Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey
I feel like the reason MSP wouldn't work is the same reason SLC wouldn't work. Even lower O&D, IIRC.
OO/CP can better serve it with 76 seaters, and the loads I see on SLC suggest WS service would have to replace OO/CP and not supplement it.
|
If WS and DL can consummate a standard joint venture alliance agreement with metal neutrality and beyond revenue included in the JV profits, then both MSP and ATL should work out for the airlines.
Yeah the above sentence is a little heavy on jargon.
Metal Neutrality means it doesn't matter who's aircraft is on the route, standard costs are used to calculate joint venture profitability. This is an inside the baseball bat term (not just inside baseball) that keeps pilot unions happy because the threat of being replaced by lower cost pilots is removed.
Beyond revenue is a scheduling term that means the Joint Venture participates in the entire journey the passenger, not just the A to B transborder flight. In this aspect, WestJet is incentivized to bring paz to DL's hubs for connections rather than flying the whole route themselves. Example YYC-MSP-MCO combined WS and DL has the same profit potential as YYC-YYZ-MCO, all on WS metal.
Marketing studies have demonstrated that pax are most concerned with the first leg of the outbound trip. So they want to fly WS to MSP over DL. This is mostly for the comfort of checkin and starting the long trip. In this regards, the JV is better off having WS do the first leg as most transborder pax are YYC origin rather than YYC destination.
In regards to SLC, if WS had a small regional jet like the E70/75, then it would make sense for Encore to go onto the route.
In regards to SEA, WS Encore is a good replacement a mid morning departure to connect to DL TransPac departure bank. However getting beyond revenue into the JV is key.