Now if we can just buy 30 used 777s and crush United's SFO hub with our LAX hub.

Will LAX-MNL be senior?

That depends on your definition of we.

Even if you did get 30 more used 777s tomorrow, you'd still have 54 less than United.

Plus, where would you plan on parking those 777s at LAX? That place was built for 1960s sized planes, not present day aircraft. LAX isn't built for the kind of feed you would need to do what United does in SFO.

All we'd have to is pay the bribe-uh, I mean, make the fairly priced market based infrastructure investment for the local community, and we could get the gate space we need.

The going rate for big city shakedow-uh, I mean airport improvement development commissions, is about a quarter billion per gate (because things really cost that much, yes they do) but first we have to pay 11B to have the same effect on stock price as if we didn't pay 11B, and then after that we'll have to do the same with many many more billions. But after that, perhaps there can be a proper investment in the needed JV partner facilities. :D

35 less...

(83-30-18=35)

Consider all the Asian carriers that fly into LAX.

And ask yourself.

What is their feed?

I've lost count, how many domestic cities do we feed LAX from?

How many domestic cites does Singapore Airlines feed Singapore from?

Zero

In my opinion we can compete head to head from LAX with any Asian carrier.

Maybe gzsg and Sailingfun are the separate accounts of the ultimate Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde @ DAL???? :eek:

Hmm. Isn't Delta's business model to JV out almost all of the heavy international flying? That being the case, they won't need any used 777s.

http://news.delta.com/sites/default/...ographic-1.png

Count the number of red dots vs. the number of blue dots. There's your answer. :mad:

United has 9 more 777s being delivered by the end of 2017. So it would be 92 on the property. Let's just call it 44 less. But the point is LAX doesn't support a single airline like ATL, SFO, DFW, etc to be able to have a massive WB fleet there, because those things need massive small jet feed, which nobody has enough of in LAX. Terminal 9 being built for United only adds 8 or 9 gates and it still won't be enough. And it won't be ready until 2022.

I don't think the infrastructure supports it. For any single airline. Especially for a large WB presence. I hate flying into there.

Terminal 9. LOL. Google it; the idea's been around for a couple of decades. It's still a dumb idea.

:D. That was my point. For a Delta captain to make the previous post is beyond my comprehension. Like it or not, Delta's chosen to reduce their downside risk by outsourcing widebody flying. Flying near empty widebodies during economic downturns has caused the demise of more than a few airlines.

I won't even address the fact that LAX is not only a facility that is 30 years past its useful life, but is also an extremely competitive market with suboptimal yields.

Yeah and I agree. I think the post in question was trying to say that there is aside potential in creating actual connectivity there, and I agree. However the issues you and others mentioned are very much in the way and will require earth shattering bribes (many many many billions of dollars) to address even small things like a couple extra gates or terminal connectivity. So odds are its not going to happen, but even if it does most to all of the benefits will go to MBA class preferred foreign airlines.

"In my opinion we can compete head to head from LAX with any Asian carrier."

The key is his use of can.

Infrastructure issues aside, he is correct. However, management has chosen not to.

In my opinion we do not and will not compete head to head from LAX with any Asian carrier. I followed A CEA 787 out just a few days ago. BTW our gate was surrounded by VA 787s as well. But I finally got to park at T2. Much better than T3, so there's that.:rolleyes:

http://newsroom.united.com/2017-06-01-United-Airlines-Announces-Nonstop-Service-Between-Los-Angeles-and-Singapore

As an old guy our almost worthless international scope language won't hurt me much. That being said, I will fight to improve it until I fly my last round trip to Sydney.

I hope the new Delta pilots are reading and paying close attention.

In my opinion this is the number one issue we need to tackle going forward.

Allowing management to outsource our international flying via JVs is not in our best interest, just like allowing over 800 RJs until our regional partners did over 65% of our domestic departures was not in our best interest.

United started SFO to Singapore last year and is now adding LAX to Singapore.

Please spare me the "we can't make money on international".

How did we get to over 800 RJs?

By line pilots repeating the excrement management was whispering in their ear.

