DL expands SEA further with SEA-SFO flights

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

because there are contracts and termination clauses... You do realize that US' logo still appears on Star's website even though Star is a competitor to AAG parent subsidiary AA's oneworld alliance?

I guess leaving hasn't been easy enough that US has ended its participation in Star despite the merger closing almost two months ago

I get that the illusion to the British Empire was yours... but no other alliance follows any other political divisions, current or former, so I'm not sure what value looking like the British Empire adds to oneworld.

ofcourse I realize there are contracts and termination clauses. 
however your statement of fact that KE can't ever leave Skyteam just because it is a founding member and it would be too difficult is simply not correct

 

[WorldTraveler]

I didn't say that KE can't ever leave Skyteam.

 

[robbedagain]

I still say if dl keeps treating their members like sh! T then they will eventually leave. As far as im concerned itd be nice to KE come to oneworld and I bet they be treated a he!! Lot better than the way dl treats them

 

[WorldTraveler]

can you provide some basis that KE feels like they are being unfairly treated by DL or is that just your characterization?

KE is part of Skyteam, no Skyteam member has said KE wants out, and both KE and DL are building their own transpac operations.

perhaps you can tell us why CX and AA have such bad relations that they don't cooperate on AA's new DFW-HKG flight but instead AA is operating the flight under their JL joint venture.

 

[robbedagain]

Is it fact that cx and aa have bad relations? Can u back it up with facts or is that ur characterization

 

[WorldTraveler]

no it isn't at all...but alot of people on here including you are making charges that DL and KE have bad relations but you are just making that statement without knowing how either side feels about the other.

Could it be that AA cooperates with JL on its DFW-HKG flight and not CX because it is in JL's financial interest but it is not in CX's?

Why can't some people accept that might be the same reason why DL doesn't do the same things it does with KE that it does with other carriers including Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic yet DL has no joint venture partner to northeast Asia, instead building its network on its own?

 

[eolesen]

WT can whine about the lack of codesharing or JBA's, but from a customer standpoint, I see little difference when I travel between carriers, and that's what ultimately matters.

The mileage credits I get on AA are the same I get on any other oneworld carrier. I don't need to read the fine print to discover I'm only getting 25% credit on an unrestricted business class ticket when I fly on certain carriers, or worry that I may or may not get a prereserved seat (several of my work colleagues have been repeatedly refused pre-reserved seats on both MU and CZ, even though they're DL elites).

If that type of confusion and inconsistent product is acceptable within Star and Skyteam, I guess I'm glad I've stuck with oneworld all these years.

 

[WorldTraveler]

it's not a question of "what I whine about"

It is a question of where the revenue goes and what kind of input a carrier has in the decision making process in non-immunized interline agreements.

The simple fact is that a non-immunized interline codeshare agreement such as exists between AA and CX means that AA is simply buying capacity with the AA code on it - with no chance of being able to participate in the pricing or decision process as partners.

You can't tout the benefits of the AA/JL and AA/BA joint ventures - which do have value - and then say that it makes no difference that AA doesn't have them with other carriers such as CX.

And as much as you want to badmouth relations between DL and KE, they do have antitrust immunity. AA and CX do not.

Further, AA and JL are trying to compete in the larger East Asia market even while you and others argue that Japan is s dying market.

You can't have it both ways. If JVs matter, then the fact that AA and CX don't have one is a big deal to AA, whether it is to you as a customer. If Japan is a dying market and AA needs to be able to effective compete in other markets in Asia, then the fact that AA is 3 out of 3 among US carrier alliance partnerships in China matters.

 

[Kev3188]

I think I'm the only ACS person here, but if anyone's interested, I believe DL's opening up tower spots in SEA.

 

[eolesen]

You make do with what you have. I'd much rather see a well executed codeshare than a poorly executed ATI partnership.

And you're probably well aware that the Chinese have not yet allowed antitrust immunity for the mainland carriers; with HKG being under the PRC's rule, it's equally unlikely to expect it to be approved for CX or KA.

(not trying to talk over you, Kev...)

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, Kev, it is good news that DL's growth at SEA will bring more people. I'm sure this won't be the last casting call in the PNW in the next few years.

E,
I don't think anyone suggested that a poorly done anything is a goal. If you are referring to DL and KE with ATI, just because they have not chosen to move beyond ATI to a JV doesn't mean it is poorly executed.
DL and KE are both very well-run companies and just because they don't have the level of cooperation that some fans and customers want doesn't mean they are not getting exactly what they want out of each other in a relationship they see as good.

I am aware that the US doesn't allow ATI/JV with Chinese carriers. You still have to ask if ATI/JV with a non-Chinese carrier is superior to the allowed level of cooperation with CX. The real risk is more for JL in venturing into the non-Japanese market in a risk-assuming venture.

 

[FWAAA]

As a condition of approving the Open Skies treaty between Japan and the USA, the government of Japan required that both JAL and ANA be granted antitrust immunity in connection with joint business agreements with their USA-based airline partners.    For ANA, that partner was obviously UA.    
 
For JAL, that partner was going to be AA or DL.   DL pulled out all the stops in its attempt to cripple AA in Japan, and failed.  
 
AA could have refused to enter into an immunized joint venture with JAL in hopes of pursuing something better with CX, but had AA done so, it's quite clear that DL would have brought JAL into Skyteam.   It's not a given that the DOJ would have approved ATI between DL and JAL, given their combined dominance in Tokyo, but the AA/BA dominance in London ultimately did not prevent that ATI application once LHR was open skies.  
 
For AA, it was get in bed with JAL or face no decent partner in Japan.   Delta can survive not having a decent partner in Japan due to its fifth freedom hub and the very large market position of NW in Japan and beyond, upon which DL has built.    AA with no partner in Japan would have rendered AA irrelevant in Asia for a very long time.   Far more irrelevant in Asia than AA finds itself today.   

 

[WorldTraveler]

the question was more about AA's DFW-HKG route more than the overall question of the Pacific.

And the press at the time seemed to indicate that it was JAL's decision not to choose a partnership with DL precisely because of DL's overwhelming size in Japan.

And it is also precisely for this reason that DL continues to focus its competitive efforts, which I have highlighted here, on the top US-Japan markets such as NYC and LAX to Japan where DL does do far better than AA.

I certainly don't expect AA to let up the pressure on DL in Latin America even though LAN and TAM showed no interest in Skyteam.

 

[WorldTraveler]

in related Asia news, the 744 will return to MSP-NRT this summer.

Looks like ATL, JFK, MSP, and LAX will have the 744s to NRT this summer.

I chose the random day of Monday June 9... not sure if these are all daily schedules.

 

[700UW]

Delta filed with the DOT for permission to add service between Seattle and San Jose Del Cabo Mexico.

Carrier says it seeks to commence service on or about December 18th utilizing 737-800 aircraft.