I'll tell you why we don't have ATRs anymore and why we aren't seeing TPs at Delta....Delta has decided that they don't want TPs anymore due to "passenger perception". I for one would love to fly the new ATR or the Q....I loved the ATR for the 14 years I was on it. Now I fly the RJ to the same cities with 16 fewer people and burn twice as much fuel. Doesn't really make sense, but that is a Delta decision....not an ASA or Skywest decision. Jerry would do it in a heart beat if he could get a long term commitment to the new airplanes.

Northwest and Continental were members of SkyTeam. Alaska is now a codeshare partner...What's the difference? Is because they are a "regional"?

Actually we belong to the same association. The unions are all chartered at the local level. The RLA forbids national unions in this industry hence why ALPA is a association and each MEC functions as a individual union and negotiated individual contracts.

damn you beer. :D

Wait, say it does auto shut down but its still on fire... there... deal with that smarty pants. :D

Continental celebrated in advertising all of the place when we parked all our props in 2002. Now they've got Dash 8-400s from Colgan and -200s from Commutair flying for them.

I think any airline, and especially DAL is the LGA swap goes through, would be wise to investing in TPs, especially up north.

Is ATR and Bombardier are looking at 100 seat TPs? I heard Embraer might reconsider entering the market.

I'd say the major difference is Continental and Alaska sell their own tickets, regional carriers do not.

More to the issue, what if ASA said it was dropping DAL and creating a DFW operation. It then told Skyteam it would acquire larger planes to augment the regional fleet and including widebodies or it would allow international Skyteam members do it for them and Skyteam would get a large share of the revenue (some way, some how) far greater than what they'd get from DAL, could Skyteam do it? Could DAL prevent it?

I guess I could read the agreement between Skyteam and Delta...

Technically, they are not a regional. Their revenues, combined, exceeded $1billion so they are a MAJOR, albeit a LOW PAYING MAJOR.

Alliances and Code-sharing, in my book, seem to take away jobs and growth<-----IMHO. What keeps me alert about the RAH scenario is that, RAH's employees are paid less than Delta employees, hence a creation of a B or C scale scenario with the inclusion of RAH in Sky-team working for or with Delta.

That is it. I have no ill will towards any pilot groups or airlines. I just want OUR airlines to regain traction on better contracts, rather than get diluted with low paying alternatives.

TYG

Maybe because the external air wasn't hooked up? They are usually quick to hoop up power, but not air north of the MDL.

I've noticed that there seems to be a marked difference in cultures between keeping the cabin cool for pax boarding/unboarding, and that our brothers from the lower latitudes seems to have less of an issue with having no air and cabin temps into the 80's. Comfortable pax are happy pax.....:cool:

And the argument will be that all need it to compete.....

I can see this happening and I can see the other two alliances responses.

Lets make sure that does not happen. (Only problem in the way of this occurring as I see it is CAL scope.)

A lot of the statements made here are nonsensical. The first miss conception that needs to be cleared up is that Skyteam does not make any money. It is a revenue sharing organization that serves as a mechanism for airlines to carry passengers for each other and then through a series of formula's share that revenue with each other. Skyteam does not get revenue from the airlines involved. It distributes the revenue that the airlines earn.
Delta's scope prevents much of what has been mentioned here. It would not matter if ASA joined sky team. They could not feed Delta which would reduce their value to skyteam. In addition Delta's agreement with Skyteam gives them veto authority over new members. If fact for all intents and purposes Delta is Skyteam. They are the biggest boy and on the block and have more control over Skyteam then any other airline in the alliance. Delta brought AirFrance/KLM into Skyteam not the other way around.

Now thats what I was wondering.

There really wasn't a misconception about where SkyTeams money goes (i.e. to the other airlines) but rather could they chose another U.S. partner if one offered a better deal (for all of them)? Veto power would make all things moot.

Thanks.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ma...alk-about.html