Apparently UA, CO and NH seek to reach and agreement between the three airlines by the end of the year with an eye twords receiving regulatory approval by October 2010.
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7350 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 5030 times:
Quoting Jawake (Reply 1): Looks like a brilliant move given what is going on with AA, DL & JL.
Only 2 will be part of teh final alliance.
Quoting RP TPA (Reply 2):
Interesting that Air Canada is not included, since they fly into Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, and Seoul
JAL flies to Canada, YVR only, Air Canada still gets all alliance benefits through NRT with ANA and UA in SFO, LAX and ORD. Air Canada also flies Vancouver nonstop to Sydney, Australia and nonstop from YVR and Toronto to most or all the cities previously mentioned.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22075 posts, RR: 51 Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 7 hours ago) and read 4898 times:
Good deal.
Deepening ties between UA-NH has been hampered by lack of true open-skies, but now with the Japanese talking about that becoming a possibility in 2010 it makes sense to explore Atlantic like JV across the Pacific.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5338 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 4693 times:
Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 5): I wonder is OZ will want in on the deal as well?
I wouldn't be surprised if they did as the US and Korea have open skies in place already. I suppose the deciding factor would be how closely NH and OZ cooperate unfortunately I know very little about those two airlines relationship in the alliance.
Texan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4204 posts, RR: 53 Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 4657 times:
Quoting United1 (Thread starter): Apparently UA, CO and NH seek to reach and agreement between the three airlines by the end of the year with an eye twords receiving regulatory approval by October 2010.
IF the US and Japan work out an Open Skies agreement, then the DOT would likely approve the JV/likely ATI application. Without Open Skies, DOT will not approve. Fortunately or not, that is just the way DOT views ATI and JVs at this time. The good news is that US DOT continues to work diligently on Open Skies agreements with many nations, including Japan, China, and Brazil. They have stated, however, that they do not see agreements with any of these countries in the immediate future.
Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
LAXdude1023 From Lebanon, joined Sep 2006, 6780 posts, RR: 25 Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 4 hours ago) and read 4599 times:
Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 8): Should we hope that IAH will get a link from NH or OZ?
If CO and NH are going to have ATI, CO operating the flight to NRT is the same as NH operating the flight. Maybe an addition IAH-NRT flight is in order, but I think it would come from CO.
As for OZ, I doubt it. OZ is a smaller carrier than KE. KE and CO were partners for years, yet KE never showed up at IAH. KE would have had a better shot at success since their network is so much larger. At any rate, the market to South Korea in Texas is in Dallas, not really Houston. Thats probably why KE never flew to Houston. Given that, I think the odds of OZ at IAH are low.
SQ is a good fit at IAH. IAH-Southeast Asia is HUGE. Although, I think it would be advantageous for them to re-route the flight through an Asian city as opposed to DME.
DFW Fan Boy: Im crude, irreverent, and blunt, but Im not clueless. I offer no apologies.
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5338 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 4 hours ago) and read 4455 times:
Quoting Texan (Reply 7): IF the US and Japan work out an Open Skies agreement, then the DOT would likely approve the JV/likely ATI application. Without Open Skies, DOT will not approve. Fortunately or not, that is just the way DOT views ATI and JVs at this time.
As you said any approval is predicated on Open Skies between the US and Japan as it should be in my opinion at least. This is simply UA/CO/NH getting their ducks in a row for any possible JL & AA/DL transaction. If either of those transactions with JL get off the ground I can almost guarantee that Open Skies would need to be part of the transaction.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 4326 times:
Quoting Texan (Reply 11): It would be. The DOT will not approve any ATI agreements without an Open Skies treaty with the other carrier's country.
This move is specifically targeted at Japan in order to try to force an Open Skies agreement. Japan will need to see that JL and NH can only survive and thrive with this kind of cooperation among carriers and open skies between the nations, and hopefully will agree to it.
If Japan wants to increase tourism from the USA, and not just to Tokyo, they need to make it easier for customers to get from anywhere USA to anywhere Japan.
As for a JV with OZ, it's simply not necessary right now. Star already allows them to share codes and carry pax onward from Seoul, and Korea doesn't have the domestic market that Japan has that would require as extensive cooperation.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
ThePalauan From Guam, joined Oct 2006, 264 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 4022 times:
NH can help CS bring in additional tourist traffic from other parts of Japan that don't warrant a non-stop to GUM. If I'm not mistaken, NH has decided to stop flying here altogether which means we won't be getting even the charters from HND. I guess CS can help fill that loss with its own aircraft.
With OZ, it brings the potential return of CS to ICN or OZ back to GUM (and maybe a GUM-ICN-IAH/EWR routing!). Either way, they'll have KE to face which has now turned their 3x weekly ICN-KIX-GUM into a daily flight on top of their daily non-stop ICN-GUM service. While it is still kind of a low season for tourists, I'm sure OZ or CS will find the right time to re-launch GUM-ICN. They ought to hurry too as I've heard about JeJu Air wanting to start ICN-GUM in the near future.
