international flights from other alliances. (i.e., if not for AA then AF would probably serve PHL, if not for DL then BA would probably serve DTW, etc.)
Tier 5: DEN/CLT/MSP/PHX/SLC. Large domestic hub that attracts some international service, mostly on the hub carrier’s alliance. Less local international O/D than Tier 4.
Wildcard Tier: MCO/LAS/HNL/FLL. Large leisure markets that attract service from many carriers and LCC because of local leisure attractions.


I’ll argue that your tier 3 and 4 airports should’ve combined. I wouldn’t necessarily put BOS and SEA ahead of your PHL and IAH airports.
 
N649DL
Posts: 919
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:04 pm

MLIAA wrote:
Ishrion wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
The issue is Delta's major hubs are just not that attractive for international carriers. Most foreign carriers would not be flying to ATL and especially DTW, MSP, and SLC without the Delta hub. AA and UA have the advantage of having their primary hubs in cities like Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, Washington and Miami that the foreign carriers would be flying to anyway.


Dallas is arguable. In terms of foreign carriers, it’s nothing compared to those 4 other cities.

For what it’s worth, AA somewhat has the same issue with hubs in PHX, PHL, and CLT, which see little foreign airlines.

PHL is AA’s primary TATL hub, CLT is AA’s second largest hub, but both see few foreign carriers.


Dallas-Fort Worth is the 4th largest metro in the US and a gigantic economic powerhouse. DFW has seen non-AA aligned carriers in the past; Air France, Emirates, KLM, Lufthansa, and Icelandair, to name a few.

The DFW area is not on the same level as a Twin Cities or a Salt Lake, or a Charlotte or Phoenix, to your second point. DFW is the real deal.


Yeah I was going to say, I would avoid comparing the DFW Metroplex to a midsize US metro area like SLC, AUS, DEN, MSP, CLT, etc. You'll notice DFW has no problem getting and retaining International carrier service, with the others they would be lucky to get it. Dallas is a Beta+ (and likely teetering on Alpha- these days.)
 
Ishrion
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:08 pm

N649DL wrote:
MLIAA wrote:
Ishrion wrote:

Dallas is arguable. In terms of foreign carriers, it’s nothing compared to those 4 other cities.

For what it’s worth, AA somewhat has the same issue with hubs in PHX, PHL, and CLT, which see little foreign airlines.

PHL is AA’s primary TATL hub, CLT is AA’s second largest hub, but both see few foreign carriers.


Dallas-Fort Worth is the 4th largest metro in the US and a gigantic economic powerhouse. DFW has seen non-AA aligned carriers in the past; Air France, Emirates, KLM, Lufthansa, and Icelandair, to name a few.

The DFW area is not on the same level as a Twin Cities or a Salt Lake, or a Charlotte or Phoenix, to your second point. DFW is the real deal.


Yeah I was going to say, I would avoid comparing the DFW Metroplex to a midsize US metro area like SLC, AUS, DEN, MSP, CLT, etc. You'll notice DFW has no problem getting and retaining International carrier service, with the others they would be lucky to get it. Dallas is a Beta+ (and likely teetering on Alpha- these days.)


Reposting what I said earlier:

I was comparing the amount of foreign carriers at SLC/MSP/DTW to the levels of PHL/CLT/PHX, and referring to the OP’s statement that SLC/MSP/DTW had trouble attracting foreign carriers with Delta having hubs there.

When comparing Dallas to Washington, Miami, Chicago, and San Francisco in terms of foreign carriers, it’s nothing.

For example, look at IAD, whose main airline is United.

You see non-UA partners flying there such as Aeroflot, Air France, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Iberia, Icelandair, KLM, Qatar Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Saudia, and more.

Look at Miami, whose main airline is AA.

You see non-AA partners flying there such as Aeroflot, Aerolíneas Argentinas, Air Europa, Air France, Alitalia, Avianca, Copa, Corsair, Eurowings, KLM, Lufthansa, Swiss, TAP Portugal, and many more.

The same could be said for Chicago and SFO. Both have dozens of foreign carriers flying alongside their hub airlines.

...While DFW has little foreign carriers compared to those four cities, whether they’re partnered with AA or not.

And retaining an international carrier? Probably not. In the past 6-7 years, we gained Etihad, VivaAerobus, Air France, JAL, WOW, Icelandair, Volaris, and Qatar.

We lost Etihad, VivaAerobus, Icelandair, WOW, and WestJet/KLM left.
 
