I'm missing your logic here. You acknowledge that total Delta flying has gone up, but you're concerned about allocation of 737 time? Yet you point out that staffing in that category has actually gone up?:confused:

Similar story in SEA. We've doubled the size of the pilot base there, and opened a new 7ER base.

The point is we aren't losing flying because of Alaska. We've gained flying. The history lookback is to remind folks that when any airline without a compelling competitive advantage has tried to dominate LAX, they've ultimately lost flying. I believe that history (and marketing's numbers) would show that without the Alaska codeshare there would be even fewer LAX 73N departures and fewer Delta pilot jobs overall.

Thank you. Made my day

I don't know if total pilot staffing has increased, has it? I don't see any increase in 737 to jump for joy over hence the question what was lax 737 staffing in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, and so on. Hell what is lax total pilot staffing back to the western merger?

I'm concerned with the flying we're losing to Alaska. That's all I've consistently been asking. Again, I don't care right now about international flying. To me that's watch the right hand and don't pay attention to the left hand robbing you.

Alaska doesn't do international but if the did I'm sure we'd give it up to them just like we give up or partially give up routes like LAX-SEA or don't fight them off SEA-MSP and SEA-ATL.

Why can't we stop the codeshare in lax but let Alaska own SEA flying codeshares? Bros before Eskimos... our guys cone first and it is my only concern when you see Delta selling tickets on 20 flights a day between two of our own hubs, flown on 738s and 739s no less, with not a single Delta jet on them.

Are we truly coming out ahead? After all what was it in May at the Mec meeting that brought up a review of this codeshare. I thought it was because there were questions about how detrimental it was to our own pilots?

What I see is DAL finding it cheaper to codeshare then try. The whole too much debt to buy airplanes, free milk and a cow, etc. But are we that short on airplanes?

Still wondering, how much growth could we have if we kicked as out of our lax flying alone and took back the 51-76 seat market? How many new Delta pilots would we have? I think it's substantial.

It would awesome to have Delta sponsor the World Cup one year. But could we find enough hot flight attendants to decorate the stage like Emirates?:confused:

For FTB or Slow

Isn't Alaska code share limited to a prorate agreement?

Under a prorate agreement, isn't it true that Delta doesn't get any money from a passengers ticket for flight segments flown by Alaska with a DL passenger? Delta only makes money for the flight segment flown on the Delta aircraft.

Seems like a powerful incentive to do the flying yourself, unless of course their isn't enough passenger volume to support a mainline aircraft.

Is it true that the maximum number of DL coded pax on an Alaska flight segment is limited to a maximum of 86 Delta passengers or 50% of of the capacity whichever is lower and that the actual number is far less than that?

Would those thin routes go to a 50 seat RJ or mainline aircraft?

Also, doesn't this code share agreement cut both ways? Don't we fly Alaska passengers on our aircraft under a similar agreement, many of them to Asia?

All correct except the thin routes. The really thin ones would just go away. And thin doesn't mean total passengers traveled, just DL coded passengers.

Slow,

What about PDX HNL or SEA HNL or HNL ANC? I don't remember those being thin. Why did we give those up to Alaska? Seems to me that a 757 would be cheeper per seat mile over that distance.

I'm really tired of waking past gates in the Hawaiian Islands that Alaska are flying out of. Why aren't We doing those. Or even competing on them?

Slow, I've been based in LA for the past 3 1/2 years and I've seen quite a bit of change, both personally, and in the larger DAL operation. The airline that "owns" LA right now is SWA. Their presence appears to be increasing. If we're going to take them on in ATL, we ought to be taking them on out here as well. They don't seem to have the same fear of banking on LA that we do. I find that odd, and a little troubling.

Delta metal flying, in my estimation, has not increased. I guarantee you that if you compare the pre-merger DAL and NWA frequencies in LA to what the joint operation is now, its close to a wash. We also closed a category out here in the last three years. We did add a handful of FOs and a couple of CAs to the 73 but since early 2008, the numbers have been relatively static. I've personally lost about 50% seniority since I got out here (2001 hire). What I HAVE seen is a lot of our 73 flying going to AK. And that is not only in LAX but SNA as well. Almost all of the LAX 73 Mexico service has matriculated to AK. In its place is a significant increase in TRANSCON redeyes.

I think what most LAX bubbas see, and believe, is that LAX can be had (similar to what Western had prior to the merger). We've squandered a lot of that Western presence. I'm not a marketing or route structure guy, just a line guy who sees a lot of untapped potential out here. If we're going to "own" NY and the Orient, we might as well "own" LA.

Ferd,

I don't know. I suspect that it's because Hawaii is historically a very low yield market that was used primarily for dumping frequent flyer points and vacation consolidation. As I recall NWA had a base there that had seen signficant variability in flying.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see us get more flying. But I'd also rather not work for the "stupidest competitor" that gets everybodies yields down.

Dead on Buzz and what I was trying to say (unsuccessfully) in a post a page ago. Flying continues to be put into ATL with western flying done by Alaska. Just how much more can we stuff into ATL?