Cubsrule wrote:

727200 wrote:

DL financials are posted BEFORE taxes in an attempt to make it look much larger than it really is. Must be a 'Southern thing."

As for JV, tell all of us what feed DL has at PHL? Since none of the JV partners you mention fly say MEM, or ROC, or MLI to PHL I have no idea what feed you would be talking about. But if you have some unknown feed into PHL that we all have missed please do share it with us. Or are you trying to change the city pairs to CDG only? If that is the case, then what airline genius including yourself would only have feed on one side and not the other? Perhaps that is why this flight isn't making it and is being cancelled. But then, it could be that 'Southern thing" again.

When AA flies a route like CLT-FRA or UA flies a route like EWR-FCO, does it not have "have feed on one side and not the other?"

If airlines only flew to cities where they had feed on both ends, every single route in existence would be a hub-hub route of some sort. There would be no AA flights to ATL or DEN, no DL flights to DCA or ORD, or UA flights to DFW or SEA, or flights on any airline to cities like SDF, RNO, PWM, etc.

AA does (for the moment) have some limited feed from Air Berlin at FRA. UA at FCO however I'd definitely agree with you.

777Mech wrote:

atypical wrote:

777Mech wrote:

They do have this little thing called a JV. There's no "dependency" going on. In that case UA and AA are making "unwise" choices as well. Sheesh.

JV does indeed mean dependency, go ahead an look it up, I'll wait. Please enlighten me on these routes at AA and UA.

Uh, what? A JV is metal neutral, so to say DL is dependent on AF in CDG is stupid when it's all of the costs and profits are split.

I wasn't speaking to that. I specifically said, "If an airline is dependent on its foreign partner's hub to feed a route to be profitable then it has made an unwise choice" and so far the only comment to actually address that point was to say there is no dependency, as if just denying makes it true. This is about feed, splitting the profits are irrelevant if there is too little feed. Since DL doesn't make the call on how the flights get fed they are at the mercy of how (and if) AF wants to do that. This could be from lack of connecting codeshares to lack of connections period. And people are trying to say this is not dependency, sheesh.

atypical wrote:

777Mech wrote:

atypical wrote:

JV does indeed mean dependency, go ahead an look it up, I'll wait. Please enlighten me on these routes at AA and UA.

Uh, what? A JV is metal neutral, so to say DL is dependent on AF in CDG is stupid when it's all of the costs and profits are split.

I wasn't speaking to that. I specifically said, "If an airline is dependent on its foreign partner's hub to feed a route to be profitable then it has made an unwise choice" and so far the only comment to actually address that point was to say there is no dependency, as if just denying makes it true. This is about feed, splitting the profits are irrelevant if there is too little feed. Since DL doesn't make the call on how the flights get fed they are at the mercy of how (and if) AF wants to do that. This could be from lack of connecting codeshares to lack of connections period. And people are trying to say this is not dependency, sheesh.

What you have written is literally true. But what is the incentive for AF to do something other than feeding a flight on which it gets some of the profit for doing none of the work?

727200 wrote:

DL financials are posted BEFORE taxes in an attempt to make it look much larger than it really is. Must be a 'Southern thing."

As for JV, tell all of us what feed DL has at PHL? Since none of the JV partners you mention fly say MEM, or ROC, or MLI to PHL I have no idea what feed you would be talking about. But if you have some unknown feed into PHL that we all have missed please do share it with us. Or are you trying to change the city pairs to CDG only? If that is the case, then what airline genius including yourself would only have feed on one side and not the other? Perhaps that is why this flight isn't making it and is being cancelled. But then, it could be that 'Southern thing" again.

A number of us have explained this before. EVERY airline does pre-tax profit. Your insult towards southerners is misplaced.

I miss paid airliners.net.

Polot wrote:

The big question is where the point of sale is dominated by on the route. If the route is dominated by the American point of sale then AA, with their hub in PHL, has an advantage over DL despite DL's AF/CDG hookup.