"The RJs are saving our bacon!!!"

International widebody flying prints money during good times. It flushes money down the toilet in bad economic times. While I'm very happy to be flying international widebodies at United, our. -400s were flying sub-20% loads across the Pacific during SARS. The cash bleed almost had us joining Pan Am, Eastern, TWA and other airlines in the trash heap of defunct airlines.

JV allows airlines to revenue share without the economic risks. It smooths earnings through good times and bad, increasing long term stability.

As for dominating LAX, I consider American's facilities the best. But even with that, they won't be able to dominate LAX. Delta would do better to set up an international fortress hub in SEA.

Have you been to the Philippines? 5+ star hotel is dirt cheap, amazing service, cheap drinks and hundreds of beautiful women asking to be your girlfriend...

Countless times. That was the point of my post. Very senior.

When you look at the forecast growth of flying in Asia over the next 20 years, there is no reason Delta for to sit on the sidelines.

Giving our management a free pass with worthless scope is a critical mistake. Just as having over 800 RJs was an unnecessary self induced nightmare.

Sometimes you have to save management from themselves.

In my opinion.

No worries in 20 years we will still have 650,000 GBHs. :rolleyes::mad:

Asking to be your girlfriend is one thing. Being loved "long time" is what you should be hoping for.

It's the only place I look like a movie star. Every time.

Unfortunately, I fall into the "too beaucoup" category. And I'm not even a soul brother!:)

Open skies ruined international flying. The bread, and butter is now Domestic where the airlines are all exercising capacity discipline.

The synergies are converting 2 RJ's to a mainline plane.

I understand what you're saying, but suggesting Delta management will buy a ton of widebodies is akin to suggesting that Southwest management will be buying a different aircraft than the 737.

I suppose DALPA could come up with contractual language that limits widebody JV flying but management would probably extract quite a bit from the pilots for that language.

Management can buy whatever planes they choose.

As we have finally done with regional flying, we can use scope language to protect our flying from outsourcing.

As you will see with the Korean JV, our international scope, is almost worthless.

That is unacceptable and must change in C2019.

That is in every Delta pilots best interest.

We can't make $ on Intl because we refuse to acquire the right kind of fleet. Relying on the 763 to cross the Pacific isn't a recipe for success. And all we see are UA, AA and nearly every other Intl airline flying the Dreamliner. We don't have that plane-type to fly these markets. All we have are generic Intl a/c to run into the hubs of our Intl partners.

Kinda gettin' the ol' "Cousin Eddie RV" image in my mind as I picture our 763s rollin' in next to those 787s.

"Ohhh...the silent majesty of a winter's morn...clean, cool chill of a holiday air....and an a $$hole in a bathrobe emptying a chemical toilet into my sewer....."

"$hitter was full!!"

Yes, let's let pilots run the airline. That'll work out just fine. Lol

As silly as letting pilots negotiate contracts.:D

TEN

Why not? It's worked so well in the past!

Delta does have Dreamliners.. They Own 49% of these...
http://www.aviationenthusiast.co.uk/...r-1024x531.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sfpMxLhf7MQ/maxresdefault.jpg

and the second one just replaced a 767 flight from Seattle to London.

...So we got that going for us...which is nice...

The Jvs are saving our bacon!

Every time I see one taxi by, I shout out, "THERE GOES MY BUDDY, PROVIDING ME A PROFIT SHARING CHECK, HAVE A GREAT TRIP!"
Then I spit.

"Remember that metal plate in mah haid, United?"
"How could I forget, Eddie?"
"Welllll, had to to get it replaced. Ev'rytime tha FO turned on tha ray-dar, I'd pi$$ myself and forget who I wuz for thirty seconds."

You ignorant pilots, shiny new airplanes will mean the demise of our competitors. Put new tires on that ER and get to work. True story, in customs last week, UAL passenger told he goes out of his way to ride the 787.

There is a reason for that. Pressurization differential pressure maximum is 9.4 psid, so the cabin altitude is only 6000 feet when at 43,000 feet. That is a big difference, especially if you are a frequent flyer.. or a 60+ year old pilot.