mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

One Global Alliance.

Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:09 pm

Please don't have a go at me but I have to ask this question....

Considering the recent developments and questions hanging over the middle eastern carriers....

If we scrapped all 3 alliances and basically just had all airlines code-sharing/revenue-sharing etc etc wherever it made sense to do so as one big alliance essentially.... why wouldn't that work and be beneficial to everyone ?

Because as far as I can see it's more about airports and location these days as very few airports have more than one major home carrier. (with routes that overlap anyway)

It's probably a really stupid question but why wouldn't that work ?
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
BobbyPSP
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:29 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:14 pm

One word: monopoly

It would never work as it decreases competition
 
rutankrd
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:20 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
If we scrapped all 3 alliances and basically just had all airlines code-sharing/revenue-sharing etc etc wherever it made sense to do so as one big alliance essentially.... why wouldn't that work and be beneficial to everyone ?

Are suggesting a return to simple interline agreements pooling and use of IATA clearing ?
 
SuperCaravelle
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:04 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:10 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):


It's probably a really stupid question but why wouldn't that work ?

Anti-competition. Even though AMS is dominated by Skyteam they are kept honest by the likes of LH and BA, operating feeder flights in the airport, keeping prices down.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:43 pm

Quoting bobbypsp (Reply 1):
Quoting rutankrd (Reply 2):
Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 3):

Yes I agree with all that but....

Take LHR-FRA though.

There are 19 flights a day between BA and LH.

A couple more for LH than BA but the rest leave approx at the same time or within an hour of each other.

Does that really make sense in today's world of high oil prices and green issues ?

Wouldn't 10 be better ...5 each.....on larger aircraft....still the same frequency
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:00 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 4):
Does that really make sense in today's world of high oil prices and green issues ?

Actually, you bring up a good point. Kinda upsets some people... less companies/more monopolies = less competition, higher prices, less consumer protections, but is way more green! Go figure.

I think the gulf carriers are overrated. The alliances aren't going to crumble under their wrath, life will go on. Remember, more competition is generally a good thing. You seem to be keen on a lot more merging... look at the old Aeroflot and see how service severely degraded
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:03 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 4):
Does that really make sense in today's world of high oil prices and green issues ?

Wouldn't 10 be better ...5 each.....on larger aircraft....still the same frequency

Methinks this is your same argument as before, just modified slightly........aren't you tired of getting beat up?  
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2118
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:14 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 4):

If it made more sense, then the airlines would fly larger planes with less frequency. The market is demanding and will pay more for more frequency.

Please read some Milton Friedman or similar book on introductory economics. They are really very readable and easy to understand. More of our politicians should be required to read such material.
 
incitatus
Posts: 2691
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:19 pm

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 2):
e suggesting a return to simple interline agreements pooling and use of IATA clearing ?

Exactly. That is the way it used to be. It used to be much easier to pile up airlines with interline agreements on the same ticket paying a reasonable fare.
Stop pop up ads
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:05 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 6):
........aren't you tired of getting beat up?

It does make more sense though right ?

1 BA flight at 2pm

1 LH flight at 3pm

1 BA flight at 4pm

1 LH flight at 5pm

.......................................and so on.

How is having 10 flights on larger aircraft instead of 20 on smaller uncompetitive..........?

Why are mergers, consolidation, anti-trust etc etc acceptable on one hand but not on the other ?
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18834
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:56 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
If we scrapped all 3 alliances and basically just had all airlines code-sharing/revenue-sharing etc etc wherever it made sense to do so as one big alliance essentially.... why wouldn't that work and be beneficial to everyone ?

That system was in place for decades before alliances were created, although code-sharing was a somewhat more recent addition but long before alliances existed. Revenue-sharing (then known as pooling) dates back to the early days of commercial aviation. Almost all airlines in Europe were in revenue-sharing/pooling agreements with the other major carrier serving the same international routes. As one example, AF and BEA both operated London-Paris and agreed on schedules/capacity/fares. They also agreed that AF would serve ORY and BEA would serve LBG.

There were many other pooling agreements in other parts of the world, except on routes involving the U.S.where it was illegal due to antitrust laws. And today that sort of activity of course remains illegal to/from the U.S. except where Open Skies agreements have been reached, the first of which was U.S.-Netherlands in 1992 that permitted the KLM/NW joint venture which was the first of its kind in the U.S.market.

