This is just speculation, but I came across this article where the SIA CEO Goh was being interviewed with regards to his outlook for 2017. While I do know that they have started some limited codeshares out of Houston, is he hinting through this that UA may not be the most easy and ideal partner to work with?

We are very happy to discuss this with United as well; United is a Star Alliance partner, and I think a cross-alliance partnership is a bit difficult.
But there are also those who are not in an alliance, for example JetBlue, Virgin America and others. So we will continue to look for opportunities and cooperation with United, but we would also be open to work with others if the United route network is not available.

Always been interested in the relations between these two airlines (and the tensions/recent thawing of relations?) between them

Source: http://www.travelweekly.com/Preview2017 ... -SIngapore

It's long been an icy relationship. The recent code sharing was a big breakthrough. However, I have to imagine SQ starting SIN-SFO so soon after UA starting the route didn't go over very well. Likely puts some pressure on yields on an expensive ULH route.

SFOtoORD wrote:

It's long been an icy relationship. The recent code sharing was a big breakthrough. However, I have to imagine SQ starting SIN-SFO so soon after UA starting the route didn't go over very well. Likely puts some pressure on yields on an expensive ULH route.

SQ and UA always have been direct competitors on SIN-SFO and that will never change. Maybe you think that UA was not happy that SQ went non-stop on SFO-SIN, but I am pretty sure that SQ was not happy with UA going non-stop in the first place.
However, I hear some anecdotal stories that it was actually good for both of them as people now go to SFO from SIN because it is direct while they would not have gone there if it still had a stop in HKG/ICN.

AngMoh wrote:

SQ and UA always have been direct competitors on SIN-SFO and that will never change.

Only because they want it to be that way.

There's theoretically nothing stopping SQ and UA from J/Ving... other than UA not standing to get very much out of such a relationship, at least relative to what SQ would get.

People do seem to expect more of alliances due to the Joint Ventures like AA/BA and AF/KL/DL.

An alliance is just that. It's not a marriage. They are there to ostensibly make travel more seamless for the customer, keeping business within the group of airlines. It doesn't rule out competition. Where there is the case for it then there should be competition otherwise it becomes a cartel and that gets into very sticky territory. Alliances are there so that airlines can align parts of their businesses to work together in the interest of everyone concerned up to the point where dominance would happen. That's when immunisation needs to happen and that isn't easy to obtain either.

UA/SQ have always had a rocky relationship.

When US was in *A, US/SQ had a great partnership, with SQ choosing to codeshare with US over UA.

SQ/UA has traditionally been frosty, although both have recently implemented codesharing agreements. However when you compare SQ/UA's relationship with the Oneworld equivalent that is QF/CX, they make SQ/UA look like the best of friends.

It does seem in that SQ (Star), CX (Oneworld) and KE (Skyteam) have both seemingly had rocky relationships with certain alliance partners over times, but I am not sure that the comments made in that interview were that dramatic really.

Sometimes another network partner may be able to offer more value and as such they are keeping their options open. Good business practice really.

Alternate headline:

"Speculation: SQ not being very cooperative with UA."

Who's to say it isn't true?

The less than spectacular in flight service, offering and products by UA on trans Pacific flight leave too much to be desired if one is to compare with SQ's high standard. I read that the SQ frequent users are reluctant to take any UA flight or had complained in the past when they have bought SQ's ticket, but ended in less than stellar UA plane. Thus SQ-UA both put their "working relationship" in cold storage for long time until recently.

juliuswong wrote:

The less than spectacular in flight service, offering and products by UA on trans Pacific flight leave too much to be desired if one is to compare with SQ's high standard.

Given the chance to fly SQ frequently from SFO, I would have never considered flying on UA while I lived in Singapore (2000s). For me to knowingly fly with the latter (via HKG or NRT) would have been asking for poor in-cabin service and other troubles, even in 1st. All this was early in the 2000s. I don't know if it's still true. Nothing personal, UA, but that's the way the airline was back then. I haven't flown UA on this stretch for a long time.

USAirALB wrote:

When US was in *A, US/SQ had a great partnership, with SQ choosing to codeshare with US over UA.

No real surprise there. With the small exception of the northeast USA to Germany, US couldn't compete with SQ at all.

UA can and did, in essentially every way.

I think one reason the relationship is beginning to thaw again is UA continued push to improve hard and soft product both on board and at the airport.

