Delta and Korean sign JVA

Nola · Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:38 pm

The Delta/Korean JV was approved by the US DOT.

http://news.delta.com/delta-korean-air- ... val-us-dot

jumbojet · Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:05 am

I just saw that. I think it deserves its own thread. This thread is old and I think a lot of people will skip over this thread not realizing its been approved.

Its only a matter of time now till Korean moves up to a tier 1 airline.

Atlwarrior · Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:06 am

This is huge and should be a separate thread.

jumbojet · Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:13 am

Atlwarrior wrote:
This is huge and should be a separate thread.

Agree 100%. Care to start it please?

DeSpringbokke · Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:19 am

Now it has been approved, anyone want to guess or have a hint over when this will go into effect? I assume next year is the goal.

jumbojet · Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:51 am

apparently it still needs approval from South Korea's Transport Ministry.

winginit · Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:51 am

jumbojet wrote:
apparently it still needs approval from South Korea's Transport Ministry.

This is correct. Today's ruling is only half the equation. While the outcome may well not be comparable, we should recall that the proposed AA/QF JV was approved by Australian authorities before being rejected by the DOT.

MSPNWA · Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:31 am

Nola wrote:
The Delta/Korean JV was approved by the US DOT.

http://news.delta.com/delta-korean-air- ... val-us-dot

Although entirely not surprising, it's still disappointing that yet another JV was approved by the DOT. I wish we could go back and not let one through.

LAXintl · Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:04 am

Actually, DOT did not approve anything today.

It merely denied the motion by B6 and HA to force a full and new anti-trust review based on marketplace changes since initial JV grant issued in 2002.
In its denial, DOT states already holds the power to review competitive impacts and network access issues as needed in the future, and has already imposed a special condition on parties during the original approval and feels this is consistent with how the department has treated other joint-ventures.

In other words, let DL-KE go forth with their expanded arrangement, and 3rd parties are always free to bring to departments attention any concerns which may play out, and such concerns will be reviewed on their merits of at such time.

AirbusMDCFAN · Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:48 pm

Link/Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ve-443561/

"US regulators are barring Delta Air Lines and Korean Air from being exclusive partners across the Pacific in the recent approval of the SkyTeam Alliance carriers' proposed joint venture."

Do United and Asiana have a JV across the Pacific to S. Korea in place, and if so what makes the DL/KE JV any different that what United has in place with the Star Alliance partners or American and OneWorld Partners

enilria · Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:01 pm

I don't understand the impact of that. Does that mean JetBlue could force their way into the JV?

LAXintl · Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:03 pm

Active thread about planned JV.

viewtopic.php?t=1359065

Arion640 · Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:25 pm

Can't have it all I'm afraid. Winge and cry about the ME3 but then force anti competitive partnerships and JV's.

jbs2886 · Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:34 pm

enilria wrote:
I don't understand the impact of that. Does that mean JetBlue could force their way into the JV?

No, just the terms of the partnership can not preclude either airline from doing TPAC codeshares with other airlines. Doesn’t mean that either airline won’t drop them anyways, just can’t be required to drop them.

For example, KE can retain codeshares with Hawaiian.

This is pretty meaningless.

atcsundevil · Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:12 pm

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:
Do United and Asiana have a JV across the Pacific to S. Korea in place, and if so what makes the DL/KE JV any different that what United has in place with the Star Alliance partners or American and OneWorld Partners

There is no UA/OZ JV. They actually don't have much in the way of cooperation to begin with.

LAX772LR · Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:48 pm

IINM, this is pretty standard for on the US-side as a JV concession... so nothing really profound.

That said, I'll still holding out hope that DL will someday codeshare with CX or HX!

jumbojet · Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:52 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Actually, DOT did not approve anything today.

It merely denied the motion by B6 and HA to force a full and new anti-trust review based on marketplace changes since initial JV grant issued in 2002.
In its denial, DOT states already holds the power to review competitive impacts and network access issues as needed in the future, and has already imposed a special condition on parties during the original approval and feels this is consistent with how the department has treated other joint-ventures.

In other words, let DL-KE go forth with their expanded arrangement, and 3rd parties are always free to bring to departments attention any concerns which may play out, and such concerns will be reviewed on their merits of at such time.

