Slow, can you list the pax enplanements that covet SNA and ONT? That would present a more complete picture.

Here's the LA basin (LAX, SNA, ONT, BUR, and LGB)

2006 2010
Alaska 2423421 1960141
Delta 2777356 3900127
NWA 1235130

So Delta has lost about 100K pax in the entire basin compared to Alaska losing about 460K pax over the 4 years.

Just looked at the Alaska site. Their numbers for 2011 are 2,646,960. If so, that's a growth for them of 25% in one year. That's frikkin huge. What source are you using.

That is true, they used to have twice as many flights to Mexico from LAX, but recent drug war publicity has shrunk the service. They used to do a daily LAX-CUN on the 738 for example. Now, it's gone. So, they turned their eyes on the next closest warm weather destinations from the West Coast, and that meant Hawaii, and a lot of it. Soon after Delta announced the closing of PDX and SAN to HNL, Alaska announced it. (The SAN flight now goes to OGG, and Hawaiian flies the solo nonstop to HNL from SAN) They have rapidly expanded everything to Hawaii, especially from the Bay Area (although not competing with our SFO-HNL nonstop. Hmmm). OAK, SJC, and SMF hit all of the islands (LIH, HNL, KOA, and OGG), and the flights are mostly daytime flights, which passengers prefer. They essentially moved the LAX Mexico operation to the Bay Area for Hawaii. From Seattle though, the expansion hasn't really occurred, other than one daily to ATL, IAH, AUS, STL, and maybe MCI coming up. They are sort of boxed in up there in the NW.

DL has grown widebody flying and yet has lost 100K pax. The only way to make that happen is to have a significant narrowbody loss. Obviously, those pax were given away to another airline. One that not only does a massive portion of DL's narrowbody flying out of LA but the entire west coast. DL is outsourcing an entire coast to another airline and that is unacceptable. Gains in widebody flying do not justify this. If they did, we could just give most of the east coast to JB and grow our widebody flying. Outsource the midwest to SWA and grow widebody flying.

By that logic, we could/should give away all scope smaller than an ER if management will agree to grow our widebody flying, right? Would you seriously go for that?

When are we going to stop falling for this "outsourcing small planes gets us more big plane jobs" nonsense? We need significantly superior scope at all levels and significantly less outsourcing.

Precisely Gloopy. And renovation of Terminal 6 is nearly complete which will allow AK pax and DAL pax to share ticket counters, terminals and kiosks. Before, AK and/or DAL pax had to make the hike around the horseshoe. Now, we're one big happy family. Slow may not want to concede it, but LA 73 guys have taken it in the shorts for the code share. It may, indeed, be in the company's best interests. It has not been in the best interests of DAL pilots.

I wouldn't expect an ATL-based guy to get that nor an ALPA/company apologist. Truth hurts.

And, oh, btw, 89,760 enplanements for AK in ATL for 2011.

DOT. That Alaska website number probably includes through, connection and codeshare pax, not unique pax enplanements. As I said, I haven't seen their numbers, but the company reported 7.8% mainline growth on the system for 2011.

DecemberYear-to-Date20112010Change20112010ChangeRevenue passengers (in thousands)
1,485 1,440 3.1% 17,810 16,514 7.8%

Yeah, I shouldn't expect a guy who profited from a "kiss and tell" book to have an adult discussion.:mad:

Did you read it? If so, you would know that it wasn't. Otherwise, you're being disingenuous and have no idea what you're talking about...which is par for the course.