Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
tphuang
Posts: 5353
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:18 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
AA and AS are the latest unaligned major airlines to forge an alliance in JFK and Boston. Against that backdrop when capacity will no doubt be carved between them for maximum coverage ( de facto merger) Delta is argueing they be seen more or less as one entity when JetBlue asks for Heathrow slots, as JetBlue winning authority can be interpreted as ow authority in the grand scheme of things. Would it not? Delta's argument is with merit.

When AA and B6 have been clear that the TATL flying will not be codeshared, and when B6 is not a OW member, it is quite the stretch to say that somehow B6 flights to LHR are somehow “one entity” or “de facto merger” with AA/OW, when they aren’t JV’d, much less even codeshared, on that route. They are directly competing against each other. There is no revenue sharing or coordination of schedules. B6 is still a David going up against the one world, skyteam, and star alliance trans Atlantic goliaths.


When JetBlue takes LHR passengers on crafty carveout domestic runs corroborated with American's domestic rationalization intentions brought about by the alliance, this is one entity. American is hiding behind the pandemic to pass the collusion test. Can't fool me, for one.


I have no clue what you are talking about. if anything, AA needs to be careful about its partnership agreement with JetBlue since JetBlue would rather put passengers on its own flights than AA flights. That's why this entire partnership has a very good chance of not working out.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:20 pm

Delete
Last edited by TYWoolman on Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:25 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
tphuang wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:

When JetBlue takes LHR passengers on crafty carveout domestic runs corroborated with American's domestic rationalization intentions brought about by the alliance, this is one entity. American is hiding behind the pandemic to pass the collusion test. Can't fool me, for one.


I have no clue what you are talking about. if anything, AA needs to be careful about its partnership agreement with JetBlue since JetBlue would rather put passengers on its own flights than AA flights. That's why this entire partnership has a very good chance of not working out.


No clue? Exactly, it's that crafty. JetBlue's and American's motto for their own pandemic recovery and for which the alliance is based is: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8435
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:39 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
AA and AS are the latest unaligned major airlines to forge an alliance in JFK and Boston. Against that backdrop when capacity will no doubt be carved between them for maximum coverage ( de facto merger) Delta is argueing they be seen more or less as one entity when JetBlue asks for Heathrow slots, as JetBlue winning authority can be interpreted as ow authority in the grand scheme of things. Would it not? Delta's argument is with merit.

When AA and B6 have been clear that the TATL flying will not be codeshared, and when B6 is not a OW member, it is quite the stretch to say that somehow B6 flights to LHR are somehow “one entity” or “de facto merger” with AA/OW, when they aren’t JV’d, much less even codeshared, on that route. They are directly competing against each other. There is no revenue sharing or coordination of schedules. B6 is still a David going up against the one world, skyteam, and star alliance trans Atlantic goliaths.


When JetBlue takes LHR passengers on crafty carveout domestic runs corroborated with American's domestic rationalization intentions brought about by the alliance, this is one entity. American is hiding behind the pandemic to pass the collusion test. Can't fool me, for one.


You better notify the DOJ, because what you are alleging is illegal.

If you take the blinkers off for a second you'll see this for what it is: short term convenience. Unless B6 can be added to the BA-AA (-IB-AY-EI) JV, something which is unlikely to pass regulatory scrutiny, then B6 will always be a thorn in AA's side. B6 get to grab the AA frequent flyers in NYC and BOS. AA are able to retreat with some dignity, with feed in markets they have no interest in serving themselves. But make no mistake, neither would hesitate to throw the other under the bus if their interests stopped aligning on the short term.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:02 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
JoseSalazar wrote:
When AA and B6 have been clear that the TATL flying will not be codeshared, and when B6 is not a OW member, it is quite the stretch to say that somehow B6 flights to LHR are somehow “one entity” or “de facto merger” with AA/OW, when they aren’t JV’d, much less even codeshared, on that route. They are directly competing against each other. There is no revenue sharing or coordination of schedules. B6 is still a David going up against the one world, skyteam, and star alliance trans Atlantic goliaths.


When JetBlue takes LHR passengers on crafty carveout domestic runs corroborated with American's domestic rationalization intentions brought about by the alliance, this is one entity. American is hiding behind the pandemic to pass the collusion test. Can't fool me, for one.


You better notify the DOJ, because what you are alleging is illegal.

If you take the blinkers off for a second you'll see this for what it is: short term convenience. Unless B6 can be added to the BA-AA (-IB-AY-EI) JV, something which is unlikely to pass regulatory scrutiny, then B6 will always be a thorn in AA's side. B6 get to grab the AA frequent flyers in NYC and BOS. AA are able to retreat with some dignity, with feed in markets they have no interest in serving themselves. But make no mistake, neither would hesitate to throw the other under the bus if their interests stopped aligning on the short term.


Delta already is making their case on that. Agree on the short-term convenience, but I don't think American is that dumb. American wedged itself between AA and B6. The only other viable option for JetBlue after independence is merger. American will be seen as the only viable option since JetBlue will be otherwise losing a lot of FF base.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10363
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:24 pm

If I have this clear from the various DL threads, DL has been doing JV's with international carriers and ignoring some of the terms in its pilots contract on international flying to in essence allow it to redeploy assets and or energies into the domestic market. Such a strategy has allowed them to as some in this thread say, invade the hubs of other airlines and gain market share.
AA, AS and B6 are now responding, perhaps they have no visionaries on their side who saw where DL was getting it resources for expansion.
In a general sense, what is the problem that DL has with this, point and counterpoint, its the way of business.

I do think that if B6 plays its cards right, it will be a big boost for their international growth prospects especially TATL, I expect some BA and AA pax who may use other forms of transport from the NYC area due to AA's limited selection, may try B6 if available, two round trip tickets are two round trips tickets whether plane, train or even rentals.
 
dca1
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:39 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:36 pm

Sounds familiar to CO joining UA *A and partnership in late 2008 to only announce a merger two years later in 2010.

I expect a similar result, in time, between AA and B6.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8435
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:49 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:

When JetBlue takes LHR passengers on crafty carveout domestic runs corroborated with American's domestic rationalization intentions brought about by the alliance, this is one entity. American is hiding behind the pandemic to pass the collusion test. Can't fool me, for one.


You better notify the DOJ, because what you are alleging is illegal.

If you take the blinkers off for a second you'll see this for what it is: short term convenience. Unless B6 can be added to the BA-AA (-IB-AY-EI) JV, something which is unlikely to pass regulatory scrutiny, then B6 will always be a thorn in AA's side. B6 get to grab the AA frequent flyers in NYC and BOS. AA are able to retreat with some dignity, with feed in markets they have no interest in serving themselves. But make no mistake, neither would hesitate to throw the other under the bus if their interests stopped aligning on the short term.


Delta already is making their case on that. Agree on the short-term convenience, but I don't think American is that dumb. American wedged itself between AA and B6. The only other viable option for JetBlue after independence is merger. American will be seen as the only viable option since JetBlue will be otherwise losing a lot of FF base.


Delta isn't making a case at all, and what's more they know it. If they thought there was a serious case to answer them all hell would have broken loose by now, instead all we have is a throwaway line at the end of a petition about an Irish airline.

Gain some perspective, the matter in hand has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with B6-AA codeshare. This is a storm in a teacup, but you've swollowed it hook, line and sinker.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:11 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:

You better notify the DOJ, because what you are alleging is illegal.

If you take the blinkers off for a second you'll see this for what it is: short term convenience. Unless B6 can be added to the BA-AA (-IB-AY-EI) JV, something which is unlikely to pass regulatory scrutiny, then B6 will always be a thorn in AA's side. B6 get to grab the AA frequent flyers in NYC and BOS. AA are able to retreat with some dignity, with feed in markets they have no interest in serving themselves. But make no mistake, neither would hesitate to throw the other under the bus if their interests stopped aligning on the short term.


Delta already is making their case on that. Agree on the short-term convenience, but I don't think American is that dumb. American wedged itself between AA and B6. The only other viable option for JetBlue after independence is merger. American will be seen as the only viable option since JetBlue will be otherwise losing a lot of FF base.


Delta isn't making a case at all, and what's more they know it. If they thought there was a serious case to answer them all hell would have broken loose by now, instead all we have is a throwaway line at the end of a petition about an Irish airline.

Gain some perspective, the matter in hand has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with B6-AA codeshare. This is a storm in a teacup, but you've swollowed it hook, line and sinker.


When B6 and AA collude on the domestic backend - with statements from both carriers purportedly issuing just that - any independent international expansion from JetBlue in coveted slot-constrains airports deserve more scrutiny, as the competing domestic players do not have the luxury of rationalizing in de facto merger scenarios, unless they themselves bring forth their own "alliance" propositions. IMO problem is that in the vacuum of demand B6 and AA want to play victim in order to push scetchy alliance tactics.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5353
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:35 pm

dca1 wrote:
Sounds familiar to CO joining UA *A and partnership in late 2008 to only announce a merger two years later in 2010.

I expect a similar result, in time, between AA and B6.

I think you are thinking of AA and AS, who have a far tighter relationship. This is a marriage of convenience. It will last as long as both sides have something to gain.

TYWoolman wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:

Delta already is making their case on that. Agree on the short-term convenience, but I don't think American is that dumb. American wedged itself between AA and B6. The only other viable option for JetBlue after independence is merger. American will be seen as the only viable option since JetBlue will be otherwise losing a lot of FF base.


Delta isn't making a case at all, and what's more they know it. If they thought there was a serious case to answer them all hell would have broken loose by now, instead all we have is a throwaway line at the end of a petition about an Irish airline.

Gain some perspective, the matter in hand has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with B6-AA codeshare. This is a storm in a teacup, but you've swollowed it hook, line and sinker.


When B6 and AA collude on the domestic backend - with statements from both carriers purportedly issuing just that - any independent international expansion from JetBlue in coveted slot-constrains airports deserve more scrutiny, as the competing domestic players do not have the luxury of rationalizing in de facto merger scenarios, unless they themselves bring forth their own "alliance" propositions. IMO problem is that in the vacuum of demand B6 and AA want to play victim in order to push scetchy alliance tactics.


When you make accusations like collusion, you actually need to back it up with evidence rather than just say you don't like what they are doing. That's what I've been trying to tell you. Call it dirty is one thing. Calling it sketchy is one thing. That's how you feel about the partnership. Calling something illegal is quite a different level of accusation. Can you prove which part of their statement is collusion?

Be very careful with what you are accusing here. It's not a good look for you.

domestic code shares have happened many times before. The tie up here is far less complete than the one between AA and AS. It is also not much complete than the one DL had with AS.

I understand that the implications of 2 AA partnership targeting 4 DL coastal hubs is not great for your airline. But please make arguments rather than accusations.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:52 pm

tphuang wrote:
dca1 wrote:
Sounds familiar to CO joining UA *A and partnership in late 2008 to only announce a merger two years later in 2010.

I expect a similar result, in time, between AA and B6.

I think you are thinking of AA and AS, who have a far tighter relationship. This is a marriage of convenience. It will last as long as both sides have something to gain.

TYWoolman wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:

Delta isn't making a case at all, and what's more they know it. If they thought there was a serious case to answer them all hell would have broken loose by now, instead all we have is a throwaway line at the end of a petition about an Irish airline.

Gain some perspective, the matter in hand has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with B6-AA codeshare. This is a storm in a teacup, but you've swollowed it hook, line and sinker.


When B6 and AA collude on the domestic backend - with statements from both carriers purportedly issuing just that - any independent international expansion from JetBlue in coveted slot-constrains airports deserve more scrutiny, as the competing domestic players do not have the luxury of rationalizing in de facto merger scenarios, unless they themselves bring forth their own "alliance" propositions. IMO problem is that in the vacuum of demand B6 and AA want to play victim in order to push scetchy alliance tactics.


When you make accusations like collusion, you actually need to back it up with evidence rather than just say you don't like what they are doing. That's what I've been trying to tell you. Call it dirty is one thing. Calling it sketchy is one thing. That's how you feel about the partnership. Calling something illegal is quite a different level of accusation. Can you prove which part of their statement is collusion?