According to Delta, the DOT did in fact approve it.

http://news.delta.com/delta-korean-air- ... val-us-dot

Today, Delta Air Lines and Korean Air took a significant step in the creation of their trans-Pacific joint venture with approval of the joint venture by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The DOT approval reflects the consumer benefits that will be created by the new joint venture.

it cant be any more clear than that.

jumbojet · Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:54 pm

As I pointed out in the main DL/KE JV thread, the Korean Transport Ministry still needs to approve this JV from the Korean end of things. I seriously don't see them not allowing it. Full steam ahead.

LAX772LR · Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:55 pm

jumbojet wrote:
As I pointed out in the main DL/KE JV thread, the Korean Transport Ministry still needs to approve this JV from the Korean end of things. This is still not a go though I am hedging a guess that at this point, its just a formality,

Sincerely doubt it.

Remember, DL was already determined to pursue other avenues (albeit, with limited returns) such as a closer partnership with MU... indicating that it was likely KE who eventually gave in and agreed to the j/v

Doubt the government, with which Hanjin is so closely intertwined, would publicly embarrass them (among the worst offenses possible in that country) by declining the j/v, at this point.

EddieDude · Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:58 pm

jumbojet wrote:
As I pointed out in the main DL/KE JV thread, the Korean Transport Ministry still needs to approve this JV from the Korean end of things. I seriously don't see them not allowing it. Full steam ahead.

When is the Korean government's authorization expected?

jumbojet · Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:01 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
As I pointed out in the main DL/KE JV thread, the Korean Transport Ministry still needs to approve this JV from the Korean end of things. This is still not a go though I am hedging a guess that at this point, its just a formality,

Sincerely doubt it.

Remember, DL was already determined to pursue other avenues (albeit, with limited returns) such as a closer partnership with MU... indicating that it was likely KE who eventually gave in and agreed to the j/v

Doubt the government, with which Hanjin is so closely intertwined, would publicly embarrass them (among the worst offenses possible in that country) by declining the j/v, at this point.

my post is edited. It was sort of unclear. The Korean Transport Ministry will absolutely allow this to go through. If it was going to be held up or denied at any one junction of the process, it would have been with the DOT. As to when the KTM approves it., who the heck knows. I tried a Google search and come up with no results.

jumbojet · Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:02 pm

EddieDude wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
As I pointed out in the main DL/KE JV thread, the Korean Transport Ministry still needs to approve this JV from the Korean end of things. I seriously don't see them not allowing it. Full steam ahead.

When is the Korean government's authorization expected?

I'd like to know the same thing.

jbs2886 · Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:44 pm

jumbojet wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
Actually, DOT did not approve anything today.

It merely denied the motion by B6 and HA to force a full and new anti-trust review based on marketplace changes since initial JV grant issued in 2002.
In its denial, DOT states already holds the power to review competitive impacts and network access issues as needed in the future, and has already imposed a special condition on parties during the original approval and feels this is consistent with how the department has treated other joint-ventures.

In other words, let DL-KE go forth with their expanded arrangement, and 3rd parties are always free to bring to departments attention any concerns which may play out, and such concerns will be reviewed on their merits of at such time.

According to Delta, the DOT did in fact approve it.

http://news.delta.com/delta-korean-air- ... val-us-dot

Today, Delta Air Lines and Korean Air took a significant step in the creation of their trans-Pacific joint venture with approval of the joint venture by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The DOT approval reflects the consumer benefits that will be created by the new joint venture.

it cant be any more clear than that.

While I see your point LAX, jumbojet is correct, there is an approval letter. See the docket: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... 11842-0020. Here is the actual letter: https://www.regulations.gov/contentStre ... ntType=pdf

BUT, jumbojet, citing to a DL press release isn’t “clear” rebuttal evidence of DOT actions. Go to the source because PR can change the technical meaning.

LAXintl · Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:07 pm

Go read the DOT order.

Its not a formal approval as parties already had approval since 2002.
DOT merely issued rejection of B6/HA motion to reopen the 2002 DL/KE JV which by default means the parties (DL/KE) continue on as they wish.

Order 2017-11-8

Issued November 15, 2017

Order

By this Order, the Department denies the motion of JetBlue Airways to institute a new proceeding to review a joint venture between Delta Air Lines and Korean Air. Delta Air Lines and Korean Air have a grant of antitrust immunity, which includes the ability to enter into implementing agreements, such as a joint venture agreement, with prior approval of the Department after an informal review. JetBlue has not shown that a public review of the joint venture is necessary. Using the standard informal and confidential process, the Department has already conducted a thorough review of the competitive issues raised by the Delta Air Lines/Korean Air joint venture and approved the arrangements subject to conditions addressing issues of transparency, network access, and reporting.