Others have deduced that continued market encroachment by the ME3 and Chinese Carriers has pushed SQ to again partner with UA. KE's thawing relationship with DL would also lend to this conclusion. We may yet see CX look to strengthen ties with AA/BA in a similar attempt. I believe there was a thread a few weeks back about CX's less than stellar performance as of late.

77H

77H wrote:

I think one reason the relationship is beginning to thaw again is UA continued push to improve hard and soft product both on board and at the airport.

Others have deduced that continued market encroachment by the ME3 and Chinese Carriers has pushed SQ to again partner with UA. KE's thawing relationship with DL would also lend to this conclusion. We may yet see CX look to strengthen ties with AA/BA in a similar attempt. I believe there was a thread a few weeks back about CX's less than stellar performance as of late.

Pretty sure it's got a lottttt more to do with your second paragraph, than the first.

chiraagnt wrote:

This is just speculation, but I came across this article where the SIA CEO Goh was being interviewed with regards to his outlook for 2017. While I do know that they have started some limited codeshares out of Houston, is he hinting through this that UA may not be the most easy and ideal partner to work with?

We are very happy to discuss this with United as well; United is a Star Alliance partner, and I think a cross-alliance partnership is a bit difficult.
But there are also those who are not in an alliance, for example JetBlue, Virgin America and others. So we will continue to look for opportunities and cooperation with United, but we would also be open to work with others if the United route network is not available.

Always been interested in the relations between these two airlines (and the tensions/recent thawing of relations?) between them

Source: http://www.travelweekly.com/Preview2017 ... -SIngapore

I dont see how that hints at a poor relationship with UA at all. If anything, I think SQ likely any major airline is trying to show its customers and investors that they have a wide range of partners.

I also think the two paragraphs preceding the quoted section in the OP are important to look at:

On top of that, we have also embarked on a fairly extensive partnership program. Six or seven years ago, we had, systemwide, maybe 1,000-plus codeshares. Today, we're close to 10,000 codeshares, building up partnerships with like-minded carriers. It goes beyond the Star Alliance: Virgin America and JetBlue, for example, are partners.

Why is this important? Let's take a concrete example. We have an extensive, joint-venture codeshare with Lufthansa, which includes a revenue-sharing component. That's good for customers coming from Singapore who want to travel to Europe where Lufthansa has great regional connectivity. And it's equally good coming to Singapore, which has similarly great connectivity, when flying from Europe. And we both can provide a very attractive frequent-flyer program.

We are very happy to discuss this with United as well; United is a Star Alliance partner, and I think a cross-alliance partnership is a bit difficult.

But there are also those who are not in an alliance, for example JetBlue, Virgin America and others. So we will continue to look for opportunities and cooperation with United, but we would also be open to work with others if the United route network is not available.

And from what I read from his statement and from Bloomberg's article a few days ago, North America is arguably SQ's most important market, or at least the one on which they're most focused. Codeshares and ULH flights are the only ways SQ can competitively serve North America in a way that makes financial sense, and the jury's still out as to whether even ULH flights are suddenly viable with new equipment. So that leaves codeshares as being more important and a lower risk way of growing SQ's rather small relevance in North America.

But what I think is interesting in what I quoted is his focus on revenue sharing. If I'm reading between the lines, perhaps SQ would be "more than happy" to enter into revenue sharing with UA like with LH, but the fact that he cites smaller carriers being more open to cozier agreements if UA "is not available" may signify that UA really isn't all that interested in playing nice with SQ. Seeing as UA started US-SIN nonstop out of nowhere (did anyone really expect it until when it was announced?) when SQ had been saying for a while that SQ was waiting until 2018 to do so seems like UA was giving an F-U to SQ. And really, what does SQ's network really add to UA's? UA already has a pretty robust network into Asia as it is, including India, and it can always lean onto the NH JV for even more onward connections. And SQ doesn't provide any utility into Australia and Oceania in the same way it would to a European carrier like LH, so what else does that really leave?

I also don't buy the "SQ doesn't like UA's product" theory. In the end, it all comes down to cash. SQ would have a lot more to gain financially from a JV with UA, which flies extensively to all over the US and Asia compared to small potatoes VX and B6, which have no TPAC and still only penetrate a selection of US cities compared to UA. And UA probably doesn't want to share any of its revenue (and boy, is UA making money now) with a stuffy legacy carrier in a region with the highest LCC penetration in the world (SQ's CEO's words, not mine).

That's just me trying to read the tea leaves, but it seems like SQ would gain a lot more from a revenue sharing JV with UA than UA would. I guess it's not unlike what Mariah Carey thinks of JLo.