Basically, you still have most of the old pre-alliance system in place today in addition to the alliances and today's revenue-sharing joint ventures, as virtually all major airlines (except LCCs that usually don't interline with some exceptions) have interline agreements with virtually all other major carriers, regardless of alliance. And there are dozens of code-share agreements that involve carriers in different alliances (or in no alliance).
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2118
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:03 am

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 9):

It does not make more sense. If you artificially reduce frequencies, there is no reason why the airlines would necessarily increase the gauge of the equipment. The size of the equipment they use will be to maximize profit, not to keep the current capacity.

What you are proposing is going back to how things worked before deregulation. Back then airfares were much higher on an inflation adjusted basis and the governments decided what routes and frequencies each airline could fly.

I have no desire for the return of those days.

If you are really looking for a more indepth explanation as to why your theory does not work in the real world and don't want to read economics, you can get a book called Freakonomics...and pay special attention to the repeated occurrences of unintended consequences from well meaned political actions.

[Edited 2012-07-28 18:13:35]
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:37 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10):
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 11):

I still don't understand.

Airlines are doing this more and more in the shape of alliances, J.V's etc

I understand where there are many airlines competing on the same route but...

There are many routes in the world that are kind of ***sacrosanct*** if you like.

e.g where you have two legacy carriers connecting two major metropoli

Like the European capital city or financial centre airports that don't have LCC presence.

I don't see why just making these routes more 'efficient' whilst not reducing capacity is anti competitive.

That's double standards considering developments over recent years.

So what if an airline can increase yield without raising prices or reducing capacity....isn't that a healthy thing ?
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 6998
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:53 am

Mikey, your points would be so much easier to understand if you wrote in Paragraphs. That also means building an arguement rather than just asking questions.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 12):
That's double standards considering developments over recent years.

Airlines have a certain offering for a certain price point. Why should BA add passengers to arch-rival - Luftansa when it takes from their direct services? To use a football analogy - it would be the same as arguing that all matches should end 1-1, or all supermarkets just become Tesco.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 12):
airline can increase yield without raising prices

How can you increase yield (fares) without increasing the price?

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 9):
How is having 10 flights on larger aircraft instead of 20 on smaller uncompetitive

The twenty smaller flights feed hubs, improving connectivity, and competitiveness. They also feed hubs at different ends of the route, so ten flights might not suit.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:24 am

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
If we scrapped all 3 alliances and basically just had all airlines code-sharing/revenue-sharing etc etc wherever it made sense to do so as one big alliance essentially.... why wouldn't that work and be beneficial to everyone ?

The alliances aren't just about flight scheduling, but also embrace joint purchasing and marketing, amongst others, which saves money for the airlines. Most of us live in capitalist economies where competition drives benefits for the consumers. I don't see what's so wrong with that system.

Da, comrade?
International Homo of Mystery
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:35 am

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 13):

I understand that.

We cannot avoid the fact though that in Europe anyway (because all the major players are in different alliances) we have cities in relatively very close proximity to each other like Paris, Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Madrid, Zurich etc etc that are NEVER going to benefit from air links with each other using the best possible synergies ?

(sorry for cities i have not included but am just getting point across)

Let me call all intra-European traffic 'EU DomesticTraffic' for the sake of argument.

Is it not vital for the EU to have the most efficient well organized links connecting its major conurbations ?

Are there not 'micro climates' within certain geographical areas that the alliances hinder ?

I don't want to some big soviet style monster (far from it) but I do believe there are 'flaws' in the system maybe.

[Edited 2012-07-29 00:48:17]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
ASA
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:12 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:57 am

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
If we scrapped all 3 alliances and basically just had all airlines code-sharing/revenue-sharing etc etc wherever it made sense to do so as one big alliance essentially.... why wouldn't that work and be beneficial to everyone ?

You mean why don't we just have one soft drink, COCA-COLA, all over the world instead of so many different ones driving unnecessary competition and distributing revenue in so many places, and some leading to losses, etc?

  

Competition. Capitalism.

and at the heart ... Different business models. Different philosophy. Different hub priorities.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 6998
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:19 am

Mikey, tell us how your plan would work rather than asking question after question after question. Monopolies increase fares and reduce service and demand.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 15):
I don't want to some big soviet style monster (far from it) but I do believe there are 'flaws' in the system maybe.

Russia is a great example - where so much of the capacity is being renationalised under Aeroflot - resulting in people flying from ekaterinburg to novosibirsk - 3rd and 4th largest cities often have to back track 2 hours to Moscow to fly betwen the cities.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 15):

Is it not vital for the EU to have the most efficient well organized links connecting its major conurbations ?

