COUAFA From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 14 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8706 times:
I am new to this forum and wanted to see what experienced thoughts had to say about the recent article from the FT on May 1st:
Both American, along with its partner British Airways, and United are in talks to forge marketing alliances with Continental, which has said it would explore alternatives to its membership in SkyTeam, people familiar with the carriers' plans said.
and the article today from the WSJ:
It could still convince Continental to leave the Skyteam alliance, which includes Delta and Northwest, and form commercial and operational links with it instead.
I really think that UA and Continental could make great alliance partners and CO would be a better match in STAR than in ONE WORLD. AA and CO overlap on so many routes and two major hubs.
Toxtethogrady From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1713 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8703 times:
Either alliance would have advantages for an independent Continental. OneWorld has several Asian and Latin partners who could extend CO's reach into both markets, while Star is big in Europe and Asia. The problem is going to be how firmly enmeshed CO will be with either; their in-and-out relation with SkyTeam didn't have as many advantages for CO as advertised.
Either of these alliances do offer the prospect of more foreign carriers starting service to Houston, which is good for the city...although CO may not consider it a plus...
Ram025 From Iceland, joined Aug 2005, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8665 times:
I think if should go to oneworld. Yes they would somewhat overlap. However CO has Newark, Houston, and Cleveland. AA of course has MIA, JFK, DFW, ORD and STL. With the combination, the alliance would gain a large presence in the east coast, texas, and midwest. To compete against with the new delta Plus it would have a continued presence in the southern florida routes especially to south america. Im all for it.
Avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4489 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8664 times:
Quoting COUAFA (Thread starter): I really think that UA and Continental could make great alliance partners and CO would be a better match in STAR than in ONE WORLD.
CO would likely be every bit as discordant in Star Alliance as it is in SkyTeam. Star Alliance and SkyTeam seek far greater levels of cooperation and integration amongst their members than oneworld, and that's problematic for an airline that generally favors doing its own flying on its own metal with its own service standards and practices as much as possible.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8374 times:
Last week in CLE, Larry Kellner said don't presume CO will stay in Skyteam, and don't presume it won't. CO is looking at the options. I think Star would be the best fit for CO, because it's in a positioni to demand equal status with UA as the U.S. flagship for Star. And Star, as mentioned, is big in Asia and at LHR, which is where CO really wants to sink it's teeth into. EWR-PVG starts next year, and LHR has just started out of IAH and EWR. And there's no doubt CO wants to put a lot more EWR-LHR flights on the ledger. I think Star would be the best fit, but time will tell.
Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 4): They are like the ugly step-sister that no one likes, in SkyTeam.
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8115 times:
With CO recently dropping out of merger talks with UA i would find it surprising if they went with star alliance, especially no that they are talking about a partnership with AA/BA which i'm thinking would require them to move over to one world.
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6784 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8091 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7): because it's in a positioni to demand equal status with UA as the U.S. flagship for Star.
There is a problem with this theory, UA has to approve CO or any other US carrier joining Star, CO would be in no position to demand anything when it comes to UAs position in Star. Oneworld is far more likely in my opinion simply because of the all the recent events regarding the UA/CO merger.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
AznMadSci From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 3776 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8085 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7): Last week in CLE, Larry Kellner said don't presume CO will stay in Skyteam, and don't presume it won't. CO is looking at the options. I think Star would be the best fit for CO, because it's in a positioni to demand equal status with UA as the U.S. flagship for Star. And Star, as mentioned, is big in Asia and at LHR, which is where CO really wants to sink it's teeth into. EWR-PVG starts next year, and LHR has just started out of IAH and EWR. And there's no doubt CO wants to put a lot more EWR-LHR flights on the ledger. I think Star would be the best fit, but time will tell.
I definitely agree, though I don't see Star as strong at LHR as OneWorld. However, if CO manages to work an agreement/alliance with BM or VS, which could workout further agreements/alliances with LH and/or SQ, hell, why not! I'm still hoping CO goes for Star and SQ manages to keep IAH so I could earn OnePass miles on SQ!
The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
Drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5349 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6570 times:
Besides the antitrust immunity that just happened with DL/KL/NW/AF - are there things on record stating that Skyteam and CO have not been a good match? I know they are re-evaluating their membership in Skyteam; but the only talk I've heard of Skyteam and/or CO displeasure with Skyteam has been here on a.net.
Davescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6156 times:
Quoting JoFMO (Reply 15): I can't see why UA or AA should allow CO in their alliances. CO would only dilute traffic from them.
Gee, I wonder why? Oh yeah, full service. You're right, I think AA and UA could both lose some traffic to CO, but not so much as to turn them down (I would think). Remember, particularly on the west coast, CO isn't particularly strong. Both AA and UA have a much more developed west coast presence, as well as more presence in ORD and the upper midwest.
Quoting Qazar (Reply 17): And which European airline would be part of this new wonderful alliance? .... Alitalia?
mmm....Brussels and BMI defect from *A, through in SAA maybe?
Justloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1190 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5708 times:
Quoting Qazar (Reply 17): Quoting BNAtraveler (Reply 12):
CO should create another alliance with SQ and EK. *A, ST and OW all have their issues with regard to CO's current presence and their other participants.
And which European airline would be part of this new wonderful alliance? .... Alitalia?
Virgin. They are owned in large part by SQ, plus more Heathrow traffic for CO to leverage. Plus VS, SQ, EK and CO all have good reputations for service. In a way, it's a real good fit. Virgin America clogs things up though, that's the one concern.
Europe - VS
US / Latin America - CO
Asia - SQ
ME Asia - EK
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 24137 posts, RR: 21
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5639 times:
Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 19): Listen to CO's last quarterly earnings conference, available on their website; you can hear the distain in Kellner's voice as he discusses Skyteam.
It's not hard to see why... CO was/is destined to be in third place (among US carriers) in Skyteam because of KL-NW and AF-DL, and now the situation is arguably worse. When you have the best customer service among your peers and a pretty darn good network (both domestically and internationally), it's easy to see why you might want better.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
True. I think this would be a VS drawback. Think they could lure someone from *A to come and play in Europe? Even a "mid level" style carrier (if such a thing exists?). LH and LX are no go's, as is BA, AZ and Airone (all spoken for). But how about Brussles? It is alread a financial center, or Air Berlin. They fly within Europe, but also have some reach into Asia, North America and Africa.
Can I have a mojito on this flight?
: ...um, what presence would CO give OneHeathroWorld in either Texas (AA@DFW), the East coast (AA@BOS/LGA/JFK/MIA), or the midwest (AA@ORD) that it doe
: I think CO should join *A, they are the only airline flying from all the Scandinavian countries to the US. If they join maybe they could codeshare wit
: The ability to tap into traffic flows that their existing hubs and fleet mix cannot or will not accomodate. Yes. About a year or so ago, when SkyTeam
: Is this the article : http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2df9d0e0-1...a-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 CO is in serious talks with AA and BA about a marketin
: If CO were to join STAR both UA and CO would benefit significantly. UA would gain from CO's large presence in Europe, which they tend to lack in, as w
: There is where Lufthansa becomes a potential drawback to CO because LH has a very distinct preference for funneling virtually all of UA/LH's non-LHR
: But SQ has no reasons whatsoever to create a new alliance. I actually think they would rather stay alone than founding a new alliance.
: I wonder if the ties between CM and CO will cause CM to switch alliance along with CO (if they do switch) CM in oneworld will cause that alliance to b
: Actually, I think *A has more to gain and it would be in their best interest to try to 'woo' CO to join them. Since RG's departure, *A lacks coverage
: As per the BA Flyertalk Forum Folks Willie Walsh spent the Weekend in Houston.
: do not flame me here but what if CO demanded to much or were not happy with a certain piece of the pie doled out from BA/AA and did not go with them?
: I believe they only fly to 40 destinations worldwide, the addition of KIN was there 40th route. The only problem with this scenario is that passenger
: I think they should join OneWorld over Star, if you look at Star they already have United and US Airways plus didn't CO just rebuffed a merger with Un
: US gets booted from Star Alliance if UA discontinues the UA-US alliance.
: I've always felt ST was an odd decision for CO - As the only USA-Major I'd pay my hard earned to fly on at the moment I'd love to have them in OneWorl
: ...it almost sounds like One World does not need CM. What do they bring to the table? It seems like little more than a bit better access to Panama an
: No. The LA group is very weak in Central America. In fact, they don´t fly to any Central American country. CM would give LA access to Central Americ
: But MX certainly does fly to Central America, and CM isn't especially competitive for US-Central America or EU-Central America. It's true that MX isn