Originally Posted by
gloopy
What does that mean? I know about many of the US-CDG city pairs that grossly favor AF/KLM but the sum total over the Atlantic isn't going to change beyond what the JV production balance says. So while we might "take back" more flights to that airport, all that does is guarantee we will lose flights elsewhere.
What else could that mean? It always concerns me when someone high up dispenses a talking point that only makes sense when you don't really think about it. It makes you wonder what's in the other hand you can't see.
I took it to mean that AMS as a hub makes a TON of money. He spoke for a minute or two about other carriers making a healthy profit flying into CDG, and with our position and JV that shouldn't be the case. That's what my opinion of what taking back CDG meant.
He spoke several times about how profitable AMS is. He also mentioned how happy he is with DTW & MSP, and that Chicago is a real cat fight with so many carriers fighting for traffic.
Also, the fuel guy was very impressive. Very smart guy, has big ideas. Apparently before April of last year there was no one in charge of fuel. Lot's of people that dealt with it, but no one in charge of it.
One more thing. He talks a lot about parking RJs. But he's always talking about 50 seaters. The bigger ones never come up. He knows his audience.