Be very careful with what you are accusing here. It's not a good look for you.

domestic code shares have happened many times before. The tie up here is far less complete than the one between AA and AS. It is also not much complete than the one DL had with AS.

I understand that the implications of 2 AA partnership targeting 4 DL coastal hubs is not great for your airline. But please make arguments rather than accusations.


I am only stating my opinion and echoing Delta's response. Collusion is exactly the interpretive argument being made there, backed up by statements of American Airlines in Delta's response. Quote #336 has the link(s). I stand by what I have said. Collusion is what it is or must be in order for the goals of the partnership to be realized, approved or not. Not a good look for you not to acknowledge it. Hopefully regulators in the Heathrow slots and alliance overview processes takes into consideration the domestic market carve ups JetBlue and American intend to undergo in large markets of Boston and NYC to see that it is de facto merger in the current landscape, as competition will be negated between the two all under the guise of covid-19 rationalization.
 
DMPHL
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:16 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
tphuang wrote:
dca1 wrote:
Sounds familiar to CO joining UA *A and partnership in late 2008 to only announce a merger two years later in 2010.

I expect a similar result, in time, between AA and B6.

I think you are thinking of AA and AS, who have a far tighter relationship. This is a marriage of convenience. It will last as long as both sides have something to gain.

TYWoolman wrote:

When B6 and AA collude on the domestic backend - with statements from both carriers purportedly issuing just that - any independent international expansion from JetBlue in coveted slot-constrains airports deserve more scrutiny, as the competing domestic players do not have the luxury of rationalizing in de facto merger scenarios, unless they themselves bring forth their own "alliance" propositions. IMO problem is that in the vacuum of demand B6 and AA want to play victim in order to push scetchy alliance tactics.


When you make accusations like collusion, you actually need to back it up with evidence rather than just say you don't like what they are doing. That's what I've been trying to tell you. Call it dirty is one thing. Calling it sketchy is one thing. That's how you feel about the partnership. Calling something illegal is quite a different level of accusation. Can you prove which part of their statement is collusion?

Be very careful with what you are accusing here. It's not a good look for you.

domestic code shares have happened many times before. The tie up here is far less complete than the one between AA and AS. It is also not much complete than the one DL had with AS.

I understand that the implications of 2 AA partnership targeting 4 DL coastal hubs is not great for your airline. But please make arguments rather than accusations.


I am only stating my opinion and echoing Delta's response. Collusion is exactly the interpretive argument being made there, backed up by statements of American Airlines in Delta's response. Quote #336 has the link(s). I stand by what I have said. Collusion is what it is or must be in order for the goals of the partnership to be realized, approved or not. Not a good look for you not to acknowledge it. Hopefully regulators in the Heathrow slots and alliance overview processes takes into consideration the domestic market carve ups JetBlue and American intend to undergo in large markets of Boston and NYC to see that it is de facto merger in the current landscape, as competition will be negated between the two all under the guise of covid-19 rationalization.


Yes, and what people in this thread are telling you is that if DL had an actual valid argument to make at this point in response to the proposed AA/B6 partnership, they would make an argument about THAT.

What we are discussing here is a single throwaway line in a response to a petition from AER LINGUS to join the BA/AA/IB/AY TATL JV....Again, a single throwaway line, which itself is not an actual argument, in response to a petition from an Irish airline to join a JV in which two of the other members are owned by its parent company, and which DL doesn't want because it would strengthen a competing joint venture to their own. This throwaway line is in response to THAT. It has no legal relevance to a proposed AA/B6 partnership because it is NOT in response to that proposal.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:32 pm

DMPHL wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I think you are thinking of AA and AS, who have a far tighter relationship. This is a marriage of convenience. It will last as long as both sides have something to gain.



When you make accusations like collusion, you actually need to back it up with evidence rather than just say you don't like what they are doing. That's what I've been trying to tell you. Call it dirty is one thing. Calling it sketchy is one thing. That's how you feel about the partnership. Calling something illegal is quite a different level of accusation. Can you prove which part of their statement is collusion?

Be very careful with what you are accusing here. It's not a good look for you.

domestic code shares have happened many times before. The tie up here is far less complete than the one between AA and AS. It is also not much complete than the one DL had with AS.

I understand that the implications of 2 AA partnership targeting 4 DL coastal hubs is not great for your airline. But please make arguments rather than accusations.


I am only stating my opinion and echoing Delta's response. Collusion is exactly the interpretive argument being made there, backed up by statements of American Airlines in Delta's response. Quote #336 has the link(s). I stand by what I have said. Collusion is what it is or must be in order for the goals of the partnership to be realized, approved or not. Not a good look for you not to acknowledge it. Hopefully regulators in the Heathrow slots and alliance overview processes takes into consideration the domestic market carve ups JetBlue and American intend to undergo in large markets of Boston and NYC to see that it is de facto merger in the current landscape, as competition will be negated between the two all under the guise of covid-19 rationalization.


Yes, and what people in this thread are telling you is that if DL had an actual valid argument to make at this point in response to the proposed AA/B6 partnership, they would make an argument about THAT.

What we are discussing here is a single throwaway line in a response to a petition from AER LINGUS to join the BA/AA/IB/AY TATL JV....Again, a single throwaway line, which itself is not an actual argument, in response to a petition from an Irish airline to join a JV in which two of the other members are owned by its parent company, and which DL doesn't want because it would strengthen a competing joint venture to their own. This throwaway line is in response to THAT. It has no legal relevance to a proposed AA/B6 partnership because it is NOT in response to that proposal.


From the outset, my opinions have been based on my intuition and then backed up by Delta's response to JetBlue mischaracterizing their newly found relationship with American in order to obtain more Heathrow slots. THAT is what I have been discussing. Not sure of the throwaway line you are referencing, with due respect. I have been arguing that Delta's argument is that JetBlue should not get anymore Heathrow slots, regardless of whether from Are Lingus or not (should the alliance be approved) without due diligence on characterizing the alliance for what it is, de facto merger. At the time of the alliance announcement JetBlue's intention to grab THOSE slots were not publicly known, and furthermore, to my knowledge, airline official responses to the AA-B6 partnership have yet to be fully materialized.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5353
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:49 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
From the outset, my opinions have been based on my intuition and then backed up by Delta's response to JetBlue mischaracterizing their newly found relationship with American in order to obtain more Heathrow slots. THAT is what I have been discussing. Not sure of the throwaway line you are referencing, with due respect. Delta's argument is that JetBlue should not get anymore Heathrow slots, regardless of whether from Are Lingus or not (should the alliance be approved) without due diligence on characterizing the alliance for what it is, de facto merger, and at the time of the alliance announcement JetBlue's intention to grab THOSE slots were not publicly known. Furthermore, to my knowledge, airline official responses to the AA-B6 partnership have yet to be fully materialized.


No, you are making criminal accusations against AA & B6 by calling it collusion. Please actually reference the exact statement that AA made that you think is collusion. And then, we can see how good your case is. If you can't make progress in such a serious accusation, then please move on. Do you understand how serious your allegations are? If you want to say that AA and AS colluded by one airline adding LAX routes and the other removing same LAX routes, you would have at least a starting point. We have not seen anything like that with JetBlue and AA. Please provide proof when you make such accusations.

As for JetBlue should not be getting anymore heathrow slots. They don't have any LHR slots, so "anymore" is not accurate. Do you actually really some of your own statements? JetBlue have tried filing and complaining to get additional slots in every case to far including the extension of AA/BA. Does that sound like an action that an alliance partner would take, let alone one that's part of a merger? What makes you think they were hiding intention that they would also ask for slots as part of EI addition to JBA?

DL is making this argument because it's pissed off at AA/B6 and it doesn't want JetBlue to get LHR slots. So far, you have not come close to proof that this is a de facto merger. Why don't you actually try to make that case.

On the topic of TATL, if JetBlue flights have no JV with AA/BA, have no codeshare and have no interlining, how would that not provide additional competition? Can you justify that?
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:19 pm

tphuang wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
From the outset, my opinions have been based on my intuition and then backed up by Delta's response to JetBlue mischaracterizing their newly found relationship with American in order to obtain more Heathrow slots. THAT is what I have been discussing. Not sure of the throwaway line you are referencing, with due respect. Delta's argument is that JetBlue should not get anymore Heathrow slots, regardless of whether from Are Lingus or not (should the alliance be approved) without due diligence on characterizing the alliance for what it is, de facto merger, and at the time of the alliance announcement JetBlue's intention to grab THOSE slots were not publicly known. Furthermore, to my knowledge, airline official responses to the AA-B6 partnership have yet to be fully materialized.


No, you are making criminal accusations against AA & B6 by calling it collusion. Please actually reference the exact statement that AA made that you think is collusion. And then, we can see how good your case is. If you can't make progress in such a serious accusation, then please move on. Do you understand how serious your allegations are? If you want to say that AA and AS colluded by one airline adding LAX routes and the other removing same LAX routes, you would have at least a starting point. We have not seen anything like that with JetBlue and AA. Please provide proof when you make such accusations.

As for JetBlue should not be getting anymore heathrow slots. They don't have any LHR slots, so "anymore" is not accurate. Do you actually really some of your own statements? JetBlue have tried filing and complaining to get additional slots in every case to far including the extension of AA/BA. Does that sound like an action that an alliance partner would take, let alone one that's part of a merger? What makes you think they were hiding intention that they would also ask for slots as part of EI addition to JBA?

DL is making this argument because it's pissed off at AA/B6 and it doesn't want JetBlue to get LHR slots. So far, you have not come close to proof that this is a de facto merger. Why don't you actually try to make that case.

On the topic of TATL, if JetBlue flights have no JV with AA/BA, have no codeshare and have no interlining, how would that not provide additional competition? Can you justify that?


Collusion can take many forms. "Rationalizing" by carving out domestic markets out of Boston and NYC is the collusion I am talking about, just as a merger would. If you want to extrapolate that to the legal sense of collusion then that's your call. They are colluding by the very nature of their rationalization and their future blatant attempt to rationalize capacity for the benefit of each to compete against other carriers (and then want to claim they are separate entities in international route proceedings (?) It is not my intention to continually support vicariously Delta's response. Delta's response is brilliant and supports my stance 100%.

De facto merger here = 1) as close a relationship they can get under the current pandemic landscape without objection by the union/shareholders accusing either airline of not putting their workers first and 2) as close a relationship they can get under the current pandemic landscape without objection by the gov't claiming CARES ACT funds are subsidizing it.
Additional competition is good if it = level-playing field whereby authorities treat JetBlue as part of American in the Boston/NYC markets due to their blatant attempt to rationalize their capacity to serve different domestic markets (think complementing rather than competing here).
International route proceedings take into consideration the overall landscape at play, including the domestic front. Delta is asking for that simple request. JetBlue wanting Heathrow service is fine and dandy, so long they are considered for slots under American's wing as the alliance sure seems predicated upon just that.
 
DMPHL
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:53 pm

EI asks to join the AA/AY/IAG JV.
B6 asks for remedial slot allocation at LHR.

DL doesn't object to EI joining the AA/BA/etc. TATL joint venture.
DL doesn't ask itself for remedial LHR slot allocations in the interest of fair competition.

Instead, DL objects to B6's request for remedy, on the flimsy assertion that B6 should be considered part of the AA TATL operation based on a proposed domestic codeshare partnership that specifically and explicitly excludes B6's potential TATL operations.

DL's interest here is in LIMITING competition from B6. Anyone in the NYC-LHR market would want to protect their interests in that market, as it's not only extremely lucrative, but will be essential to international post-COVID recovery. Again, DL is not objecting here directly to the proposed AA-B6 partnership. It's not even responding to EI's proposal which prompted B6's request. It is responding specifically and ONLY to B6's request for LHR slots. If DL actually took their own assertion about "de facto merger" seriously, they would file an objection to the AA-B6 domestic codeshare and make that argument. But they didn't. They made it here, specifically for protectionist purposes.

