Originally Posted by alfaromeo

Delta's code share with Alaska is a pro rate code share, meaning each carrier only makes money when a passenger is on one of their airplanes. Delta does not want to have all their passengers fly on Alaska flights because they don't get any revenue from those passengers. They want to have a bigger footprint in the market so more of their routes are profitable by attracting high fare travelers. Without proper feed in Seattle we would be unable to fly all those Trans-Pac routes. So if we eliminated the code share with Alaska, you have to ask yourself what is more likely:

1. Alaska pulls out of Seattle and opens the market up to Delta
2. Delta finds the billions of dollars it would take to build up the infrastructure in Seattle and conduct a market share war with Alaska
3. Delta would abandon those Trans-Pac routes in Seattle

My guess is 3. 1 is almost impossible to imagine and 2 is a throwback to the old industry that led us all to bankruptcy. Oil has skyrocketed this year and the industry and Delta will be profitable and I will get a profit sharing check, again. The industry is in a new operating model and these alliances both domestic and international are key parts of this model. I don't want to go back to the old model, it sucked.

The key to these alliances is to make sure that we get our fair share of flying. Our code share with Alaska has a set of metrics that ensure that each side gets their share of the flying. The pro rate agreement gives incentive to management to fly as much code as possible on their own metal as that is the only way to produce revenue. The only aircraft Delta is adding right now is the MD-90, so the future as an all wide body smaller airline doesn't seem to fit your hypothetical. They also have an RFP for 100-200 narrow body aircraft.