While I have no data I suspect there are more Americans heading to Paris than Europeans heading to Philadelphia. AA can supplement the local Philadelphian O&D traffic they capture (which are more likely to be loyal to AA than DL) with connecting traffic from Americans heading to Paris. AA can put European connecting traffic on other flights such as via LHR.

DL's role was also to cover overflow PHL originating TATL traffic during peak season - as DL offered it seasonally, e.g. PHL pax heading to Europe (beyond CDG) to as far east as India, thus not just Europeans heading to Philadelphia.

While AMS is a smaller destination market than CDG, I wonder if it could offer PHL-AMS and maybe have strength over AA, which isn't strong as strong on PHL-AMS or in AMS, to ultimately pressure AA out of that route.

phluser wrote:

DL's role was also to cover overflow PHL originating TATL traffic during peak season - as DL offered it seasonally, e.g. PHL pax heading to Europe (beyond CDG) to as far east as India, thus not just Europeans heading to Philadelphia.

The problem is most of those PHL originating pax (at least the ones DL is particularly interested in) are loyal to AA (and thus IAG) not DL/AF. CDG is not the only connecting hub in Europe, there are other options like MAD and LHR. DL having a "hub" in CDG helps them out with Paris originating pax, because they are mostly loyal to AF and thus DL. So DL is stuck chasing after the lowest yielding traffic (which is why lower cost DL who can offer smaller aircraft was on the route in the first place and not AF).

I know why DL/AF were offering the route, I was just adding input on how much value the CDG "hub" actually has for DL for a route like this. DL can leverage the power of CDG elsewhere (like recently announced IND) because there is no (intercontinental) hub carrier on the American side sucking up all the high value passengers in the market, while AF's CDG hub allows them to target a larger market to make filling flights feasible. DL's CDG hub gives less benefit in markets like PHL.

How poorly did Air France perform in PHL? What aircraft did they use?

NichCage wrote:

How poorly did Air France perform in PHL? What aircraft did they use?

They used an A340-300. They must have been performing poorly enough that they thought it would be better to downgauge to a 757...

Cubsrule wrote:

What you have written is literally true. But what is the incentive for AF to do something other than feeding a flight on which it gets some of the profit for doing none of the work?

I agree however AF id going to make sure their own flights are served first. Aside from being a reasonable assumption it is probably what they do. That's the problem because DL is always going to be in a secondary position. The best DL can hope for is that that their flight falls close to AF's hub operations but AF obviously needs to take care of their own flights first then attend to the partner. My point is that DL will get best effort but that's a different level of service than primary consideration. Of course if DL was running the show the chances are that the current feed flights are different from how Delta would run them. It's not that this is AF slighting DL, but seeing to their own house before someone elses. I have never heard of a flight being successful under circumstances like this. E.g. the city of origin is someone elses fortress hub and the connection feed is dependent on the foreign airline partner, or partners even. Does anyone have an example of this working?

Oh, and to a certain extent this flight will also be a lower priority for DL because DL is going to make sure their hub connections are going to be scheduled with the best feeds from the partner too. It is hard to justify pushing a profitable flight off of the primary connection schedule for a marginal flight if that's what it comes down to.

atypical wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

What you have written is literally true. But what is the incentive for AF to do something other than feeding a flight on which it gets some of the profit for doing none of the work?

I agree however AF id going to make sure their own flights are served first. Aside from being a reasonable assumption it is probably what they do. That's the problem because DL is always going to be in a secondary position. The best DL can hope for is that that flight falls close to AF's hub operations but AF obviously needs to take care of their own flights first then attend to the partner. My point is that DL will get best effort but that's a different level of service than primary consideration. Of course if DL was running the show the chances are that the current feed flights are different from how Delta would run them. It's not that this is AF slighting DL, but seeing to their own house before someone elses. I have never heard of a flight being successful under circumstances like this. E.g. the city of origin is someone elses fortress hub and the connection feed is dependent on the foreign airline partner, or partners even. Does anyone have an example of this working?

It seems to be working okay for DL/AF in Chicago, no?

atypical wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

What you have written is literally true. But what is the incentive for AF to do something other than feeding a flight on which it gets some of the profit for doing none of the work?

