Originally Posted by
slowplay
This goes back to the crux of why there is code sharing.
Using the premise that all Delta coded flying be done by Delta pilots, our network (meaning in this case flights flown by Delta pilots) would be
substantially smaller than it is today.
How does it benefit the DELTA pilots to have a bigger network if we do less and less of the flying in smaller and smaller airplanes? A bigger network is not better if the additional flying is done by other airlines.
Oz - USA is a strategic route for VA. It is a boutique route to DL. Boutique routes go away when they don't make money. Strategic routes are ones that
you "have" to fly in order to stay in business.
Do you mean "you" have to fly as in DELTA, or "you" as in Delta, DCI, Alaska, Skyteam, or any other jet "you" can put pax on?
Under Delta's current strategy, an example of strategic routes would be transcons to business markets; even though they're overserved and have tremendous competition,
we have to be in them in order to maintain coporate contracts that pay the freight on the rest of our network.
Do you mean strategic markets like SEA-ATL, SEA-SLC, SEA-DFW, and PDX-BOS, and LAX-DCA? Because we apparently don't HAVE to fly those - Alaska can do it for us. Here's the latest routemap: http://www.delta.com/content/dam/del...-route-map.pdf. Please just open it and look how much green crosses the Mississippi river and goes in and out of our hubs. It's actually gotten a lot worse since I posted it less than a month ago. It's hard to count because they are so blended together (and transparent to the customer), but they are flying our pax on at least 10 transcons so we don't need to do that flying.
So without the codeshare, we pull out of Oz. We also lose the 100-200 pax daily that VA puts into our network and the LAX 737 or 757
but more realistically the AS 737 going wherever the Aussie wants to travel daily departures shrink by 1. It works the opposite way too. We fly to Sidney. VA takes our pax to Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Lose those pax and our Sydney flight is no longer profitable, as they then go to Qantas.
My example is oversimplified, but let me know if it doesn't speak to your point.
I have an honest question. There obviously are smart guys at DALPA who are Delta pilots and want the best for themselves and the other pilots (not just the company). I understand that some probably want to progress up the ALPA chain and proceed to management. There are also some who are senior enough to be in the high paying WB jobs and just not care what happens to the flying below them. But are they so "enlightened" that they do not see any of the negatives brought up by folks on this board? Is it presented in such a way that they are fooled at the time into voting yes? It's awfully discouraging for the guys at the bottom to see agreements that appear to be bad for our careers and progression pushed down on us, not by the company, but by the very folks we pay to look out for OUR best interests (which are sometimes,
but not always lined up with those of the company).