DL CEO hints at PVG hub

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

It is precisely that kind of solution that US carriers have to present to foreign carriers in order to build their networks in high growth areas of the world using ATI, JV, and advanced aviation relationships that are currently used almost exclusively by US carriers working with the most developed carriers in Europe and Asia

 
But in the mean time, there is KE and ICN, one of the developed carriers, yet DL is willing to ignore it and wait and hope that the Chinese and their gov and state owned corporations learn to behave in a civilized way. 
 
Winning!

 

[eolesen]

China isn't signing up for open skies. The last time the US and China went to bilateral negos the US wanted open skies, the best they got was a promise to talk about it in 2012......which those talks lasted minutes with China quickly ruling it out.

 
Exactly. And the Chinese won't allow ATI or a JV for CX based on the same reasoning.
 

So it is okay for you to do it, but the rest of us can't?

This is why I've kept him on ignore.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you are PRAYING that the Chinese won't allow ATI or JVs because if they do, AA is SOL in Asia.

that and that alone is the basis for your argument.

there is no reason why Chinese airlines can't meet the requirements for Open Skies. The US is not asking for cooperation on Chinese economic planning.

 

[jcw]

Tough one if they allow a JV AA will have CX much better partner than MU

Tough one

Tough when the facts get in the way

I rooting for DL to get the hub up and going it will be a great asset right behind SEA

 

[WorldTraveler]

and CX doesn't have a JV because it is a subpart of the same Chinese government system.

The Chinese are not going to allow a HKG airline to have a JV when the mainland airlines can't or don't have one.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

The Chinese are not going to allow a HKG airline to have a JV when the mainland airlines can't or don't have one.

 
And yet you've managed to continue posting for >3 pages the winning hub DL will replicate at PVG with MU.

 

[WorldTraveler]

once again, you miss the point.

I didn't say that the Chinese aren't going to allow CX and MU to have JVs.

they just won't allow CX to have a JV while the mainland carriers do not have one.

 

[jcw]

you are PRAYING that the Chinese won't allow ATI or JVs because if they do, AA is SOL in Asia.that and that alone is the basis for your argument.there is no reason why Chinese airlines can't meet the requirements for Open Skies. The US is not asking for cooperation on Chinese economic planning.

Actually you just said in this post that if China allows DL to have a JV AA is "SOL"

So which is it - AA can't have a JV if DL can in China or is it if DL can't have one AA cant

 

[WorldTraveler]

confused again you are.

the reason why AA will be toast is because a JV with CX won't come close to duplicating what DL can have within China. And it is highly likely that UA will have one also.

it is not about AA or DL.

it is about the Chinese gov't applying consistent policies between HKG and mainland carriers.

 

[topDawg]

 
But in the mean time, there is KE and ICN, one of the developed carriers, yet DL is willing to ignore it and wait and hope that the Chinese and their gov and state owned corporations learn to behave in a civilized way. 
 
Winning!

not sure what they obsession with DL/KE is.
 
Both sides aren't happy with each other. From what I have heard KE wants from DL for a JV (Delta can fly to NRT from its hubs and that is it. KE does 100% of ICN and any other Asian flying) I am pretty damn happy Delta doesn't work closely with KE.
 
but the AA fan boys like those labor killing deals, look at how "awesome" the AA/QF JV is. Great for AA labor......not.  

 

[commavia]

Once again on the merry-go-round of Delta fantasies.  Jeez.  It was a P.R. comment aimed at a particular audience and intentionally detached from operational and legal realities - not meant to be taken seriously - just like "we want to move our TYO hub to HND" and "CVG and MEM won't be shut after the merger."  That's all it was.
 

look at how "awesome" the AA/QF JV is. Great for AA labor......not.  

 
How is the AA/QF joint business "not" a positive for AA, and its employees?  It's not like AA employees gave anything up in the form of reduced international flying, but AA does benefit substantially from the feed and network contribution of QANTAS passengers filling AA planes out of HNL, LAX and DFW.  Actually does sound pretty "awesome" to me.

 

[WorldTraveler]

a JV that doesn't include AA metal to the destination can't possibly be considered labor friendly.

and again, it is no surprise that the AA fan boys want to do all they can to NOT see DL deepen its relationships with mainline Chinese carriers since AA doesn't have ANY current codesharing beyond PVG or PEK with a Chinese carrier.

and stronger DL-Chinese business relationships make it harder for AA to succeed on its own flights to PVG - which it appears are being downgraded to 787s just as UA has done.

in fact, DL's increased share of the PVG market has been made possible because of downgrades of other carriers from 777s to 787s, now hasn't it?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

not sure what they obsession with DL/KE is.
 
Both sides aren't happy with each other. From what I have heard KE wants from DL for a JV (Delta can fly to NRT from its hubs and that is it. KE does 100% of ICN and any other Asian flying) I am pretty damn happy Delta doesn't work closely with KE.
 
but the AA fan boys like those labor killing deals, look at how "awesome" the AA/QF JV is. Great for AA labor......not.  

 
It's just an observation / response to a certain DL fankid's post about replicating at PVG with MU what DL has at AMS, for example.  All I did was point out that given that KE has a decent network to China from ICN, KE is already a part of skyteam and S. Korea/USA open skies agreement is in place, it would be more logical to pursue a JV with KE then with a Chinese carrier.
 
Obviously KE is going to ask that they do 100% of ICN etc., it's called a starting point in any negotiations. 
I'm pretty sure nobody at KE, and DL for that matter, is an alumni of the John Kerry Institute of Bilateral Studies.

 

[WorldTraveler]

except that your observation is based solely on looking at a route map.

A JV relationship is far deeper that than.

And it is also very possible that KE might come to its senses and see that it is indeed worth their while to cooperate with DL if DL keeps growing to China and could build not one but two hubs in China that could divert huge amounts of traffic that KE flows thru ICN.

and negotiations having been going on for years... If KE can't move off their demands after this long, then it is time to move on to the next option.

again, how many US carriers have ATI with a carrier that they do not also have a current JV? A KE is a clear excpetion because they don't want to cooperate but control and dominate to the exclusion of others - just like WN at DAL and AS at SEA.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

But aren't you looking at MUs route map out of PVG too?
I guess we'll disagree, but in terms of connecting people from China to the USA, KE's ICN hub would be much better, than PVG and even better than if AA and CX got a JV in the future.  My opinion ofcourse, but it looks like we'll have you championing everything DL does or says regardless whether it is logical or not.