787-10 international routes
 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...es/1998789002/

It will be interesting to see what they do with the planes that were flying those routes. Looks like 4 trips on the 777 and 2 on the 767 are being replaced. The new international allocation chart should be out soon and we should find out then.

Thats good flying looks like the 787 in EWR will be getting more senior.

the 777 and 767s can be absorbed with the Polaris upgrades, at least that is my guess. Also IAD-TLV starts with the 777 in the spring.

I can tell you we don't have enough 777's. They are doing another interior upgrade on the -200's. Both UA and CO. And....they are adding the economy premium seats in the 777A's. Lots of ferry flights to China, and not enough ground time on the remaining planes to fix them between flights. Seems like the deferrals are going up. It won't be too long before the 300ER's come up on C checks. So, I don't know if they will be doing anything other than planned MX with the freed up planes.

How about resuming the SEA-NRT and taking it back from our Star Alliance partner ANA?

I’m just glad to see things moving in a positive direction. The post 9/11, lost decade, age 65, merger, SLI.... business was getting old. New deliveries, hiring, upgrading the fleet to provide a better product are all promising. I know that it can all change overnight, again, but I’m going to put my feet up and enjoy this little ray of sunshine.

Good point about needing hulls while others go into the shop for cabin upgrades. Hopefully this will allow progress to continue.

If there's no feed into the (former) hub then they won't reinstitute that (former) route....

SEA and JFK were “smiseked”.

I’d be curious to see how we would be doing against Alaska, Delta and Southwest out of SEA these days.

You missed my point. This is a UAL route authority being flown and outsourced to Star Alliance. We currently do feed the route. We feed it to ANA. Last I checked, ANA doesn't have a fleet of RJ's to service our domestic feed to their international route.....

I would submit that it would be a very rare passenger that would be connected from UAL to ANA through Seattle vice originating in Seattle. The system is set up to connect pax through the hubs.

That one NRT departure kept SEA on life support for a while, but the company certainly won't want to bring it back from the dead just for that. This is the very reason the Death Star exists.

Keep in mind that SEA-NRT is not just “Star Aliiance” as UAL and ANA have a Joint Venture (JV) that covers the North Pacific.

Within the JV revenues, expenses, and profits are split regardless of the color of the airplane. I hate to say it, but it probably makes a strong business sense to have ANA operate the city pair in the absence of a UA 777 base in SEA. (The idiotic UA abandonment of SEA in the first place is a whole different can of worms.)

Why not fly it as a W out of another base? Delta does this with widebodies to many places.

ANA has a hub in NRT and we don't. UA probably doesn't have the draw, not enough NRT pax and no feed in SEA... (just a wild guess)

Because that is one of the benefits of a JV. You don’t have to do the flying to get the revenue/profit. The airlines coordinate what aircraft/airline etc would maximize the profits while maintaining the negotiated restrictions in the JV as to percentages of flying done by each airline.

And I’m not sure you want to use Delta as a model for JV’s that benefit a pilot group. Well unless it’s to benefit every other airlines pilots but DALPA.

What are your JV restrictions? AAL has none and neither does DAL.

We have restrictions on both Scheduled block hours and the Revenue share. I have not heard of any violations of the JV sections but UAALPA does have a committee that monitors compliance.

1-C-3-b-(3) In the event the Company or a Company Affiliate enters into or maintains a Revenue Share Agreement with one or more Foreign Air Carriers, the Scheduled block hours of Company Flying between the United States and Territories and the foreign country or countries covered by the applicable Revenue Share Agreement in each Rolling Twelve-Month Period shall be not less than ninety percent (90%) of the Scheduled block hours of Company Flying between the United States and Territories and foreign countries covered by the applicable Revenue Share Agreement either:

1-C-3-b-(3)-(a) During the twelve (12) full calendar months immediately prior to the effective date of this Agreement (if the Foreign Air Carrier was a party to a Revenue Share Agreement on the effective date of this Agreement) (a “Base Period”), or

1-C-3-b-(3)-(b) During the twelve (12) full calendar months immediately prior to the effective date of the Revenue Share Agreement with the Foreign Air Carrier (if the Foreign Air Carrier was not a party to a Revenue Share Agreement on the effective date of this Agreement) (a “Base Period”).



1-C-3-c Revenue Limitations Under Revenue Share Agreements with Foreign Air Carriers

Measured on a Rolling Twelve-Month basis for each Revenue Share Agreement, the Company's revenue from that Revenue Share Agreement associated with Flights that are 1) operated by the Company between the United States and Territories and Foreign Airports or between Foreign Airports, and 2) covered by the applicable Revenue Share Agreement, shall not exceed 130% of the total revenue onboard Company Flights that are 1) operated by the Company between the United States and Territories and Foreign Airports or between Foreign Airports, and 2) covered by the applicable Revenue Share Agreement. For purposes of this provision, total revenue onboard Company Flights equals the prorated segment passenger revenue as recognized by the Company's business revenue accounting systems used in the Company's public reports.

For example, if, during a Rolling Twelve-Month period, 1) total revenue onboard Company Flights between the United States and Foreign Airports or between Foreign Airports covered by a Revenue Share Agreement equals $5.872B, and 2) the Company receives an additional $100M under the applicable Revenue Share Agreement associated with these same Flights (meaning that the Company receives total revenue under the Revenue Share Agreement associated with these Flights of $5.972B), then 3) the percentage of the Company's revenue associated with these Flights under the Revenue Share Agreement ($5.972B) would be 101.7% of the Company's onboard revenue for these Flights ($5.872B), because $5.972B divided by $5.872B results in 101.7%. Since this 101.7% would be smaller than the 130% limit, the Company in this example would be in compliance with Section 1-C-3-c.

As another example: if, during a Rolling Twelve-Month period, 1) there are no Company Flights covered by a Revenue Share Agreement, meaning that total revenue onboard Company Flights under this Revenue Share Agreement equals $0, then 2) the Company may not receive any revenue under the applicable Revenue Share Agreement, because the Company receipt of such revenue would exceed the 130% limit in Section 1-C-3-c.


1-L-30 “Revenue Share Agreement” means an agreement or arrangement between or among two (2) or more air carriers or their Affiliates, providing for any form of:

• Capacity purchase,

• Fees for Scheduled block hours or departures,

• Revenue sharing from flight operations,

• Profit sharing from flight operations,

• Margin sharing from flight operations,

• Purchase of blocks of passenger seats on an air carrier for sale or resale by a different air carrier.

For purposes of this definition, the following provisions in an agreement or arrangement do not make it a Revenue Share Agreement: (i) reimbursement of distribution costs, or (ii) payments or receipts under standard industry prorate agreements, standard industry interline service charge agreements, standard industry re-accommodation agreements, or standard industry revenue settlement agreements.

Pilots don’t get paid to market routes, sell tickets or decide on what airplanes to buy. We get paid to fly airplanes. What’s the point?

If it was up to Kirby, and all those like him, they would outsource everything and collect the revenue for selling the tickets. Just think how much money Uber makes and they don’t own one vehicle.

They made $2.5 billion on $2.6 billion in revenues. Not much overhead, because the entire financial risk is passed to the drivers.

https://www.recode.net/2018/5/23/173...-grab-softbank

Great Example!