I agree however AF id going to make sure their own flights are served first. Aside from being a reasonable assumption it is probably what they do. That's the problem because DL is always going to be in a secondary position. The best DL can hope for is that that their flight falls close to AF's hub operations but AF obviously needs to take care of their own flights first then attend to the partner. My point is that DL will get best effort but that's a different level of service than primary consideration. Of course if DL was running the show the chances are that the current feed flights are different from how Delta would run them. It's not that this is AF slighting DL, but seeing to their own house before someone elses. I have never heard of a flight being successful under circumstances like this. E.g. the city of origin is someone elses fortress hub and the connection feed is dependent on the foreign airline partner, or partners even. Does anyone have an example of this working?

Oh, and to a certain extent this flight will also be a lower priority for DL because DL is going to make sure their hub connections are going to be scheduled with the best feeds from the partner too. It is hard to justify pushing a profitable flight off of the primary connection schedule for a marginal flight if that's what it comes down to.

You seriously need to do research on what a JV is. DL/KL/AF are, for all intents and purposes, one airline across the Atlantic. All this talk of AF favoring its own flights is irrelevant as DL and AF share the revenue and costs 50/50 and jointly plan the schedule. Which carrier is operating the flight does not matter.

usflyer msp wrote:

atypical wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

What you have written is literally true. But what is the incentive for AF to do something other than feeding a flight on which it gets some of the profit for doing none of the work?

I agree however AF id going to make sure their own flights are served first. Aside from being a reasonable assumption it is probably what they do. That's the problem because DL is always going to be in a secondary position. The best DL can hope for is that that their flight falls close to AF's hub operations but AF obviously needs to take care of their own flights first then attend to the partner. My point is that DL will get best effort but that's a different level of service than primary consideration. Of course if DL was running the show the chances are that the current feed flights are different from how Delta would run them. It's not that this is AF slighting DL, but seeing to their own house before someone elses. I have never heard of a flight being successful under circumstances like this. E.g. the city of origin is someone elses fortress hub and the connection feed is dependent on the foreign airline partner, or partners even. Does anyone have an example of this working?

Oh, and to a certain extent this flight will also be a lower priority for DL because DL is going to make sure their hub connections are going to be scheduled with the best feeds from the partner too. It is hard to justify pushing a profitable flight off of the primary connection schedule for a marginal flight if that's what it comes down to.

You seriously need to do research on what a JV is. DL/KL/AF are, for all intents and purposes, one airline across the Atlantic. All this talk of AF favoring its own flights is irrelevant as DL and AF share the revenue and costs 50/50 and jointly plan the schedule. Which carrier is operating the flight does not matter.

I have heard of several code-share structures (like block allocations for example) but I have never heard of any case where one airline has any operational authority with regards to their code-share partner. Considering most code-shares are usually more than two airlines you are making a case the airline operating the flight would have minority say in the scheduling of their flights. 33/33/33, 25/25/25/25 This is an extraordinary claim and at least needs some evidence.

As far as DL/AF in Chicago is not remotely close to PHL. The primary difference is AF operating a flight anchored by feed from its home hub at CDG.

tlecam wrote:

It's hard for me to believe that with corporate contracts, Skyteam won't serve CDG-PHL. The pharmaceutical industries alone in the Philly / Jersey / Delaware area and in France should provide a decent amount of support for the route.

Time for me to retire from my armchair CEO gig.

And Sky doesn’t serve ORD-LHR. Talk about a big market with corporate contracts! VS did this seasonal and DL was to pick up winter. DL dropped this before it started and VS dropped the seasonal flight to expand LAX (and AA/BA, and UA thank them).

AF now serves ORD year-round, replacing the seasonal DL swap.

Let’s see if AF/DL/VS look at DFW!

atypical wrote:

As far as DL/AF in Chicago is not remotely close to PHL. The primary difference is AF operating a flight anchored by feed from its home hub at CDG.

