What do you base this on? How much market share did KLM or LH have to give up? ZERO!
Nice of you to lump EWR in to your 14. If you break it down at EWR CO has 3, VS has 2 BA has 3 and AA 0. At JFK VS has 2 DAL has 2 BA has 6 and AA has 5 KU has 1
As the Alliance Turns.....more AA/BA/IB drama
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
Nice of you to lump EWR in to your 14. If you break it down at EWR CO has 3, VS has 2 BA has 3 and AA 0. At JFK VS has 2 DAL has 2 BA has 6 and AA has 5 KU has 1
goodgirl37
Senior
- Jul 24, 2005
- 400
- 2
Well, none, LH has 2 a day from JFK-FRA and 2 a day from ORD-FRA and UAL has 2 a day ORD-FRA, so a far cry from 11 pairings at JFK not including EWR... Thats why FAMikey.. Very very simple.
So UAL and LH operate 2 flights a day ORD FRA. Is that because it is what the market will bear? The market from JFK to LHR will bear 14 flights. So what is the problem, anyone can fly from JFK to LHR. Even UAL did at one time.
Interesting to note LH and KLM both control a larger percentage of flights at FRA and AMS than AA and BA at LHR.
Interesting to note LH and KLM both control a larger percentage of flights at FRA and AMS than AA and BA at LHR.
goodgirl37
Senior
- Jul 24, 2005
- 400
- 2
OP
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #50
Maybe so, still dont think it will happen, but i could be wrong.
Looks like regulators want AA/BA to cede some NY-LHR slots.....
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/story/1061...E&cm_ite=NA
goodgirl37
Senior
- Jul 24, 2005
- 400
- 2
The routes mentioned in the article NY-London, are the routes I had mentioned earlier about them probably having to let go of some of them. I don't see why they would have a problem on the other routes though.
goodgirl37
Senior
- Jul 24, 2005
- 400
- 2
Lots of pure speculation here on what the JBA will bring in terms of increased or reduce flying. I'm a fact guy and prefer to stick to those, and in that vein the similar JBAs in Star and Skyteam have made it very clear that shared routes are not abandoned by US-based airlines. The opposite, really. As FWAAA correctly pointed out, it is a revenue share. The more they fly, the more revenue is generated. End of story.
APFA issues statement in support of ATI:
http://www.apfa.org/images/press/ati_release_29oct2009.pdf
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Union-backs-...ml?x=0&.v=2
http://www.apfa.org/images/press/ati_release_29oct2009.pdf
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Union-backs-...ml?x=0&.v=2
Well that may sound simple but if I'm reading you correctly, its revenue share, the more you fly the greater the share of revenue, if you dont fly you get a lesser share but you also have less expense. So, it may be more profitable to just sell the tickets and let the other guy do the flying, pay for the fuel, the aircraft, the landing fees, labor costs, etc. Isnt that sort of like what Karabu used to do for TWA? They sold tickets at a huge profit and let TWA carry all the expenses. AA could get rid of more employees and let their partners do the flying, sure they would get a smaller share of the revenue but they also have less expenses related to generating that revenue.
goodgirl37
Senior
- Jul 24, 2005
- 400
- 2
Exactly, the APFA should be sticking next to the pilots.. Unfortunately, they are looking through rose colored glasses.. BIG MISTAKE, HUGE!!
Yet with the deals that have gone on so far have not resulted in job loss or loss of flights.