N649DL
Posts: 919
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:21 pm

Ishrion wrote:
N649DL wrote:
MLIAA wrote:

Dallas-Fort Worth is the 4th largest metro in the US and a gigantic economic powerhouse. DFW has seen non-AA aligned carriers in the past; Air France, Emirates, KLM, Lufthansa, and Icelandair, to name a few.

The DFW area is not on the same level as a Twin Cities or a Salt Lake, or a Charlotte or Phoenix, to your second point. DFW is the real deal.


Yeah I was going to say, I would avoid comparing the DFW Metroplex to a midsize US metro area like SLC, AUS, DEN, MSP, CLT, etc. You'll notice DFW has no problem getting and retaining International carrier service, with the others they would be lucky to get it. Dallas is a Beta+ (and likely teetering on Alpha- these days.)


Reposting what I said earlier:

I was comparing the amount of foreign carriers at SLC/MSP/DTW to the levels of PHL/CLT/PHX, and referring to the OP’s statement that SLC/MSP/DTW had trouble attracting foreign carriers with Delta having hubs there.

When comparing Dallas to Washington, Miami, Chicago, and San Francisco in terms of foreign carriers, it’s nothing.

For example, look at IAD, whose main airline is United.

You see non-UA partners flying there such as Aeroflot, Air France, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Iberia, Icelandair, KLM, Qatar Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Saudia, and more.

Look at Miami, whose main airline is AA.

You see non-AA partners flying there such as Aeroflot, Aerolíneas Argentinas, Air Europa, Air France, Alitalia, Avianca, Copa, Corsair, Eurowings, KLM, Lufthansa, Swiss, TAP Portugal, and many more.

The same could be said for Chicago and SFO. Both have dozens of foreign carriers flying alongside their hub airlines.

...While DFW has little foreign carriers compared to those four cities, whether they’re partnered with AA or not.

And retaining an international carrier? Probably not. In the past 6-7 years, we gained Etihad, VivaAerobus, Air France, JAL, WOW, Icelandair, Volaris, and Qatar.

We lost Etihad, VivaAerobus, Icelandair, WOW, and WestJet/KLM left.


Any "Port of Entry" city on the coasts (by nature) is likely going to have by nature a lot more International Service demand on foreign carriers: IAD/ORD/BOS/EWR/JFK/MIA/LAX/SFO etc. Central US cities really only get Int'l service by the established hub carrier (some just barely EG: DEN) while others have to really be an economic powerhouse to stand out to foreign carriers. I'll definitely put DFW in that category.
 
Ishrion
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:30 pm

N649DL wrote:
Ishrion wrote:
N649DL wrote:

Yeah I was going to say, I would avoid comparing the DFW Metroplex to a midsize US metro area like SLC, AUS, DEN, MSP, CLT, etc. You'll notice DFW has no problem getting and retaining International carrier service, with the others they would be lucky to get it. Dallas is a Beta+ (and likely teetering on Alpha- these days.)


Reposting what I said earlier:

I was comparing the amount of foreign carriers at SLC/MSP/DTW to the levels of PHL/CLT/PHX, and referring to the OP’s statement that SLC/MSP/DTW had trouble attracting foreign carriers with Delta having hubs there.

When comparing Dallas to Washington, Miami, Chicago, and San Francisco in terms of foreign carriers, it’s nothing.

For example, look at IAD, whose main airline is United.

You see non-UA partners flying there such as Aeroflot, Air France, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Iberia, Icelandair, KLM, Qatar Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Saudia, and more.

Look at Miami, whose main airline is AA.

You see non-AA partners flying there such as Aeroflot, Aerolíneas Argentinas, Air Europa, Air France, Alitalia, Avianca, Copa, Corsair, Eurowings, KLM, Lufthansa, Swiss, TAP Portugal, and many more.

The same could be said for Chicago and SFO. Both have dozens of foreign carriers flying alongside their hub airlines.

...While DFW has little foreign carriers compared to those four cities, whether they’re partnered with AA or not.

And retaining an international carrier? Probably not. In the past 6-7 years, we gained Etihad, VivaAerobus, Air France, JAL, WOW, Icelandair, Volaris, and Qatar.

We lost Etihad, VivaAerobus, Icelandair, WOW, and WestJet/KLM left.


Any "Port of Entry" city on the coasts (by nature) is likely going to have by nature a lot more International Service demand on foreign carriers: IAD/ORD/BOS/EWR/JFK/MIA/LAX/SFO etc. Central US cities really only get Int'l service by the established hub carrier (some just barely EG: DEN) while others have to really be an economic powerhouse to stand out to foreign carriers. I'll definitely put DFW in that category.


DFW's a powerhouse, sure, but mostly for AA, not foreign carriers.