. . . Except when Delta operates the flight.

atypical wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

atypical wrote:

I agree however AF id going to make sure their own flights are served first. Aside from being a reasonable assumption it is probably what they do. That's the problem because DL is always going to be in a secondary position. The best DL can hope for is that that their flight falls close to AF's hub operations but AF obviously needs to take care of their own flights first then attend to the partner. My point is that DL will get best effort but that's a different level of service than primary consideration. Of course if DL was running the show the chances are that the current feed flights are different from how Delta would run them. It's not that this is AF slighting DL, but seeing to their own house before someone elses. I have never heard of a flight being successful under circumstances like this. E.g. the city of origin is someone elses fortress hub and the connection feed is dependent on the foreign airline partner, or partners even. Does anyone have an example of this working?

Oh, and to a certain extent this flight will also be a lower priority for DL because DL is going to make sure their hub connections are going to be scheduled with the best feeds from the partner too. It is hard to justify pushing a profitable flight off of the primary connection schedule for a marginal flight if that's what it comes down to.

You seriously need to do research on what a JV is. DL/KL/AF are, for all intents and purposes, one airline across the Atlantic. All this talk of AF favoring its own flights is irrelevant as DL and AF share the revenue and costs 50/50 and jointly plan the schedule. Which carrier is operating the flight does not matter.

I have heard of several code-share structures (like block allocations for example) but I have never heard of any case where one airline has any operational authority with regards to their code-share partner. Considering most code-shares are usually more than two airlines you are making a case the airline operating the flight would have minority say in the scheduling of their flights. 33/33/33, 25/25/25/25 This is an extraordinary claim and at least needs some evidence.

As far as DL/AF in Chicago is not remotely close to PHL. The primary difference is AF operating a flight anchored by feed from its home hub at CDG.

Please see pages 13-17 of this presentation:
http://www.transportation.northwestern. ... tation.pdf

It is not a simple code-share, they are jointly operating all TATL flights. This is why DL flies to all sorts of non-hub destinations from AMS as well as IND/PIT/RDU/ORD (sometimes) from CDG. NW/KL wrote the book on this kind of JV in 1997.

Cubsrule wrote:

atypical wrote:

As far as DL/AF in Chicago is not remotely close to PHL. The primary difference is AF operating a flight anchored by feed from its home hub at CDG.

. . . Except when Delta operates the flight.

And DL is out and AF is back year-round.

CHI2DFW wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

atypical wrote:

As far as DL/AF in Chicago is not remotely close to PHL. The primary difference is AF operating a flight anchored by feed from its home hub at CDG.

. . . Except when Delta operates the flight.

And DL is out and AF is back year-round.

Yup. Traffic is back to a level that can support AF aircraft, likely because of AA's weakness in non-LHR TATL.

atypical wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

atypical wrote:

I agree however AF id going to make sure their own flights are served first. Aside from being a reasonable assumption it is probably what they do. That's the problem because DL is always going to be in a secondary position. The best DL can hope for is that that their flight falls close to AF's hub operations but AF obviously needs to take care of their own flights first then attend to the partner. My point is that DL will get best effort but that's a different level of service than primary consideration. Of course if DL was running the show the chances are that the current feed flights are different from how Delta would run them. It's not that this is AF slighting DL, but seeing to their own house before someone elses. I have never heard of a flight being successful under circumstances like this. E.g. the city of origin is someone elses fortress hub and the connection feed is dependent on the foreign airline partner, or partners even. Does anyone have an example of this working?

Oh, and to a certain extent this flight will also be a lower priority for DL because DL is going to make sure their hub connections are going to be scheduled with the best feeds from the partner too. It is hard to justify pushing a profitable flight off of the primary connection schedule for a marginal flight if that's what it comes down to.

You seriously need to do research on what a JV is. DL/KL/AF are, for all intents and purposes, one airline across the Atlantic. All this talk of AF favoring its own flights is irrelevant as DL and AF share the revenue and costs 50/50 and jointly plan the schedule. Which carrier is operating the flight does not matter.

