Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 745244)

I'd echo what ACL/Alfaromeo are saying, and add that I have too little info to take informed guesses. As far as uninformed guesses...

1) I can't see interest in adding capacity and killing yields at NRT. The focus at NRT is probably maintaining slots, so I would guess the average size of A/C to NRT goes down a little.

2) I can certainly envision fierce competition at HND, even at the expense of yields. Both alliances will want to capture market share. I would think the size of aircraft to HND will go up.

3) I'm seeing conflicting reports on whether a DAL stake in JAL might be discussed in the near future, or not. Assuming there is no stake, I would imagine there won't be incentive to atually relinquish permanent ownership over HND slots: JAL would keep them. Right now they're in slash-and-burn mode. Once the pain is done, I think they'll want to re-capture and retain. IOW, I'm not sure what's being negotiated, but I would wager we'll be invited to bring pax to HND, and JAL will take them beyond JAL, to the more lucrative business leasure markets.

4) Taking 1 and 2 together, along with the comments about large JAL jets going away by 2015, my guess would be a modest increase of flying overall, with DAL big jets going to HND, smaller DAL aircraft going to NRT. Business markets in Asia might be served via HND on JAL, and leasure markets might be served via NRT on DAL, or a mix of JAL/DAL. I would guess our intra-Asia stuff gets rationalized somewhat, offset (or better) by HND flying.

5) Let's not forget than the purpose of the alliance would be to make money and the vehicle for that is to reduce supply. I don't imagine that the net amount of capacity afterwards will be as much once the deal is done. What will differ will be how much is routed through HND, and what players are sharing that flying. 40% of AMR's pax connect on JAL, so that's something can syphon off. AMR will adapt by fielding full 787's, or 767's, instead of emptier 777's. The next question becomes how we distribute flying between DAL and JAL. I honestly have no idea what we're agreeing to there. We may be the low-cost producer now, but let's not forget they're just about to go in bankruptcy. Then yen isn't going to be sky-high forever, and maybe the balance of power will shift.

6) There is a reason this is labelled a rare opportunity for us, and a reason Bastian probably dreams in Japanese. That greatest opportunity is about to close, as the bankruptcy is entered. We're not a single white knight, but more like a pig at a crowded through. We normally wouldn't be allowed in at all, except for the predicament JAL is in. Plans are surely very far along on making sure JAL will re-emerge as a powerhouse, and people are setting up to make sure they get the best pieces. In a moment, I think we'll be negotiating with them for our place. Which leads me to believe we may get discounted access, but it sure won't be free.

7) Putting all the above together, I would envision a modest uptick in our flying, a little shifting in NRT to smaller-gauge, which would continue to leasure markets, an uptick in large-gauge flying (to HND, where JAL would do much of the regional flying to business markets).

Again, this is all pure speculation on my part.

I do have one question about GUM. I can't understand whether this would be a defensive piece if we failed to access HND, or a positive piece to complement JAL. Why would we want an operation there?

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 745239)

WRT the 88/90 in MSP, just wanted to point out that AA operates their 80 series from ORD to SAN, so it isn't necessary to operate the 90 to hit the west coast, and I know XJT operated the E-145 from EWR to MSP no problem, so I'm not so sure what the "need" for the 90 in MSP is. The 88 would serve just about everything you could need out of MSP, the 90 just does it a little more efficiently (and with IFE.....when it works!)

The longest 88 flight I've been on was ATL-PHX and that is 1584 miles.
MSP-SAN is 1530
MSP-MIA is 1502
MSP-BOS is 1121
MSP-SEA is 1395.

I know the 90 carries 10 more people and has MUCH more efficient engines, but it really isn't a DC9 replacement, but rather a M88/737/320 replacement.

It allows the M88/E75 to fly old DC9 routes, and the 737/320 to expand into new/more economical options. (or so I think I would do if I were in charge.)

The 90 is a lot of airplane capability for a stupid cheap price, glad DL is going that way.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 745211)

And option A means Bar stays off the Douglas, right?:p

I'm rooting for ya to stay on the 73N Bar! Maybe they'll just leave ya on!:D

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 745248)

I see GUM as needed to base crew that way and be on US soil. Just a guess.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 745263)

So for example, a way to have 737-800 crews do intra-Asia from NRT or HND, but originating their trip in GUM? This as opposed to having a GUM "hub", or GUM operation similar to CAL?

Originally Posted by FlyingViking (Post 744769)

Speaking of reimburstments. I played around a little in ecrew and realized that you can manually put in the date on the top right corner (instead of using the drop down dates), just use their format and it will work. I put in training expense for two years and it took it.

Originally Posted by bigdaddie (Post 745258)

I just want to know where Alaska is going to get all the extra airplanes to beef-up the feed to SEA, PDX, and LAX. Maybe we'll buy the C-Series and lease them to AS.

BD

Yea I know I'm a bit bitter :p

Originally Posted by ExAF (Post 745270)

If you live in base and go to training in base (not using a hotel room), do you get any expenses (such as mileage or per diem)?