I was responding to this statement below:

usflyer msp wrote:
The issue is Delta's major hubs are just not that attractive for international carriers. Most foreign carriers would not be flying to ATL and especially DTW, MSP, and SLC without the Delta hub. AA and UA have the advantage of having their primary hubs in cities like Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, Washington and Miami that the foreign carriers would be flying to anyway.


DFW really can't be compared to IAD, SFO, ORD, and MIA in terms of foreign carriers. Most of the international flying is done by AA at DFW, not its alliance/codeshare partners. Additionally, because demand is rather limited, DFW doesn't see many foreign carriers when AA is already flying the route.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:15 pm

usflyer msp wrote:
Biophobe99 wrote:
It’s not because they are terrible airlines but because the demand across the globe has radically declined in a very short period.


That is very revisionist history.
Last profitable year

JV Partner
VS = 2017
AM= 2016
VA = 2012
AF/KL = 2019 (lost money in 2018 though)
KE = 2016
AZ = a very long time ago

I'm not including WS and LA since the JV's have not been approved or implemented yet.

The JV partners' financial distress is due to more than just the current drop in demand.


I don't know which data you are referring to, but Korean Air had been profitable until 2019 (operating income).
 
Antarius
Posts: 2131
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:25 pm

Ishrion wrote:
DFW really can't be compared to IAD, SFO, ORD, and MIA in terms of foreign carriers. Most of the international flying is done by AA at DFW, not its alliance/codeshare partners. Additionally, because demand is rather limited, DFW doesn't see many foreign carriers when AA is already flying the route.


AA is also extremely defensive of their turf at DFW much like DL is at ATL etc. Which means even when foreign tails do make an appearance, AA tries hard to push them out.

As for AA metal vs alliance, the only glaring difference is LHR (3-4 on AA vs 1 on BA). Otherwise, there is 1 flight a day to MAD and HKG by AA not operated by an alliance parter and 1 flight by QF (SYD) and DOH (QR) that are operated by an alliance partner and not AA.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
Ishrion
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:41 pm

Antarius wrote:
Ishrion wrote:
DFW really can't be compared to IAD, SFO, ORD, and MIA in terms of foreign carriers. Most of the international flying is done by AA at DFW, not its alliance/codeshare partners. Additionally, because demand is rather limited, DFW doesn't see many foreign carriers when AA is already flying the route.


AA is also extremely defensive of their turf at DFW much like DL is at ATL etc. Which means even when foreign tails do make an appearance, AA tries hard to push them out.

As for AA metal vs alliance, the only glaring difference is LHR (3-4 on AA vs 1 on BA). Otherwise, there is 1 flight a day to MAD and HKG by AA not operated by an alliance parter and 1 flight by QF (SYD) and DOH (QR) that are operated by an alliance partner and not AA.


Pre-COVID AA was operating 2x daily DFW-MAD in the summer and 11x weekly in the winter. Instead of allowing Iberia to add the frequency, AA jumped on it with its own metal.

You could say the same for SCL/GRU before LATAM left OW a few months ago.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2131
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:46 pm

Ishrion wrote:
Antarius wrote:
Ishrion wrote:
DFW really can't be compared to IAD, SFO, ORD, and MIA in terms of foreign carriers. Most of the international flying is done by AA at DFW, not its alliance/codeshare partners. Additionally, because demand is rather limited, DFW doesn't see many foreign carriers when AA is already flying the route.


AA is also extremely defensive of their turf at DFW much like DL is at ATL etc. Which means even when foreign tails do make an appearance, AA tries hard to push them out.

As for AA metal vs alliance, the only glaring difference is LHR (3-4 on AA vs 1 on BA). Otherwise, there is 1 flight a day to MAD and HKG by AA not operated by an alliance parter and 1 flight by QF (SYD) and DOH (QR) that are operated by an alliance partner and not AA.


Pre-COVID AA was operating 2x daily DFW-MAD in the summer and 11x weekly in the winter. Instead of allowing Iberia to add the frequency, AA jumped on it with its own metal.

You could say the same for SCL/GRU before LATAM left OW a few months ago.


IB is part of the metal neutral TATL JV. AA didn't jump on the route, they discussed it with IB (and BA/AY) and came to the conclusion that it made sense for AA to operate it. Could have been fleet slack, operating costs, brand presence in O&D market etc etc etc.

IB was definitely part of AA's decision making.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
Ishrion
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:48 pm

Antarius wrote:
Ishrion wrote:
Antarius wrote:

AA is also extremely defensive of their turf at DFW much like DL is at ATL etc. Which means even when foreign tails do make an appearance, AA tries hard to push them out.

As for AA metal vs alliance, the only glaring difference is LHR (3-4 on AA vs 1 on BA). Otherwise, there is 1 flight a day to MAD and HKG by AA not operated by an alliance parter and 1 flight by QF (SYD) and DOH (QR) that are operated by an alliance partner and not AA.


Pre-COVID AA was operating 2x daily DFW-MAD in the summer and 11x weekly in the winter. Instead of allowing Iberia to add the frequency, AA jumped on it with its own metal.

You could say the same for SCL/GRU before LATAM left OW a few months ago.


IB is part of the metal neutral TATL JV. AA didn't jump on the route, they discussed it with IB (and BA/AY) and came to the conclusion that it made sense for AA to operate it. Could have been fleet slack, operating costs, brand presence in O&D market etc etc etc.

IB was definitely part of AA's decision making.


Bad wording, that’s what I meant. Either one of them could’ve added the second frequency thanks to their joint venture, but in the end AA appeared to be the better fit with the 787-9.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:10 pm

ITSTours wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
Biophobe99 wrote:
It’s not because they are terrible airlines but because the demand across the globe has radically declined in a very short period.


That is very revisionist history.
Last profitable year

JV Partner
VS = 2017
AM= 2016
VA = 2012
AF/KL = 2019 (lost money in 2018 though)
KE = 2016
AZ = a very long time ago

I'm not including WS and LA since the JV's have not been approved or implemented yet.

The JV partners' financial distress is due to more than just the current drop in demand.


I don't know which data you are referring to, but Korean Air had been profitable until 2019 (operating income).


I'm not looking at operating profit, I'm looking at net. KE had a net loss of 530 million USD in 2019.
 
Josh76040
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu May 28, 2020 11:02 am

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:26 pm

This thread is about Delta, not AA.

Delta better be shopping for new potential partners, if there are any around, because the creation of new entities after new management is installed at the bankrupt former partners could lead to them telling Delta to take a hike.

Delta’s investments have not only gone to crap but their potential future prospects are significantly diminished.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:19 am

usflyer msp wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:

That is very revisionist history.
Last profitable year

JV Partner
VS = 2017
AM= 2016
VA = 2012
AF/KL = 2019 (lost money in 2018 though)
KE = 2016
AZ = a very long time ago

I'm not including WS and LA since the JV's have not been approved or implemented yet.

The JV partners' financial distress is due to more than just the current drop in demand.


I don't know which data you are referring to, but Korean Air had been profitable until 2019 (operating income).


I'm not looking at operating profit, I'm looking at net. KE had a net loss of 530 million USD in 2019.


At least KE could generate a healthy cash flow. Most of the net loss was due to Forex loss.
But anyway KE also had a net profit in 2017....which was also due to Forex gain.
 
NateGreat
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:02 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:33 am

Antarius wrote:
Ishrion wrote:
DFW really can't be compared to IAD, SFO, ORD, and MIA in terms of foreign carriers. Most of the international flying is done by AA at DFW, not its alliance/codeshare partners. Additionally, because demand is rather limited, DFW doesn't see many foreign carriers when AA is already flying the route.


AA is also extremely defensive of their turf at DFW much like DL is at ATL etc. Which means even when foreign tails do make an appearance, AA tries hard to push them out.

As for AA metal vs alliance, the only glaring difference is LHR (3-4 on AA vs 1 on BA). Otherwise, there is 1 flight a day to MAD and HKG by AA not operated by an alliance parter and 1 flight by QF (SYD) and DOH (QR) that are operated by an alliance partner and not AA.

At one point recently, 3 or 4 of AA’s DFW-LHR flights (every single one) were operated by 77Ws, while hubs like JFK and LAX had no more than 2 of their LHR flights operating with 77Ws. Is this because DFW has such high O/D LHR demand, or connecting LHR demand?
 
User avatar
ghost77
Posts: 4567
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 2:07 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:04 am

AM-DL alone have the 25% of the MEX-USA traffic.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/aeromexic ... ankruptcy/

Aeromexico is the largest airline in Mexico and a close partner of Delta Air Lines. Together with Delta, the two carriers carried nearly a quarter of all passengers between Mexico and the U.S. — the most of any airline — in 2019, according to U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data via Cirium.

Aeromexico and Delta operate under a joint venture between Mexico and the U.S. This allows them to act as essentially a single airline in the market, coordinating schedules and fares, and providing reciprocal amenities for their frequent travelers.

