LDVAviation
Advanced
- Feb 29, 2012
- 104
- 269
WorldTraveler said:
The claim in bold type is false. (What else is new?)
DL did not help "pay for part of the remodeling of T6 at LAX." (See LAWA Board Report of April 4, 2011, Item 2)
DL expands SEA further with SEA-SFO flights
- Thread starter WorldTraveler
- Start date
- Status
The claim in bold type is false. (What else is new?)
DL did not help "pay for part of the remodeling of T6 at LAX." (See LAWA Board Report of April 4, 2011, Item 2)
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #92
and you have a copy of the contract between AS and DL?
Kev3188
Veteran
LDVAviation said:
Welcome to the boards!
Force Majeure
Advanced
- Sep 21, 2013
- 114
- 212
http://www.lawa.org/pdf/board_agenda/Agendas/boac110404x1330_agenda.pdf
Pursuant to the proposed Lease, Alaska will be required to make improvements to Terminal6atLAXhavinganestimatedvalueof $271,000,000.
Pursuant to the proposed Lease, Alaska will be required to make improvements to Terminal6atLAXhavinganestimatedvalueof $271,000,000.
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #95
again, do you have a copy of the contract between AS and DL? The relationship that has generated so much heat and has resulted in the addition of service that started with DL and is now including service additions by AA?
BTW, LDV,
I'm honored that you feel threatened enough by what I write to come over to try to repeat the same thing on forums that you and others did on airliners.net.
You don't want open competition any more than AA or WN does because you can't handle the facts.
You can push to shut me down if you would like.
I have more than enough connections to get my message out but more importantly to take my message to the places where it really matters regarding people on this forum.
BTW, LDV,
I'm honored that you feel threatened enough by what I write to come over to try to repeat the same thing on forums that you and others did on airliners.net.
You don't want open competition any more than AA or WN does because you can't handle the facts.
You can push to shut me down if you would like.
I have more than enough connections to get my message out but more importantly to take my message to the places where it really matters regarding people on this forum.
Kev3188
Veteran
Knock it off.
I don't see any "threats" (or "pushes to shut people down") here except a veiled one from you.
If the poster's contention that your claim is false is wrong, then show how/why/etc.
You know, "exchange of ideas" and all that...
I don't see any "threats" (or "pushes to shut people down") here except a veiled one from you.
If the poster's contention that your claim is false is wrong, then show how/why/etc.
You know, "exchange of ideas" and all that...
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #97
I am simply noting that someone has come onto this board who is a frequent poster under the same user name on another forum has come on here and posted on a thread about the effect on AA of lifting Wright Amendment restrictions is now locked with a comment from that poster that comments from me regarding the JL alliance decision resulted in me being banned from airliners.net.
Perhaps the moderators can tell us the reason that comment remained in a thread that is now locked and which contains publicly available information and nothing more.
And I truly do have to chuckle that LDVAviation comes on here to brag that they were successful in getting me booted off a.net because of a conversation regarding the JAL alliance decision.
AA did in fact win the alliance decision.
Since winning that decision, publicly available statistics show that AA has lost hundreds of millions of dollars flying to Asia in a joint venture with JAL.
I'm sure LDV takes great joy in knowing that he silenced a critic who highlighted why an AA-JL alliance would not lead to profitability.
Appears to me that the critic, me, was right even if the readers of that other site don't get to read that any more.
I expect this forum to not stoop to the same lows as a.net in eliminating valid criticism of other carriers, esp. when the criticism comes from factual, published information.
As to my comment about DL subsidizing the cost of AS' remodeling of AS' gates in T6 which he says is false, the answer to that question comes in the AS-DL contract which is not public knowledge. There are also other aspects of the AS-DL agreement including preferential use of gates which is in that same contract but which has been confirmed thru the operation. Perhaps LDV can show us in the AS-LAWA contract where there is mention of the use of gates between AS and DL.
AS does have legal responsible to LAWA for its gates.
Perhaps the moderators can tell us the reason that comment remained in a thread that is now locked and which contains publicly available information and nothing more.
And I truly do have to chuckle that LDVAviation comes on here to brag that they were successful in getting me booted off a.net because of a conversation regarding the JAL alliance decision.
AA did in fact win the alliance decision.
Since winning that decision, publicly available statistics show that AA has lost hundreds of millions of dollars flying to Asia in a joint venture with JAL.
I'm sure LDV takes great joy in knowing that he silenced a critic who highlighted why an AA-JL alliance would not lead to profitability.
Appears to me that the critic, me, was right even if the readers of that other site don't get to read that any more.
I expect this forum to not stoop to the same lows as a.net in eliminating valid criticism of other carriers, esp. when the criticism comes from factual, published information.
As to my comment about DL subsidizing the cost of AS' remodeling of AS' gates in T6 which he says is false, the answer to that question comes in the AS-DL contract which is not public knowledge. There are also other aspects of the AS-DL agreement including preferential use of gates which is in that same contract but which has been confirmed thru the operation. Perhaps LDV can show us in the AS-LAWA contract where there is mention of the use of gates between AS and DL.