Lets close all airports, and improve the rail network then.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:35 am

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 17):
Mikey, tell us how your plan would work rather than asking question after question after question. Monopolies increase fares and reduce service and demand.

I will try.

Let's look at LHR-FRA. (as just one example in Europe)

Importantly I am not considering London to Frankfurt (we have the LCC's to provide the competition) but LHR-FRA.

Nobody else is ever going to enter that market other than BA and LH. In their right mind anyway.

We don't question that we just accept it as obvious for many overwhelming reasons and ad infinitum while both carriers are in business this will be the case.

Like I said it is sacrosanct.

Therefore to me it makes sense for BA and LH to cooperate on this route.

The other reason is that one day whether we like it or not I think airlines because of the polluting fuel burning nature of the industry will be 'forced' to make concessions like this.

Someone somewhere in a high place will one day start asking questions.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
rutankrd
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:52 am

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 18):
Therefore to me it makes sense for BA and LH to cooperate on this route.

They did for thirty+ years fully pooling services and only 6 years ago was were IATA regulated fares suspended

This article is worth a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ransport_Association#Price_setting
 
rutankrd
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:01 am

Quoting ASA (Reply 16):
You mean why don't we just have one soft drink, COCA-COLA, all over the world instead of so many different ones driving unnecessary competition and distributing revenue in so many places, and some leading to losses, etc?

  

Competition. Capitalism.

and at the heart ... Different business models. Different philosophy. Different hub priorities.

ASA no disrespect but the airline to which you attach your flag continues to use IATA fare setting calculations to this day.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:26 am

All I am suggesting is some fine tuning of the current system to make it more efficient.

Forgive the crudeness of this but you will get the idea.....

Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 6998
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:36 am

Mikey, you really need to start using paragraphs and punctuation. Your comments are thought provoking, but virtually impossible to comprehend.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 18):

Therefore to me it makes sense for BA and LH to cooperate on this route.

In the same way Tesco and Asda and sainsburys and morrissons and the co-op should co-operate by reducing the number of stores to one for west london, only selling 1ltr milk and sliced white bread? In the same way that Man U and Man C should be one team - how about one football team for all of London.

How about all flights to Paris from London stopping so we can all take the train?

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 18):
We don't question that we just accept it as obvious for many overwhelming reasons and ad infinitum while both carriers are in business this will be the case.

I have no idea what you are saying here.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
rutankrd
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:26 am

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 22):
Mikey, you really need to start using paragraphs and punctuation. Your comments are thought provoking, but virtually impossible to comprehend.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 18):

Therefore to me it makes sense for BA and LH to cooperate on this route.

In the same way Tesco and Asda and sainsburys and morrissons and the co-op should co-operate by reducing the number of stores to one for west london, only selling 1ltr milk and sliced white bread? In the same way that Man U and Man C should be one team - how about one football team for all of London.

How about all flights to Paris from London stopping so we can all take the train?

There were plenty of differentiators not just prices ! APEX / Excursion Weekend stay etc.... plus service and added value packages under the regulated IATA system.

Oh and the Supermarkets are far more savvy -they also use loyalty and quality differentiators its not just price !

You mention trains well to some extent the IATA fare system was rather similar to the UK FULL fare government regulated tariffs we STILL have in the UK you know.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:53 am

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 22):

Staying with LHR/FRA as just one of many examples. The days when BA and LH were the sole means of air travel between these two cities are long gone as they compete with the LCC's. We don't need or require a multi-presence on routes between 'airports 'within Europe anymore because we have a 'multi-presence' between the cities themselves via several airports. In the shape of legacy and LCC carriers.

Does it really matter anymore if BA and LH cooperate on LHR/FRA on the competitive front ?

So what if they alternate shuttles on larger equipment and save money. They are not going to drive people to the LCC's by pricing themselves out of the market are they ? They may well be able to reduce certain fares on the route.

I believe the European carriers can cooperate on intra-European routes across the board without compromising competition because of the LCC presence or hinder the workings of their respective alliances.

Legacy short-haul in Europe has been a disaster and there is no need for that.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 6998
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:19 am

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 24):
We don't need or require a multi-presence on routes between 'airports 'within Europe anymore because we have a 'multi-presence' between the cities themselves via several airports. In the shape of legacy and LCC carriers.

But earlier you said...

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 18):
I am not considering London to Frankfurt (we have the LCC's to provide the competition) but LHR-FRA


Anyway - you neglect the bigger goal of both LH and BA on this route - traffic connecting to their respective hubs.

