Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
07-25-2012, 02:19 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
07-25-2012, 03:00 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
liquidation? Seriously? Come back in from left field, you are a little deep for a bunt.
I am a Delta investor, and as such, I see exactly the opposite. Discipline it what has sorely been needed in this industry for decades, and DAL is enacting it. As an investor, that impresses me. If, as you say, reductions result in increased costs, I am fine with that too as long as revenues are increasing at a higher rate. It is the balance that management and investors are looking for. DAL stock price is depressed right now.. if AAPL weren't on sale today, I might be buying more.
I am a Delta investor, and as such, I see exactly the opposite. Discipline it what has sorely been needed in this industry for decades, and DAL is enacting it. As an investor, that impresses me. If, as you say, reductions result in increased costs, I am fine with that too as long as revenues are increasing at a higher rate. It is the balance that management and investors are looking for. DAL stock price is depressed right now.. if AAPL weren't on sale today, I might be buying more.
You are probably right about the capacity discipline, but one thing is for sure - its a lot easier to get enthusiastic about capacity discipline while in the left seat.
Scoop
07-25-2012, 03:25 PM
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
When the Aeromexico code share was 'sold' to us by DALPA, they made statements indicating that the feed provided to us from Mexico would enable our widebody international fleet to connect those passengers to domestic and international destinations. This aircraft order portends the reverse.
It is very concerning to me that an airline with which we have such close ties and coordinate scheduling so closely with is ordering new state of the art widebodies while we continue to pare our destinations and reduce capacity and system block hours, as passengers are more and more sent through the big Skyteam hubs without ever touching Delta metal. That's less jobs for you and me. Call it whatever you want. Venting, spewing, postulating, or theorizing, I don't get a good feeling when I hear such developments.
DAL has been code sharing with Aeromexico for years.
I share your concern with international code sharing and joint ventures. That's one of the reasons I voted in favor of this latest TA. It tightened international code sharing and established first of a kind global joint venture protections.
Since code sharing with Aeromexico is not a joint venture, and we don't have anti trust immunity, I'm not sure if your claim that we are coordinating scheduling is correct.
Also, isn't Aeromexico a prorate code share agreement. How is it that Delta is deriving revenue from a passenger on Aeromexico who never touches Delta metal or flies through one of our hubs?
07-25-2012, 04:25 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
You got the assignment today? Start taking your malarone. Grab some mosquito repellent with 50% deet. Get on Deltanet, scroll down to the bottom and on the left you'll see a link called Travel Health. There's a ton of useful info on there. 
Also, there may be repellent with deet available in the CPO.
Also, there may be repellent with deet available in the CPO.
07-25-2012, 05:49 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I was speaking as an investor. As a pilot, I think it sucks, and you are probably right that it is a bit easier from the left seat however, I have not become any more senior as a result of that discipline.... And yes, I can differentiate between the two.
07-25-2012, 07:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
When were you "sold" the code share agreement with DALPA?
I believe it was around 1998. DALPA put out a lot of information regarding the benefits of code sharing. It was pursuant to the DL/AM application to codeshare across each others domestic networks. If I recall correctly, DL needed approval from the MEC.
DAL has been code sharing with Aeromexico for years.
Not saying it's been a bad thing. On the contrary, I think it has been mostly beneficial. My concern is where it's headed.
I share your concern with international code sharing and joint ventures. That's one of the reasons I voted in favor of this latest TA. It tightened international code sharing and established first of a kind global joint venture protections.
I guess we are going to get a chance to test it out.
Since code sharing with Aeromexico is not a joint venture, and we don't have anti trust immunity, I'm not sure if your claim that we are coordinating scheduling is correct.
While it's true we don't have a JV agreement, it's clear that there is a great deal of coordination going on at the sales level, and sales drives scheduling. See below:
9/09/2011 @ 10:32AM |315 views
Delta Deal With Aeromexico Helps Give DAL Stock Lift To $9
What does the proposed agreement entail?
The agreement enables network-wide codesharing for both Delta and Aeromexico flights between the U.S. and Mexico as well as flights within the carriers’ domestic networks and to other key international destinations.
The cooperation further includes setting up a coordinated sales team, reciprocal benefits for elite-level loyalty program members and a $65 million investment by Delta in Aeromexico. The investment once approved by the Mexican regulators would give Delta a ~3.6% stake in Grupo Aeromexico and a seat on its board of directors.
Also, isn't Aeromexico a prorate code share agreement. How is it that Delta is deriving revenue from a passenger on Aeromexico who never touches Delta metal or flies through one of our hubs?
