Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1298810)

If we need AS so badly we need 35-50% in major markets, then we need to buy AS. Their share price isn't even that high when you compare it to their outstanding shares. They are about what ours is, recent growth we gave them notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by TenYearsGone (Post 1298752)

JH,
Here you go.

Go on Deltanet.
Click on Chief Pilot Support Center CPSC (Left side of Page)
Click on Los Angeles (Left side of Page)
Click on CPO parking guide.

Shows everything. And you can print it for better visual.

TEN

Originally Posted by Imapilot2 (Post 1298596)

Their pay doesn't exceed ours until our contract ENDS in 2015.
Airport ready reserve also.
Funny, those UAL guys giving us crap about not raising the bar over SWA...not only will they not do that themselves, they won't even raise it over us!:cool:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1298810)

I agree that the code share can be good for the network, and I disagree with anyone that thinks we are simply going to overfly their entire network, route for route, gauge for gauge and/or frequency for frequency. That would be stupid indeed.

But there is no instance where we need to be filling half of a 737-900ER. None. Ever. No instance where they dump thousands of seats a day between major markets where we can't put a single flight. Where we give them almost 100 pax per flight on any route, anywhere, for any reason.

They are also becoming our defacto transcon DCI carrier. That is entirely unacceptable also.

I'm not against the AS code share. I'm against the abuses within it as its currently structured and against the trend vector for shifting more and more narrowbody lift to them. If 6 pax per flight was what was boosting our pacific international then I would be fine with it. But 35%-50%, including flights to ATL, MSP and other major markets, while they keep growing and we keep shrinking is proof that it is not working, not proof that it is working.

They have a lot more growth planned. We can't keep shifting pax to their fake little virtual DL network between major markets with large narrowbody aircraft at high percentages of DL pax.

Add to that the so called LCC's that are not only barfing capacity into the market as we pull it out (most have taken a breather on that for now, although JB keeps right on adding) and they are tying their ever growing networks into every flag carrier on earth, putting negative pressure on our international which we've seen over all, despite some bright spots here and there.

Capacity dicipline is unsustainable and eventually we will have to take it to the LCC's, the ponzi sheme foreign growth bubble airlines and AS, even if that means less than stellar quarterly results in the short term.

If we need AS so badly we need 35-50% in major markets, then we need to buy AS. Their share price isn't even that high when you compare it to their outstanding shares. They are about what ours is, recent growth we gave them notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1298854)

The union put out a summary of the Alaska code share about a year ago. I wish I had access to it now but can't find it. There are a lot of points you are missing. The biggest is that we get zero revenue of a passenger we book on Alaska. There is no incentive to move a passenger to their flights. The next thing is the comments on SEA to ATL/MSP and other transcons. I suspect there may be a transcon or two we code share with Alaska but I can't find one. I looked at MSP and ATL and we don't codeshare with them on a single flight.
The SEA hub is another issue. If you lose just a handful of passengers off a international flight you lose the entire flight. Its the last 10 or 12 passengers boarded that are your profit. A route surviving verses a route canceled is often a matter of single digit passenger bookings. Take the Alaska feed out of the SEA hub and many if not most of the international flights become untenable.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 1298666)

Okay, after eating some popcorn and reading some of the UAL and AMR threads, here is the question. What are everyones predictions as far as votes for and against go? I say at UAL 60% for 40% against. At AMR 45% for 55% against.

Anyone else?????:)

Denny

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1298867)

Keep in mind that those airlines also put passengers on Delta flights. A point that seems to be totally lost on this forum.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1298873)

What you are really saying is iCal will pass and amr will fail ...I agree with that. And I'm not going back to correct the ucal , damn iPad autocorrect...what the hell is iCal?