If we follow your logic, what would you propose on DUB MAD for example - three low cost carriers to one? Would fares would go down? Considering a decade ago this route was flown twice a week summer only - should we go back to that?


I think I get where you are going - scarce resources (Slots) should be used wisley. However, mega hub flights are different - LH and BA serve different customer base due to their hubs. On point to point (AF LHR to NCE for example), or (LH LHR to DUS) these airline are offering nothing but a different option on a 'thin' route. Your option may work here.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:39 am

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 25):
Anyway - you neglect the bigger goal of both LH and BA on this route - traffic connecting to their respective hubs.

People will choose between the two for any long-haul plans regardless.

I admit it is difficult to see how European legacy-carrier short-haul can be sustainable and benefit to the max both carrier and passenger when it is divided into the three alliances who's main focus is long-haul out of Europe.

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 25):
If we follow your logic, what would you propose on DUB MAD for example - three low cost carriers to one? Would fares would go down? Considering a decade ago this route was flown twice a week summer only - should we go back to that?

This is not a one size fits all solution I am suggesting but simply the ability to cooperate where it makes commercial sense to do so and where any competitive concerns have been negated by the LCC's.

The alliance concept is now over 10 years old and simply has to move with the times/developments (middle east carriers etc)
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 6998
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:06 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 26):
The alliance concept is now over 10 years old and simply has to move with the times/developments (middle east carriers etc)

We are seeing ME carriers join alliances too - with rumours of Ethiad and Emirates heading towards Alliances.
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
SuperCaravelle
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:04 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:46 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 24):


Does it really matter anymore if BA and LH cooperate on LHR/FRA on the competitive front ?

Yes, actually, because it means people from Frankfurt or London cannot choose anymore between BA or LH, which ultimately will be bad for their bank account. Maybe not short-haul, but certainly long-haul. Sure, one can argue new competitors can enter the market, but we've seen it is very difficult to get a foothold big enough to replace airlines like that, especially long-haul, due to high fixed costs as well as a lot of uncertainty.

Also, what would happen if we did the same with the London underground? Instead of four trains per 10 minutes, one, but four times as long (I know it's not possible right now due to physical limitations). It would be more efficient for the transport provider, but the people waiting are paying the price.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:10 pm

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 28):
Yes, actually, because it means people from Frankfurt or London cannot choose anymore between BA or LH, which ultimately will be bad for their bank account. Maybe not short-haul, but certainly long-haul. Sure, one can argue new competitors can enter the market, but we've seen it is very difficult to get a foothold big enough to replace airlines like that, especially long-haul, due to high fixed costs as well as a lot of uncertainty.

If I decide to fly LH long-haul from LHR via FRA what difference does it make which airline I get placed on (LH or BA) to FRA ?

If I decide to fly BA long-haul from FRA via LHR what difference does it make which airline I get placed on (BA or LH) to LHR ?

The only difference it makes is to BA and LH who can link FRA and LHR more cost effectively and therefore probably offer cheaper fares for people travelling soley between the two airports.

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 28):
Also, what would happen if we did the same with the London underground? Instead of four trains per 10 minutes, one, but four times as long (I know it's not possible right now due to physical limitations). It would be more efficient for the transport provider, but the people waiting are paying the price.

Since when do two trains leave from the same station at the same time for the same destination ?

Not quite the same thing is it.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
SuperCaravelle
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:04 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:29 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 29):
If I decide to fly LH long-haul from LHR via FRA what difference does it make which airline I get placed on (LH or BA) to FRA ?If I decide to fly BA long-haul from FRA via LHR what difference does it make which airline I get placed on (BA or LH) to LHR ?

It doesn't matter, no, if it's ad hoc. But if they start working together, prices will rise.

Besides, it's a waste of a big plane, which is more expensive to buy, has longer turnaround and more expensive cycles. Only benefit would be fuel cost (is an A380 even more fuel efficient than an A320 on short routes?) and labor cost (pilot cost mostly, ignoring the fact A380 pilots earn more than A320 pilots).

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 29):
Since when do two trains leave from the same station at the same time for the same destination ?

Not quite the same thing is it.

Two or three minutes difference isn't big though.

[Edited 2012-07-29 06:30:29]
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:44 pm

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 30):
Only benefit would be fuel cost

:-

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 18):
The other reason is that one day whether we like it or not I think airlines because of the polluting fuel burning nature of the industry will be 'forced' to make concessions like this.

Someone somewhere in a high place will one day start asking questions.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
SuperCaravelle
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:04 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:07 pm

Not going to happen anytime soon. If it happens, airlines will start using biofuels like nothing else.

