Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
AA/ONEWORLD Alliance One step closer
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
- Status
FrequentFlierCA
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 35
I've seen some more positive moves on this in the last week. Hope it's almost done. I'd love to start redeeming AA miles to fly BA transatlantic. And as others have correctly said, it's only fair that AA be able to compete on an even basis with the other alliance juggernauts that are already up-and-running.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
Ref the article, does anyone know in more detail how this alliance would compare to others such KLM/DAL that has operated for several years?
As the article states, there are opponets to the deal. I would wonder if what AMR has planned goes any farther operationally speaking than the other alliances. My guess is the passenger conveinence issues might not be objectionable, but maybe some other planned operational issues could cause problems with the alliance members. For instance, I doubt Royal Jordanian and Iberia would stand for serious cabotage within their operations by other members such as AA. Will AA have the same protections as they do?
As the article states, there are opponets to the deal. I would wonder if what AMR has planned goes any farther operationally speaking than the other alliances. My guess is the passenger conveinence issues might not be objectionable, but maybe some other planned operational issues could cause problems with the alliance members. For instance, I doubt Royal Jordanian and Iberia would stand for serious cabotage within their operations by other members such as AA. Will AA have the same protections as they do?
jimntx
Veteran
Cabotage is not determined by the alliances. It is controlled by the Federal Government. AFAIK at this time, no foreign airline has cabotage rights in the United States. I think that one airline (Singapore, maybe?) has a flight from JFK to LAX and continuing to the country of origin. However, they can not sell JFK to LAX tickets.
Could an airline agreement with its international partners (like AA's agrement with BA, IB, AY and RJ permit that which law forbids? Like Cabotage?
My WAG says "no," but others may have different opinions. Isn't cabotage covered (and generally prohibited) by treaty? If so, then this alliance won't have any affect on the prohibition of cabotage.
Everyone knows why Branson opposes the deal - as stronger competitors threaten his empire. He has a long history of hating BA. And AA. He's a crazy megalomaniac.
But as for the other opponents, they have yet to articulate a logical or rational basis for their opposition. Their opposition is mainly composed of "what if AA does ____________? " and they don't fill in that blank with credible reasons (or at least ones that make sense).
Think about why AA wants to do this. To make transatlantic flying even more lucrative for AA and the other members of this (otherwise illegal, if not for the ATI) alliance. The ability to pool revenues and expenses - divvy up the market and share profits - if it's successful, then AA will have more money. The opponents would certainly benefit from AA having more money.
AA is in the middle of grounding and retiring 34 widebody airplanes, and this alliance (if ATI is granted) has the potential to increase international flying, and increased international flying is necessary if any of those 34 will be replaced (by current orders for 777s or the pending 787 order). For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would oppose more flying and more profitable transatlantic flying.
Unless they're like Branson and simply hate AA for irrational reasons. And being highly trained, level-headed professionals, I KNOW that can't be true. So opposition to this alliance is perplexing.
My WAG says "no," but others may have different opinions. Isn't cabotage covered (and generally prohibited) by treaty? If so, then this alliance won't have any affect on the prohibition of cabotage.
Everyone knows why Branson opposes the deal - as stronger competitors threaten his empire. He has a long history of hating BA. And AA. He's a crazy megalomaniac.
But as for the other opponents, they have yet to articulate a logical or rational basis for their opposition. Their opposition is mainly composed of "what if AA does ____________? " and they don't fill in that blank with credible reasons (or at least ones that make sense).
Think about why AA wants to do this. To make transatlantic flying even more lucrative for AA and the other members of this (otherwise illegal, if not for the ATI) alliance. The ability to pool revenues and expenses - divvy up the market and share profits - if it's successful, then AA will have more money. The opponents would certainly benefit from AA having more money.
AA is in the middle of grounding and retiring 34 widebody airplanes, and this alliance (if ATI is granted) has the potential to increase international flying, and increased international flying is necessary if any of those 34 will be replaced (by current orders for 777s or the pending 787 order). For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would oppose more flying and more profitable transatlantic flying.
Unless they're like Branson and simply hate AA for irrational reasons. And being highly trained, level-headed professionals, I KNOW that can't be true. So opposition to this alliance is perplexing.
I think you're thinking of Qantas, with its several times a week LAX-JFK-LAX flights. And even though QF can't sell tickets on that flight unless you're connecting to/from Australia, aa.com has tried to sell me tickets on that flight that would be illegal. I've known of people who did just that and were turned away at the gate and rebooked on an AA transcon.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
On it's surface, the ATI that AA/BA/etc have applied for is no different that the NW/KLM, DL/AF (soon to be DL/AF/KLM is not already) and UA/LH/etc have applied to add CO as a partner for. If there are major differences they weren't disclosed in the filings.
The big stumbling block in the past seems to have been BA and AA's virtual monopoly on LHR - U.S. flights with the restrictions on entry to LHR but those went away with the Open Skies agreement, at least to the extent that other carriers can get attractively timed slots at LHR.