I love how a move to PREVENT competition in the NYC-LHR market, by a low-cost competitor who will undercut everyone (including AA and UA) on price, is being positioned by DL—and championed blindly by DL fans—as a principled stand FOR competition and fair play.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:24 pm

DMPHL wrote:
EI asks to join the AA/AY/IAG JV.
B6 asks for remedial slot allocation at LHR.

DL doesn't object to EI joining the AA/BA/etc. TATL joint venture.
DL doesn't ask itself for remedial LHR slot allocations in the interest of fair competition.

Instead, DL objects to B6's request for remedy, on the flimsy assertion that B6 should be considered part of the AA TATL operation based on a proposed domestic codeshare partnership that specifically and explicitly excludes B6's potential TATL operations.

DL's interest here is in LIMITING competition from B6. Anyone in the NYC-LHR market would want to protect their interests in that market, as it's not only extremely lucrative, but will be essential to international post-COVID recovery. Again, DL is not objecting here directly to the proposed AA-B6 partnership. It's not even responding to EI's proposal which prompted B6's request. It is responding specifically and ONLY to B6's request for LHR slots. If DL actually took their own assertion about "de facto merger" seriously, they would file an objection to the AA-B6 domestic codeshare and make that argument. But they didn't. They made it here, specifically for protectionist purposes.

I love how a move to PREVENT competition in the NYC-LHR market, by a low-cost competitor who will undercut everyone (including AA and UA) on price, is being positioned by DL—and championed blindly by DL fans—as a principled stand FOR competition and fair play.


Delta has objected to allocation of Heathrow slots and they needed to give reasons for it and they did. They don't have to predicate that with asserting an official separate "de facto merger" objection to make that objection relevant. I hear your logic above, but to blindly assert Delta's motive is to PREVENT competition is very misleading when alliances and the total aggregate of slots they own have been considered upon in prior route allocations. What Delta is doing is this, in my words: if you take a look at what is happening domestically between AA and B6, you will find that they are rationalizing capacity to a point that perhaps the necessary cost and capacity making Heathrow routes feasible on JetBlue may in effect be financed by the non-response of American to JetBlue expansion out of Boston and NYC on the domestic side. If JetBlue and American for the majority of JetBlue's route structure (mainly Boston and NYC) are rationalizing capacity and the traffic flow and profits by which that is generated are benefiting both carriers, then they are ONE carrier in my book. Therefore, although JetBlue on paper is not a OW member, they will be "colluding" in and out of important international gateways on the domestic side to cast doubt that they are the best candidate to inject equitable competition on Heathrow routes, especially when a good part will rely on connecting traffic, and regardless of the pretending BA and AA claim to fear them. If you are rationalizing capacity then you are colluding with each other, and B6 and AA have made that no secret.
Last edited by TYWoolman on Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3865
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:28 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
DMPHL wrote:
EI asks to join the AA/AY/IAG JV.
B6 asks for remedial slot allocation at LHR.

DL doesn't object to EI joining the AA/BA/etc. TATL joint venture.
DL doesn't ask itself for remedial LHR slot allocations in the interest of fair competition.

Instead, DL objects to B6's request for remedy, on the flimsy assertion that B6 should be considered part of the AA TATL operation based on a proposed domestic codeshare partnership that specifically and explicitly excludes B6's potential TATL operations.

DL's interest here is in LIMITING competition from B6. Anyone in the NYC-LHR market would want to protect their interests in that market, as it's not only extremely lucrative, but will be essential to international post-COVID recovery. Again, DL is not objecting here directly to the proposed AA-B6 partnership. It's not even responding to EI's proposal which prompted B6's request. It is responding specifically and ONLY to B6's request for LHR slots. If DL actually took their own assertion about "de facto merger" seriously, they would file an objection to the AA-B6 domestic codeshare and make that argument. But they didn't. They made it here, specifically for protectionist purposes.

I love how a move to PREVENT competition in the NYC-LHR market, by a low-cost competitor who will undercut everyone (including AA and UA) on price, is being positioned by DL—and championed blindly by DL fans—as a principled stand FOR competition and fair play.


Delta has objected to allocation of Heathrow slots and they needed to give reasons for it and they did. They don't have to predicate that with asserting an official separate "de facto merger" objection to make that objection relevant. I hear your logic above, but to blindly assert Delta's motive is to PREVENT competition is very misleading when alliances and the total aggregate of slots they own have been considered upon in prior route allocations. What Delta is doing is this, in my words: if you take a look at what is happening domestically between AA and B6, you will find that they are rationalizing capacity to a point that perhaps the necessary cost and capacity making Heathrow routes feasible on JetBlue may in effect be financed by the non-response of American to JetBlue expansion out of Boston and NYC on the domestic side. If JetBlue and American for the majority of JetBlue's route structure (mainly Boston and NYC) are rationalizing capacity and the traffic flow and profits by which that is generated are benefiting both carriers, then they are ONE carrier in my book. Therefore, although JetBlue on paper is not a OW member, they will be "colluding" in and out of important international gateways on the domestic side to cast doubt that they are the best candidate to inject equitable competition on Heathrow routes, especially when a good part will rely on connecting traffic, and regardless of the pretending BA and AA claim to fear them. If you are rationalizing capacity then you are colluding with each other, and AS and AA has made that no secret.


You keep saying B6 and AA are rationalizing capacity but can you give one example?
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:32 pm

usflyer msp wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
DMPHL wrote:
EI asks to join the AA/AY/IAG JV.
B6 asks for remedial slot allocation at LHR.

DL doesn't object to EI joining the AA/BA/etc. TATL joint venture.
DL doesn't ask itself for remedial LHR slot allocations in the interest of fair competition.

Instead, DL objects to B6's request for remedy, on the flimsy assertion that B6 should be considered part of the AA TATL operation based on a proposed domestic codeshare partnership that specifically and explicitly excludes B6's potential TATL operations.

DL's interest here is in LIMITING competition from B6. Anyone in the NYC-LHR market would want to protect their interests in that market, as it's not only extremely lucrative, but will be essential to international post-COVID recovery. Again, DL is not objecting here directly to the proposed AA-B6 partnership. It's not even responding to EI's proposal which prompted B6's request. It is responding specifically and ONLY to B6's request for LHR slots. If DL actually took their own assertion about "de facto merger" seriously, they would file an objection to the AA-B6 domestic codeshare and make that argument. But they didn't. They made it here, specifically for protectionist purposes.

I love how a move to PREVENT competition in the NYC-LHR market, by a low-cost competitor who will undercut everyone (including AA and UA) on price, is being positioned by DL—and championed blindly by DL fans—as a principled stand FOR competition and fair play.


Delta has objected to allocation of Heathrow slots and they needed to give reasons for it and they did. They don't have to predicate that with asserting an official separate "de facto merger" objection to make that objection relevant. I hear your logic above, but to blindly assert Delta's motive is to PREVENT competition is very misleading when alliances and the total aggregate of slots they own have been considered upon in prior route allocations. What Delta is doing is this, in my words: if you take a look at what is happening domestically between AA and B6, you will find that they are rationalizing capacity to a point that perhaps the necessary cost and capacity making Heathrow routes feasible on JetBlue may in effect be financed by the non-response of American to JetBlue expansion out of Boston and NYC on the domestic side. If JetBlue and American for the majority of JetBlue's route structure (mainly Boston and NYC) are rationalizing capacity and the traffic flow and profits by which that is generated are benefiting both carriers, then they are ONE carrier in my book. Therefore, although JetBlue on paper is not a OW member, they will be "colluding" in and out of important international gateways on the domestic side to cast doubt that they are the best candidate to inject equitable competition on Heathrow routes, especially when a good part will rely on connecting traffic, and regardless of the pretending BA and AA claim to fear them. If you are rationalizing capacity then you are colluding with each other, and AS and AA has made that no secret.


You keep saying B6 and AA are rationalizing capacity but can you give one example?


It's all in Delta's response. 24 new markets and hardly any overlap with American. American is boasting they will replace 50 seat American Eagles with mainline JetBlue. It's blatant what they intend. Are the 24 "new" routes financed by a tacit agreement for American not to compete?
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:40 pm

I think American and JetBlue are fine carriers. But their alliance must be considered for what it is and will be: an attempt by American throughout the majority and relevant JetBlue system to exert unfair influence through capacity rationalization which puts other carriers at a disadvantage when lower cost JetBlue then wants to play the independent card whenever it wants, particularly in the Heathrow market.
Last edited by TYWoolman on Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3865
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:43 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:

Delta has objected to allocation of Heathrow slots and they needed to give reasons for it and they did. They don't have to predicate that with asserting an official separate "de facto merger" objection to make that objection relevant. I hear your logic above, but to blindly assert Delta's motive is to PREVENT competition is very misleading when alliances and the total aggregate of slots they own have been considered upon in prior route allocations. What Delta is doing is this, in my words: if you take a look at what is happening domestically between AA and B6, you will find that they are rationalizing capacity to a point that perhaps the necessary cost and capacity making Heathrow routes feasible on JetBlue may in effect be financed by the non-response of American to JetBlue expansion out of Boston and NYC on the domestic side. If JetBlue and American for the majority of JetBlue's route structure (mainly Boston and NYC) are rationalizing capacity and the traffic flow and profits by which that is generated are benefiting both carriers, then they are ONE carrier in my book. Therefore, although JetBlue on paper is not a OW member, they will be "colluding" in and out of important international gateways on the domestic side to cast doubt that they are the best candidate to inject equitable competition on Heathrow routes, especially when a good part will rely on connecting traffic, and regardless of the pretending BA and AA claim to fear them. If you are rationalizing capacity then you are colluding with each other, and AS and AA has made that no secret.


You keep saying B6 and AA are rationalizing capacity but can you give one example?


It's all in Delta's response. 24 new markets and hardly any overlap with American. American is boasting they will replace 50 seat American Eagles with mainline JetBlue. It's blatant what they intend. Are the 24 "new" routes financed by a tacit agreement for American not to compete?


That is weak. Most of the new announcements are out of Newark where AA has a minimal presence. B6 had no issues with expanding in PHL or entering AA routes like LAX-RDU or NYC-MSP/DTW and AA is still scheduled to launch BOS-RDU/AUS, key B6 routes. Delta has not expanded in AA markets, does that mean AA and DL are colluding?
Last edited by usflyer msp on Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:48 pm

usflyer msp wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:

You keep saying B6 and AA are rationalizing capacity but can you give one example?


It's all in Delta's response. 24 new markets and hardly any overlap with American. American is boasting they will replace 50 seat American Eagles with mainline JetBlue. It's blatant what they intend. Are the 24 "new" routes financed by a tacit agreement for American not to compete?


That is weak. Most of the new announcements are out of Newark where AA has a minimal presence. B6 had no issues with expanding in PHL or entering AA routes like LAX-RDU or NYC-MSP/DTW and AA is still scheduled to launch BOS-RDU/AUS, key B6 routes. Delta has not expanded in AA markets, does that mean AA and DL are colluding.


I don’t understand why AA was so reluctant to try DCA/LAX/BOS at EWR. They did well at EWR before the pandemic (#2 in terms of pax).
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:02 pm

usflyer msp wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:

You keep saying B6 and AA are rationalizing capacity but can you give one example?


It's all in Delta's response. 24 new markets and hardly any overlap with American. American is boasting they will replace 50 seat American Eagles with mainline JetBlue. It's blatant what they intend. Are the 24 "new" routes financed by a tacit agreement for American not to compete?


That is weak. Most of the new announcements are out of Newark where AA has a minimal presence. B6 had no issues with expanding in PHL or entering AA routes like LAX-RDU or NYC-MSP/DTW and AA is still scheduled to launch BOS-RDU/AUS, key B6 routes. Delta has not expanded in AA markets, does that mean AA and DL are colluding.


