fly18725

BA Engineering provides maintenance for EK in Seattle. In turn, BA has an agreement with Delta for parts since Ba does not maintain a large inventory in Seattle. What BA did was normal practice.

EK230 went tech on Saturday, suffering a 5 hour delay. This time BA went right to United for the part and had it flown in from SFO. The word is that Delta Hq will no longer sell any parts for EK AOGs.

tmac100

We can rationalize this DL-EK situation all we want, but it certainly resulted in bad PR. I thought of this situation when I read the following situation that turned out differently (and with good PR) for both Westjet and for the AC pax involved ...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...gers-1.3979790

ft101

None of us here know exactly what transpired, so I'm just putting up possible alternatives or potential reasons why your always negative slant on things may not be accurate.

tmac100

Yes, but why bother trying to change someone's MO or opinion? Some folks are trolls. Some folks are honest in their attempts to present alternatives for consideration. Some folks ...

We on this thread are quite ignorant of the actual facts regarding DL and "taking back" their parts. But still, it was poor PR ...

Best to leave it. There are plenty of other interesting topics. Besides, it is Valentine's Day - for those inclined

Saltire74

So to summarise: First it was DL to blame, then according to avcritic it's EK cost cutting, and finally BA engineering have now been thrown in to the mix. with AS being the saviours. Have I missed anything out?

S

tmac100

Yes - the suggestion that it is time to move on to something else to discuss regarding EK?

avcritic

You need to know only one thing, SLA wins. West End performance doesn't score any points.

Fox Theater had an SLA to serve QR. DL's tantrum wouldn't change.
ATL had an SLA to give assigned gate to DL. QR's tantrum wouldn't change.
DL has SLA to meet its customer needs, favors takes less priority.

If BAE is depending in pool spares at SEA, that is BAE's problem, not DLs.

eternaltransit

The actual issue is not whether EK's contractor had the part or not - and I agree, that's their problem, not DLs - it's the alleged situation where DL gave the go ahead for it to be installed from their supply only to, after the installation was complete, order it to be removed because "EK's credit card was declined".

That means either:

- DL didn't, at the time of approving the favor, realise it was the last part: which makes them look bad for breaching their own internal rules

- DL knew it was the last part in their store, wasn't going to give it to EK, but let them take it and install it, then have it removed, just to waste EK's time

The second is the "low" behaviour discussed - deliberate pettiness. The alternative is incompetence on the part of DL not knowing what they have in inventory, which I think is harder to believe.

avcritic

You cannot prove deliberate pettiness if DL was sharing pool spares in the past.

Since Feb 1, 2017 four 228/230 flights were delayed including today's flight. Assuming these are part delays and DL shut the door completely because of EK's Broadway performance, now they have to find a new asset manager.

What did EK achieve, by calling Bloomberg Dubai Desk rather than solving the issue amicably.

eternaltransit

Sharing pool spares in the past is not directly relevant I think because DL's public position is that this was the last part available in their inventory - we would expect them not to give it out to anyone in that case.

I think we can agree that DL should know what's in their part inventory at all times.

So, when EK's contractor comes and asks DL for the part, they would know at that point whether it's the last part or not.

If it's the last part, they say "no, you can't have it" and EK's contractor goes on their way to find it from someone else.

What happened instead was DL saying "yes, you can have it", and then later on, after it's installed, hours later, DL changing their mind and saying "no, we want it back".

It is reasonable to expect DL to know at the point of the request whether the part can be sold or not. Spinning it as a mistake, or to cover up a mistake by deflecting blame is indicative of the pettiness that EK want to highlight.

EK going to Bloomberg is a different matter - they also aren't above making some PR noise out of what they perceive as deliberate time-wasting on DL's part, to try and portray DL as their petty nemesis who will stop at nothing to try to undermine EK in any way they can.

We both know that both airlines are trying to sway public opinion through every outlet they can to get what they want (DL to have EK shut out of deploying more capacity to the US, EK to continue to operate fifth-freedoms EU/US) - and given the current US administration's fondness for citing the court of public opinion, it is a rational strategy, imho.

ft101

Neither of us can prove anything, that was my point above. I'm just throwing in some counter points to one of your interminable digs.

avcritic

Delta didn't start this mud slinging and I didn't start this thread.

You don't have any issue with EK's toddler drama, or the click bait title or 18 biased comments before mine but have serious issue with my comments.

If EK thinks there is merit in its argument, it should file a claim in real court.

fly18725

Actually, Delta started the mud slinging when it sued the US government over Emirates' export credit financing, then blamed EK over it's inability to sustain ATL-DXB service, accused the UAE of violating Open Skies, etc.

avcritic

They also complained about Norwegian. Long before chasing ME3, Delta blamed AI for failed ATL-DEL,JFK-DEL attempts and actually sued Air India lost in federal court, lost on appeal and was planning to go to SCOTUS.

Changed its mind and sent gumshoes after ME3. Complaining is their right as a local carrier if they notice Open Skies violations.

EXIM is a goner, price cutting strategy biting EK in the rear, so market takes care of itself

With so much bad blood EK shouldn't depend on DL stocked pool spares.

fly18725

I'll ignore your off base facts and offer a final thought: no airline maintains a material amount of spares at an outstation. The industry has long depended on "sharing" of spare parts. By sharing, I mean parts are sold or rented per ubiquitous industry-standard agreements.