The Mexican carrier considers its Delta partnership “critical” to its business, according to court filings. It plans to maintain all of its agreements, including the joint venture, with the U.S. carrier through the restructuring process.


g77
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4894
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:50 am

the Oneworld, Skyteam and Star Alliances have been around now What? 30 years? Hell! A whole LOT of things look different after 30 years! LH and UA were cool before the Star Alliance. Delta and Air France were cool before their Alliance, American and British were cool before their Alliance. What went off the rails? is most of the other alliance members..
SQ and United for example. SQ had One idea about the alliance? And United's ALPA had an entirely different take that SQ didn't agree with but failed to even Understand! United ALPA considered the Alliance as outsourcing their JOBS!! I don't give a damn what SQ brought to the table in service. If United didn't fly there? Then there WAS no There!! SQ might control their PILOTS But at United? It's "Detante" A check and Balance scenario. We'll make money together. but it had better make sense to us. Warranted? Maybe or Maybe Not. But? It Is what it IS! United can fly anywhere in the world they choose, but United will not give up any destination to a foreign carrier Just to please any Alliance partner whether the company chooses to or NOT! That's the way it is? And that's the way it will probably Stay. And? What American or Delta do? is of little or NO consequence to the United Pilot ALPA group. I don't think SQ ever understood or got with that. So? It's their take on it, However? Being a founding member of the Star Alliance? I do not see them Leaving anytime soon. Though?? I could be wrong.. The only hub I haven't yet seen their airplanes? Is Denver. (so far) LAX, SFO, ORD and IAD? Yes at one time or other but not at Denver..





'




















?
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4894
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:03 am

strfyr51 wrote:
the Oneworld, Skyteam and Star Alliances have been around now What? 30 years? Hell! A whole LOT of things look different after 30 years! LH and UA were cool before the Star Alliance. Delta and Air France were cool before their Alliance, American and British were cool before their Alliance. What went off the rails? is most of the other alliance members..
SQ and United for example. SQ had One idea about the alliance? And United's ALPA had an entirely different take that SQ didn't agree with but failed to even Understand! United ALPA considered the Alliance as outsourcing their JOBS!! I don't give a damn what SQ brought to the table in service. If United didn't fly there? Then there WAS no There!! SQ might control their PILOTS But at United? It's "Detante" A check and Balance scenario. We'll make money together. but it had better make sense to us. Warranted? Maybe or Maybe Not. But? It Is what it IS! United can fly anywhere in the world they choose, but United will not give up any destination to a foreign carrier Just to please any Alliance partner whether the company chooses to or NOT! That's the way it is? And that's the way it will probably Stay. And? What American or Delta do? is of little or NO consequence to the United Pilot ALPA group. I don't think SQ ever understood or got with that. So? It's their take on it, However? Being a founding member of the Star Alliance? I do not see them Leaving anytime soon. Though?? I could be wrong.. The only hub I haven't yet seen their airplanes? Is Denver. (so far) LAX, SFO, ORD and IAD? Yes at one time or other but not at Denver..
Also? IAD is a hub because that's the price United Paid to get the Pacific routes FROM Pan AM. . At one point? Any route United wanted to fly? it was approved! and I think Solely because United flew out of IAD as a hub. When I got to United in 1984? they didn't even have Jetways at IAD. they loaded from People movers and to even get into a DC10? They had to leave the people mover , Climb another 6-8 stairs and enter the L2 or R2 Door. to get seated. So a LOT has happened since then. Aviation is always evolving and We'll se even MORE evolution in the future.




'




















?
 
gaystudpilot
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:55 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:36 am

strfyr51 wrote:






'




















?


What’s your point with this?
 
Coexstud
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:48 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:08 am

HNLSLCPDX wrote:
If the VA partnership falls apart or if DL sees that they no longer come out if this COVID crisis the airline they need them to be, I would love to see DL go after Air New Zealand.


Hellnah ANZ and Yonited are synced almost from the beginning of Star Alliance
 
Coexstud
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:48 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:09 am

gaystudpilot wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:

You really a stud ?






'




















?


What’s your point with this?
 