Last line good one. You make interesting points before that with a caveat: AA and B6 rationalizing capacity doesn't mean they can't be on the same routes. Rationalizing can mean many things including flight times, and aircraft gauge, as I am sure you know, though we both can't attest at this point if that is or will be done on any new routes. I would assume it will. Furthermore, JetBlue expansion anywhere can be argued to be financed by the impending rationalization in Boston and NYC. When JetBlue's bread and butter is Boston and NYC, key international focuses for a newly minted American and where the alliance will be centered, there will be no incentive to get into a bloodbath with the very carrier you rely upon there. American and JetBlue are the only domestic players proposing codesharing amid a pandemic recovery, rationalizing will make the alliance the most efficient against their common enemies. Not sure how the gov't can give a definitive go ahead when the aftermath of an unprecedented recovery is unknown, but that's another topic.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8435
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:13 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
DMPHL wrote:
EI asks to join the AA/AY/IAG JV.
B6 asks for remedial slot allocation at LHR.

DL doesn't object to EI joining the AA/BA/etc. TATL joint venture.
DL doesn't ask itself for remedial LHR slot allocations in the interest of fair competition.

Instead, DL objects to B6's request for remedy, on the flimsy assertion that B6 should be considered part of the AA TATL operation based on a proposed domestic codeshare partnership that specifically and explicitly excludes B6's potential TATL operations.

DL's interest here is in LIMITING competition from B6. Anyone in the NYC-LHR market would want to protect their interests in that market, as it's not only extremely lucrative, but will be essential to international post-COVID recovery. Again, DL is not objecting here directly to the proposed AA-B6 partnership. It's not even responding to EI's proposal which prompted B6's request. It is responding specifically and ONLY to B6's request for LHR slots. If DL actually took their own assertion about "de facto merger" seriously, they would file an objection to the AA-B6 domestic codeshare and make that argument. But they didn't. They made it here, specifically for protectionist purposes.

I love how a move to PREVENT competition in the NYC-LHR market, by a low-cost competitor who will undercut everyone (including AA and UA) on price, is being positioned by DL—and championed blindly by DL fans—as a principled stand FOR competition and fair play.


Delta has objected to allocation of Heathrow slots and they needed to give reasons for it and they did. They don't have to predicate that with asserting an official separate "de facto merger" objection to make that objection relevant. I hear your logic above, but to blindly assert Delta's motive is to PREVENT competition is very misleading when alliances and the total aggregate of slots they own have been considered upon in prior route allocations. What Delta is doing is this, in my words: if you take a look at what is happening domestically between AA and B6, you will find that they are rationalizing capacity to a point that perhaps the necessary cost and capacity making Heathrow routes feasible on JetBlue may in effect be financed by the non-response of American to JetBlue expansion out of Boston and NYC on the domestic side. If JetBlue and American for the majority of JetBlue's route structure (mainly Boston and NYC) are rationalizing capacity and the traffic flow and profits by which that is generated are benefiting both carriers, then they are ONE carrier in my book. Therefore, although JetBlue on paper is not a OW member, they will be "colluding" in and out of important international gateways on the domestic side to cast doubt that they are the best candidate to inject equitable competition on Heathrow routes, especially when a good part will rely on connecting traffic, and regardless of the pretending BA and AA claim to fear them. If you are rationalizing capacity then you are colluding with each other, and B6 and AA have made that no secret.


The issue is that is no objective, quantifiable evidence that supports this. The argument is really clutching at staws. As I said before, that suggests to me that Delta knows it's BS as we would have heard a lot more about it there really was potentially illegal or uncompetitive conduct.

Keeping JetBlue out of LHR helps Delta on those TATL routes directly, and in the NYC and BOS corporate markets more broadly. Of course they are objecting to JetBlue receiving remedy slots, it is in their interests. If there was a stronger argument than "AA are illegally colluding with B6, and our proof is that B6 launched 50 flights from EWR and CLT wasn't one of them" then you can be sure that Delta would have fun with it.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
dca1
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:39 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:30 pm

Delta clearly is shaking in their boots and I doubt this will be entertained. Perhaps the days of them being the industry bully are over.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:33 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
DMPHL wrote:
EI asks to join the AA/AY/IAG JV.
B6 asks for remedial slot allocation at LHR.

DL doesn't object to EI joining the AA/BA/etc. TATL joint venture.
DL doesn't ask itself for remedial LHR slot allocations in the interest of fair competition.

Instead, DL objects to B6's request for remedy, on the flimsy assertion that B6 should be considered part of the AA TATL operation based on a proposed domestic codeshare partnership that specifically and explicitly excludes B6's potential TATL operations.

DL's interest here is in LIMITING competition from B6. Anyone in the NYC-LHR market would want to protect their interests in that market, as it's not only extremely lucrative, but will be essential to international post-COVID recovery. Again, DL is not objecting here directly to the proposed AA-B6 partnership. It's not even responding to EI's proposal which prompted B6's request. It is responding specifically and ONLY to B6's request for LHR slots. If DL actually took their own assertion about "de facto merger" seriously, they would file an objection to the AA-B6 domestic codeshare and make that argument. But they didn't. They made it here, specifically for protectionist purposes.

I love how a move to PREVENT competition in the NYC-LHR market, by a low-cost competitor who will undercut everyone (including AA and UA) on price, is being positioned by DL—and championed blindly by DL fans—as a principled stand FOR competition and fair play.


Delta has objected to allocation of Heathrow slots and they needed to give reasons for it and they did. They don't have to predicate that with asserting an official separate "de facto merger" objection to make that objection relevant. I hear your logic above, but to blindly assert Delta's motive is to PREVENT competition is very misleading when alliances and the total aggregate of slots they own have been considered upon in prior route allocations. What Delta is doing is this, in my words: if you take a look at what is happening domestically between AA and B6, you will find that they are rationalizing capacity to a point that perhaps the necessary cost and capacity making Heathrow routes feasible on JetBlue may in effect be financed by the non-response of American to JetBlue expansion out of Boston and NYC on the domestic side. If JetBlue and American for the majority of JetBlue's route structure (mainly Boston and NYC) are rationalizing capacity and the traffic flow and profits by which that is generated are benefiting both carriers, then they are ONE carrier in my book. Therefore, although JetBlue on paper is not a OW member, they will be "colluding" in and out of important international gateways on the domestic side to cast doubt that they are the best candidate to inject equitable competition on Heathrow routes, especially when a good part will rely on connecting traffic, and regardless of the pretending BA and AA claim to fear them. If you are rationalizing capacity then you are colluding with each other, and B6 and AA have made that no secret.


The issue is that is no objective, quantifiable evidence that supports this. The argument is really clutching at staws. As I said before, that suggests to me that Delta knows it's BS as we would have heard a lot more about it there really was potentially illegal or uncompetitive conduct.

Keeping JetBlue out of LHR helps Delta on those TATL routes directly, and in the NYC and BOS corporate markets more broadly. Of course they are objecting to JetBlue receiving remedy slots, it is in their interests. If there was a stronger argument than "AA are illegally colluding with B6, and our proof is that B6 launched 50 flights from EWR and CLT wasn't one of them" then you can be sure that Delta would have fun with it.


For the record, Delta per se has not objected (yet - I suspect that will take more time) to the B6-AA partnership, only to say that SHOULD the alliance be approved then JetBlue should be denied Heathrow access on certain grounds. Delta outlines those objective grounds in their response. I happen to agree with them. JetBlue and American are on the same team, regardless of routes expanding where the other won't. Such expansion will be financed by the cozy relationship up in Boston and NYC IMO.
 
BarryH
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:00 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:39 pm

A lot of you are dramatically overestimating the benefit and value of a simple code share in terms of real time application. For passengers there is no benefit of flying B6 as an AA coded flight other than potentially getting Advantage miles, paying a potentially lower through fare, and/or having more scheduling choices. At the airport AA code share passengers aren't treated any differently than B6 coded and ticketed passengers. In fact, it's sometime worse. B6 agents can't reticket a 001 coded ticket in case of irrops and because of the complexity of dealing with AA ticketed passengers will give the standard answer - "you need to call AA."

I fly DL/AF/KL a lot as a DL Platinum and even with their tightness via the JV and SkyTeam good luck trying to get any of the three to bail you out in a problem situation if you're not flying on their ticket stock. I can't count the number of times I've had to call DL in the U.S. while in Europe to deal with some AF/KL problem that neither would get their hands dirty over. In business class and as a SkyTeam Elite Plus. So if you think AA/B6 via their marriage of convenience are going to create some super special process for delivering a seamless experience don't hold your breath. Each have their own customer service issues so marrying the two isn't going to make that better only bring out the worst in each.

Savvy travelers always try to fly the metal of who they are ticketed on because of what I've shared. The naïve without some secondary motive like mileage earning will learn quickly, especially during irrops, lost baggage incidents, and itinerary problems that code sharing isn't all that it's cracked up to be and avoid it in the future.

I'm moving back to Advantage when I start flying again and will avoid B6 code shares unless absolutely necessary. I'll also make sure I never have a tight AA/B6 connection if I do fly them and won't take a last flight of the day connection involving them.

The theory of this partnership is much grander on paper than it will be in practice. It's rooted in the selfish need of two companies using the other for their singular advantage. As Freud said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:46 pm

BarryH wrote:
A lot of you are dramatically overestimating the benefit and value of a simple code share in terms of real time application. For passengers there is no benefit of flying B6 as an AA coded flight other than potentially getting Advantage miles, paying a potentially lower through fare, and/or having more scheduling choices. At the airport AA code share passengers aren't treated any differently than B6 coded and ticketed passengers. In fact, it's sometime worse. B6 agents can't reticket a 001 coded ticket in case of irrops and because of the complexity of dealing with AA ticketed passengers will give the standard answer - "you need to call AA."

I fly DL/AF/KL a lot as a DL Platinum and even with their tightness via the JV and SkyTeam good luck trying to get any of the three to bail you out in a problem situation if you're not flying on their ticket stock. I can't count the number of times I've had to call DL in the U.S. while in Europe to deal with some AF/KL problem that neither would get their hands dirty over. In business class and as a SkyTeam Elite Plus. So if you think AA/B6 via their marriage of convenience are going to create some super special process for delivering a seamless experience don't hold your breath. Each have their own customer service issues so marrying the two isn't going to make that better only bring out the worst in each.

Savvy travelers always try to fly the metal of who they are ticketed on because of what I've shared. The naïve without some secondary motive like mileage earning will learn quickly, especially during irrops, lost baggage incidents, and itinerary problems that code sharing isn't all that it's cracked up to be and avoid it in the future.


I'm moving back to Advantage when I start flying again and will avoid B6 code shares unless absolutely necessary. I'll also make sure I never have a tight AA/B6 connection if I do fly them and won't take a last flight of the day connection involving them.

The theory of this partnership is much grander on paper than it will be in practice. It's rooted in the selfish need of two companies using the other for their singular advantage. As Freud said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."



Appreciate that. Where were you earlier? lol. I have to say after that calming response that I wasn't getting the vibe the interchange above was on the success or not of the partnership. In fact, I think AA-B6 is an effective partnership although should be treated as it is on all fronts of the marketplace. I won't say that R word again.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5353
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:14 am

TYWoolman wrote:
It's all in Delta's response. 24 new markets and hardly any overlap with American. American is boasting they will replace 50 seat American Eagles with mainline JetBlue. It's blatant what they intend. Are the 24 "new" routes financed by a tacit agreement for American not to compete?


You are too lazy to even examine evidences.

First on the 24 new markets part. DL is using a very generous definition of overlap when defining a route as overlapping with them, but a very strict one when looking at AA. For example, EWR island routes competes with DL's JFK island routes, but somehow do not compete with AA's PHL island routes. Even though for most people in NJ, JFK is not an option and PHL is. They also ignore that LAX-PBI competes against AA's LAX-MIA. Or that FLL to BZN would definitely compete with AA's MIA to ski resort routes. If we look strictly at the routes that actually got announced. Things are quite clearly, most of B6's adds are targeting UA.
UA - all 7 EWR routes, LAX-CUN/SAL, SFO-CUN
DL - LAX-CUN/RDU
AA - LAX-RDU

Now if we expand this to include the 38 other routes they added, then you can add
UA - 9 more EWR routes, 6 more LAX routes, MCO-SFO, ORD-PBI, CLE-RSW
AA - all 6 PHL routes, EWR-PHX, JFK-DFW, 7 LAX routes, ORD-PBI, DCA-TPA (keep in mind, I'm not even counting FLL vs MIA routes here)
DL - 4 JFK routes, LGA-RSW/TPA, 6 LAX routes,

So in total, these new routes compete with UA 28 times, AA 18 times, DL just 14 times. So all of this actually targets DL the least. They have explicitly been going after UA with their adds.

When you are making responses, can you at least look at evidences at some point?
 
tphuang
Posts: 5353
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:28 am

TYWoolman wrote:
For the record, Delta per se has not objected (yet - I suspect that will take more time) to the B6-AA partnership, only to say that SHOULD the alliance be approved then JetBlue should be denied Heathrow access on certain grounds. Delta outlines those objective grounds in their response. I happen to agree with them. JetBlue and American are on the same team, regardless of routes expanding where the other won't. Such expansion will be financed by the cozy relationship up in Boston and NYC IMO.

As I demonstrated with my factual response, that is demonstrably false, which makes your entire argument void.

dca1 wrote:
Delta clearly is shaking in their boots and I doubt this will be entertained. Perhaps the days of them being the industry bully are over.

Exactly. When you are complaining, you are losing.

RyanairGuru wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
DMPHL wrote:
EI asks to join the AA/AY/IAG JV.
B6 asks for remedial slot allocation at LHR.

DL doesn't object to EI joining the AA/BA/etc. TATL joint venture.
DL doesn't ask itself for remedial LHR slot allocations in the interest of fair competition.

Instead, DL objects to B6's request for remedy, on the flimsy assertion that B6 should be considered part of the AA TATL operation based on a proposed domestic codeshare partnership that specifically and explicitly excludes B6's potential TATL operations.

DL's interest here is in LIMITING competition from B6. Anyone in the NYC-LHR market would want to protect their interests in that market, as it's not only extremely lucrative, but will be essential to international post-COVID recovery. Again, DL is not objecting here directly to the proposed AA-B6 partnership. It's not even responding to EI's proposal which prompted B6's request. It is responding specifically and ONLY to B6's request for LHR slots. If DL actually took their own assertion about "de facto merger" seriously, they would file an objection to the AA-B6 domestic codeshare and make that argument. But they didn't. They made it here, specifically for protectionist purposes.

I love how a move to PREVENT competition in the NYC-LHR market, by a low-cost competitor who will undercut everyone (including AA and UA) on price, is being positioned by DL—and championed blindly by DL fans—as a principled stand FOR competition and fair play.


Delta has objected to allocation of Heathrow slots and they needed to give reasons for it and they did. They don't have to predicate that with asserting an official separate "de facto merger" objection to make that objection relevant. I hear your logic above, but to blindly assert Delta's motive is to PREVENT competition is very misleading when alliances and the total aggregate of slots they own have been considered upon in prior route allocations. What Delta is doing is this, in my words: if you take a look at what is happening domestically between AA and B6, you will find that they are rationalizing capacity to a point that perhaps the necessary cost and capacity making Heathrow routes feasible on JetBlue may in effect be financed by the non-response of American to JetBlue expansion out of Boston and NYC on the domestic side. If JetBlue and American for the majority of JetBlue's route structure (mainly Boston and NYC) are rationalizing capacity and the traffic flow and profits by which that is generated are benefiting both carriers, then they are ONE carrier in my book. Therefore, although JetBlue on paper is not a OW member, they will be "colluding" in and out of important international gateways on the domestic side to cast doubt that they are the best candidate to inject equitable competition on Heathrow routes, especially when a good part will rely on connecting traffic, and regardless of the pretending BA and AA claim to fear them. If you are rationalizing capacity then you are colluding with each other, and B6 and AA have made that no secret.


The issue is that is no objective, quantifiable evidence that supports this. The argument is really clutching at staws. As I said before, that suggests to me that Delta knows it's BS as we would have heard a lot more about it there really was potentially illegal or uncompetitive conduct.

Keeping JetBlue out of LHR helps Delta on those TATL routes directly, and in the NYC and BOS corporate markets more broadly. Of course they are objecting to JetBlue receiving remedy slots, it is in their interests. If there was a stronger argument than "AA are illegally colluding with B6, and our proof is that B6 launched 50 flights from EWR and CLT wasn't one of them" then you can be sure that Delta would have fun with it.


Exactly, this is about keeping out additional competition into LHR. A very weak argument.

DL's argument is that if a JV give up 4 slots to another carrier, somehow there will be less competition because that other carrier has some code share on flights that are not part of the JV? The argument is ridiculous to say the least.

TYWoolman wrote:

Collusion can take many forms. "Rationalizing" by carving out domestic markets out of Boston and NYC is the collusion I am talking about, just as a merger would. If you want to extrapolate that to the legal sense of collusion then that's your call. They are colluding by the very nature of their rationalization and their future blatant attempt to rationalize capacity for the benefit of each to compete against other carriers (and then want to claim they are separate entities in international route proceedings (?) It is not my intention to continually support vicariously Delta's response. Delta's response is brilliant and supports my stance 100%.

So after telling me that you have proof there is collusion from AA's public statement, you have absolutely nothing

De facto merger here = 1) as close a relationship they can get under the current pandemic landscape without objection by the union/shareholders accusing either airline of not putting their workers first and 2) as close a relationship they can get under the current pandemic landscape without objection by the gov't claiming CARES ACT funds are subsidizing it.

they can get a lot closer if they want. Domestic codeshare is a very weak form of alliance. And unlike AA'a partnership with AS, it's limited in scope. Again, your point 1) is clearly false.

Additional competition is good if it = level-playing field whereby authorities treat JetBlue as part of American in the Boston/NYC markets due to their blatant attempt to rationalize their capacity to serve different domestic markets (think complementing rather than competing here).
International route proceedings take into consideration the overall landscape at play, including the domestic front. Delta is asking for that simple request. JetBlue wanting Heathrow service is fine and dandy, so long they are considered for slots under American's wing as the alliance sure seems predicated upon just that.


As others have said, this is a weak argument by DL trying to prevent competition. The idea that JetBlue taking valuable slots away from AA/BA JV somehow makes things less competitive is an extremely weak argument.
DL is really grasping at straws here.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:34 am

tphuang wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
For the record, Delta per se has not objected (yet - I suspect that will take more time) to the B6-AA partnership, only to say that SHOULD the alliance be approved then JetBlue should be denied Heathrow access on certain grounds. Delta outlines those objective grounds in their response. I happen to agree with them. JetBlue and American are on the same team, regardless of routes expanding where the other won't. Such expansion will be financed by the cozy relationship up in Boston and NYC IMO.

As I demonstrated with my factual response, that is demonstrably false, which makes your entire argument void.



dca1 wrote:
Delta clearly is shaking in their boots and I doubt this will be entertained. Perhaps the days of them being the industry bully are over.

Exactly. When you are complaining, you are losing.

I hope neither of you are complaining.

RyanairGuru wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:

Delta has objected to allocation of Heathrow slots and they needed to give reasons for it and they did. They don't have to predicate that with asserting an official separate "de facto merger" objection to make that objection relevant. I hear your logic above, but to blindly assert Delta's motive is to PREVENT competition is very misleading when alliances and the total aggregate of slots they own have been considered upon in prior route allocations. What Delta is doing is this, in my words: if you take a look at what is happening domestically between AA and B6, you will find that they are rationalizing capacity to a point that perhaps the necessary cost and capacity making Heathrow routes feasible on JetBlue may in effect be financed by the non-response of American to JetBlue expansion out of Boston and NYC on the domestic side. If JetBlue and American for the majority of JetBlue's route structure (mainly Boston and NYC) are rationalizing capacity and the traffic flow and profits by which that is generated are benefiting both carriers, then they are ONE carrier in my book. Therefore, although JetBlue on paper is not a OW member, they will be "colluding" in and out of important international gateways on the domestic side to cast doubt that they are the best candidate to inject equitable competition on Heathrow routes, especially when a good part will rely on connecting traffic, and regardless of the pretending BA and AA claim to fear them. If you are rationalizing capacity then you are colluding with each other, and B6 and AA have made that no secret.


The issue is that is no objective, quantifiable evidence that supports this. The argument is really clutching at staws. As I said before, that suggests to me that Delta knows it's BS as we would have heard a lot more about it there really was potentially illegal or uncompetitive conduct.

Keeping JetBlue out of LHR helps Delta on those TATL routes directly, and in the NYC and BOS corporate markets more broadly. Of course they are objecting to JetBlue receiving remedy slots, it is in their interests. If there was a stronger argument than "AA are illegally colluding with B6, and our proof is that B6 launched 50 flights from EWR and CLT wasn't one of them" then you can be sure that Delta would have fun with it.


Exactly, this is about keeping out additional competition into LHR. A very weak argument.

DL's argument is that if a JV give up 4 slots to another carrier, somehow there will be less competition because that other carrier has some code share on flights that are not part of the JV? The argument is ridiculous to say the least.

TYWoolman wrote:

Collusion can take many forms. "Rationalizing" by carving out domestic markets out of Boston and NYC is the collusion I am talking about, just as a merger would. If you want to extrapolate that to the legal sense of collusion then that's your call. They are colluding by the very nature of their rationalization and their future blatant attempt to rationalize capacity for the benefit of each to compete against other carriers (and then want to claim they are separate entities in international route proceedings (?) It is not my intention to continually support vicariously Delta's response. Delta's response is brilliant and supports my stance 100%.

So after telling me that you have proof there is collusion from AA's public statement, you have absolutely nothing

De facto merger here = 1) as close a relationship they can get under the current pandemic landscape without objection by the union/shareholders accusing either airline of not putting their workers first and 2) as close a relationship they can get under the current pandemic landscape without objection by the gov't claiming CARES ACT funds are subsidizing it.

they can get a lot closer if they want. Domestic codeshare is a very weak form of alliance. And unlike AA'a partnership with AS, it's limited in scope. Again, your point 1) is clearly false.

Additional competition is good if it = level-playing field whereby authorities treat JetBlue as part of American in the Boston/NYC markets due to their blatant attempt to rationalize their capacity to serve different domestic markets (think complementing rather than competing here).
International route proceedings take into consideration the overall landscape at play, including the domestic front. Delta is asking for that simple request. JetBlue wanting Heathrow service is fine and dandy, so long they are considered for slots under American's wing as the alliance sure seems predicated upon just that.


As others have said, this is a weak argument by DL trying to prevent competition. The idea that JetBlue taking valuable slots away from AA/BA JV somehow makes things less competitive is an extremely weak argument.
DL is really grasping at straws here.


Appreciate your responses on actual routes though I must say that my premise is that if there is an alliance-de-facto-merger in the most important markets of JetBlue (which is the majority of the airline) then any route expansion outside of that by JetBlue is financed in part by the alliance in those two cities, creating unfair pressure on the costs of other airlines who compete for international route slots and which regulators have in the past taken into consideration the overall competitive landscape in route proceedings (Haneda for example). Delta is arguing just that, SHOULD the alliance be approved. So in that rationale, should the alliance between AA-B6 proceed it is within logic that they be looked upon as a single carrier since they will no doubt rationalize capacity, together. Collude, together. Determining what aircraft gets deployed where, etc..together, so that by having this alliance JetBlue would then have the resources to go into RDU and EWR (although the pandemic presents opportunities as well I admit.) JetBlue can't have its cake and eat it too on all fronts. But maybe they will. American has been vocal on taking out AE regional aircraft so that they can be replaced with mainline JetBlue, so I guess they are confident such collusion will pass muster. Sure they can get a lot closer via JV, but do you think unions would deal with that at a time of furloughs and layoffs looming, let alone the CARES ACT arguably being deemed to be "financing" such a proposition? This deal is happening during an unprecedented time and a codeshare is all they can get. Separate from the Heathrow slots, approval of such an "alliance" may prove that the true detrimental ramifications of it may not be realized until years down the road amid the vacuum of demand presently. I am actually for it from a competitive point of view for American's sake, but JetBlue needs to go all the way independent if they want to act like a Big Boy on the Atlantic front. They are part of American in all tense and purposes from a competitive standpoint, and Heathrow allocation to JetBlue means allocation to OW.
 