I have heard of several code-share structures (like block allocations for example) but I have never heard of any case where one airline has any operational authority with regards to their code-share partner. Considering most code-shares are usually more than two airlines you are making a case the airline operating the flight would have minority say in the scheduling of their flights. 33/33/33, 25/25/25/25 This is an extraordinary claim and at least needs some evidence.

As far as DL/AF in Chicago is not remotely close to PHL. The primary difference is AF operating a flight anchored by feed from its home hub at CDG.

In a JV, the airlines do come together and decide the aircraft, frequencies and cities flown. This is why they have to go through both governments to get antitrust immunity.

atypical wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

atypical wrote:

I agree however AF id going to make sure their own flights are served first. Aside from being a reasonable assumption it is probably what they do. That's the problem because DL is always going to be in a secondary position. The best DL can hope for is that that their flight falls close to AF's hub operations but AF obviously needs to take care of their own flights first then attend to the partner. My point is that DL will get best effort but that's a different level of service than primary consideration. Of course if DL was running the show the chances are that the current feed flights are different from how Delta would run them. It's not that this is AF slighting DL, but seeing to their own house before someone elses. I have never heard of a flight being successful under circumstances like this. E.g. the city of origin is someone elses fortress hub and the connection feed is dependent on the foreign airline partner, or partners even. Does anyone have an example of this working?

Oh, and to a certain extent this flight will also be a lower priority for DL because DL is going to make sure their hub connections are going to be scheduled with the best feeds from the partner too. It is hard to justify pushing a profitable flight off of the primary connection schedule for a marginal flight if that's what it comes down to.

You seriously need to do research on what a JV is. DL/KL/AF are, for all intents and purposes, one airline across the Atlantic. All this talk of AF favoring its own flights is irrelevant as DL and AF share the revenue and costs 50/50 and jointly plan the schedule. Which carrier is operating the flight does not matter.

I have heard of several code-share structures (like block allocations for example) but I have never heard of any case where one airline has any operational authority with regards to their code-share partner. Considering most code-shares are usually more than two airlines you are making a case the airline operating the flight would have minority say in the scheduling of their flights. 33/33/33, 25/25/25/25 This is an extraordinary claim and at least needs some evidence.

As far as DL/AF in Chicago is not remotely close to PHL. The primary difference is AF operating a flight anchored by feed from its home hub at CDG.

What you are describing is a standard code share (which also requires regulatory approval). Things like block allocations, codeshare commissions etc.. are all normal parts of industry codesharing.

A Joint Venture, on the other hand, is a relatively new thing but it is essentially an anti-trust immune agreement between two airlines that allows them to coordinate schedules, pricing, etc.. Some JVs (like LH and UA) have a revenue sharing arrangement where they actually split the revenue from all flights within the scope of the joint venture. How they split the revenue isn't public but presumably the split is dependent on who the operating carrier is. Either way, the existence of a joint venture means that UA and LH actually work together to decide 1) who flies a particular route, 2) what aircraft is used, and 3) how that route might be priced.

DL/AF/KL also have a TATL joint venture but their JV is even deeper. The 3 airlines do a full revenue and cost share. So not only are they sharing revenue on TATL flights but they're splitting the cost of the flights as well so its closer to a true "metal neutral" joint venture. Because there's cost sharing, the carriers have a lot more flexibility in terms of assigning which airline and which aircraft is used for a particular route. This of course gets back to the original discussion. AF has just as much invested in the PHL-CDG flight as DL. They're sharing the cost of operations. This was formerly an AF operated route that swapped to DL and while no one knows all of the reasons why, I think its safe to say that one reason why DL had the route was because they could operate with a 757 while AF didn't have an aircraft that small and I'm sure the route planners and revenue managers for both airlines felt that DL had the right aircraft for the route. That's the whole benefit of a JV. You can leverage the fleet choices of each airline and make strategic choices that benefit the joint venture as a whole. DL's 757 and 767 fleet are actually great for the JV because they give the JV great flexibility to launch from non hub cities in the US. It's one of the reasons why DL can run so many point to point TATL routes to CDG or AMS and both AF and KL benefit from this because of the profit/cost sharing on those routes in addition to any codeshare revenue from selling connections from AMS and CDG.

