Understand. Just seems like we measure "load factors" as the primary statistic these days.

And you're right of course on the HNL base.

Oh, what happened to Quangzou in China? That was announced for spring as I recall. Seems we could be making a killing right now on China to HNL. (Sorry for the thread drift)

 

If you're referring to CAN, I believe we couldn't get commercially usable slots from the Chinese government. I think AMR ran into similar problems. The rumor I heard was the Chinese government wasn't too happy with the US Visa program and dished a little payback.

 

Interrrrrrrreeeeeessssssttttting. Thanks

I figured that was also why we weren't doing China to any beach spot.

 

I think what you meant to say was you have no idea how a woman so massively less attractive than your wife ended up spoiling what would have been a photogenic and memorable picture.

 

I've never bought into that logic. It just reeks of smoke and mirrors. Maybe its valid on a ticket purchase only on said codeshare with zero connections, but anytime a connection is made, the two companies can divvy up the revenue however they want with the net effect being the exact same as if revenue was shared in the first place, because it is. So DL gets the feed and still gets the revenue; maybe not as much revenue, but overhead for the connection is almost zero, which is a manager's dream. Sell your logo across your network while someone else runs a pretend airline for you.

I'm not against the AK codeshare in its entirety. Some of it does strengthen our overall network with feed and routes we wouldn't otherwise be doing. But going 0-fer eight on hub to hub (LAX-SEA) is unacceptable. No excuse. Heck, going 0-fer 2 BOS-SEA is pretty weaksauce. 0-fer 22 to outsourced RJ's? Please. That clearly proves we could be doing some of that. We need to use them to augment the thin routes and banks, but once you reach a certain seat/frequency volume that clearly justifies a mainline aircraft (not to mention 70-76 seaters should be C12K mainline aircraft anyway) we need to start weening them off the benevolence of our global network and politely inform them that we will be doing at least a sizeable minority of that flying. Not to mention all that revenue we would be getting that we are supposedly losing because we "can't share it" even though we all know that's exactly what goes on.

Add in them growing (and possibly using that against us, hard, in a future SLI) because of the code share while we stagnate/shrink and it only makes it twice as unacceptable.

 

http://images.delta.com.edgesuite.ne...s/investor.pdf

 

Still I ask ^^

 

Hey, FlyingViking....

How about you and I go sail up to LAX and take back some of the hub?

 

My feelings are that DL is just content with maintaining our dominance in SLC, and LAX is to remain a focus city, just like MCO or BOS. If they want to seriously take a foothold in LAX, they must first reign in the RJs.

I just hope we won't spend millions build a brand new terminal like the one in BOS, and then give it to Alaska... Oh wait, aren't there renovation in T6 in LAX?

 

Yeah, the terminal 6 renovation is fully underway. We also sexed up the ticket counter in 5 and "rumors are" a new ops and lounge renovation. One of the CAs I fly with is one of the last Western holdovers. According to him, the pilot lounge and ops offices haven't been touched since about 1975. We don't even get a cell signal or wireless in the lounge.