DMPHL
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:38 am

TYWoolman wrote:
tphuang wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
For the record, Delta per se has not objected (yet - I suspect that will take more time) to the B6-AA partnership, only to say that SHOULD the alliance be approved then JetBlue should be denied Heathrow access on certain grounds. Delta outlines those objective grounds in their response. I happen to agree with them. JetBlue and American are on the same team, regardless of routes expanding where the other won't. Such expansion will be financed by the cozy relationship up in Boston and NYC IMO.

As I demonstrated with my factual response, that is demonstrably false, which makes your entire argument void.



dca1 wrote:
Delta clearly is shaking in their boots and I doubt this will be entertained. Perhaps the days of them being the industry bully are over.

Exactly. When you are complaining, you are losing.

I hope neither of you are complaining.

RyanairGuru wrote:

The issue is that is no objective, quantifiable evidence that supports this. The argument is really clutching at staws. As I said before, that suggests to me that Delta knows it's BS as we would have heard a lot more about it there really was potentially illegal or uncompetitive conduct.

Keeping JetBlue out of LHR helps Delta on those TATL routes directly, and in the NYC and BOS corporate markets more broadly. Of course they are objecting to JetBlue receiving remedy slots, it is in their interests. If there was a stronger argument than "AA are illegally colluding with B6, and our proof is that B6 launched 50 flights from EWR and CLT wasn't one of them" then you can be sure that Delta would have fun with it.


Exactly, this is about keeping out additional competition into LHR. A very weak argument.

DL's argument is that if a JV give up 4 slots to another carrier, somehow there will be less competition because that other carrier has some code share on flights that are not part of the JV? The argument is ridiculous to say the least.

TYWoolman wrote:

Collusion can take many forms. "Rationalizing" by carving out domestic markets out of Boston and NYC is the collusion I am talking about, just as a merger would. If you want to extrapolate that to the legal sense of collusion then that's your call. They are colluding by the very nature of their rationalization and their future blatant attempt to rationalize capacity for the benefit of each to compete against other carriers (and then want to claim they are separate entities in international route proceedings (?) It is not my intention to continually support vicariously Delta's response. Delta's response is brilliant and supports my stance 100%.

So after telling me that you have proof there is collusion from AA's public statement, you have absolutely nothing

De facto merger here = 1) as close a relationship they can get under the current pandemic landscape without objection by the union/shareholders accusing either airline of not putting their workers first and 2) as close a relationship they can get under the current pandemic landscape without objection by the gov't claiming CARES ACT funds are subsidizing it.

they can get a lot closer if they want. Domestic codeshare is a very weak form of alliance. And unlike AA'a partnership with AS, it's limited in scope. Again, your point 1) is clearly false.

Additional competition is good if it = level-playing field whereby authorities treat JetBlue as part of American in the Boston/NYC markets due to their blatant attempt to rationalize their capacity to serve different domestic markets (think complementing rather than competing here).
International route proceedings take into consideration the overall landscape at play, including the domestic front. Delta is asking for that simple request. JetBlue wanting Heathrow service is fine and dandy, so long they are considered for slots under American's wing as the alliance sure seems predicated upon just that.


As others have said, this is a weak argument by DL trying to prevent competition. The idea that JetBlue taking valuable slots away from AA/BA JV somehow makes things less competitive is an extremely weak argument.
DL is really grasping at straws here.


Appreciate your responses on actual routes though I must say that my premise is that if there is an alliance-de-facto-merger in the most important markets of JetBlue (which is the majority of the airline) then any route expansion outside of that by JetBlue is financed in part by the alliance in those two cities, creating unfair pressure on the costs of other airlines who compete for international route slots and which regulators have in the past taken into consideration the overall competitive landscape in route proceedings (Haneda for example). Delta is arguing just that, SHOULD the alliance be approved. So in that rationale, should the alliance between AA-B6 proceed it is within logic that they be looked upon as a single carrier since they will no doubt rationalize capacity, together. Collude, together. Determining what aircraft gets deployed where, etc..together, so that by having this alliance JetBlue would then have the resources to go into RDU and EWR (although the pandemic presents opportunities as well I admit.) JetBlue can't have its cake and eat it too on all fronts. But maybe they will. American has been vocal on taking out AE regional aircraft so that they can be replaced with mainline JetBlue, so I guess they are confident such collusion will pass muster. Sure they can get a lot closer via JV, but do you think unions would deal with that at a time of furloughs and layoffs looming, let alone the CARES ACT arguably being deemed to be "financing" such a proposition? This deal is happening during an unprecedented time and a codeshare is all they can get. Separate from the Heathrow slots, approval of such an "alliance" may prove that the true detrimental ramifications of it may not be realized until years down the road amid the vacuum of demand presently. I am actually for it from a competitive point of view for American's sake, but JetBlue needs to go all the way independent if they want to act like a Big Boy on the Atlantic front. They are part of American in all tense and purposes from a competitive standpoint, and Heathrow allocation to JetBlue means allocation to OW.


Again, what you are suggesting is the "obvious" thing they will do is absolutely ILLEGAL for them to do. The fact that you say "they are part of American in all tense [sic] and purposes from a competitive standpoint, and Heathrow allocation to JetBlue means allocation to OW" just shows how ignorant you are about this entire thing.

I suggest you also read B6's response to DL's filing, and see just how riddled with intentionally misleading, patently false, and strategically omissive (e.g. in painting themselves as minor players at LHR, never even mentioning the words "Virgin Atlantic" and that fact that together they have more than 1000+ weekly slot pairs) statements it is. Like, I get it. DL doesn't want the competition, and doesn't want the remedial slots it has been squatting on and not using (while leasing its other LHR slots to other airlines) to go to a new entrant. But it's already said that it plans to operate a reduced LHR schedule next year, and so will be underutilizing its slot allocation even more dramatically. So its argument as to why it should hold onto the remedy slots from 10 years ago, while having not used them even pre-pandemic, is laughable.

They HAD to make up this argument about why B6 shouldn't get the slots because there is no actual compelling reason why they shouldn't, and they can't state the real reason (which is the same reason I'm sure AA and UA don't want them in the market, but don't currently have the slots in question) which is that it will drive down prices and take away market share. It's a fake reason, and DL knows it. Its only useful in this instance as an effort to protect itself from an additional competitor, otherwise they would have made it separately to defend their position in places where AA's partnerships might actually cause a problem for them (BOS and NYC with B6 and SEA with AS).
Last edited by DMPHL on Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:44 am

tphuang wrote:
You are too lazy to even examine evidences.

First on the 24 new markets part. DL is using a very generous definition of overlap when defining a route as overlapping with them, but a very strict one when looking at AA. For example, EWR island routes competes with DL's JFK island routes, but somehow do not compete with AA's PHL island routes. Even though for most people in NJ, JFK is not an option and PHL is. They also ignore that LAX-PBI competes against AA's LAX-MIA. Or that FLL to BZN would definitely compete with AA's MIA to ski resort routes. If we look strictly at the routes that actually got announced. Things are quite clearly, most of B6's adds are targeting UA.
UA - all 7 EWR routes, LAX-CUN/SAL, SFO-CUN
DL - LAX-CUN/RDU
AA - LAX-RDU

Now if we expand this to include the 38 other routes they added, then you can add
UA - 9 more EWR routes, 6 more LAX routes, MCO-SFO, ORD-PBI, CLE-RSW
AA - all 6 PHL routes, EWR-PHX, JFK-DFW, 7 LAX routes, ORD-PBI, DCA-TPA (keep in mind, I'm not even counting FLL vs MIA routes here)
DL - 4 JFK routes, LGA-RSW/TPA, 6 LAX routes,

So in total, these new routes compete with UA 28 times, AA 18 times, DL just 14 times. So all of this actually targets DL the least. They have explicitly been going after UA with their adds.

When you are making responses, can you at least look at evidences at some point?



I've been keeping up with the back and forth response and I've been weighing whether to comment of remain on the sidelines.

I decided to weigh in only because in this particular response you can intermixing to different points. AA and B6 codeshare is a Northeast codeshare only it does not extend to Florida, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, (transcons NYC-LAX/SFOare included), Seattle, and I'm not sure if Chicago and Philadelphia are even in included in the codeshare. This codeshare is carefully crafted in a way that allows AA to utilize B6's strengths in the Northeast but shuts them out of markets where AA is strong or where their could be some overlap with the proposed AA/AS partnership.

I think Delta's main argument centers around JFK and BOS (as far as I know UA has not yet raise any objections). But what Delta is saying is at BOS and JFK with the recent announcement by B6, it seems like B6 is targeting only DL and UA routes while for the most part leaving AA alone at both JFK and BOS. Now Delta might also be trying to muddy the waters with their "24 new markets" statement but the facts do show that since the announcement of this Northeast codeshare B6 is targeting DL and UA routes in the Northeast while leaving AA alone.

It is a different story down in Florida and especially on the West Coast where for now B6 is on its own.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/american- ... codeshare/

I still believe that UA at EWR will be just fine, I think people are overestimating the impact this limited codeshare will have on UA. I think in the long run the biggest loser will be AA. At some point B6 will launch TATL flights starting with LHR, but that is just the beginning, with the A321XLR B6 will be able to reach quite a few cities in Europe. In the short them this partnership benefits both carriers but in reality B6 will ultimately be the big winner because they are gaining a lot of domestic feed currently handled by AA. At some point in time in the future B6 will no longer need AA as they will be able to launch their own international flights to multiple TATL destinations on the A321XLR and feed those routes from their own domestic network. Once that happens all the feed AA is touting that B6 will provide them for their (AA's) TATL flights starting in 2021 out of JFK will simply disappear. B6 will have taken AA's domestic traffic at JFK, EWR, and BOS and AA will basically have nothing, and without domestic feed many of AA's long haul TATL routes out of JFK would be in trouble. In my opinion if Delta were smart they would simply shut their mouth and let this happen while continuing to fight B6 in the air by actually competing with them. UA should do the same at EWR just grind it out with B6, and continue to watch AA's domestic decline at JFK, EWR, and BOS. UA right now should be playing chess not checkers and they should be making all the right moves to make sure when 2024 arrives UA is in a financial position that we can start taking delivery of the 50 A321XLR's we have on order because we are going to need those aircraft in order to compete with B6 in the TATL market. In my opinion I think once B6 gets their TATL routes up and running and turning a profit they are going to drop AA like a hot potato and both DL and UA need to be ready to respond. That is the REAL threat B6 poses not EWR-LAX. EWR-LAX is nothing more than a distraction (for lack of a better word), for B6 this isn't about EWR-LAX/SFO this is about their long term goals of servicing Europe from NYC and BOS. For them to be successful in the TATL market they will need a strong domestic network feeding those routes out of JFK and BOS. B6 is building for the future while AA is simply trying to survive the present.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 944
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:54 am

Didn't AA partner with B6 over 10 years ago?
 
onwFan
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:02 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:43 am

TYWoolman wrote:
They are part of American in all tense and purposes from a competitive standpoint, and Heathrow allocation to JetBlue means allocation to OW.

This statement alone is ample proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
gaystudpilot
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:55 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:13 am

BarryH wrote:
Savvy travelers always try to fly the metal of who they are ticketed on because of what I've shared.


This.

Code share agreements are nothing more than revenue enhancement tools. Period. It’s all about the airline. Marketing will try to spin it with pleasantries — “our partner”, “seamless”, “more options” — but it’s corporate speak.

Little to no effort is spent on synchronizing customer facing procedures that impact the flyer’s experience. This comes out the second something goes wrong. “It’s not us. It’s them.” “This is an XX ticket and this is YY airlines.” “I understand that they told you to call us and it’s our ticket sold on their airline but it’s their system, not ours, so you have to call them.”

A lot of passengers are duped into believing the two operate as one. Although better than in years past, similar finger pointing occurred between mainline and regional carriers. Remember how quickly UA was in pointing out that Dr Dao was not dragged off a United flight but a United Express flight? UA quickly clued in that the public no longer bought into their games and that it was *all* United from the public’s perspective — just as the marketing messages had been stating for years.