The multitude of connections at ICN and NRT are far greater compared to what KE and NW/DL had to offer.
You can take the boy out of the island, but not the island out of the boy!
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 1 hour ago) and read 3865 times:
Quoting ThePalauan (Reply 13): With OZ, it brings the potential return of CS to ICN or OZ back to GUM (and maybe a GUM-ICN-IAH/EWR routing!).
But a JV is not required for this. CS and OZ in Star Alliance is enough to precipitate this. Well, GUM-ICN-IAH is sort of silly with GUM-HNL-IAH already available. It's much shorter. But to EWR, it's about the same, so it would be an interesting option.
More likely though you'd see CO start fly EWR-ICN with a 787 at some point.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
MogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 1 hour ago) and read 3664 times:
Is it just me that if this JV gets approved, all 5 of the largest US-Japan routes will be dominated by StarAlliance (and reasonably strong in NRT-NYC) ?
NRT-SFO (UA, NH), others JL and DL
NRT-LAX (UA, NH, SQ), others JL, DL, AA
NRT-ORD (UA, NH), others JL, AA
NRT-IAD (UA, NH), no competitors
NRT-NYC (NH, CO), others JL, DL, AA
Approving this from an antitrust perspective would be nearly as crazy as approving AA/BA on LHR-JFK (and if I remember correctly, the number of people who traverse LON-NYC is nearly the same as all 5 of those routes combined)
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months ago) and read 3452 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12): This move is specifically targeted at Japan in order to try to force an Open Skies agreement. Japan will need to see that JL and NH can only survive and thrive with this kind of cooperation among carriers and open skies between the nations, and hopefully will agree to it.
If Japan wants to increase tourism from the USA, and not just to Tokyo, they need to make it easier for customers to get from anywhere USA to anywhere Japan.
I disagree with this. If you study the history of bilaterals between the US and Japan, it becomes clear that they are not easily going to be "forced" into a position. NH and JL have been surviving fine all these years, what benefit would this arrangement bring them over the Pacific? NH especially is in a better position than UA. I question the benefit for NH, although the benefit for JL to align closer with SkyTeam or One World is real. I don't think Japan cares quite that much about tourism from the US, they're more concerned with the business environment between the two countries. US and Japan are currently in Open Skies negotiations. Exciting times indeed.
Quoting MogandoCI (Reply 15): Approving this from an antitrust perspective would be nearly as crazy as approving AA/BA on LHR-JFK (and if I remember correctly, the number of people who traverse LON-NYC is nearly the same as all 5 of those routes combined)
Completely agree. Consumer-facing companies such as airlines should not be allowed to become involved in such significant multi-party ventures as a large percentage of their operation. It hampers natural competition, disadvantages the consumer, and flies in the face of the free market. As we see in this example, if this is approved along with resulting SkyTeam/OW ventures, the level of competition in the market would effectively be halved. If any of these companies currently flying these routes are not making suitable money, they should change their strategy or exit the market. Competition does not seem to be extensive nor fierce enough over the Pacific to warrant this type of JV taking place IMO.
FL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1499 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3252 times:
Quoting Texan (Reply 11): It would be. The DOT will not approve any ATI agreements without an Open Skies treaty with the other carrier's country.
Don't CO and UA already have ATI over the pacific besides PEK? If so, couldn't CO and UA have a JV right now if they wanted? Obviously they would want to involve NH but I was wondering because I'm pretty sure UA and CO do have ATI in markets without open skies.
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5338 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2641 times:
Quoting FL787 (Reply 18): Don't CO and UA already have ATI over the pacific besides PEK? If so, couldn't CO and UA have a JV right now if they wanted? Obviously they would want to involve NH but I was wondering because I'm pretty sure UA and CO do have ATI in markets without open skies.
UA/CO have ATI for all flights across the Pacific except those to and from PEK (that particular carve out will be going away 5 or 6 months after DL/AA launch PEK flights from the mainland.) I'm not sure if they need to have a foreign partner or not to launch a JV or if they can do it on their own. I think what Texan meant was in order to add NH to the ATI part of Star the US Government would require Open Skies between the US and Japan.
AznMadSci From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 3542 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2606 times:
Quoting United1 (Reply 19): UA/CO have ATI for all flights across the Pacific except those to and from PEK
Does that include CS flights as well?
The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5338 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2577 times:
Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 20): Quoting United1 (Reply 19):
UA/CO have ATI for all flights across the Pacific except those to and from PEK
Does that include CS flights as well?
I believe so....not 100% sure but pretty certain that they are covered under COs ATI.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2331 times:
Looks like CO is coming out of the gate in *A with guns blazing. And I guarantee you Kellner and Smisek wishes the damn 787 was coming online like right now.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5338 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4204 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Sep 2006, 6780 posts, 
From Guam, joined Oct 2006, 264 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