The referenced DOT "approval letter" was issued 2-days later on the 17th, and entirely different thing than the DOT Order dated Nov 15th which my reply#509 references.

777Mech · Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:10 pm

EddieDude wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
As I pointed out in the main DL/KE JV thread, the Korean Transport Ministry still needs to approve this JV from the Korean end of things. I seriously don't see them not allowing it. Full steam ahead.

When is the Korean government's authorization expected?

DL expects the ministry to approve it in 1Q2018 if not sooner. Full cooperation would be in the 2nd quarter.

jbs2886 · Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:57 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Go read the DOT order.

Its not a formal approval as parties already had approval since 2002.
DOT merely issued rejection of B6/HA motion to reopen the 2002 DL/KE JV which by default means the parties (DL/KE) continue on as they wish.

Order 2017-11-8

Issued November 15, 2017

Order

By this Order, the Department denies the motion of JetBlue Airways to institute a new proceeding to review a joint venture between Delta Air Lines and Korean Air. Delta Air Lines and Korean Air have a grant of antitrust immunity, which includes the ability to enter into implementing agreements, such as a joint venture agreement, with prior approval of the Department after an informal review. JetBlue has not shown that a public review of the joint venture is necessary. Using the standard informal and confidential process, the Department has already conducted a thorough review of the competitive issues raised by the Delta Air Lines/Korean Air joint venture and approved the arrangements subject to conditions addressing issues of transparency, network access, and reporting.

The referenced DOT "approval letter" was issued 2-days later on the 17th, and entirely different thing than the DOT Order dated Nov 15th which my reply#509 references.

Read the end of the paragraph you cited, it discusses the approval letter. The letter is also referenced in that docket on the 15th, but yes the letter is dated the 17th.

DeSpringbokke · Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:34 pm

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180322000792

Conditional approval has been granted. Expected launch by the end of the Q2.

jumbojet · Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:50 am

he joint venture has now been approved by regulatory authorities in the U.S. and Korea, including the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Korean Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport

the airlines will work closely together to bring customers the full benefits of the partnership, including joint growth in the trans-Pacific market, optimized schedules, a more seamless customer experience, improved loyalty program benefits,

Probably means Korean moving up to be a tier 1 partner. It would be nice if they would allow skymiles redemption for Korean First class.

complete story in the delta news room....

https://news.delta.com/delta-and-korean ... artnership

Delta is all of a sudden quite formidable over the Pacific. It took a while but between their own TPAC flights, those of their Chinese partners and now Korean, its a pretty impressive and unbeatable combination.

WPvsMW · Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:19 am

We'll see what "aligned loyalty program benefits" means. At least it means earning Skymiles on KE.... maybe even 100%.

klakzky123 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:29 am

WPvsMW wrote:
We'll see what "aligned loyalty program benefits" means. At least it means earning Skymiles on KE.... maybe even 100%.

Presumably for DL customers, it should be no different than the other JV partners which will be good news. I don't see why it would be any different. There are non-JV partners that are Tier 1 so I don't see why KE would somehow be treated differently.

WPvsMW · Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:32 am

The press release is silent about "aligned". One can hope "aligned" means the same as TATL JV.

questions · Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:11 am

With this JV, how does DL compare to UA in TPAC, e.g., strengths and gaps?

How might this JV impact DLs operations at LAX and SEA?

HeeseokKoo · Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:31 am

DeSpringbokke wrote:
Conditional approval has been granted.

The condition is,

1. keep total overall (combined) capacity on ICN-US and
2. do not reduce (combined) capacity on each of ICN-SEA DTW ATL LAS IAD

which doesn't look harsh at all. If economy is down, I expect that these restrictions will be temporally waived. And fare of those monopoly routes will be closely monitored by gov't.

jumbojet · Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:56 am

HeeseokKoo wrote:
DeSpringbokke wrote:
Conditional approval has been granted.

The condition is,

1. keep total overall (combined) capacity on ICN-US and
2. do not reduce (combined) capacity on each of ICN-SEA DTW ATL LAS IAD

How many daily flights are there from the U.S. to ICN?

questions · Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:13 am

jumbojet wrote:
HeeseokKoo wrote:
DeSpringbokke wrote:
Conditional approval has been granted.