AA and B6 will definitely have some glitches with this and there will be frustrated customers. Always fly on the metal’s flight number/ticket “stock.”
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3865
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:25 am

BarryH wrote:
A lot of you are dramatically overestimating the benefit and value of a simple code share in terms of real time application. For passengers there is no benefit of flying B6 as an AA coded flight other than potentially getting Advantage miles, paying a potentially lower through fare, and/or having more scheduling choices. At the airport AA code share passengers aren't treated any differently than B6 coded and ticketed passengers. In fact, it's sometime worse. B6 agents can't reticket a 001 coded ticket in case of irrops and because of the complexity of dealing with AA ticketed passengers will give the standard answer - "you need to call AA."

I fly DL/AF/KL a lot as a DL Platinum and even with their tightness via the JV and SkyTeam good luck trying to get any of the three to bail you out in a problem situation if you're not flying on their ticket stock. I can't count the number of times I've had to call DL in the U.S. while in Europe to deal with some AF/KL problem that neither would get their hands dirty over. In business class and as a SkyTeam Elite Plus. So if you think AA/B6 via their marriage of convenience are going to create some super special process for delivering a seamless experience don't hold your breath. Each have their own customer service issues so marrying the two isn't going to make that better only bring out the worst in each.

Savvy travelers always try to fly the metal of who they are ticketed on because of what I've shared. The naïve without some secondary motive like mileage earning will learn quickly, especially during irrops, lost baggage incidents, and itinerary problems that code sharing isn't all that it's cracked up to be and avoid it in the future.


Actually, this is not true. During IRROPS, changing a ticket issued by another carrier is not a problem at all. The majors do it every day. You just have to change the affected segments and exchange the ticket onto the operating carrier's stock. JetBlue's problem is that they have LCC roots and are primarily a point-to-point carrier so very few of their employees have actually been trained on how to ticket. As they throw more resources at interlining, they will become more competent at it. It is a similar thing with AF/KL, most of their employees outside of AMS and CDG are contractors and have not been trained in ticketing.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3573
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:17 am

Ziyulu wrote:
Didn't AA partner with B6 over 10 years ago?


Yes. And the current partnership means exactly as much.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:08 am

onwFan wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
They are part of American in all tense and purposes from a competitive standpoint, and Heathrow allocation to JetBlue means allocation to OW.

This statement alone is ample proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Then I guess Delta's lawyers don't know what they are talking about either. Capacity collusion for sure on the majority of JetBlue point of sale for this alliance to work IMO. They should be considered as part of oneworld in any competitive international route proceeding.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5353
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:25 am

TYWoolman wrote:
onwFan wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
They are part of American in all tense and purposes from a competitive standpoint, and Heathrow allocation to JetBlue means allocation to OW.

This statement alone is ample proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Then I guess Delta's lawyers don't know what they are talking about either. Capacity collusion for sure on the majority of JetBlue point of sale for this alliance to work IMO. They should be considered as part of oneworld in any competitive international route proceeding.

That's what lawyers do. They make any kind of remote argument they can make for their side. They are paid to create any legally plausible argument to help their side. There is no capacity collusion if Jetblue cannot rely on any AA feeds into its LHR flights.

spacecadet wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
Didn't AA partner with B6 over 10 years ago?


Yes. And the current partnership means exactly as much.

We really just have one guy who is working extremely hard at trying to convince people this partnership are tighter than it actually is.

TYWoolman wrote:
Appreciate your responses on actual routes though I must say that my premise is that if there is an alliance-de-facto-merger in the most important markets of JetBlue (which is the majority of the airline) then any route expansion outside of that by JetBlue is financed in part by the alliance in those two cities, creating unfair pressure on the costs of other airlines who compete for international route slots and which regulators have in the past taken into consideration the overall competitive landscape in route proceedings (Haneda for example). Delta is arguing just that, SHOULD the alliance be approved. So in that rationale, should the alliance between AA-B6 proceed it is within logic that they be looked upon as a single carrier since they will no doubt rationalize capacity, together. Collude, together. Determining what aircraft gets deployed where, etc..together, so that by having this alliance JetBlue would then have the resources to go into RDU and EWR (although the pandemic presents opportunities as well I admit.)

JetBlue's buildup at EWR started pre-pandemic after WN left the market. Anyone who has followed JetBlue can tell you that. Pandemic simply has provided them with more real estate to work with. Their RDU adds are a small test/money grab that don't have any legacy competition outside of RDU-LAX. If you are going to ask about LAX also, I will let you know they've also been trying to grow LAX for years but didn't have the real estate to do so until this year.

JetBlue can't have its cake and eat it too on all fronts. But maybe they will. American has been vocal on taking out AE regional aircraft so that they can be replaced with mainline JetBlue, so I guess they are confident such collusion will pass muster.


Over at LAX, AA has been cutting routes that AS has been adding. If you want to speculate on collusion, then at least you can point to that as evidence. You are making criminal accusaitons without any proof. Over at JetBlue, only 2 routes they've added out of 22/23 so far in NYC area were served by AA pre-pandemic. And I don't see JetBlue mainline explicitly replacing AA on a lot of these 50 seater routes, because the market simply don't support enough capacity for 150 seat aircraft. You've already seen them adding LGA Florida and leisure routes that AA did not serve are likely the type of routes JetBlue will add. AA is not telling JetBlue how it may use those slots. JetBlue will figure out how it will use those slots.

This is no different than AA just making its LGA slots available for anyone. It was going to retreat from these 50- seater markets anyway. In this case, it's simply looking to lease them all out to a codeshare partners. There is nothing in this deal that will prevent JetBlue from making its own decisions on how to use those slots.

Sure they can get a lot closer via JV, but do you think unions would deal with that at a time of furloughs and layoffs looming, let alone the CARES ACT arguably being deemed to be "financing" such a proposition? This deal is happening during an unprecedented time and a codeshare is all they can get.

what's your proof that CARES act is financing such a proposition? JetBlue has already worked out a deal with unions to allow this under their scope that would result in no furlough until May. They can't get to JV, because JetBlue pilot contract scope would not allow it from what I understand. So, let's not make any assumption over things that are not possible, okay?

Separate from the Heathrow slots, approval of such an "alliance" may prove that the true detrimental ramifications of it may not be realized until years down the road amid the vacuum of demand presently. I am actually for it from a competitive point of view for American's sake, but JetBlue needs to go all the way independent if they want to act like a Big Boy on the Atlantic front. They are part of American in all tense and purposes from a competitive standpoint, and Heathrow allocation to JetBlue means allocation to OW.

Again, there is no code share, no JV, no interlining with AA on TATL stuff. How is this part of AA. This makes 0 sense
 
tphuang
Posts: 5353
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:03 pm

jayunited wrote:
I've been keeping up with the back and forth response and I've been weighing whether to comment of remain on the sidelines.

I decided to weigh in only because in this particular response you can intermixing to different points. AA and B6 codeshare is a Northeast codeshare only it does not extend to Florida, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, (transcons NYC-LAX/SFOare included), Seattle, and I'm not sure if Chicago and Philadelphia are even in included in the codeshare. This codeshare is carefully crafted in a way that allows AA to utilize B6's strengths in the Northeast but shuts them out of markets where AA is strong or where their could be some overlap with the proposed AA/AS partnership.

Totally agreed here.

I think Delta's main argument centers around JFK and BOS (as far as I know UA has not yet raise any objections). But what Delta is saying is at BOS and JFK with the recent announcement by B6, it seems like B6 is targeting only DL and UA routes while for the most part leaving AA alone at both JFK and BOS. Now Delta might also be trying to muddy the waters with their "24 new markets" statement but the facts do show that since the announcement of this Northeast codeshare B6 is targeting DL and UA routes in the Northeast while leaving AA alone.

I see what DL is saying, but it's a very weak argument to say that JFK competes with EWR but PHL does not. Living in NJ, I can tell you that for most people here, PHL is more of an option for them than JFK. Assuming codeshare agreement goes through, I would imagine these routes would draw some AA ff that would otherwise fly out of PHL or connect at MIA. So I don't see how they target DL more than AA.

It is a different story down in Florida and especially on the West Coast where for now B6 is on its own.

completely agreed.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/american- ... codeshare/

I still believe that UA at EWR will be just fine, I think people are overestimating the impact this limited codeshare will have on UA. I think in the long run the biggest loser will be AA. At some point B6 will launch TATL flights starting with LHR, but that is just the beginning, with the A321XLR B6 will be able to reach quite a few cities in Europe. In the short them this partnership benefits both carriers but in reality B6 will ultimately be the big winner because they are gaining a lot of domestic feed currently handled by AA. At some point in time in the future B6 will no longer need AA as they will be able to launch their own international flights to multiple TATL destinations on the A321XLR and feed those routes from their own domestic network. Once that happens all the feed AA is touting that B6 will provide them for their (AA's) TATL flights starting in 2021 out of JFK will simply disappear. B6 will have taken AA's domestic traffic at JFK, EWR, and BOS and AA will basically have nothing, and without domestic feed many of AA's long haul TATL routes out of JFK would be in trouble. In my opinion if Delta were smart they would simply shut their mouth and let this happen while continuing to fight B6 in the air by actually competing with them. UA should do the same at EWR just grind it out with B6, and continue to watch AA's domestic decline at JFK, EWR, and BOS. UA right now should be playing chess not checkers and they should be making all the right moves to make sure when 2024 arrives UA is in a financial position that we can start taking delivery of the 50 A321XLR's we have on order because we are going to need those aircraft in order to compete with B6 in the TATL market. In my opinion I think once B6 gets their TATL routes up and running and turning a profit they are going to drop AA like a hot potato and both DL and UA need to be ready to respond. That is the REAL threat B6 poses not EWR-LAX. EWR-LAX is nothing more than a distraction (for lack of a better word), for B6 this isn't about EWR-LAX/SFO this is about their long term goals of servicing Europe from NYC and BOS. For them to be successful in the TATL market they will need a strong domestic network feeding those routes out of JFK and BOS. B6 is building for the future while AA is simply trying to survive the present.


I will say I had a change of mind in the recent day about this particular issue. I think we agreed a while back that EWR is probably UA's most important hub due to its location in serving NYC, its size and the margin level it was generating vs competitors. We also know that UA has been hurt by the pandemic probably more than any other airline. So, it was not surprising that JetBlue and the ULCCs have decided to make a move here.

UA has seen as similar move in SFO with AS post VX merger. I think we can agree that UA pushed that back pretty successfully. I would say that UA is dealing with a bigger problem here in EWR even though it had larger market share at EWR than SFO. The reason is that JetBlue has pretty strong reputation in the area and both AA/B6 have large operations nearby. While JetBlue will probably top out at 80 to 100 flights due to space constraints, it will cause UA's margins to drop closer to what DL had at LGA/JFK pre-pandemic. And a larger JetBlue and ULCC presence at EWR means UA cannot grow back to pre-pandemic size.

I also think you are under-estimating what JetBlue's motives to this deal. The access to national network and re-protection interlining have been something they lacked for years. And I also see them not wanting to lose leased LGA slots from AA. I think AA is more likely to break up on this deal. All of this makes me think UA made a mistake by not pursuing JetBlue in some type of partnership. JetBlue was clearly looking for some help after the AA/AS partnership. UA was the most obvious candidate at the time.
 
DMPHL
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:10 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
onwFan wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
They are part of American in all tense and purposes from a competitive standpoint, and Heathrow allocation to JetBlue means allocation to OW.

This statement alone is ample proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Then I guess Delta's lawyers don't know what they are talking about either. Capacity collusion for sure on the majority of JetBlue point of sale for this alliance to work IMO. They should be considered as part of oneworld in any competitive international route proceeding.


No, they know exactly what they are talking about. It's just that, unlike some people here, they also understand that it's not really an argument anyone will take seriously.
 
CaptCoolHand
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:11 pm

I always like the statement. Have your cake and eat it too...

What’s the point of getting the cake if you can’t eat it? I mean I’m not gonna get cake then let someone else eat it.

Right?
 
airplaneboy
Posts: 719
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:15 pm

Can anyone explain how different this partnership is between AA/B6/AS compared to what DL & AS had several years back (before Delta parted ways with AS and built up SEA)? What are the differences and similarities?
 
Brickell305
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:54 pm

CaptCoolHand wrote:
I always like the statement. Have your cake and eat it too...

What’s the point of getting the cake if you can’t eat it? I mean I’m not gonna get cake then let someone else eat it.

Right?

Although this completely off topic, in the saying "have your cake and eat it too", the have refers to physically having it, not consuming it. As in you want to physically keep said cake in your possession while simultaneously wanting to eat it which is of course impossible as you can't do both.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:31 pm

tphuang wrote:
I will say I had a change of mind in the recent day about this particular issue. I think we agreed a while back that EWR is probably UA's most important hub due to its location in serving NYC, its size and the margin level it was generating vs competitors. We also know that UA has been hurt by the pandemic probably more than any other airline. So, it was not surprising that JetBlue and the ULCCs have decided to make a move here.

UA has seen as similar move in SFO with AS post VX merger. I think we can agree that UA pushed that back pretty successfully. I would say that UA is dealing with a bigger problem here in EWR even though it had larger market share at EWR than SFO. The reason is that JetBlue has pretty strong reputation in the area and both AA/B6 have large operations nearby. While JetBlue will probably top out at 80 to 100 flights due to space constraints, it will cause UA's margins to drop closer to what DL had at LGA/JFK pre-pandemic. And a larger JetBlue and ULCC presence at EWR means UA cannot grow back to pre-pandemic size.

I also think you are under-estimating what JetBlue's motives to this deal. The access to national network and re-protection interlining have been something they lacked for years. And I also see them not wanting to lose leased LGA slots from AA. I think AA is more likely to break up on this deal. All of this makes me think UA made a mistake by not pursuing JetBlue in some type of partnership. JetBlue was clearly looking for some help after the AA/AS partnership. UA was the most obvious candidate at the time.


How has UA been hurt more during this pandemic than any other US carrier, I saw the same Q2 results you saw and of the US3 UA came out of Q2 in the best position. If your statement is referring to the fact that UA had the most exposure internationally and the largest widebody fleet again I think you might be overplaying your hand. UA was quick to adjust and respond and put those widebodies to use on cargo only flights. AA is now trying to ramp up the cargo only flights to 1,000 per month while UA has been operating over 1,000 flights per month for some time now.

Getting back to the Northeast and B6's codeshare with AA, I don't think UA needs any help from B6 in the Northeast. Pre-pandemic UA operated well over 400 flights a day out of EWR. We were lagging behind at BOS, but with both B6 and DL slogging it out it would have been a waste of money for UA to try and make a push in BOS. I think once 2021 arrives and we hopefully turn the corner and transition into a post-COVID environment I think UA will rebuild the global network we had at EWR. It will take time, and it is not going to happen overnight but UA at EWR had global reach that will return and UA will also reconnected EWR to much of the country.

UA right now is focusing on rebuilding domestically at ORD, DEN, and IAH because for right now that is where we are seeing the highest demand for travel. But make no mistake as demand returns to NYC, UA is ready to rebuild EWR and we don't need B6's help to accomplish it. B6 would have like nothing more than to be approach by UA about a Northeast codeshare. Does it make sense short term perhaps depending on your point of view. However if we are talking long term then it is a horrible move for an airline like AA or UA because you are reducing your domestic footprint while allowing your competitor (oh I'm sorry I should say codeshare partner) to increase their footprint unchallenged.

Just look at UA's former (partner) codeshare agreement with US Airways, and if we focus on ORD only, look at the damage that was done to UA as a result of that codeshare. When the codeshare ended UA was left with just 2 flights a day to PHX, and 3-4 flights a day (depending on the season) to LAS. UA was practically nonexistent in the ORD-CLT/RDU market and we had reduced ORD-PHL from 10-12 flights a day to a paltry 4-6 flights a day because we were giving all those passengers to US. At one point during the codeshare US Airways was operating 6-7 daily nonstops ORD-PHX, 5-6 daily nonstops ORD-LAS thank to all the feed from UA. I don't even remember how many nonstops flights US operated between ORD-PHL and CLT thanks to feed from UA. But for UA it was worth it because UA didn't have to operate the flights, pay the pilots, FA, maintain the aircraft, pay the ground staff US Airways took care of all of that. UA thought the codeshare was a great idea until it ended and our marketshare which before the codeshare was healthy and respectable had be reduce to mere scraps in those markets. Look at what happened to AA the first time the codeshared with B6. In my opinion the codeshare was great for B6 they were able to get a strong foot hold in BOS and completely took over the JFK-Caribbean routes from AA. When that partnership ended the first time AA's JFK-Caribbean routes were left in shambles, AA's decline at BOS was in full swing all the while B6 was smiling saying thank you come again. I'm am not a fan of these types of domestic codeshares because in the long run one airline gains marketshare while their so called partner ends up being burned but if you are only focusing on the short term it is a great idea.

This codeshare with B6 will cost AA dearly in the NYC region, and this time it won't simply be their JFK-Caribbean routes and BOS marketshare that pays the price.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5353
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:17 pm

jayunited wrote:
How has UA been hurt more during this pandemic than any other US carrier, I saw the same Q2 results you saw and of the US3 UA came out of Q2 in the best position. If your statement is referring to the fact that UA had the most exposure internationally and the largest widebody fleet again I think you might be overplaying your hand. UA was quick to adjust and respond and put those widebodies to use on cargo only flights. AA is now trying to ramp up the cargo only flights to 1,000 per month while UA has been operating over 1,000 flights per month for some time now.


I'm thinking of exposure to decline in business travel, international travel and coastal cities that have seen O&D drop the hardest. Also, UA had one of the worst cash/debt position among domestic airlines. For example, it's a hard battle for UA at DEN given the kind of cash/debt position WN has at the moment.

Getting back to the Northeast and B6's codeshare with AA, I don't think UA needs any help from B6 in the Northeast. Pre-pandemic UA operated well over 400 flights a day out of EWR. We were lagging behind at BOS, but with both B6 and DL slogging it out it would have been a waste of money for UA to try and make a push in BOS. I think once 2021 arrives and we hopefully turn the corner and transition into a post-COVID environment I think UA will rebuild the global network we had at EWR. It will take time, and it is not going to happen overnight but UA at EWR had global reach that will return and UA will also reconnected EWR to much of the country.

EWR is a congested airport. So if B6 and ULCCs are operating 150 flights a day instead of 50, we are going to get to a situation like pre-pandemic where no one can add flights in prime hours. And we will get there before UA builds EWR back up to 425 peak daily departures.

When I originally laid out the UA/B6 partnership scenario, my idea at the time was to give UA a larger presence in southeast, a space to operate flights out of JFK and capture a larger portion of BOS business markets. These are all areas that would've added to UA network without stopping growth anywhere else. And I think JetBlue would not be trying a EWR buildup.

UA right now is focusing on rebuilding domestically at ORD, DEN, and IAH because for right now that is where we are seeing the highest demand for travel. But make no mistake as demand returns to NYC, UA is ready to rebuild EWR and we don't need B6's help to accomplish it. B6 would have like nothing more than to be approach by UA about a Northeast codeshare. Does it make sense short term perhaps depending on your point of view. However if we are talking long term then it is a horrible move for an airline like AA or UA because you are reducing your domestic footprint while allowing your competitor (oh I'm sorry I should say codeshare partner) to increase their footprint unchallenged.

Just look at UA's former (partner) codeshare agreement with US Airways, and if we focus on ORD only, look at the damage that was done to UA as a result of that codeshare. When the codeshare ended UA was left with just 2 flights a day to PHX, and 3-4 flights a day (depending on the season) to LAS. UA was practically nonexistent in the ORD-CLT/RDU market and we had reduced ORD-PHL from 10-12 flights a day to a paltry 4-6 flights a day because we were giving all those passengers to US. At one point during the codeshare US Airways was operating 6-7 daily nonstops ORD-PHX, 5-6 daily nonstops ORD-LAS thank to all the feed from UA. I don't even remember how many nonstops flights US operated between ORD-PHL and CLT thanks to feed from UA. But for UA it was worth it because UA didn't have to operate the flights, pay the pilots, FA, maintain the aircraft, pay the ground staff US Airways took care of all of that. UA thought the codeshare was a great idea until it ended and our marketshare which before the codeshare was healthy and respectable had be reduce to mere scraps in those markets. Look at what happened to AA the first time the codeshared with B6. In my opinion the codeshare was great for B6 they were able to get a strong foot hold in BOS and completely took over the JFK-Caribbean routes from AA. When that partnership ended the first time AA's JFK-Caribbean routes were left in shambles, AA's decline at BOS was in full swing all the while B6 was smiling saying thank you come again. I'm am not a fan of these types of domestic codeshares because in the long run one airline gains marketshare while their so called partner ends up being burned but if you are only focusing on the short term it is a great idea.

This codeshare with B6 will cost AA dearly in the NYC region, and this time it won't simply be their JFK-Caribbean routes and BOS marketshare that pays the price.


I think AA was already ready to cede NYC flying. It could either continue to lose ff in NYC/BOS to DL or it could try to hold onto them in NYC with B6 help. Maybe some ff will move to B6. But if they cut those 50 seaters completely, they will definitely lose more ff. And for people within catchment area of EWR and PHL, you are going to see some movement from UA to AA I think.

For people outside of northeast, having partnership with both AS and B6 will allow them to capture/retain some ff/accounts. For example, if you are in Bay area, AA already has a good sized presence. Now, you add AS codeshare and OW codeshares. And then you add options to fly on mint to JFK/EWR/BOS, AA ff doesn't look that bad.
 
CaptCoolHand
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:09 pm

Brickell305 wrote:
CaptCoolHand wrote:
I always like the statement. Have your cake and eat it too...

What’s the point of getting the cake if you can’t eat it? I mean I’m not gonna get cake then let someone else eat it.

Right?

Although this completely off topic, in the saying "have your cake and eat it too", the have refers to physically having it, not consuming it. As in you want to physically keep said cake in your possession while simultaneously wanting to eat it which is of course impossible as you can't do both.


While I see your point, once consumed you technically still have it. It's just inside instead of outside. So one could have cake after eating it too?

Yes, totally off topic.
 
onwFan
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:02 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:10 pm

airplaneboy wrote:
Can anyone explain how different this partnership is between AA/B6/AS compared to what DL & AS had several years back (before Delta parted ways with AS and built up SEA)? What are the differences and similarities?

I have no idea about the financial terms of their agreements, but one glaring difference is that AS will also be codesharing on AA’s international flights from SEA and LAX (but if I am not mistaken, B6 will not be codesharing on AA’s transatlantic flights). The similarity is that in both cases, they are just knitting together their networks: no joint venture/coordination like some people are trying to portray it to be.

An additional difference is that at the time of the DL/AS partnership, there was not even any third player in SEA to provide meaningful competition. But now, there is a third (large) player in both SEA and BOS in the form of DL. And guess who plays the victim & paints a picture that it is all anti-competitive? Surprise, surprise...
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:17 pm

onwFan wrote:
airplaneboy wrote:
Can anyone explain how different this partnership is between AA/B6/AS compared to what DL & AS had several years back (before Delta parted ways with AS and built up SEA)? What are the differences and similarities?

I have no idea about the financial terms of their agreements, but one glaring difference is that AS will also be codesharing on AA’s international flights from SEA and LAX (but if I am not mistaken, B6 will not be codesharing on AA’s transatlantic flights). The similarity is that in both cases, they are just knitting together their networks: no joint venture/coordination like some people are trying to portray it to be.

An additional difference is that at the time of the DL/AS partnership, there was not even any third player in SEA to provide meaningful competition. But now, there is a third (large) player in both SEA and BOS in the form of DL. And guess who plays the victim & paints a picture that it is all anti-competitive? Surprise, surprise...

Furthermore, AS will be a part of oneworld. B6 will not.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

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