Coexstud
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:48 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:11 am

strfyr51 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
the Oneworld, Skyteam and Star Alliances have been around now What? 30 years? Hell! A whole LOT of things look different after 30 years! LH and UA were cool before the Star Alliance. Delta and Air France were cool before their Alliance, American and British were cool before their Alliance. What went off the rails? is most of the other alliance members..
SQ and United for example. SQ had One idea about the alliance? And United's ALPA had an entirely different take that SQ didn't agree with but failed to even Understand! United ALPA considered the Alliance as outsourcing their JOBS!! I don't give a damn what SQ brought to the table in service. If United didn't fly there? Then there WAS no There!! SQ might control their PILOTS But at United? It's "Detante" A check and Balance scenario. We'll make money together. but it had better make sense to us. Warranted? Maybe or Maybe Not. But? It Is what it IS! United can fly anywhere in the world they choose, but United will not give up any destination to a foreign carrier Just to please any Alliance partner whether the company chooses to or NOT! That's the way it is? And that's the way it will probably Stay. And? What American or Delta do? is of little or NO consequence to the United Pilot ALPA group. I don't think SQ ever understood or got with that. So? It's their take on it, However? Being a founding member of the Star Alliance? I do not see them Leaving anytime soon. Though?? I could be wrong.. The only hub I haven't yet seen their airplanes? Is Denver. (so far) LAX, SFO, ORD and IAD? Yes at one time or other but not at Denver..
Also? IAD is a hub because that's the price United Paid to get the Pacific routes FROM Pan AM. . At one point? Any route United wanted to fly? it was approved! and I think Solely because United flew out of IAD as a hub. When I got to United in 1984? they didn't even have Jetways at IAD. they loaded from People movers and to even get into a DC10? They had to leave the people mover , Climb another 6-8 stairs and enter the L2 or R2 Door. to get seated. So a LOT has happened since then. Aviation is always evolving and We'll se even MORE evolution in the future.




'




















?
 
Coexstud
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:48 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:15 am

strfyr51 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
the Oneworld, Skyteam and Star Alliances have been around now What? 30 years? Hell! A whole LOT of things look different after 30 years! LH and UA were cool before the Star Alliance. Delta and Air France were cool before their Alliance, American and British were cool before their Alliance. What went off the rails? is most of the other alliance members..
SQ and United for example. SQ had One idea about the alliance? And United's ALPA had an entirely different take that SQ didn't agree with but failed to even Understand! United ALPA considered the Alliance as outsourcing their JOBS!! I don't give a damn what SQ brought to the table in service. If United didn't fly there? Then there WAS no There!! SQ might control their PILOTS But at United? It's "Detante" A check and Balance scenario. We'll make money together. but it had better make sense to us. Warranted? Maybe or Maybe Not. But? It Is what it IS! United can fly anywhere in the world they choose, but United will not give up any destination to a foreign carrier Just to please any Alliance partner whether the company chooses to or NOT! That's the way it is? And that's the way it will probably Stay. And? What American or Delta do? is of little or NO consequence to the United Pilot ALPA group. I don't think SQ ever understood or got with that. So? It's their take on it, However? Being a founding member of the Star Alliance? I do not see them Leaving anytime soon. Though?? I could be wrong.. The only hub I haven't yet seen their airplanes? Is Denver. (so far) LAX, SFO, ORD and IAD? Yes at one time or other but not at Denver..
Also? IAD is a hub because that's the price United Paid to get the Pacific routes FROM Pan AM. . At one point? Any route United wanted to fly? it was approved! and I think Solely because United flew out of IAD as a hub. When I got to United in 1984? they didn't even have Jetways at IAD. they loaded from People movers and to even get into a DC10? They had to leave the people mover , Climb another 6-8 stairs and enter the L2 or R2 Door. to get seated. So a LOT has happened since then. Aviation is always evolving and We'll se even MORE evolution in the future.
Yes



' truth be told Continental was closer to both Air France and Virgin Atlantic and NWA thirty years ago, when NWA merged we went on our own way thanks too the golden shares buy back .




















?
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:28 am

strfyr51 wrote:
the Oneworld, Skyteam and Star Alliances have been around now What? 30 years? Hell! A whole LOT of things look different after 30 years! LH and UA were cool before the Star Alliance. Delta and Air France were cool before their Alliance, American and British were cool before their Alliance. What went off the rails? is most of the other alliance members..
SQ and United for example. SQ had One idea about the alliance? And United's ALPA had an entirely different take that SQ didn't agree with but failed to even Understand! United ALPA considered the Alliance as outsourcing their JOBS!! I don't give a damn what SQ brought to the table in service. If United didn't fly there? Then there WAS no There!! SQ might control their PILOTS But at United? It's "Detante" A check and Balance scenario. We'll make money together. but it had better make sense to us. Warranted? Maybe or Maybe Not. But? It Is what it IS! United can fly anywhere in the world they choose, but United will not give up any destination to a foreign carrier Just to please any Alliance partner whether the company chooses to or NOT! That's the way it is? And that's the way it will probably Stay. And? What American or Delta do? is of little or NO consequence to the United Pilot ALPA group. I don't think SQ ever understood or got with that. So? It's their take on it, However? Being a founding member of the Star Alliance? I do not see them Leaving anytime soon. Though?? I could be wrong.. The only hub I haven't yet seen their airplanes? Is Denver. (so far) LAX, SFO, ORD and IAD? Yes at one time or other but not at Denver..