But no law will ever be made prohibiting use of small planes. Obsolete planes (like 737-200 and such) yes, but newest offering will always be protected.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:16 pm

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 30):
Besides, it's a waste of a big plane, which is more expensive to buy, has longer turnaround and more expensive cycles. Only benefit would be fuel cost (is an A380 even more fuel efficient than an A320 on short routes?) and labor cost (pilot cost mostly, ignoring the fact A380 pilots earn more than A320 pilots).

Well I think you have overlooked many advantages and rather quickly dismissed the ones you have indentified as the current system of alliances, mergers and joint ventures is based on and came into being because of the very principles I am applying to European legacy short-haul.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
incitatus
Posts: 2691
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:27 pm

Less frequency is not necessarily more green. This thread seems to have started from a conclusion seeking a justification for it.

True, two flights that can easily be consolidated will be more efficient as one. But that is marginally, it is not a huge difference.

Aircraft are lumps of capacity. A large fleet of 100-seaters is much easier to fine tune to ups and downs of demand than a large fleet of 200-seaters. Then more frequency creates more and better opportunities for connections than less frequency facilitating commerce between smaller cities.

If it is all about being green we should cease all economic activity. Construction, roads and transport in general are very destructive.
Stop pop up ads
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:45 pm

It isn't going to save on fuel. I highly doubt that 3 737/320s use more fuel than 1 380 from LHR to FRA. The smaller planes tend to be much more cost optimized for short haul flights than the bigger planes. The 380 carries around so much extra structural weight in order to support the MTOW requires for an 8K nm flight.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:52 pm

Quoting incitatus (Reply 34):
Less frequency is not necessarily more green


In my view frequency is more about time between flights than actual number of flights...the former being the important factor.

So this is not less frequency.

We currently have a system whereby two aircraft leave at the same time for the same destination.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 34):
If it is all about being green we should cease all economic activity. Construction, roads and transport in general are very destructive.


That is a poor reason to 'wantonly' be wasteful when it is not required or necessary.

Any industry that does will have a hard time..........mmmmm.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:09 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 26):

The alliance concept is now over 10 years old and simply has to move with the times/developments (middle east carriers etc)

Almost 20 years.........KL/NW in '93.



In all of these "scenarios" all I can see happening is reduced employment for the airlines and their suppliers. Now, I know the airline isn't supposed to be a "jobs" program, but I also can't see where this would help the economy of ANY country where it was done.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:35 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 37):
In all of these "scenarios" all I can see happening is reduced employment for the airlines and their suppliers. Now, I know the airline isn't supposed to be a "jobs" program, but I also can't see where this would help the economy of ANY country where it was done.

Well in terms of overall number of jobs in the airline industry as a whole.... globally that is going up and up.

Where and why is because of the same trend we see in every other industry.

So ...fewer jobs is better than none because the airline concerned has gone bust through being inefficient compared to its rivals.

QR, EK, EY, SQ etc don't have to worry about cash sucking loss making short-haul ops do they ???

Better make them work then eh.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:08 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 38):

Well in terms of overall number of jobs in the airline industry as a whole.... globally that is going up and up.

Yes, it's going up in the system we have, now.........you reduce frequency and put them on larger a/c.......or reduce the number of airlines, isn't there going to be less of a need for personnel? I don't see how the system you propose is more efficient.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:25 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 39):
Yes, it's going up in the system we have, now.........you reduce frequency and put them on larger a/c.......or reduce the number of airlines, isn't there going to be less of a need for personnel? I don't see how the system you propose is more efficient.

Don't confuse what I suggest with a total reorganization of global air travel, just a tweek of the alliances. (see quote below)

Besides....CDG-AMS, FRA-ZRH, MAD-LHR etc etc

The revenue for these 3 routes all goes into the same pots at the end of the day.

So it's already happening.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 26):
This is not a one size fits all solution I am suggesting but simply the ability to cooperate where it makes commercial sense to do so and where any competitive concerns have been negated by the LCC's.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
SuperCaravelle
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:04 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:35 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 40):
Don't confuse what I suggest with a total reorganization of global air travel, just a tweek of the alliances. (see quote below)

Besides....CDG-AMS, FRA-ZRH, MAD-LHR etc etc

The revenue for these 3 routes all goes into the same pots at the end of the day.

So it's already happening.

Yeah but crucially not CDG-FRA or AMS-FRA. That's the point, if you're combining the three major airline groups in one alliance, those routes will be in the same pot too, meaning no more possibility to fly CDG-FRA-AMS on a different carrier, and more importantly, a total lock in routes between hubs, meaning people near hubs are not best off anymore in terms of choice, but worst off.
 
ASA
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:12 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:37 pm

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 20):
ASA no disrespect but the airline to which you attach your flag continues to use IATA fare setting calculations to this day.

none taken, rutankrd. but how is that relevant here?
 
rutankrd
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:06 pm

Quoting ASA (Reply 42):

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 20):
ASA no disrespect but the airline to which you attach your flag continues to use IATA fare setting calculations to this day.

none taken, rutankrd. but how is that relevant here?

Its relevant in that part of Mikeys argument that pooling and reintroduction of the IATA system within the EU would lead to beneficial slot usage at some of the larger European Hubs with combined timetables and fares.

I think Mikeys as some points however the EU competition rules would prevent it. There is precedence that the EU would actively prosecute airlines and they have already done so for freight operations and won - Fines imposed for collusion !
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:17 pm

The scary part is the average person that has no idea how the air transportation system works might actually agree with this line of thinking...
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:26 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 18):
I will try.

Let's look at LHR-FRA. (as just one example in Europe)

Importantly I am not considering London to Frankfurt (we have the LCC's to provide the competition) but LHR-FRA.

Nobody else is ever going to enter that market other than BA and LH. In their right mind anyway.

We don't question that we just accept it as obvious for many overwhelming reasons and ad infinitum while both carriers are in business this will be the case.

Like I said it is sacrosanct.

Therefore to me it makes sense for BA and LH to cooperate on this route.

The other reason is that one day whether we like it or not I think airlines because of the polluting fuel burning nature of the industry will be 'forced' to make concessions like this.

Someone somewhere in a high place will one day start asking questions.

What I see to happen is that both will no longer fly such a route on own material, but buy capacity from an operator who operates on behalf of them.
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2118
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:53 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 40):

It is regulation borne out of such over-simplistic logic used by government functionaries that lead to long term harm to both the consumer and to industry.

The government makes a problem with their over-regulation and lack of foresight (causing slot restrictions) and then come up with a hair-brained scheme to alleviate the problem by requiring airlines to use less flexible and less efficient (for short haul) aircraft and limiting competition, thereby increasing the prices to consumers. After the prices rise and service declines, the same government bureaucrats and politicians will decide to install price controls...which won't work either as history has proven. It will increase employment, as there will be lots of new bureaucrats hired to administer the regulations and oversee the market.

Mikey, it is an idea that will not work to solve any problem, but it will create lots of new problems.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:53 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
If we scrapped all 3 alliances and basically just had all airlines code-sharing/revenue-sharing etc etc wherever it made sense to do so as one big alliance essentially.... why wouldn't that work and be beneficial to everyone ?

Sounds like no alliances just individual codeshares and JVs. What youre proposing isnt one big alliance. Its no big alliance, just a bunch of little agreements.
 
bluejuice
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:55 am

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:02 pm

No offense but the arguments sound very much ones like those of a university student who has attended a few macro economic classes. While in theory your points make sense, the reality is they never work because they are based on assumptions that everything works perfectly and everyone is "good." I will not rehash what other have said but monopolies/oligopolies are bad for the consumer. Invariable prices go up, service goes down, and innovation slow. The people at the top benefit while everyone else suffers. Think of other industries that have gone with this model and awful it was for those that had to use their services.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 1887
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: One Global Alliance.

Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:49 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 15):
Is it not vital for the EU to have the most efficient well organized links connecting its major conurbations ?

What makes you think it's not efficient as it is? In the LHR-FRA example that you're using, there are two different airlines with two different customer bases, two different products, feeding two different hubs flying between two major cities in the world...I would expect a major route pair like LHR-FRA to have many frequencies because there's a large amount of commerce between the two cities.

If anything, hyper-frequency is more often than not caused by the government regulations which you seek more of. At least on the LH side they're probably more than likely forced to operate multiple frequencies to maintain their LHR slot portfolio which is the result of government regulation, similar to the some 20 daily flights US was operating PHL-LGA.

Also, setting aside the obvious consumer issues with monopolies, you theorize that it would somehow pollute less if BA and LH operated 10 flights on LHR-FRA using VLA's, but I very much doubt that 10 VLA flights on this route will significantly reduce fuel consumption and emissions over operating 20 flights with smaller, more efficient aircraft. If anything, any pollution between these two would be about the same.

Who is online