atypical wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

atypical wrote:

I agree however AF id going to make sure their own flights are served first. Aside from being a reasonable assumption it is probably what they do. That's the problem because DL is always going to be in a secondary position. The best DL can hope for is that that their flight falls close to AF's hub operations but AF obviously needs to take care of their own flights first then attend to the partner. My point is that DL will get best effort but that's a different level of service than primary consideration. Of course if DL was running the show the chances are that the current feed flights are different from how Delta would run them. It's not that this is AF slighting DL, but seeing to their own house before someone elses. I have never heard of a flight being successful under circumstances like this. E.g. the city of origin is someone elses fortress hub and the connection feed is dependent on the foreign airline partner, or partners even. Does anyone have an example of this working?

Oh, and to a certain extent this flight will also be a lower priority for DL because DL is going to make sure their hub connections are going to be scheduled with the best feeds from the partner too. It is hard to justify pushing a profitable flight off of the primary connection schedule for a marginal flight if that's what it comes down to.

You seriously need to do research on what a JV is. DL/KL/AF are, for all intents and purposes, one airline across the Atlantic. All this talk of AF favoring its own flights is irrelevant as DL and AF share the revenue and costs 50/50 and jointly plan the schedule. Which carrier is operating the flight does not matter.

I have heard of several code-share structures (like block allocations for example) but I have never heard of any case where one airline has any operational authority with regards to their code-share partner. Considering most code-shares are usually more than two airlines you are making a case the airline operating the flight would have minority say in the scheduling of their flights. 33/33/33, 25/25/25/25 This is an extraordinary claim and at least needs some evidence.

As far as DL/AF in Chicago is not remotely close to PHL. The primary difference is AF operating a flight anchored by feed from its home hub at CDG.

Why are you refusing to acknowledge to the part about JV? It is not a codeshare. Period. End of Story. It would make no difference if DL of AF operated the flight. DL is operating the PHL and ORD flights among others bc they are a larger airline than AF/KLM. They also have the 752s and 763s that can fly across the pond. AF/KLM does not have planes that small.

737Max, A320NEO, but really a MoM sized plane will be huge to open up more routes. Long haul JVs are the future. It is also why the US list their large JV partners hubs are their hubs. Materially, they aren't any different.

The broader list of cancellations and suspensions is likely covered in the new DL 2018 TA thread, but wanted to confirm the specific route discussed in this thread.

DL confirmed that PHL-CDG is "suspended" for S18.

After a hefty increase from AA for S18, PHL has lost PHL-CDG/LHR from DL and FI cut KEF-PHL capacity for S18 by ~10%.

usairways85 wrote:

The broader list of cancellations and suspensions is likely covered in the new DL 2018 TA thread, but wanted to confirm the specific route discussed in this thread.

DL confirmed that PHL-CDG is "suspended" for S18.

After a hefty increase from AA for S18, PHL has lost PHL-CDG/LHR from DL and FI cut KEF-PHL capacity for S18 by ~10%.

Now I wonder if AA will upgrade PHL-CDG

757usairways wrote:

Now I wonder if AA will upgrade PHL-CDG

Personally, I think the more likely change for S18 would be AA upgauging JFK-CDG - which will be down to once daily - to a 777 offering a vastly more competitive onboard product than the 767.

usairways85 wrote:

DL confirmed that PHL-CDG is "suspended" for S18.

Where was this confirmed? Any word on whether JFK-ARN is officially suspended/cancelled as well? And it was mentioned in the other thread that EWR-AMS will be ending, although I'm not sure what the source is for any of these.

FSDan wrote:

usairways85 wrote:

DL confirmed that PHL-CDG is "suspended" for S18.

Where was this confirmed? Any word on whether JFK-ARN is officially suspended/cancelled as well? And it was mentioned in the other thread that EWR-AMS will be ending, although I'm not sure what the source is for any of these.