Oh, one more point I forgot to add. With VX being swallowed up by AS, chances are that codeshare will go away, leaving just B6 as a North American partner. The AS+VX tie-up and the UA+SQ codeshare applications also happened at the same time, so those two actions may not be coincidental...

intotheair wrote:

Oh, one more point I forgot to add. With VX being swallowed up by AS, chances are that codeshare will go away, leaving just B6 as a North American partner. The AS+VX tie-up and the UA+SQ codeshare applications also happened at the same time, so those two actions may not be coincidental...

AS does not fly transpac and is a codeshare whore. I don't think the VX+AS tie up will see the SQ codeshare go away.

juliuswong wrote:

The less than spectacular in flight service, offering and products by UA on trans Pacific flight leave too much to be desired if one is to compare with SQ's high standard. I read that the SQ frequent users are reluctant to take any UA flight or had complained in the past when they have bought SQ's ticket, but ended in less than stellar UA plane. Thus SQ-UA both put their "working relationship" in cold storage for long time until recently.

Yup, its a shame because you would hope/think that those brand new shiny Boeing 787's and 77W's with Polaris would equate to a better onboard experience...unfortunately, it won't.

I doubt UA is losing any sleep on SQ's opinion on their on board product and whether that is a reason to cooperate or not. SQ needs the codeshares far more than UA does.

why would SQ start SFO, where UA already is, rather than restarting LAX, a much bigger market with no competition?

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

why would SQ start SFO, where UA already is, rather than restarting LAX, a much bigger market with no competition?

Because SQ has a limited number of opportunities right now and non-stop US service is one of them. I think SFO is a key station for them and they didn't want to lose traffic w UA going non-stop. They'll return to LAX and NYC later.

I do think it paints a picture of how SQ is somewhat boxed in right now. The ME3 have eaten their lunch on some routes esp Europe to South Asia and ANZ. The other Asian carriers have gotten stronger. And international service to the US has grown significantly without SQ participanting. SQ is still a great airline, but not quite the standout they once were.

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

why would SQ start SFO, where UA already is, rather than restarting LAX, a much bigger market with no competition?

LAX serves a larger market but the Bay Area has a larger % of high value clients (business class). They also can take advantage to an extent the feed UA has available via their mega hub at SFO. Finally, LAX is a longer flight with a larger restriction west-bound this time of year potentially. All of that weighs into these decisions until the LR sub fleet arrives.

SQ's decision to launch SIN-SFO so shortly after UA - and before the A359ULR arrives - tells you all you need to know about how icy their relationship is. They are not friends.

MSPNWA wrote:

SQ's decision to launch SIN-SFO so shortly after UA - and before the A359ULR arrives - tells you all you need to know about how icy their relationship is. They are not friends.

It also tells you just how important on board service, as oppose to schedule, actually is...

Polot wrote:

intotheair wrote:

Oh, one more point I forgot to add. With VX being swallowed up by AS, chances are that codeshare will go away, leaving just B6 as a North American partner. The AS+VX tie-up and the UA+SQ codeshare applications also happened at the same time, so those two actions may not be coincidental...

AS does not fly transpac and is a codeshare whore. I don't think the VX+AS tie up will see the SQ codeshare go away.

AS is a codeshare slut, yes, but for all the carriers it works with, none of them are in Star. There must be a reason for that, right?

Polot wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

SQ's decision to launch SIN-SFO so shortly after UA - and before the A359ULR arrives - tells you all you need to know about how icy their relationship is. They are not friends.

It also tells you just how important on board service, as oppose to schedule, actually is...

Onbaord service has nothing to do with why SQ launched SIN-SFO soon after UA did...SQ is simply trying to hold onto market share.

intotheair wrote:

AS is a codeshare slut, yes, but for all the carriers it works with, none of them are in Star. There must be a reason for that, right?

It's a legacy of the time years ago when AS and UA were the biggest two airlines in AS's Seattle base. AS partnered with AA, DL, and NW to fight UA. Most of the international codeshares came about as an extension of those relationships.

Until the AS/VX deal, I thought that an AS/UA codeshare was logical and inevitable once the relationship with DL ended. But adding VX makes AS and UA into much more direct competitors.

I'm sure AS would love to maintain the VX relationship with SQ. And if that happens it will be a nice poke in the eye from SQ to UA.

United1 wrote:

Polot wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

SQ's decision to launch SIN-SFO so shortly after UA - and before the A359ULR arrives - tells you all you need to know about how icy their relationship is. They are not friends.

It also tells you just how important on board service, as oppose to schedule, actually is...