AS does have legal responsible to LAWA for its gates.
Kev3188
Veteran
Is what they've posted in this thread false?
If so, how?
If the contract you cite between AS & DL is not public knowledge, then how do you know it exists? How can we see that your assertion is accurate?
If so, how?
If the contract you cite between AS & DL is not public knowledge, then how do you know it exists? How can we see that your assertion is accurate?
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #99
have you read the entirety of what I have posted?
Just because there is no mention of how costs or operations are shared between AS and DL in the AS-LAWA contract doesn't mean that there are not other contracts which are not public which do contain that information.
LDV's statement that DL did not subsidize AS' move to LAX T6 cannot be proven based on publicly information and thus is false.
Just because there is no mention of how costs or operations are shared between AS and DL in the AS-LAWA contract doesn't mean that there are not other contracts which are not public which do contain that information.
LDV's statement that DL did not subsidize AS' move to LAX T6 cannot be proven based on publicly information and thus is false.
Kev3188
Veteran
Yes I've been following along.WorldTraveler said:
How is it false?
How are your claims accurate?
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #101
when someone categorically says that something is false based on one set of data which doesn't include a contract in a known commercial relationship, it is not possible to categorically say that DL did not assist with the relocation and remodeling costs of AS to T6 at LAX.
Since you are trying real hard to make sure that I don't get in the last word, you go ahead and post your response. I'll rejoin when other issues are raised.
Since you are trying real hard to make sure that I don't get in the last word, you go ahead and post your response. I'll rejoin when other issues are raised.
Kev3188
Veteran
So what you are really trying to say is that their assertion isn't false so much as it's unprovable due to being proprietary? Couldn't that be said about your claim as well?
Hey, I'm just trying to better understand the current issue ("exchange of ideas") being discussed here.
Lol.
Hey, I'm just trying to better understand the current issue ("exchange of ideas") being discussed here.
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #103
that is very well said, Kevin.
While you are trying to understand the exchange of ideas, you can raise the issue of why a thread that includes published data and a discussion about how many seats a carrier can put into the market is locked but why posts such as that "you need to get laid" and "dweeds masturbate" remain on the forum.
That lack of objectivity but also a complete willingness to allow the forum to be degraded to the lowest standards of online decorum reflect very poorly on this site.
now I will turn the conversation back to you so that you can ask the powers that be why this situation exists on this forum.
While you are trying to understand the exchange of ideas, you can raise the issue of why a thread that includes published data and a discussion about how many seats a carrier can put into the market is locked but why posts such as that "you need to get laid" and "dweeds masturbate" remain on the forum.
That lack of objectivity but also a complete willingness to allow the forum to be degraded to the lowest standards of online decorum reflect very poorly on this site.
now I will turn the conversation back to you so that you can ask the powers that be why this situation exists on this forum.
Kev3188
Veteran
Those aren't my questions, they're yours. If there's something you object to, use the "report" function like everyone else.
In the meantime, my questions in this thread have to due with the claims about T6, LAWA, etc. Can you shed some light on them? As a shareholder in DL, I'd seriously like to know.
In the meantime, my questions in this thread have to due with the claims about T6, LAWA, etc. Can you shed some light on them? As a shareholder in DL, I'd seriously like to know.
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #105
I would hope that the moderators look thru the threads to remove objectionable content....
sorry, I am not sure what your specific question is about T6 and LAWA.
If you are asking as a shareholder whether DL helped subsidize the cost of AS' move, that would be part of a contract which DL and AS have not chosen to make public. There are clearly other terms of the AS-DL contract which are not public.
Have you read the AS earnings transcript in which AS referenced that the increased capacity in their markets and the relationship with DL is part of a long-term relationship that involves minimum performance requirements by both sides. That information in addition to the fact that DL is the largest AS codeshare partner in terms of revenue was disclosed thru AS execs on an earnings conference call.
Companies do not have to reveal contracts, even for items as large as aircraft purchases where even when they are revealed most of the relevant data is blacked out and kept confidential.
sorry, I am not sure what your specific question is about T6 and LAWA.
If you are asking as a shareholder whether DL helped subsidize the cost of AS' move, that would be part of a contract which DL and AS have not chosen to make public. There are clearly other terms of the AS-DL contract which are not public.
Have you read the AS earnings transcript in which AS referenced that the increased capacity in their markets and the relationship with DL is part of a long-term relationship that involves minimum performance requirements by both sides. That information in addition to the fact that DL is the largest AS codeshare partner in terms of revenue was disclosed thru AS execs on an earnings conference call.
Companies do not have to reveal contracts, even for items as large as aircraft purchases where even when they are revealed most of the relevant data is blacked out and kept confidential.
- Status
Similar threads