This is the most rambling, non-sensical post I think I have ever read on airliners.net, and I have been here a long time. I have read it four times now, and I still have no idea what you are trying to say. Something about pilots at United having undue influence on the relationships between alliance members? I think?

I will not troll you, instead, I will be kind, and guess you are not a native English speaker. If so, can you please try to rephrase this, and post it again?

The alliances are around twenty years old, not thirty. Star Alliance started in 1997; oneworld was next, starting in 1999, and Skyteam was begun in 2000. Yes, a lot has changed in twenty years but then arguably, so have the alliances.
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:16 pm

HNLSLCPDX wrote:
Is it time for Delta to look into either leaving SkyTeam, drop and/or add new JV partners and overall new partners? Delta’s current partners of Aeroméxico, Virgin Atlantic, LATAM, and Virgin Australia are not in the best financial situations. And their CEO Ed Bastian has said that SkyTeam has not fulfilled its purpose. With Delta arguably offering the best hard and soft product, and best customer service of the US3, I always thought that DL should have better partners more inline with their level of service and product. I know DL’s hubs are not in the largest cities or most important and popular cities but I think that could be worked out. Considering LATAM left OneWorld and the partnership with AA to join DL, I don’t think it’s out of the possibility of DL or others airlines to do the same with their current partners to leave for better ones. Curious to what others opinions and thoughts are.

In my opinion (and maybe a pipe dream) an ideal new alliance or JV lineup for Delta would include Aeroméxico, LATAM, Air Canada, Lufthansa (which would probably include all of the Lufthansa group airlines), Turkish, ANA, Qantas, Singapore, and China Eastern.


I see you approach this as Delta is the best Airline in the US, being the US the most important market in the world - so an airline to die for.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted you.

But the fact is that, like all other airlines, Delta is also on a very tight spot. The fact it has not declared bankruptcy does not mean is unscathed.

Also, change AF/KL by LH is simply worthless due to their overall coverage. As if Lufthansa would jump a it and ditch their whole Star Alliance setup (!!).

LATAM also only left Oneworld because the Chilean side wanted to do a JV with Delta after the Chilean Government preventing a tie up with AA so DL was their second choice and does not really works with the Brazilian side of LATAM which is not on Chapter 11.

Whatever Air Canada's woes, it is well settled with LH and UA so no chance there.

It is not because DL would waive a JV - or even create a new alliance - that other airlines would come calling... so I do not see in a short/medium time the likes of Turkish, Qantas and ANA calling up.
 
FlyingHonu001
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:33 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:39 pm

Theres still a solid thing between DL and KL through AMS as a connecting hub.
Back in March/April AMS was practically a ghost town, yet DL kept going there and managed to squeeze in one or two TATL's on a daily basis. Thats quite a commitment imho. DL would be wise to maintain their partnership if only on an operational level.
 
durangomac
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:18 am

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:08 pm

I've seen something strange, not sure if it's just me or a pattern really does exist. I've noticed that a lot of the airlines that DL has invested in directly have filed for some sort of bankruptcy or court protection. Am I just missing other carriers or is this a pattern of carriers invested in by DL really filing more than others?
 
DDR
Posts: 1724
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:18 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
the Oneworld, Skyteam and Star Alliances have been around now What? 30 years? Hell! A whole LOT of things look different after 30 years! LH and UA were cool before the Star Alliance. Delta and Air France were cool before their Alliance, American and British were cool before their Alliance. What went off the rails? is most of the other alliance members..
SQ and United for example. SQ had One idea about the alliance? And United's ALPA had an entirely different take that SQ didn't agree with but failed to even Understand! United ALPA considered the Alliance as outsourcing their JOBS!! I don't give a damn what SQ brought to the table in service. If United didn't fly there? Then there WAS no There!! SQ might control their PILOTS But at United? It's "Detante" A check and Balance scenario. We'll make money together. but it had better make sense to us. Warranted? Maybe or Maybe Not. But? It Is what it IS! United can fly anywhere in the world they choose, but United will not give up any destination to a foreign carrier Just to please any Alliance partner whether the company chooses to or NOT! That's the way it is? And that's the way it will probably Stay. And? What American or Delta do? is of little or NO consequence to the United Pilot ALPA group. I don't think SQ ever understood or got with that. So? It's their take on it, However? Being a founding member of the Star Alliance? I do not see them Leaving anytime soon. Though?? I could be wrong.. The only hub I haven't yet seen their airplanes? Is Denver. (so far) LAX, SFO, ORD and IAD? Yes at one time or other but not at Denver..