The condition is,

1. keep total overall (combined) capacity on ICN-US and
2. do not reduce (combined) capacity on each of ICN-SEA DTW ATL LAS IAD

How many daily flights are there from the U.S. to ICN?

What does #1 mean? They can not pull back on capacity because of the agreement? Are they permitted to grow capacity?

HeeseokKoo · Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:15 am

jumbojet wrote:
How many daily flights are there from the U.S. to ICN?

Guess the condition imposed by Korean gov was more about the total number of seats (capacity). Right now, DL operates 3 daily to ICN, KE operates ~13.5 daily flights to US/Hawaii including ICN-NRT-HNL, and 2 daily to GUM.

HeeseokKoo · Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:17 am

questions wrote:
HeeseokKoo wrote:
1. keep total overall (combined) capacity on ICN-US and
2. do not reduce (combined) capacity on each of ICN-SEA DTW ATL LAS IAD

What does #1 mean? They can not pull back on capacity because of the agreement? Are they permitted to grow capacity?

Yes, just don't decrease the capacity (the number of seats) was the condition. They can grow of course. Sorry for the language confusion. Reading again, it is Korea-US, not ICN-US.

DTWorld · Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:20 am

Condition #1 confuses me as well. Is it on the basis of the number of flights or the number of seats between both regions?

I'm hoping to see BOS announced now that the JV is approved. :cloudnine:

jubguy3 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:49 am

DTWorld wrote:
Condition #1 confuses me as well. Is it on the basis of the number of flights or the number of seats between both regions?

I'm hoping to see BOS announced now that the JV is approved.

If it was capacity it would be seats, not flights.

boilerla · Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:59 am

jumbojet wrote:
Delta is all of a sudden quite formidable over the Pacific. It took a while but between their own TPAC flights, those of their Chinese partners and now Korean, its a pretty impressive and unbeatable combination.

Might want to put down the KoolAid for a second. Yes Delta just moved up, but it's hardly "unbeatable" over the Pacific--they're still behind UA in many regards like US-TYO. It'll take a while for the dust to settle but I doubt DL is going to come out the undisputed #1 many categories here.

WPvsMW · Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:15 am

ICN becomes a combined AMS/CDG for Asia. The sooner the better.

klm617 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:46 am

HeeseokKoo wrote:
DeSpringbokke wrote:
Conditional approval has been granted.

The condition is,

1. keep total overall (combined) capacity on ICN-US and
2. do not reduce (combined) capacity on each of ICN-SEA DTW ATL LAS IAD

which doesn't look harsh at all. If economy is down, I expect that these restrictions will be temporally waived. And fare of those monopoly routes will be closely monitored by gov't.

With that being said does that mean we can expect to see KE on Detroit ICN. It would also be interesting to know why these cities were called out.

cokepopper · Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:21 pm

No reason why Delta can’t add A359 service on JFK-ICN. Possibly TLV-JFK-ICN a/c routing.

Cubsrule · Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:25 pm

boilerla wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
Delta is all of a sudden quite formidable over the Pacific. It took a while but between their own TPAC flights, those of their Chinese partners and now Korean, its a pretty impressive and unbeatable combination.

Might want to put down the KoolAid for a second. Yes Delta just moved up, but it's hardly "unbeatable" over the Pacific--they're still behind UA in many regards like US-TYO. It'll take a while for the dust to settle but I doubt DL is going to come out the undisputed #1 many categories here.

I think in general you are right, but it's dangerous to think for a second that the number one carrier in US-TYO will necessarily be the number one carrier in US-east Asia. Japan's status as the most important economy in east Asia has diminished and will diminish further as its population ages and other populations and economies grow. Moreover, the growth of HND has hurt the business case for connecting in TYO. First, domestic-international connections at HND are not easy. Second, the dispersion of flights between HND and NRT necessarily means fewer online connecting opportunities. It's not like the JVs have backfilled the capacity moved to HND at NRT, and that means fewer one-airport connections.

klm617 · Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:21 am

jumbojet wrote:
HeeseokKoo wrote:
DeSpringbokke wrote:
Conditional approval has been granted.

The condition is,

1. keep total overall (combined) capacity on ICN-US and
2. do not reduce (combined) capacity on each of ICN-SEA DTW ATL LAS IAD

How many daily flights are there from the U.S. to ICN?

I am curious has Delta not already violated this stipulation when they reduced DTW-ICN from a 744 to an A350

jubguy3 · Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:34 am

klm617 wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
HeeseokKoo wrote:

The condition is,

1. keep total overall (combined) capacity on ICN-US and
2. do not reduce (combined) capacity on each of ICN-SEA DTW ATL LAS IAD

How many daily flights are there from the U.S. to ICN?

I am curious has Delta not already violated this stipulation when they reduced DTW-ICN from a 744 to an A350

The joint venture wasn't approved until just recently. They can't retroactively enforce the rule. Delta didn't downgauge expecting for the stipulation, either

klm617 · Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:30 am

jubguy3 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
jumbojet wrote:

The condition is,

1. keep total overall (combined) capacity on ICN-US and
2. do not reduce (combined) capacity on each of ICN-SEA DTW ATL LAS IAD

How many daily flights are there from the U.S. to ICN?

I am curious has Delta not already violated this stipulation when they reduced DTW-ICN from a 744 to an A350

The joint venture wasn't approved until just recently. They can't retroactively enforce the rule. Delta didn't downgauge expecting for the stipulation, either

Yes but I would think that the criteria should be based on when the application was filed. Not sure that Delta didn't know this and quickly moved that capacity from DTW to ATL so it had flexibility on the aircraft it used in the Detroit market after all if they were held to the 744 capacity that could have been problematic for them.

jubguy3 · Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:48 am

klm617 wrote:
jubguy3 wrote:
klm617 wrote:

I am curious has Delta not already violated this stipulation when they reduced DTW-ICN from a 744 to an A350

The joint venture wasn't approved until just recently. They can't retroactively enforce the rule. Delta didn't downgauge expecting for the stipulation, either

Yes but I would think that the criteria should be based on when the application was filed. Not sure that Delta didn't know this and quickly moved that capacity from DTW to ATL so it had flexibility on the aircraft it used in the Detroit market after all if they were held to the 744 capacity that could have been problematic for them.

But the stipulation wasn't added until the joint venture was approved. When Delta applied for the JV, they had no idea in a few months that they would add that stipulation. It's not their responsibility to be retroactively responsible for the stipulation. If they aren't allowed to enable the joint venture before it is approved, then they shouldn't be required to be responsible for the stipulation before it is approved.

Do you have Stockholm syndrome for Atlanta or something?

777Mech · Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:56 am

klm617 wrote:
jubguy3 wrote:
klm617 wrote:

I am curious has Delta not already violated this stipulation when they reduced DTW-ICN from a 744 to an A350

The joint venture wasn't approved until just recently. They can't retroactively enforce the rule. Delta didn't downgauge expecting for the stipulation, either

Yes but I would think that the criteria should be based on when the application was filed. Not sure that Delta didn't know this and quickly moved that capacity from DTW to ATL so it had flexibility on the aircraft it used in the Detroit market after all if they were held to the 744 capacity that could have been problematic for them.

Yes because DL is going to yank 2 744s out of the desert, put the NGS on them to satisfy the AD, just to put them back on the DTW-ICN route.

I'm so glad ICN is taking over the Asia flows from DTW, and this JV will let DL/KE add MSP/BOS-ICN.

The fact that ATL got an extra ICN flight is icing on the cake.

flymco753 · Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:10 am

777Mech wrote:
klm617 wrote:
jubguy3 wrote:

The joint venture wasn't approved until just recently. They can't retroactively enforce the rule. Delta didn't downgauge expecting for the stipulation, either

Yes but I would think that the criteria should be based on when the application was filed. Not sure that Delta didn't know this and quickly moved that capacity from DTW to ATL so it had flexibility on the aircraft it used in the Detroit market after all if they were held to the 744 capacity that could have been problematic for them.

Yes because DL is going to yank 2 744s out of the desert, put the NGS on them to satisfy the AD, just to put them back on the DTW-ICN route.

I'm so glad ICN is taking over the Asia flows from DTW, and this JV will let DL/KE add MSP/BOS-ICN.

The fact that ATL got an extra ICN flight is icing on the cake.

Where in the world are you getting this information about all of the Asia flows being taken over from DTW? You do realize this gives KE the opportunity to add a 2nd flight out of DTW to maximize flows right? Or are you going to continue spewing factless ignorance?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net