I believe it was around 1998. DALPA put out a lot of information regarding the benefits of code sharing. It was pursuant to the DL/AM application to codeshare across each others domestic networks. If I recall correctly, DL needed approval from the MEC.
DAL has been code sharing with Aeromexico for years.
Not saying it's been a bad thing. On the contrary, I think it has been mostly beneficial. My concern is where it's headed.
I share your concern with international code sharing and joint ventures. That's one of the reasons I voted in favor of this latest TA. It tightened international code sharing and established first of a kind global joint venture protections.
I guess we are going to get a chance to test it out.
Since code sharing with Aeromexico is not a joint venture, and we don't have anti trust immunity, I'm not sure if your claim that we are coordinating scheduling is correct.
While it's true we don't have a JV agreement, it's clear that there is a great deal of coordination going on at the sales level, and sales drives scheduling. See below:
9/09/2011 @ 10:32AM |315 views
Delta Deal With Aeromexico Helps Give DAL Stock Lift To $9
What does the proposed agreement entail?
The agreement enables network-wide codesharing for both Delta and Aeromexico flights between the U.S. and Mexico as well as flights within the carriers’ domestic networks and to other key international destinations.
The cooperation further includes setting up a coordinated sales team, reciprocal benefits for elite-level loyalty program members and a $65 million investment by Delta in Aeromexico. The investment once approved by the Mexican regulators would give Delta a ~3.6% stake in Grupo Aeromexico and a seat on its board of directors.
Also, isn't Aeromexico a prorate code share agreement. How is it that Delta is deriving revenue from a passenger on Aeromexico who never touches Delta metal or flies through one of our hubs?
It is indeed. My point though is that we don't gain any flow across our system from their passengers if they can bypass our system and our metal. Worse yet, we may actually be feeding THEM our international passengers in some markets.
Bottom line, I'm not against the code share. I am concerned that they are ordering new shiny hub bypassing widebodies, after giving them 65 million dollars, and we aren't ordering any new international metal. All we seem to be doing is gradually closing international stations and slowly reducing our block hours and pilot head count. The two together are not something I'd like to see.
07-25-2012, 07:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
It is indeed. My point though is that we don't gain any flow across our system from their passengers if they can bypass our system and our metal. Worse yet, we may actually be feeding THEM our international passengers in some markets.
Bottom line, I'm not against the code share. I am concerned that they are ordering new shiny hub bypassing widebodies, after giving them 65 million dollars, and we aren't ordering any new international metal. All we seem to be doing is gradually closing international stations and slowly reducing our block hours and pilot head count. The two together are not something I'd like to see.[/COLOR]
Bottom line, I'm not against the code share. I am concerned that they are ordering new shiny hub bypassing widebodies, after giving them 65 million dollars, and we aren't ordering any new international metal. All we seem to be doing is gradually closing international stations and slowly reducing our block hours and pilot head count. The two together are not something I'd like to see.[/COLOR]
There is some protection in the CS and JV language, but when it comes down to it, DL management appears to be more than willing to give up the flight revenue in order to let a phantom third party oputsource provider like AM or AS do it as long as the over all network is preserved or expanded. They will take the hit on the flight segment revenue as long as the network route map continues to win and the HVC's have lounges, especially if they don't have to spend money, grow operationally or add debt for anything. The end result is entirely unsustainnable as it puts us on an ever increasing cost structure trajectory requiring more and more capacity dicipline, which further increases our costs. Merging just to shrink is also a very limited solution and only adds to the funding of the ULCC and foreign ponzi scheme order books. By growing our outsource proxies, it lowers their unit costs relative to ours, which further incentivises them to keep growing them and shrinking us.
But it buffs the next quarter's numbers. Right up until it doesn't. Then golden parachues will be popped and it'll be someone else's problem.
07-25-2012, 09:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,534
07-26-2012, 03:14 AM
Doing Nothing
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,316
So I'm jumpseating home and the Capt said he just had a 4th Flr on his jumpseat a couple days ago and the decision this week is 717s in Atl and NY to take over all the LaGuardia slots. I know not very juicy news but now the discussion on how junior the 717A side will be can begin.
07-26-2012, 03:43 AM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
So I'm jumpseating home and the Capt said he just had a 4th Flr on his jumpseat a couple days ago and the decision this week is 717s in Atl and NY to take over all the LaGuardia slots. I know not very juicy news but now the discussion on how junior the 717A side will be can begin.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
