Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
tphuang
Posts: 5478
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: 636
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: 636
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: 8472
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: 636
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: 10408
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: 27
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: 8472
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: 636
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: 5478
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: 636
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: 31
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: 636
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: 5478
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: 636
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: 31
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: 636
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: 3895
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: 636
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: 636
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: 3895
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: 1315
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: 636
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: 8472
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: 27
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: 636
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: 636
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: 5478
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: 636
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: 31
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.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 995
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?
 
gaystudpilot
Posts: 272
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: 3895
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: 3576
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!
 
CaptCoolHand
Posts: 99
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: 721
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: 1101
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.
 
CaptCoolHand
Posts: 99
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: 477
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: 282
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.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:23 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.


Yes, in other words: JetBlue can't collude with American in Boston and NY on routes served and capacity allocation and still play the independence card. American and JetBlue are using the Pandemic to cover the severity of their impending suspect actions at a time touting efficiencies to be realized while at the same time being sanctioned by the gov't. Nice try.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:32 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
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.


Yes, in other words: JetBlue can't collude with American in Boston and NY on routes served and capacity allocation and still play the independence card. American and JetBlue are using the Pandemic to cover the severity of their impending suspect actions at a time touting efficiencies to be realized while at the same time being sanctioned by the gov't. Nice try.

Patently false criminal accusations, and if there was any merit to them, other airlines would be crying foul. The only thing delta is trying to do is, with a far reach of an argument, stifle competition and say that LHR slots shouldn’t be given. Their argument is quite a show of mental gymnastics. There is 1) no codeshare TATL, 2) it is directly competing against AA/BA/OW, 3) there is no collusion on new or existing routes. You’ve failed to convince anybody of collusion, because it is non-existent. Sorry for the additional competition DL will face. I know the bully doesn’t like competition, and this isn’t the first time they’ve tried to screw with B6. Remember that time when they convinced ATL to give B6 2 gates...but in different terminals? Delta plays dirty. This is just more of that.
Last edited by JoseSalazar on Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
CaptCoolHand
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:24 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:32 pm

woolman, the democrats called and want their collusion back.
If it's illegal it won't be allowed. This is a code share on specific routes stop end dot.
All other routes will still remain as competitive flying to include Europe when/if B6 starts that.
I hate to break it to you, but the deal was in the works well before covid ever became a thing.
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:58 pm

I could very well be incorrect, but considering a similar AA-AS deal was announced pre-covid, this was very probably in the works at the same time, just not announced until this summer?

I won’t get into legal wrangling here, but ultimately for DL, isn’t this not a big deal? AA reduced their footprint, JB steps in here and there. Ultimately I think some smaller markets will be abandoned altogether if AA kills the 50 seaters, leaving DL with a great share into some cities. It’ll all work out in the end.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:42 pm

Please post on the topic. If there is a link on the impact on AA's JV or LHR slots, please start a new topic.
Winter is coming.
 
Ishrion
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:30 am

The DOT has essentially given approval to this partnership.

In one of Delta's recent statements in a DOT filing (commenting on the AA TATL JV with Aer Lingus), they referred to the AA/B6 partnership receiving approval because the DOT never "responded":

Delta wishes to highlight the fact that the waiting period established by the Department to review the commercial agreements that undergird the proposed American/JetBlue alliance expired on November 19, 2020 without any Departmental action taken. Now that the Department has allowed the American/JetBlue alliance to proceed, there is no formal legal impediment preventing American and JetBlue from launching their commercial cooperation and de facto market allocation agreement. The upshot of the JetBlue/American alliance, which has now been cleared by the Department to proceed, is that JetBlue is no longer an independent competitor to American


Here's an explanation on it: https://viewfromthewing.com/dot-approve ... to-object/
 
User avatar
ArcticSEA
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:04 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:47 am

Kind of a bizarre move by B6 to continue seeking this partnership.
If I were a businessman, competing for market share in the NE US, I would stand by and let AA bleed out.
 
Detroit313
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:56 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:18 am

ArcticSEA wrote:
Kind of a bizarre move by B6 to continue seeking this partnership.
If I were a businessman, competing for market share in the NE US, I would stand by and let AA bleed out.


JetBlue needs AA. They are simply not attractive to many because of the lack of international. I know so many who won't commit to Jetblue because they can't travel anywhere abroad. AA can fix that.
Last edited by Detroit313 on Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
Detroit313
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:56 pm

Re: AA & B6 announce Northeast Partnership

Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:18 am

Detroit313 wrote:
ArcticSEA wrote:
Kind of a bizarre move by B6 to continue seeking this partnership.
If I were a businessman, competing for market share in the NE US, I would stand by and let AA bleed out.


JetBlue needs AA. They are simply not attractive to many because of the lack of international. AA can fix that.
Last edited by Detroit313 on Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
  • 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