|
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 768799)
"Skyteam" is a joint entity designed to serve member airlines. If it were to take a life of its' own, then these airlines would lose control. Shareholders in these airlines probably are not agreeable to having their airline subject to the whims of a contract with "Skyteam". And I don't see how you can create a mechanism to give the owners of DAL/AF-KLMetc. shares of "Skyteam" instead, because I don't see a way of getting around the resulting thorny merger issues, from a contractual and regulatory standpoint.
Either Skyteam is the tail, a marketing tool to enhance the revenues of member airlines, or it becomes the head, which implies a whole lot of complicated restructuring, IMO. Never mind the fact that regulators like to have airlines serve at their pleasure, and have great difficulties approving ATI applications for a few carriers. I don't think they would let a Skyteam jugernaut exist, with he ability to control contract carriers at will. Right now, I don't see it. 2) As I stated, eventually. All of the Open Skies Accords could lead up to this being viable. We are in the mid stage of the process in my mind. Ten years tops is what I am thinking. Coincidentally about when all of the FFD lift agreements are done. In reality Sink, I hope not, but this just seems to have too many upsides for the few down sides. Difficult yes, but as I stated, as long as the money still goes in to the correct hands, who cares where it comes from. |
The way to put this issue to bed is to have our section one have more than just successorship clauses in it. We need to have causes that will protect the flying if we become a third party operator.
Hence my point for bringing it up. I want it on your radar. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 768799)
"Skyteam" is a joint entity designed to serve member airlines. If it were to take a life of its' own, then these airlines would lose control. Shareholders in these airlines probably are not agreeable to having their airline subject to the whims of a contract with "Skyteam". And I don't see how you can create a mechanism to give the owners of DAL/AF-KLMetc. shares of "Skyteam" instead, because I don't see a way of getting around the resulting thorny merger issues, from a contractual and regulatory standpoint.
Either Skyteam is the tail, a marketing tool to enhance the revenues of member airlines, or it becomes the head, which implies a whole lot of complicated restructuring, IMO. Never mind the fact that regulators like to have airlines serve at their pleasure, and have great difficulties approving ATI applications for a few carriers. I don't think they would let a Skyteam jugernaut exist, with he ability to control contract carriers at will. Right now, I don't see it. |
Originally Posted by Flyby1206
(Post 768825)
Im with Sink on this one. There is no such beast as a Skyteam code on flights (or any other alliance). Even if there was a massive "Skyteam Airlines" then the underlying companies would lose their individuality, and the product being offered would deteriorate(Midwest is an example, regionals in general are another). Yes, low cost is important to a lot of passengers, but the premium pax are the ones who really can make or break the carrier. They are the ones who pay attention to the product/service being offered.
I'm with both sink and acl on this: I dont see it right now, but it is definitely the plan. Scambo |
That was my point. Not yet.....
|
Could we end up like the shipping industry? Foreign registered certificates and corporations operating world wide? Imagine 787s registered in Liberia.
|
Originally Posted by Flyby1206
(Post 768825)
Im with Sink on this one. There is no such beast as a Skyteam code on flights (or any other alliance). Even if there was a massive "Skyteam Airlines" then the underlying companies would lose their individuality, and the product being offered would deteriorate(Midwest is an example, regionals in general are another). Yes, low cost is important to a lot of passengers, but the premium pax are the ones who really can make or break the carrier. They are the ones who pay attention to the product/service being offered.
"Enjoy your flight on Sky Team, service offered by Delta Air Lines" ain't a whole lot different than "Enjoy your Delta flight, operated by Chautauqua Airlines, Inc." Management don't care, as long as their split of the revenue comes in via wire transfer. Our sell out on scope has the potential to take a very ugly turn which would be the end of what we enjoy now, not to mention sabotaging any hope we have of restoration. |
This is an inevitability, and our unions are powerless to stop it. Eventually, the public demand for low ticket prices combined with massive amounts of corporate cash to influence our representatives will make this a reality. My best wild guess- estimate is 10 years.
You heard it here first. |
Originally Posted by Dashdog
(Post 768879)
This is an inevitability, and our unions are powerless to stop it. Eventually, the public demand for low ticket prices combined with massive amounts of corporate cash to influence our representatives will make this a reality. My best wild guess- estimate is 10 years.
You heard it here first. We really need a campaign to educate pilots on the basics of unionism and the value of ALPA. |
This is my prediction: soon this global economy will narrow down aviation to Costco and Walmart....One World and Sky Team. We'll all be wearing silver jumpsuit things (or gold) and anybody will be able to do what we do now because it will all be controlled remotely. As long as we're hauling people, there'll be "a person" obstensibly in control. Fighters, cargo, etc will be someone flying a screen in Nevada or elsewhere.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:23 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands