kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8701 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 19 hours ago) and read 4283 times:
There aren't a lot of US airlines left which are available. But I could see B6 joining, they are close partners with AA and have been increasing their co-operation, don't be put off by the LH shareholding, it isn't enough to block anything, and, given the right offer I could see LH being happy to sell of their stake. I don't see AS joining as I think they make much more money by sleeping around with everyone (except A*) than they would by settling down to an alliance relationship.
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
B6 is opening agreements with some OneWorld carriers such as AA and LA. I wouldn't be surprised if they join. I wonder if their LCC status would exclude them.....funny I see B6 more "full service" than their legacy counterparts.
bos2laf From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 3856 times:
I think that B6 could bring a lot to the table for oneworld, but what could oneworld bring to the table for B6? Not nearly as much as Star. The scope of their current agreement with AA is extremely limited, and I can't see that cooperation growing much due to some restrictions on domestic cooperation in the AA pilots contract.
There aren't many heavy hitters that oneworld brings to the table for B6. BA/IB, CX, JL, LA, QF. If B6 joined oneworld, consider the VS interline agreement toast.
Star brings them (internationally): AC, CA, NZ, NH, OZ, OS, SN, MS, LH, SK, SQ, SA, LX, JJ, TP, and rumored VS and 9W. One could argue over whether some of these carriers are "heavy hitters," but the fact is that Star would bring B6 so much more international feed. Star would bring a whole lot more to the table for B6, but I'm not sure how much B6 brings to Star. Also something tells me UA and US would have a thing or two to say about B6 poaching their feed from the other Star carriers. Not to mention all the joining requirements that would be a massive departure from their core business model (i.e. adding tiers to TrueBlue, a first class cabin, interfacing with WorldTracer, etc.) It'd also cost them boatloads of money.
In short, neither option seems particularly appealing if I were B6, so I think that what they're doing now picking and choosing their partner airlines seems like the best option. Oneworld doesn't bring a whole lot to the table, and the obstacles to joining Star are too costly and a major deviation from their core business model.
lhr380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 3767 times:
Quoting eastern023 (Reply 3): B6 is opening agreements with some OneWorld carriers such as AA and LA. I wouldn't be surprised if they join. I wonder if their LCC status would exclude them.....funny I see B6 more "full service" than their legacy counterparts.
Doubt the LCC thing would matter at all, as you said, they offer a better onboard product then most US mainlines
flyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 3507 times:
B6 joining oneworld would be a boon for AA in particular. Having a significant LCC partner in 3 major cornerstone markets would help AA really dominate all types of travelers from leisure to business. Thoughts?
These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.