Dulleswatcher From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 41 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1598 times:
I'm generally fairly pleased with Skyteam, but would like to know if anyone else has experienced glitches with the seamlessness of the Skyteam experience when using more than one partner. Here are my stories:
-- Flew DCA-JFK on DL, JFK-FCO in C on AZ metal, DL codeshare. DL printed a boarding pass for me in DCA for the hop across the pond. At JFK, security said Alitalia had left standing instructions with them not to let anyone through with non-AZ issued boarding passes until they went to Alitalia first and exchanged their (in my case) DL-printed boarding pass for an Alitalia card stock boarding pass. Stupid little glitch that caused 20 minutes delay and made me realize that more needs to be done to integrate AZ and DL ops. Nobody at DL had warned me of Alitalia's requirement.
-- Upgraded my wife's Y fare using DL miles to C on AF IAD-CDG-IAD. When she went to IAD to check in, AF sent her to DL for an endorsement of her paper ticket. Nobody at DL special member services told me this would be the case. Her upgrade for the return portion just came through today, long after she could have gone to a DL office in Paris to change the ticket. Tomorrow, she checks in at CDG and she's unsure if she should see DL first for an endorsement, or go direct to AF. Again, less "seamlessness" than one would like, consider Skyteam's main selling point. It seems the two carriers could communicate electronically without demanding silly coupons from each other. Sounds so much like Indian Airlines in the 1960s.
I raised my concerns with DL special member services, but basically they just said the integration is not perfect and that's life. Some answer. They told me to tell AF check-in staff to call Skyteam Support Desk if they can't figure out how to work their internal system to give my wife her seat in 5B.
Any others care to share their experiences? Anything we can do about it?
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 23 Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1461 times:
Personally, I think the simple fact that you are allowed to use DL miles to upgrade on AF makes up for the seamlessness issues!
Nevertheless, you do raise some good points. Though my AAdvantage miles do nothing in terms of upgrade opportunities on BA, my American-issued boarding passes worked fine on a BA flight I took last month.
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 53 Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1411 times:
>>"none better" because none have been given nearly as much free rein as NW/KL.... among the most glaring example being the ability to merge their FFPs<<
Not sure I understand your comment. AF/DL currently have just as much "anti-trust exemption" as NW/KL (and I belive UA and LH do as well). NW and KL have separate FF programs... US residents can't belong to KL's Flying Dutchman.
But just because 2 airlines have been given "free reign" doesn't mean they excel at implementation or execution of cooperative initiatives. When you check in at International Falls on NW and go from there to MSP to AMS to Berlin, Germany, you get all of your boarding passes and you make 2 connections as easily and smoothly as if you were going through MSP to MEM to Panama City Florida. There's so much co-branding, you constantly see the KL and NW logos throughout your journey... they even have the same stemware in First/World Business (and, obviously both carriers' intl. premium cabin product is named/marketed the same). Often times, you will get NW cocktail napkins on KL flights. Bottom line: passengers are made to feel they are travelling on 2 divisions of the same airline.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
AF/DL currently have just as much "anti-trust exemption" as NW/KL
Antitrust immunity does not render the various mini-alliances completely free of restriction.
For example, DL/AF cannot merge the operation of their FFPs, nor can they share revenue between CVG/ATL and CDG. NW/KL do not have these such restrictions.
NW and KL have separate FF programs... US residents can't belong to KL's Flying Dutchman.
My point exactly. NW/KL airlines were given the ability to merge the operation of their FFPs, and came to that membership configuration as a result of their own joint business decision.
DL/AF, AA/LX, and UA/LH don't have that ability: hence their FFPs must remain independently operated for all facets of the owning carrier's business (though they are allowed to work together so far as awards, earning, etc).
Javomd88 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1306 times:
Well for instance over here at MEX, passengers flying on AF to MEX and continuing on to lets say CUN, ACA or any other AM destination, They use there AF boarding pass until last destination, they dont have to go to AM and reissue another boarding pass.