What the hell are you trying to say? That post is almost impossible to read. Even after reviewing it several times I still do not understand what you are trying to say.


'




















?
 
Biophobe99
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:59 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:31 pm

durangomac wrote:
I've seen something strange, not sure if it's just me or a pattern really does exist. I've noticed that a lot of the airlines that DL has invested in directly have filed for some sort of bankruptcy or court protection. Am I just missing other carriers or is this a pattern of carriers invested in by DL really filing more than others?


You are seeing a pattern. It’s the same all over the world. When the government doesn’t step in to help their airlines during this global pandemic where they’ve lost up to 95% of demand they end up falling on hard times. It happens even faster if they hadn’t been super profitable before COVID-19. Most airlines need help to get them through the unprecedented demand destruction.
 
DTWLAX
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:20 am

NateGreat wrote:
At one point recently, 3 or 4 of AA’s DFW-LHR flights (every single one) were operated by 77Ws, while hubs like JFK and LAX had no more than 2 of their LHR flights operating with 77Ws. Is this because DFW has such high O/D LHR demand, or connecting LHR demand?

Pre-Covid JFK and LAX had multiple daily flights on BA to LHR in addition to AA. JFK had almost shuttle-like service with BA with most of them flown by the 747. LAX was 2x or 3x daily on BA with at least one flight operated by the A380. So to address your point, JFK and LAX have way more O/D to LHR than DFW.
Also, JFK and LAX have more carriers flying to LHR than DFW.
 
durangomac
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:18 am

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:31 pm

Biophobe99 wrote:
durangomac wrote:
I've seen something strange, not sure if it's just me or a pattern really does exist. I've noticed that a lot of the airlines that DL has invested in directly have filed for some sort of bankruptcy or court protection. Am I just missing other carriers or is this a pattern of carriers invested in by DL really filing more than others?


You are seeing a pattern. It’s the same all over the world. When the government doesn’t step in to help their airlines during this global pandemic where they’ve lost up to 95% of demand they end up falling on hard times. It happens even faster if they hadn’t been super profitable before COVID-19. Most airlines need help to get them through the unprecedented demand destruction.


Well that is a pattern that is easy to see, my observation was why is a lot of the carriers DL invested into aren't getting government aid. Seems to be a high number to me or is that just DL is invested into more carriers than others?
 
Biophobe99
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:59 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:49 pm

durangomac wrote:
Biophobe99 wrote:
durangomac wrote:
I've seen something strange, not sure if it's just me or a pattern really does exist. I've noticed that a lot of the airlines that DL has invested in directly have filed for some sort of bankruptcy or court protection. Am I just missing other carriers or is this a pattern of carriers invested in by DL really filing more than others?


You are seeing a pattern. It’s the same all over the world. When the government doesn’t step in to help their airlines during this global pandemic where they’ve lost up to 95% of demand they end up falling on hard times. It happens even faster if they hadn’t been super profitable before COVID-19. Most airlines need help to get them through the unprecedented demand destruction.


Well that is a pattern that is easy to see, my observation was why is a lot of the carriers DL invested into aren't getting government aid. Seems to be a high number to me or is that just DL is invested into more carriers than others?


That’s the other pattern. DL did invest more into other carriers than UA or AA. So they are more exposed to financial loss.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4894
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Time For Delta To Consider New Airline Partners?

Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:16 am

so you think it might well be time for the Alliances to break up? Based on What?
delta was a founding Member of their Alliance So what then should they really do? Kick out half of their members and start OVER?? Delta and Air France were partnered up. Northwest and KLM Were partnered up so that was one part of their alliance The REST? Strategic add-ons American and British? Were the main part of their Alliance everybody else? Came along for the ride. Many of the Asian Carriers looked over the alliances before they joined, SQ joined Star, JAL joined one world From there? It became more of a FAD to join an alliance I think. Right now? The Alliance thing might have run it's Course, The Airlines who Can? Are doing it! While at United? We handled over half of the foreign carriers that came into SFO and they worked out well, They knew what we had and didn't have in Equipment or parts. so it was a good match. I worked swing shift International terminal as a supervisor and my crew was all over the place working everybody that we were assigned to. JL.SQ. VS, CA, CI, and UA. so? it was what we could do with no regard for alliances Maintenance is Maintenance.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos