Originally Posted by
Reroute
For FTB or Slow
Isn't Alaska code share limited to a prorate agreement?
Under a prorate agreement, isn't it true that Delta doesn't get any money from a passengers ticket for flight segments flown by Alaska with a DL passenger? Delta only makes money for the flight segment flown on the Delta aircraft.
Seems like a powerful incentive to do the flying yourself, unless of course their isn't enough passenger volume to support a mainline aircraft.
Is it true that the maximum number of DL coded pax on an Alaska flight segment is limited to a maximum of 86 Delta passengers or 50% of of the capacity whichever is lower and that the actual number is far less than that?
Would those thin routes go to a 50 seat RJ or mainline aircraft?
Also, doesn't this code share agreement cut both ways? Don't we fly Alaska passengers on our aircraft under a similar agreement, many of them to Asia?
All correct, if you assume that DAL actually would wants to do the flying, versus make a little less money, not invest in more metal, and have a larger virtual network.
The argument that you give is logical, but what comes before this argument is more important. What is DAL's strategic vision?; One where they continue to grow organically and acquire the competition, or one where there is a gigantic transnational virtual network, where most of the flying is not performed on their branded metal, but coded metal.
Pilots and unions want their companies to do well, but we also want to see growth a job protection and expansion. What we are currently seeing is growth off of our list, that provides a better network for the DAL passenger, but a nonlinear return for the pilots. IMO, that is where all of the angst is over the Metal Neutral, as well as the code share and capacity agreements. Everyone understands your points, but we need to look at the assumptions on which they are made.