Opening Salvo AS vs DL

[Flyby1206]

Anyone think it is likely that Emirates would want to set up a massive codeshare with Alaska? Seems like they want to set up a transpac operation...

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_04_2013_p0-584853.xml

 

[moochild11]

that gate problem goes both ways general..delta came to us lookin for gates and we said no..hence the cancellation of the ground handling contracts..where exactly are all of these "delta" jets gonna park if you cover all of our routes?..and of course we want southwest scope..who doesn't? we were flat out told by the nmb that scope is not a strikeable issue..hence not gonna happen..your scope clause and really all scope clauses get into contracts on the bankruptcy court steps..as far as I know there has never been a scope clause agreed upon outside of a concessionary contract..ie..we are gonna lose it all anyways so we might as well get a scope clause! we haven't been there(yet anyways) so we haven't had the "opportunity" to get a scope clause yet..even with your scope they could add 30 large rj's to the Alaska operation..not exactly great either..

 

[General Lee]

that gate problem goes both ways general..delta came to us lookin for gates and we said no..hence the cancellation of the ground handling contracts..where exactly are all of these "delta" jets gonna park if you cover all of our routes?..and of course we want southwest scope..who doesn't? we were flat out told by the nmb that scope is not a strikeable issue..hence not gonna happen..your scope clause and really all scope clauses get into contracts on the bankruptcy court steps..as far as I know there has never been a scope clause agreed upon outside of a concessionary contract..ie..we are gonna lose it all anyways so we might as well get a scope clause! we haven't been there(yet anyways) so we haven't had the "opportunity" to get a scope clause yet..even with your scope they could add 30 large rj's to the Alaska operation..not exactly great either..

SEA airport has no problem moving people around. UAL was near your gates, and got moved to the South side near the DL island. If they build a customs facility outside of the island, that could give DL a lot more room. I think SEA airport really wants more INTL cities added for additional revenue, and this Spring DL is adding Hong Kong, Seoul, and London Heathrow, with plenty more cities being looked at. Those RJ connections may turn into mainline planes sooner than later, and the airport authority is aware.

The last DL contract tightened the scope, both INTL and Domestic, and will park 145 more RJs than they will add (215 50 seaters parked, 70 76 seaters added), and tied any additional RJs to 717 deliveries. (88 717s coming total). As DL gets financially more sound, it's harder for them to ask for concessions. There may be some give and take in any negotiations, but getting everything they want stopped at the end of BK. Your scope though seems very thin, with many options open to management. That's not good.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[moochild11]

I haven't heard about this new customs facility..where exactly is that going to be..and our scope is not thin..its non existant..my point being that getting it is not possible in this environment..

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

General,

You need to throttle back on the good people at Alaska. It is not their fault the management wants to pick pockets clean with whoever wants them to codeshare. Heck, they got a good thing going there. Love all, serve all.....

They certainly don't carry the arrogance like the Herb turds on here about their setup or the way you add fuel to the fire by combatting them.

I wish good stuff for Alaska and hopefully we can coexist....(psssst no merger)

 

[Dan Roman]

Listen to Bill General.

 

[General Lee]

Bill and Dan,

Throttle back? I'm just hoping for internal growth on the West Coast. I think it is FANTASTIC DL isn't using AK exclusively, and something must be going on if DL places a VP of SEA operations out there. I never slammed AK's service, they have been nice to me on a couple flights too. I know they have a good thing going, I just want DL to expand there to help feed the growing INTL flights.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Old School 737]

Alaska needs to put our big boy pants on and do the islands out of LAX and SFO! And go eastbound from the bay and LAX!

 

[Boxboy]

Alaska needs to put our big boy pants on and do the islands out of LAX and SFO! And go eastbound from the bay and LAX!

Unfortunately, big boy pants don't fit boys with small cajones. Just my .02.

 

[tico]

Alaska needs to put our big boy pants on and do the islands out of LAX and SFO! And go eastbound from the bay and LAX!

I think we are actually shrinking LAX not growing it..The Lax terminal remodel/ move was a strategic error according to some scuttlebutt out of corporate...apparently we cant make money there.....asked about SFO directly to one of the 3 musketeers....very unlikely...we have no traffic for east bound flying.....

 

[Old School 737]

I think we are actually shrinking LAX not growing it..The Lax terminal remodel/ move was a strategic error according to some scuttlebutt out of corporate...apparently we cant make money there.....asked about SFO directly to one of the 3 musketeers....very unlikely...we have no traffic for east bound flying.....

Isn't that their job to get the traffic so we can fly it .. God I guess I'll have to fly it AND Get the people .. I want a raise !!!!

 

[msmb]

Old school... Wait another 4.5 years before we talk about a raise!!

 

[Old School 737]

Old school... Wait another 4.5 years before we talk about a raise!!

Oh yea ..

 

[flythere]

Old school... Wait another 4.5 years before we talk about a raise!!

Huh, by then we are talking about a whole different game; all the -400's & -700's are gone, we'll have more CRJ's and those fancy new MRJ's being flown by Skywest or whomever else they've cut a deal with by then!

Hell, we could be wearing a hat and the double breasted donkey suit by then!!!

 

[igneousy2]

as far as I know there has never been a scope clause agreed upon outside of a concessionary contract..ie..we are gonna lose it all anyways so we might as well get a scope clause! we haven't been there(yet anyways) so we haven't had the "opportunity" to get a scope clause yet..even with your scope they could add 30 large rj's to the Alaska operation..not exactly great either..

Simply not true. The big legacy carriers started from the point of "we do all the flying" period. Then with each successive concessionary contract cycle they gave up flying and put limits in the contract. Delta and United managed to put that genie back in the bottle a little bit this past round. AA had a scope that in the late 90's limited connections to 50 a/c over 44 seats. They then had a sick out that basically rolled back that scope til what it is today. The difference between Alaska and the other legacies is that the other legacies started from the contractual assumption that there can be NO connection flying, and then periodically gave it away. AS is now starting from the contractual assumption that it can be given away. A subtle but big difference.