JFK-ARN, JFK-SVO, PHL-CDG, PHL-LHR, and EWR-AMS are cut

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 689599001/

757usairways wrote:

Now I wonder if AA will upgrade PHL-CDG

Good question. With the AA already cutting BOS and 1x daily JFK rotations to CDG in S18, they still kept the A332 on the route. Does adding the DL PHL-CDG cut warrent an upgauge to the A333?
In 2016, DL had about a 70% load factor and just shy of 30k passengers flew the route. I don't know how long the route flew but assuming it was 150 days, that we mean an average of approximately 100 pax each way daily. While I anticipate those numbers were down in 2017, perhaps this cut alone could help fill the additional 25Y and 8J seats of upgauging to an A333 each way? And if they did, where would they pull the frame from?

I recently saw the CEO of PHL speak at an event and she stressed the need for business and leisure travelers to "fly the other guys". With AA having such a fortress hub at PHL, other airlines are finding it difficult to compete. DL did wonders for the fares on PHL-LHR...

OslPhlWasChi wrote:

757usairways wrote:

Now I wonder if AA will upgrade PHL-CDG

Good question. With the AA already cutting BOS and 1x daily JFK rotations to CDG in S18, they still kept the A332 on the route. Does adding the DL PHL-CDG cut warrent an upgauge to the A333?
In 2016, DL had about a 70% load factor and just shy of 30k passengers flew the route. I don't know how long the route flew but assuming it was 150 days, that we mean an average of approximately 100 pax each way daily. While I anticipate those numbers were down in 2017, perhaps this cut alone could help fill the additional 25Y and 8J seats of upgauging to an A333 each way? And if they did, where would they pull the frame from?

IIRC the CDG-PHL season was rather short. In S17 it ran from 5/25 - 9/4...103 days.

These DL TATL flights from PHL were and are nonrev heaven most of the time.

If other carriers offer less value, then they need to price lower. And they can't price lower because AA will match them. Same old story. You could say it's predatory pricing, but AA is not really a predator for DL. DL can afford to run that flight for eons if they want to. But they don't want to.

The customers are getting what they want. A hub is a good thing to have.

usflyer msp wrote:

Please see pages 13-17 of this presentation:
http://www.transportation.northwestern. ... tation.pdf

It is not a simple code-share, they are jointly operating all TATL flights. This is why DL flies to all sorts of non-hub destinations from AMS as well as IND/PIT/RDU/ORD (sometimes) from CDG. NW/KL wrote the book on this kind of JV in 1997.

Perfect. The chart on page 4 the report states that "Cooperative Scheduling" is apart of the JV. I only stated that the airline's primary goal would be to meet it's own needs while making a best effort to accommodate the partner. "Cooperative Scheduling" certainly fits with best effort and that is certainly not indication the JV scheduling takes any greater precedence.

That report has the best argument why the JV certainly does not take precedence. Page 13 puts a revenue value on the JV at $10 bil a year. That accounts for 15% of all the revenue for both companies (AF/KL and DL). The JV while significant is not significant enough to play the primary driver for for scheduling any type of feed.

I could very well be wrong because I don't know the scope of the agreement but no one here has shown they are right by demonstrating they know what the JV covers and doesn't either. First person who can demonstrate they have those details I will be happy to concede to their greater knowledge. That means more than saying X is wrong and Y is right but repeating what the contract says about the subject.

lavalampluva wrote:

I'm sure someone will come on here and say that it would work from DTW.

Haha. In this particular case, they might be right...

http://news.delta.com/delta-s-trans-atl ... stinations

FSDan wrote:

NichCage wrote:

How poorly did Air France perform in PHL? What aircraft did they use?

They used an A340-300. They must have been performing poorly enough that they thought it would be better to downgauge to a 757...

They also used the A330-200 as well. At least when I flew this route with AF, that's what was used.

Still and all, as a DL FF, I'd hope that SkyTeam would include at least one international link out of PHL. Looks like I'll have to make the trek up to EWR.

commavia wrote:

(AA) a 777 offering a vastly more competitive onboard product than the 767

True, but in the New York to Paris market AA offers Openskies service to ORY, which is a highly competitve premium offering.

