|
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1124964)
Thanks George,
I didn't realize another probe was ongoing for STAR. Come to think of it, we've reduced VERY aggressively on some routes, which caused yields to rise fairly dramatically (the call said +17% across the Atlantic). Maybe we're squeezing the goose a little tight by reducing offerings a little too much. I don't understand your last statement. If AF/KLM is not profitable, it's because of their entire network. Presumably we're both doing equally well/poorly across the Atlantic. Why mess with it? AirFranceKLM is still quoting Atlantic traffic up 9% capacity up 6.7% driven mainly by South America. For the same time period, Delta Americas traffic is down 3.7% and capacity down 5%. The profit sharing of the JV is on the shared route network only. The technical terms are Bundle 1 and Bundle 2 flying... IIRC Bundle 1 flying profit is shared 50/50 while bundle 2 flying gets the other side a 25% cut... Cheers George |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1125022)
What a beautiful overhead panel. So well organized and logical. The brilliance of simplicity, capability, redundancy, efficiency and reliability all in one. The panel which set the standard other manufacturers followed and the general layout of jets being designed 50 years later on.
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1125045)
Compared to the MD overhead? The abortion of several ideas all cobbled together? There's a reason Douglas doesn't exist anymore.;)
|
Originally Posted by georgetg
(Post 1125040)
We're not. Delta has been significantly more aggressive in the pull down than AFKLM. That's why our production balance is below the share we had when Alitalia was added.
AirFranceKLM is still quoting Atlantic traffic up 9% capacity up 6.7% driven mainly by South America. For the same time period, Delta Americas traffic is down 3.7% and capacity down 5%. The profit sharing of the JV is on the shared route network only. The technical terms are Bundle 1 and Bundle 2 flying... IIRC Bundle 1 flying profit is shared 50/50 while bundle 2 flying gets the other side a 25% cut... Cheers George |
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1125045)
Compared to the MD overhead? The abortion of several ideas all cobbled together? There's a reason Douglas doesn't exist anymore.;)
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1125037)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;)
After 20 years of flying the Lockheed Star Lizard and my brief soirée with the Mad Dog, all I see is a sexy ***** calling my name. Apparently you boys can't make her sing like I can.:D |
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1125009)
Yeah, baby! That's what I'm talking about. Whose your daddy? Buzz is your daddy!
Writes NYT best sellers? CHKD Surrounded by hot women? CHKD Says I'm your daddy? CHKD DAD! IS THAT REALLY YOU? :D
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1125022)
What a beautiful overhead panel. So well organized and logical. The brilliance of simplicity, capability, redundancy, efficiency and reliability all in one. The panel which set the standard other manufacturers followed and the general layout of jets being designed 50 years later on.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../1/0387129.jpg And to continue our overhead panel porn, talk about keeping it simple: http://www.fspilotshop.com/images/CRJ_700_over.jpg
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1125037)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1125045)
Compared to the MD overhead? The abortion of several ideas all cobbled together? There's a reason Douglas doesn't exist anymore.;)
As luck would have it, I've known some of the engineers and flight test people on the MD80/90. Douglas really did die because they were undercapitalized and refused to do anything "new." It was thought that a derivative design was cheaper to execute. Instead they had an expensive to build airplane that sold cheaply. They could never drive the sort of efficiency of manufacture or price premium that Boeing was able to command. Douglas would end up spending more trying to make an old design work than if they had bitten the bullet and just created a clean sheet design. The derivative MD11 was the final straw. The MD88/90 is the "Moneyball" of airplane design. "There's rich teams, there is poor teams, there is 50 feet of crap then there is us." Yet the Oakland A's won more consecuive games making the most of a cheap team than any of their rich competitors. The joke about getting FAA Certification late in the day on Friday was told to me as true by the guy who submitted it. Capt. Carl knows some of these same people. It would be interesting if he chimed in. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1125069)
Cheers George |
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1125054)
The current JV only deals with Bundle 1, so South America growth isn't a part of it. Bundle 2 may be a part of a future JV, I couldn't find Bundle 2 in the PWA. Has there been a bundle 2 measurement period?
–AF/KL/AZ/DL Bundle 1 flights are 50/50 profit split Bundle 1 flights from US/Canada/Mex to Europe –India, PPT Bundle 2 flights are 25% profit contribution above a margin Bundle 2 flights are Africa/ME/N South America “Beyonds” revenue also shared –25% of beyond revenue is shared on a per pax basis –Raises threshold for non-stop profitability Cheers George |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:43 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands