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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

BarryH wrote:

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

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.

Ziyulu wrote:

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

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?

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.