Delta still seems to be flying from Pittsburgh to Paris. What is keeping that route alive? I feel like PHL-CDG would do better than PIT-CDG because Pittsburgh doesn't really have anything special (the demand, market, etc) for a flight to CDG while PHL has.

NichCage wrote:

Delta still seems to be flying from Pittsburgh to Paris. What is keeping that route alive? I feel like PHL-CDG would do better than PIT-CDG because Pittsburgh doesn't really have anything special (the demand, market, etc) for a flight to CDG while PHL has.

PIT also has 0 nonstop competition anywhere to Europe except to KEF, which is on a ULCC, and FRA, which is seasonally on a carrier with limited network.

Polot wrote:

NichCage wrote:

Delta still seems to be flying from Pittsburgh to Paris. What is keeping that route alive? I feel like PHL-CDG would do better than PIT-CDG because Pittsburgh doesn't really have anything special (the demand, market, etc) for a flight to CDG while PHL has.

PIT also has 0 nonstop competition anywhere to Europe except to KEF, which is on a ULCC, and FRA, which is seasonally on a carrier with limited network.

PIT is a growing city with a number of large businesses, too. So I suspect that counts as “special”.

NichCage wrote:

Delta still seems to be flying from Pittsburgh to Paris. What is keeping that route alive? I feel like PHL-CDG would do better than PIT-CDG because Pittsburgh doesn't really have anything special (the demand, market, etc) for a flight to CDG while PHL has.

It isn't a one or the other scenario, PIT is run on a 757, PHL was run on a 767...

Midwestindy wrote:

NichCage wrote:

Delta still seems to be flying from Pittsburgh to Paris. What is keeping that route alive? I feel like PHL-CDG would do better than PIT-CDG because Pittsburgh doesn't really have anything special (the demand, market, etc) for a flight to CDG while PHL has.

It isn't a one or the other scenario, PIT is run on a 757, PHL was run on a 767...

PHL was a 757 too. PIT does not have another carrier flying 400+ flights a day including 21 to Europe like PHL does. Apples and Oranges.

Cubsrule wrote:

CHI2DFW wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

. . . Except when Delta operates the flight.

And DL is out and AF is back year-round.

Yup. Traffic is back to a level that can support AF aircraft, likely because of AA's weakness in non-LHR TATL.

788 allows AA to operate ORD-CDG almost year round (they drop a few weeks in winter when AF and UA only go a few days per week).

Rumor is AA will bring back ORD-FRA in S19 with a 788. But that’s a pilot saying, so take it carefully.

usflyer msp wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

NichCage wrote:

Delta still seems to be flying from Pittsburgh to Paris. What is keeping that route alive? I feel like PHL-CDG would do better than PIT-CDG because Pittsburgh doesn't really have anything special (the demand, market, etc) for a flight to CDG while PHL has.

It isn't a one or the other scenario, PIT is run on a 757, PHL was run on a 767...

PHL was a 757 too. PIT does not have another carrier flying 400+ flights a day including 21 to Europe like PHL does. Apples and Oranges.

Yeah, you are right, for some reason, I wrongly assumed that PHL-CDG was on a 767. Anyway, it makes sense that PHL-CDG got cut and not PIT-CDG, which has hardly any competition...

FSDan wrote:

NichCage wrote:

How poorly did Air France perform in PHL? What aircraft did they use?

They used an A340-300. They must have been performing poorly enough that they thought it would be better to downgauge to a 757...

Not entirely true. I flew this route on AF quite a few times and they used a combination of B767, A340 and 330s. The B767 was very short lived. I recall flying on the A330s in the winter season and the A340 in summer. I think it eventually went A330 all year. I know its no measure of success but as some people say "the flights were always full", well at least in the back of the plane.

I enjoyed the AF service very much. It was one of the early afternoon arivals into PHL which meant the crowds at CBP were "reasonable". I did the route twice with DL and the service was fine. It was also the first time I tried DL economy comfort. I'm no fan of TATL 757 flights but the flight was a totally different experience than in normal economy.

I would love to see AF metal back in PHL soon. However, I doubt it will happen anytime soon.