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 53 Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
Yes, I am aware anti-trust immunity does not render alliances free from restrictions. Obviously, you are more knowledgeable about the specific limitations and restrictions of the alliances you cited.
So, is one to assume from your comments that you believe there's no reason why DL/AF, AA/LX, and UA/LH shouldn't be allowed the same level of integration as NW/KL?... i.e, you disagree with the rationale the government used to dictate the restrictions of said alliances, and if so, why? Why did/does the government come to the conclusion that the restrictions you cited are necessary to protect competition in those cases, and not with NW/KL?? Could it have anything to do with AA/UA/DL's market share/power vs. NW/KL?
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1148 times:
Could it have anything to do with AA/UA/DL's market share/power vs. NW/KL?
Bingo. NW has long been the USA's 3rd largest transatlantic carrier (though CO may have taken them over in the last year or so) and KL Europe's 4th largest airline; but they're still nothing compared to two of the other three immunized transatlantic alliances.
NW/KL were first off the bat... the later arrival (combined with the market share) of the two the significantly more powerful immunized alliances of DL/AF/AZ/OK and UA/LH/SK/OS caused them to face more scrutiny. And we all know how well AA/BA fared
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
So then, based on your latest post, I take it you DO agree with the restrictions placed on the other alliances. Which leads me back to your original comment about the NW/KL alliance... your "free reign" comment seemed to imply to me that NW/KL have some type of unfair advantage over the others, allowing them to cooperate at an unprecedented level. Perhaps I'm reading too much into your words?
I maintain that regardless of the restrictionless nature of NW/KL's alliance, NW/KL are the epitome of what an alliance can be. Just because AF/DL can't codeshare btw CVG/CDG doesn't mean they can't make their relationship and operations more seamless, and brand/market themselves in the same nature as NW/KL.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16498 posts, RR: 48 Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1096 times:
3rd largest transatlantic carrier? Based on what? The only way that may be possible is including KL's services in NW's transatlantic operation. On its own, NW has a non-existant European operation compared to AA, DL, and CO (DL and CO have more roundtrips from a single city, ATL and EWR respectively, than NW has in its entire European network), and to a lesser extent, even UA, whether you compare ASMs, RPMs, seats daily, roundtrips...just about anything. NW's Euro ops are about the size of US's, if you're only counting their own metal.
On another note...Skyteam is far from seamless with gaping holes all over the place. At least they've hit up some of the more infamous carriers to be in or near the alliance! Korean...Aeroflot...China Airlines...
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16498 posts, RR: 48 Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1045 times:
I still don't believe you...got any hard numbers?
"NW's A333s hold more pax than AA/UA/DL/CO's 772s do... not to mention the DC10s and 744s."
True, but NW does not regularly operate the 744 to Europe anymore...it's all 333's and D10s in the current schedule and going forward. UA, however does operate the 744 to Europe, AND from the West Coast.
"Combine that with the mileage on routes such as SEA-AMS..... and you'll see how they were able to hold CO off of the #3 spot for so long"
That is ONE route and in any case CO's IAH-AMS is a longer haul in miles than SEA-AMS. Either way it's somewhat immaterial since NW ASMs on SEA-AMS are slightly higher than CO's on IAH-AMS. However, just guestimating it looks like CO has about 12% more ASMs currently than NW, and that is only including the widebody ops and not the 752 transatlantic ops. Also, UA and AA have multiple departures from LAX and SFO with 777s and 744s. That said, I remain convinced that AA, CO, DL, and UA are all ahead of NW in terms of European ASMs.
"one would think that you'd know better than to make a false blanket statement such as this; particularly without knowing as to what you speak"
That wasn't a blanket statement...it was very specific. In order for NW's ASM share across the Atlantic to appear bigger than CO's it's going to need a boost from somewhere, namely KLM. Now if I said everybody thinks NW service is crap...than that would be a blanket statement. But we all know that's not true....or whatever .