acl65pilot

We could but it would cost us and cost us a lot. Their goal may to just drive up the price so we over pay.

My point was that with these JV/Code shares with airlines like AS, MEH, VBX, et al, we are joining forces with companies that are ripe for the taking. By us or someone else. But, when one wants it, another will want it to.
The idea of the code with MEH was great until they were managed in to a hole and bought for pennies on the dollar. I am sure we had part of that, but the fact is that allowing these code shares to be a liberal as they are in Section One really opens up this pilot group to uncharted dangers.
As I stated before, it also opens the business plan up to dangers, where we could not replace the lift quick enough. Think it we lost the AS code. Do we have any jets that could take over a tenth of that flying? Nope, and we would probably not even try.

I hope we do buy them, because we vulnerable if we do not.

Dash8widget

I really don't think that WN will make a move on the Alaska Air Group any time soon. First of all, only a small portion of the AS fleet is common with WN. I know - they both fly nothing but 737's, but WN flies the 300, 500, and 700, AS flies the 400, 700, 800, and 900. You may say "big deal" they are still 737's. The problem is, with the general seating that WN uses, there is no way to keep track of how many people are sitting in what part of the airplane (they would have to go through and count before each departure - doesn't help the quick turn very much). Not a big deal on the shorter 300, 500, and 700; they are all one seating zone for weight and balance purposes, but the longer 400, 800, and 900's (the majority of the AS fleet) have multiple seating zones that must be used for W & B calculations (my wife was an AS load planner - many horror stories about trying to balance the 900). I also think that WN would want nothing to do with a big chunk of the AS operation (ie. the state of Alaska - and I don't mean ANC or FAI).

Also, for its size - the Air Group is a pretty cash strong carrier. A takeover purchase would not come cheep. In my mind, these things, along with the "poison pill" make AS an unlikely target for WN.

I think our code share is safe for a while


I think AS would be a great fit for DL though.

sailingfun

I have no idea where people get the concept that Delta has lower costs then SWA. We are not even in their ballpark. If you break out our CASM by fleet types it gets even worse since in general the CASM at Delta runs from the largest to the smallest aircraft getting higher as the aircraft gets smaller. For years our lowest CASM aircraft was the 767-400 in the domestic configuration. Here is a link with the 2008 numbers. Very sobering!
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...e%20(CASM).htm

Burn Notice

We do not have enough jets to fill that hole. But RAH does (E-190 & A319)and as past examples have shown they always are able to find a lot more very quickly. I know the E is no 737 but it could fill the hole (like chewing gum in a dam). LM will be making his back channel deals because we need the feed to fill the 777 or we lose it all so, you see, it really is good for Delta pilots. Once again we have a feed to LAX with no capital outlay, someone else has grown and we have jets in the desert or places in the production line already sold.

Sorry, the sun is not out this morning and the coffee is a tad below the half full level.

alfaromeo

Those numbers are not the relevant numbers. A carrier like Delta has a lot of core costs that are reflected in those numbers. For instance, we have to maintain the costs of a large international sales force that a carrier like Southwest doesn't have.

One relevant number is the incremental additional costs that are incurred when each carrier adds one more flight. In this area, Delta is more than competitive with Southwest.

The real relevant number is the incremental additional net revenue that adding one flight gives you. That is revenue added minus the cost incurred. Our overall RASM is higher than Southwest's, but that doesn't mean it would be so on each segment.

I do know that in Salt Lake, a market where we compete strongly with Southwest, we are doing better than they are. Certainly Delta management does not seem scared by Southwest today. They are a strong carrier and well run, but they are no longer able to walk into any market and push people around any more. They have to compete like the rest of us mere mortals.

forgot to bid

Question from someone who typically figures out a way to negotiate the price of a car upwards, then lease it, then buy it off the lease... , and I'm going to pull this one out of my posterior as well here:

My understanding is in a M&A anyone can buy you at any time and the Board of Directors have a fiduciary relationship to what is in the best interest of the company. So, while the codeshare is great for DAL (free milk) isn't also something that is great for AS? Such that being bought by WN and ending the codeshare, among many other things lost if WN takes over, would not be in the best interest of the stockholders?

And on a government approval level possibly not in the best interest of the State of Alaska or Washington?

Not to say this isn't something to worry about but to say it could be an uphill battle winable by AS with some help from DAL/NWA/AF/KLM.

Talking out my butt...... COMPLETE C&F

Bucking Bar

Good post, you are correct. But this also explains why Delta does not really perceive narrowbody domestic flying as a core part of its business and why, economically, they are willing to outsource it.

It is fine if management wants to think this way, but as a union we need to define "Delta flying" as broadly as we can and write our future scope like other multi employer agreements so that it spans multiple carriers and certificates.

I'd also hope that as we become the lastest "world's largest network airline" that we do not fall victim to losing our core competencies that put us here in the first place. Transcontinental flying may not be sexy in these days of ultra long haul lie flat 110,000 pounds of thrust per engine wonder machines, but we need it to pay the bills. Obviously we'd be more profitable if our costs matched Southwest's and we would not have to run from AirTran while throwing RJ's down to cover our retreat.

alfaromeo

Hasn't Delta increased mainline narrow body flying this last year and decreased international flying? I thought that is why the last bid had those spots for 737 and MD88.

Bucking Bar

No, not exactly.Our small jets were understaffed. Now everything will be a little more equally overstaffed, until Summer of 2010 when we should be just right unless something changes.

Hawaii50

Alaska is happily adding flights to our destinations while we cut frequency or eliminate service (LAX-KOA, SEA-ATL, OGG-SEA). The continuation of the NW codeshare deal with AS to feed LAX was sold as a great deal. Looks like a great deal for AS employees, a S-sandwich for DL employees. Don't make the mistake of thinking these guys are our friends. They'll take our flying and undercut us anywhere they can. West Coast was the one area we could have organically grown to smooth out the changes from the merger. The AS codeshare was the main reason for my no vote. What was going to happen seemed pretty obvious at the time but the guys who'd "seen the plan" were quick to shoot down any concerns.