PlayTheOdds
Veteran
Oh-yes they are, quit proving your ignorance.
Northwest Dropping Jfk-nrt
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
PlayTheOdds
Veteran
Who cares? I bet the board of directors goes swinging in Jamaica together. Courtesy of AMFA.
PlayTheOdds
Veteran
WOW, You are really taking this personnel. Ok, if it will keep you from popping another zanex I'll say I am wrong. They are not the same company. I would have probably better described the two as being like siamese twins. You know, one body with two heads.
PlayTheOdds
Veteran
Do you mean to tell me NW and DL aren't in the same bed?
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
You mean like you and Management?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
sorry to bring this spirited little debate back to reality but...
DL has flown JFK-NRT in the past; AA picked up DL's authority after it was dropped. NW's authority for this route can not be taken until at least 90 days have passed; this is the same rule that is applied to every other route case. DL is far from the only carrier that has discontinued routes. Further, most of DL's service to Asia was available under bilaterals and was not being used by any other carrier. Some of it such as to S. Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand (as well as to Singapore which DL has not served) is available now to any US carrier under open skies agreements.
The limiting factor for service to NRT is slots; NW could lease those slots to DL. DL recently sold or leased slots to NW as part of a deal that gave DL one of NW's gates at LGA.
The US-Japan bilateral is not open skies but it is very generous; US carriers are not using all of the authority available to them. Three US carriers are permitted to serve JFK-NRT. If DL doesn't operate it, it is doubtful if any other carrier will since UA and AA already operate the route and CO serves EWR-NRT. The DOT always gives preference to a carrier that will use the rights that have been negotiated for them.
Although DL has only 8 777s, only two are needed for their sole transpacific flight. The remaining six are working below their potential; I'm certain DL would put them into service if they had transpacific routes to put them on.
DL and NW are not the same company... yet. The only long-term question is whether Minnesota or Georgia will be home to the combined airline. It is rather certain that there won't be many union employees in the combined airline, regardless of where it is headquartered.
DL has flown JFK-NRT in the past; AA picked up DL's authority after it was dropped. NW's authority for this route can not be taken until at least 90 days have passed; this is the same rule that is applied to every other route case. DL is far from the only carrier that has discontinued routes. Further, most of DL's service to Asia was available under bilaterals and was not being used by any other carrier. Some of it such as to S. Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand (as well as to Singapore which DL has not served) is available now to any US carrier under open skies agreements.
The limiting factor for service to NRT is slots; NW could lease those slots to DL. DL recently sold or leased slots to NW as part of a deal that gave DL one of NW's gates at LGA.
The US-Japan bilateral is not open skies but it is very generous; US carriers are not using all of the authority available to them. Three US carriers are permitted to serve JFK-NRT. If DL doesn't operate it, it is doubtful if any other carrier will since UA and AA already operate the route and CO serves EWR-NRT. The DOT always gives preference to a carrier that will use the rights that have been negotiated for them.
Although DL has only 8 777s, only two are needed for their sole transpacific flight. The remaining six are working below their potential; I'm certain DL would put them into service if they had transpacific routes to put them on.
DL and NW are not the same company... yet. The only long-term question is whether Minnesota or Georgia will be home to the combined airline. It is rather certain that there won't be many union employees in the combined airline, regardless of where it is headquartered.
PlayTheOdds
Veteran
Thank you WT for setting that straight for us.
Local 12 I would never be in management at a union controlled company. Nor would I condone any management of a union controlled company. Companies that allow unions onto their grounds are fools. Northwest has just proven that fact. There is no reason for an airline not to make money, I think that unions are about 55% of the problem. 35% is incompetent management. 10% is unforseen factors.
Local 12 I would never be in management at a union controlled company. Nor would I condone any management of a union controlled company. Companies that allow unions onto their grounds are fools. Northwest has just proven that fact. There is no reason for an airline not to make money, I think that unions are about 55% of the problem. 35% is incompetent management. 10% is unforseen factors.
PlayTheOdds
Veteran
Southwest really isn't a comparable here. Their union is weaker than AMFA and their contract with Southwest is very liberal. It wouldn’t surprise me that if someone wanted to do some really hard digging they would find that Southwest is the union and those foolish members are simply paying for an elaborate HR department. While, Southwest is heading south with their money. Just like AMFA did and is doing with you guys. I could be wrong, that’s just my spin on it.
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
AMFA represents the MECHANICS & RELATED at LUV you wrench gypsy. try getting out of your motel room and quit spanking your monkey as princess alluded to.
