DL and Aeromexico file ATI/JV application

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Just stop spinning.
 
Nobody is believing you when you say that Mexico is going to tear up the new treaty just because DL/AM did not get their way.
 
You're making it sound like the Mexicans didn't know what they negotiated and signed until now, when the DL/AM application was rejected, so finally they realized their folly and going to walk away?  Pure lunacy.

 

[WorldTraveler]

again, you can't read OR comprehend.
I didn't say Mexico was going to do anything.

I said they very well could.

and you can't accept that it IS NOT ok for the US to sign a deal which the Mexicans believed would be sufficient to obtain was the whole reason they entered negotiations in the first place.



The Mexicans did not agree to full Open Skies for a reason. I have said I don't see how big of a difference there is between where the new agreement will be and full Open Skies but Mexico sees it as a big enough difference that they did not want full Open Skies.

and they expected that what they signed was enough to get ATI and JVs. Now. not in the future.

if the US negotiated an agreement that only allowed more US carrier expansion without Mexican carrier benefit - and the biggest benefit that Mexico was after was a JV for AM - then Mexico will act.


dawg and I both get that.

the fact that you don't is what is sad

 

[eolesen]

I think it's laughable to think that Mexico is going to protect the interests of one carrier above the interests of the LCC's. AM has been sitting in the catbird seat, so if anyone stands to win if Open Skies is delayed, it's them.

AM only provides about ~29% of the domestic lift and 45% of domestic operations. LCC's already provide over half the lift. Transborder (including Canada), AM provides 58% of the ASM's flown by Mexican airlines, while Volaris comes in at 30%, and Interjet at 10%.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Mexico doesn't have to protect only AM's interests.

For all of the people who argue about the size of the US originating market, there are also far more US carriers that want to add service to Mexico than there are frequencies available to do so.

Mexico absolutely has control over the ability of the US side to expand - and that now heavily means WN and B6 as well as the ULCCs.

The US = Mexico treaty already provides enough frequencies for the Mexican carriers to serve most of what they want to serve in terms of markets. That is nowhere near close to being true for the US side.

the whole reason why the US - Mexico air services treaty is the way it is right is because Mexico stands to gain next to nothing by simply expanding the number of carriers that can serve markets. Mexico's gain comes by moving into ATI and JVs - and if the DOT says they won't do that with the existing agreement, Mexico will pull back unless it believes there really is only a little more they have to give in order to get to full Open Skies.

and it still doesn't change that Mexico is undoubtedly peeved for being lied about as part of the negotiations only to now find out that the DOT won't support the largest desired outcome that Mexico sought from the new deal.

 

[jcw]

You are implying the US government decided to negotiate a deal that would benefit disportionally one carrier and then changed their mind - how do you make this stuff up - there is no way the government said do this deal and we will approve a JV

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, JVs don't disproportionately benefit one carrier and you know it.

there is nothing stopping AA or UA from developing JV partnerships with Mexican carriers as well.

AM is the largest Mexican carrier and specifically indicated to the Mexican gov't that they want a JV out of the whole deal - and the US government knew it as well.

treaties are based on jointly reaching goals. If the US cannot understand the goals of the Mexican gov't in doing a deal and create one that meets those goals or to tell the Mexican negotiators that they cannot grant what the Mexicans want, then those negotiators are beyond inept.

The very same process of understanding each other's goals and creating an agreement played out with the US-Iran negotiations that also involved a number of other countries.

 

[commavia]

I think it's comical to consider the amounts of proverbial digital ink spilled over this latest outrageous transgression of the U.S. government daring to harm the interests of Delta compared to what would be happening if the U.S. government were behaving this with in regards to a different country where another U.S. carrier had a prospective ATI partner.  Methinks the response would be far different.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Oh boy, the spin is in hyper-drive today.
 
So much so that the contradictions are being re-peated onto 6 pages already.
 
Case in point:  AM doesn't need the open skies / JV deal ... ... .... but if we read on ... ... ...
 

For all of the people who argue about the size of the US originating market, there are also far more US carriers that want to add service to Mexico than there are frequencies available to do so.

The US = Mexico treaty already provides enough frequencies for the Mexican carriers to serve most of what they want to serve in terms of markets. That is nowhere near close to being true for the US side.

 
... ... .... we now find out that the entire purpose of the open skies deal was for AM to get their crucial JV with DL.
 
 

AM is the largest Mexican carrier and specifically indicated to the Mexican gov't that they want a JV out of the whole deal - and the US government knew it as well.

 
So again, which is it?
 
As I've said, you're proving over and over a couple things here
i) a certain DL-centric narrative
ii)  double standards:  f it wasn't for double standards you would not have any
 
 

You are implying the US government decided to negotiate a deal that would benefit disportionally one carrier and then changed their mind - how do you make this stuff up - there is no way the government said do this deal and we will approve a JV

 
Don't you know that the center of the universe revolves around DL?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Yep. DL wanted to play technicalities with the HND dormancy?? Well, DOT's good at that game, too...
 

 
good goes around

 

[WorldTraveler]

the ATI/JV application is a JOINT application of DL and AM.

anyone that fails to understand that and paint the picture as a DL only issue will clearly be left looking like the fools that they are.

The Mexican gov't had every expectation that they were signing an agreement that would lead to ATI/JV; that didn't happen. Mexico has every reason to react as strongly as they want. that is why they call them agreements.

Both sides have to play fairly in order for anyone to benefit.

 

[jcw]

Great then if Mexico was negotiating this to only get a JV they should tear up the agreement - so now you are saying both the US govt and Mexican govt were only negotiating this to get a JV between two airlines to give them an advantage and the US changed its mind

There must be some huge contingent of govt employees out for DL let's recap:

Can't get into the bidding for DAL gates
Can't do a JV
Loses in court on Exim bank
Can't sit and not use HND route
GA repeals tax breaks

What a winning record

You go DL you go

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, I didn't say that at all.

but a JV was indeed a major goal of the expanded agreement. The head of the Mexican equivalent of the DOT said as much.

DL is not afraid to get in and challenge issues and most of the ones that you listed are nowhere close to being resolved.

but in your glee to throw dirt instead of deal with facts, that reality will surely get lost.

 

[jcw]

Really so the the bidding for gates went to VX - now DL can wait around the court waiting for VX to fail (which is a good strategy) however DL is not getting VXs gates through a DOT mandated auction process

Where did the GA legislature introduce new legislation to put the breaks back in?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

 

the ATI/JV application is a JOINT application of DL and AM.

anyone that fails to understand that and paint the picture as a DL only issue will clearly be left looking like the fools that they are.
 

 
Oh my, the spin is out of control.
 
This topic started on the DL forum about DL their great upcoming win in Mexico because of the impending JV with AM (which was much more significant than the AF/KL JV etc.)
 
Today this narrative  was repackaged and spun as Mexico doesn't really need the treaty and will walk away but still AM and DL will remain winners despite having no JV.
 
Fast forward to this post where now it apparently isn't a DL issue at all and ofcourse throw in random jibber jabber about AA, DAL and whatever else to deflect from a DL win loss.
 
Who's the fool?

 

[WorldTraveler]

not one of the statements you made above coincides with what I have said. not one.