Because of the LHR slot situation - carriers have to find someone willing to sell some and can't just start service without them - there may be some remaining restrictions of how much coordination Aa and BA can do in the U.S. - LHR narket but otherwise I don't see any reason that they won't get ATI.
Jim
The big stumbling block in the past seems to have been BA and AA's virtual monopoly on LHR - U.S. flights with the restrictions on entry to LHR but those went away with the Open Skies agreement, at least to the extent that other carriers can get attractively timed slots at LHR.
Because of the LHR slot situation - carriers have to find someone willing to sell some and can't just start service without them - there may be some remaining restrictions of how much coordination Aa and BA can do in the U.S. - LHR narket but otherwise I don't see any reason that they won't get ATI.
Jim
jimntx
Veteran
I'm sure it's a codeshare, but that is just lazy programming. You should be able to buy a JFK-SYD codeshare ticket, but be prevented from buying a JFK-LAX codeshare. I programmed similar situations in the oil business many times in the good old days (formerly known as these trying times in which we live).
Cabotage might be the wrong word, but as it stands now, BA could fly from Madrid to anywhere in the USA if they felt like it. I doubt Iberia didn't insert language to protect themselves and their ops.
In the article, APA stated it's objections, I think they're concerned that if the US opens up the country so any EU airline can fly anywhere point to point within the US as they are requesting, the "alliance" could play off each countries pilot and FA groups off each other like they did with AE in the past, as well as base cheaper pilots (less trained) offshore.
The devil's in the details I guess 😉
In the article, APA stated it's objections, I think they're concerned that if the US opens up the country so any EU airline can fly anywhere point to point within the US as they are requesting, the "alliance" could play off each countries pilot and FA groups off each other like they did with AE in the past, as well as base cheaper pilots (less trained) offshore.
The devil's in the details I guess 😉
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
IIRC, the concentration of slots at LHR held by BA/AA/IB is actually less than what Skyream has at CDG and AMS, and less than what Star has at FRA.
BA/AA do have a large piece of the market, without doubt, but it's not their fault that UA squandered whatever they had after purchasing Pan Am's authority... Plus, the brunt of the LHR market seems to be connections, and it's a lot easier for the other alliance partners to move traffic via hubs with less congestion and lower operating costs.
Also don't forget that with BMI, LH, SK, UA, etc.you have a pretty good presence from Star Alliance there as well.
The open market concept has worked out quite well for DL, who was able to get slots from AF, and for NW, who was able to get slots from KL. US and CO also managed to get slots, so pray tell, who is locked out of LHR?...
Mach, you're absolutely correct that BA could fly from MAD and IB could fly from LHR. But stop thinking of Europe as countries but states (which effectively they are now that EU has negotiated the bilateral), it's not that different than AA flying nonstop from California, Illinois, New York or Puerto Rico.
Plus, the notion anyone is going to be able to get away with using lower cost pilots seems to be a red herring. I won't say that there aren't going to be other attempts, but so far, it's been a failure for the few who have tried it.
BA/AA do have a large piece of the market, without doubt, but it's not their fault that UA squandered whatever they had after purchasing Pan Am's authority... Plus, the brunt of the LHR market seems to be connections, and it's a lot easier for the other alliance partners to move traffic via hubs with less congestion and lower operating costs.
Also don't forget that with BMI, LH, SK, UA, etc.you have a pretty good presence from Star Alliance there as well.
The open market concept has worked out quite well for DL, who was able to get slots from AF, and for NW, who was able to get slots from KL. US and CO also managed to get slots, so pray tell, who is locked out of LHR?...
Mach, you're absolutely correct that BA could fly from MAD and IB could fly from LHR. But stop thinking of Europe as countries but states (which effectively they are now that EU has negotiated the bilateral), it's not that different than AA flying nonstop from California, Illinois, New York or Puerto Rico.
Plus, the notion anyone is going to be able to get away with using lower cost pilots seems to be a red herring. I won't say that there aren't going to be other attempts, but so far, it's been a failure for the few who have tried it.
jimntx
Veteran
You are correct. Cabotage is the wrong word. What you are talking about is Open Skies. That is determined by treaty. Just as AA can fly from DFW, ORD, JFK, or LAX to just about any city in the world that the equipment can reach--notwithstanding "closed" markets like China and Brazil where government permission is required, foreign airlines can start service between any foreign city and a destination city in the U.S.
Cabotage rights permit a foreign airline to fly from city to city within the U.S. and carry passengers who are only traveling between those two cities. For instance, LHR could fly from ORD to DFW and sell tickets between those two stations. Not currently permitted.
The most famous granting of cabotage rights was to TWA and Pan Am to fly between countries in Europe and between cities in the same country following WWII. But, that was because no European country had a fully functioning commercial airline industry right after the war.
PHX Flyer
Member
I did it too. Since I had checked a bag through from my departure city (PHX) via LAX to JFK, they reluctantly allowed me to board the Qantas flight. So, I pride myself of "pioneering" the use of foreign airliners on domestic routes. I have to say though, the experience was nothing to write home about. The service was, in no way, superior to what American has to offer.
- Status
