Originally Posted by SailorJerry

Maybe we should close the skies. The EU wants carbon emission credits. How about the US Government charges foreign flight crews 1.90% per hour they spend being manhandled by NY Approach.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

Well before we get into another thrash about Alaska, let's remember one thing. Neither Delta nor Alaska have any control about where each other flies. Our contract does not have any restrictions on where Alaska flies. Can you imagine the outrage at Delta if the Alaska pilots tried to negotiate restrictions on which markets Delta could serve?

What we do have in our contract is restriction on where Delta can place their code. In this case Delta is allowed to place our code on Alaska flights with restrictions. These include:

1. Limits on the number and/or percentage of seats on any market that can have Delta code
2. A 4 to 1 hub to hub ratio, meaning for every 1 flight that Alaska has Delta code on between Seattle and a Delta hub, Delta has to have 4 flights with Alaska code on in the same market
3. This is a pro-rate code share. That means that you share the revenue based on how far the passenger traveled on YOUR METAL

Go back and read #3 again. If someone tries to tell you that Delta can make money on Alaska coded flights without them traveling on a Delta airplane, they are flat out wrong. Delta cannot just sell tickets on Alaska flights and make money. A pro rate is based on miles flown, if you fly 0 miles your share of the revenue is $0. Every time you think that Delta is outsourcing flying to Alaska, just remember this, 0 miles = $0.


So Alaska can add a flight from SLC to SEA, they can add 100 and Delta has no say about it. If Delta places code on ONE Alaska flight, then there must be FOUR Delta flights with Alaska code. Delta cannot replace SLC-SEA with Alaska flights, Delta has to grow on a four to one ratio.


The average amount of passengers that are in any one market on Alaska flights is 9. Does anyone have any idea on which Delta aircraft would serve a market with 9 passengers? Those 9 passengers on multiple flights collect in Seattle and then we fly them west to Beijing, Narita, etc. We just added another flight (Shanghai) and are trying to add Haneda. Without this code share, the Seattle international operation would crater. Someone should at least point out that the size of the Seattle base has doubled since the merger.


Here is the problem. From 2007-2012, US air traffic has shrunk by over 10%. Yes shrunk, that is not inflation adjusted or any other type of adjustment, that is an actual 10% shrinkage. Slightly before the merger, in July 2008,, Delta and Northwest together had 10,826 pilots in category, i.e. flying the line. In July 2012 we had 10,644. That is a reduction of 1%. If we had a reduction of 10% to match the drop in traffic then that number should have been 9,743.


Delta has also upgauged their own fleet. How may 160 seat MD-90's does it take to replace 5 100 seat DC-9's? 3. So when you add that up, there should have been a larger drop below 9,700. The reason why Delta has not shrunk our pilot force by 10% is that almost all their drop in capacity has come from the regional carriers. We have lost over 200 aircraft and that number is increasing. Delta has increasingly stolen high dollar market share from UAL, AMR, and LCC and also aggressively increased their charter market share which has saved a lot of our jobs. UAL, AMR, and LCC are all much, much smaller than they were in 2008.

So I can understand everyone's dismay at their lack of progression. Global air traffic has declined based on a near doubling of fuel prices and a global recession. That is what has caused the lack of progression and nothing else. Evidence is pretty strong that without this merger, the individual carriers (DAL/NWA) would have been hit much more deeply.

Every single statistic that DALPA has produced has shown that the Alaska code share has benefited Delta pilots more than Alaska pilots. Essentially, everyone's response has been, don't confuse me with facts I have my opinion. Don't blame your lack of progression on Alaska, it is the drop in global traffic.

There are two market in the US that support two airline hubs: Chicago and New York. Seattle is a great city but it is not in the economic or population class as Chicago and New York. There is no possible way to support two hubs in Seattle. So Delta has a choice: they can try to get into a market share war in Seattle and try to drive Alaska out of business, or they can take advantage of their code share to drive passengers into our international markets from Seattle and grow that way. Which event is more likely to occur, and which event is more likely to result in success for Delta pilots' careers? Does anyone really want to get into a hub war with Alaska right now?

So yes, I will tell you unreservedly that the Alaska code share is good for Delta pilots and helps our careers. The facts are clear and unambiguous. If you are looking for a scape goat on why you haven't progressed you can blame it on Bush or Obama or the Chinese or the bankers or the rich or the poor, or whatever target suits you. Blaming it on the Alaska code share is just wrong headed. Get rid of the Alaska code share and high paying Delta international jobs will go away. Period. If you think we will win a hub war in Seattle you are smoking dope.

Originally Posted by Rudder

Alpa,

You are conveniently stating that we would only have 9 pax on us from, say, BOI to SEA if we started a 73 or Mad Dog on that route. Would there not be any pax at all that would bail off AS to go on us? I say there would be some, not all, but some and that we could compete with our mainline product very well against AS if we had to. Heck, just turn on the AC when the cabin gets hot alone would bring some of their pax to us.

Have ridden on them LOTS and have been in the back sweating both before and after the flight cuz they do not turn on any air until right before push and it is off shortly after block in.

Originally Posted by Timbo

Only sissie airplanes (and pilots) need two engines after V1 anyway...

Mad Doggy don't need no stinkin' n'utha motor!

Originally Posted by Rudder

Alpa,

You are conveniently stating that we would only have 9 pax on us from, say, BOI to SEA if we started a 73 or Mad Dog on that route. Would there not be any pax at all that would bail off AS to go on us? I say there would be some, not all, but some and that we could compete with our mainline product very well against AS if we had to. Heck, just turn on the AC when the cabin gets hot alone would bring some of their pax to us.

Have ridden on them LOTS and have been in the back sweating both before and after the flight cuz they do not turn on any air until right before push and it is off shortly after block in.

Originally Posted by SailorJerry

I've been reluctant to say anything about this, but Alaska kicked United to the curb, then kicked Southwest to the curb, and they would gladly kick us to the curb too. All in the name of BRAND LOYALTY. The Seattleite proudly runs his Windows 8 PC, sips his Starbucks coffee, and vacations along Alaska Airlines' route structure. They are a fiercely loyal customer group and honestly don't take lightly to competition on Alaska's route structure. Every other airline sees SEA as a "lousy hub". That's because the market is cornered like nowhere else in the country.

If you're from the South I don't expect you to understand. So feel free to tell me I'm wrong and that Delta is great - especially because we don't shut down the APU until we have external air.

Originally Posted by SailorJerry

Delta is great - especially because we don't shut down the APU until we have external air.

Originally Posted by SailorJerry

The Seattleite proudly runs his Windows 8 PC, sips his Starbucks coffee, and vacations along Alaska Airlines' route structure. They are a fiercely loyal customer group and honestly don't take lightly to competition on Alaska's route structure.