Onbaord service has nothing to do with why SQ launched SIN-SFO soon after UA did...SQ is simply trying to hold onto market share.

I think his point was a non stop trumps peoples perception of service, good or bad

SQ doesn't like UA and vice versa. UA's Polaris product can reach SQ business class, whether the UA F/As will become as servile as SQ F/As time will tell. UA is getting rid of its F product, SQ isn't. And it's that F product that drives much of SQs reputation.

No US carrier is good at the pretentious service that a number of Asian and some EU carriers have in 3 class F products. US carriers have a solid C and MCE type product now, they've improved quite a bit with products like DL One or UA Polaris.

Having taken UA 1/2 this year, I don't think that UA needs to hide service-wise, especially once Polaris has been fully rolled out with new hard product.

SQ isn't part of A++, that's equally LH/UA/NH to blame for that. For LH/UA it evidently doesn't provide enough added value to have SQ in A++ and for NH it would be too close to home. The ME 3 will force the big 3 alliances to reconsider somewhat, new planes and big ambitions have made them a force to be reckoned with. They are to the big 3 long haul what the ULCCs were to them shorthaul. Whether they like it or not, partners like SQ or CY will have to find better arrangements or risk going the way of TG.

SQ has tried ORD twice, via AMS with no UA support. Seems like UA only wants LH and NH at ORD (gate constraint is an issue, but not for those two). SQ could make ORD work nonstop, or via Asia, and UA support like at IAH would be huge. Makes me think UA is protecting ORD, even from partners.

Outside of LH(?) is SQ really good friends with anyone in Star? The days of SQ being the cat's rear end are behind them, not that they don't offer Grade A service. They've always seemed a bit arrogant to me regarding their so-called alliance partners, and for maybe good reason. But times have changed. It seems to me that with the rise of the ME3 they would seek out closer relationships...but the ingrained superiority complex may hurt them in the long term unless they bite the bullet.

ua900 wrote:

SQ isn't part of A++, that's equally LH/UA/NH to blame for that. For LH/UA it evidently doesn't provide enough added value to have SQ in A++ and for NH it would be too close to home.

You are confused.

AA++ is the enhanced Atlantic venture. SQ would really have no place in it due to its token capacity. Also NH obviously has nothing to do with A++ either.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Outside of LH(?) is SQ really good friends with anyone in Star? The days of SQ being the cat's rear end are behind them, not that they don't offer Grade A service. They've always seemed a bit arrogant to me regarding their so-called alliance partners, and for maybe good reason. But times have changed. It seems to me that with the rise of the ME3 they would seek out closer relationships...but the ingrained superiority complex may hurt them in the long term unless they bite the bullet.

There is ongoing internal discussion / disagreement within SQ regarding strategic partnerships / JV's, ranging from we definitely don't want them, to selective area specific are OK, right to this is the future (and we want to get aboard before CX).

Whether this takes the form of equity, QF/EK-style JV's or composite, something mega will be announced before the end of the decade involving one each of EU3, ME3 and US (though the US participant might not be one of the US3), plus............

Planesmart wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

Outside of LH(?) is SQ really good friends with anyone in Star? The days of SQ being the cat's rear end are behind them, not that they don't offer Grade A service. They've always seemed a bit arrogant to me regarding their so-called alliance partners, and for maybe good reason. But times have changed. It seems to me that with the rise of the ME3 they would seek out closer relationships...but the ingrained superiority complex may hurt them in the long term unless they bite the bullet.

There is ongoing internal discussion / disagreement within SQ regarding strategic partnerships / JV's, ranging from we definitely don't want them, to selective area specific are OK, right to this is the future (and we want to get aboard before CX).

Whether this takes the form of equity, QF/EK-style JV's or composite, something mega will be announced before the end of the decade involving one each of EU3, ME3 and US (though the US participant might not be one of the US3), plus............

Interesting.

AngMoh wrote:

SQ and UA always have been direct competitors on SIN-SFO and that will never change. Maybe you think that UA was not happy that SQ went non-stop on SFO-SIN, but I am pretty sure that SQ was not happy with UA going non-stop in the first place.

If one single route can be that detrimental towards the relationship between two airlines, I'm afraid it's the problem of the airline itself where there is too much arrogance or pride.

Planesmart wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

Outside of LH(?) is SQ really good friends with anyone in Star? The days of SQ being the cat's rear end are behind them, not that they don't offer Grade A service. They've always seemed a bit arrogant to me regarding their so-called alliance partners, and for maybe good reason. But times have changed. It seems to me that with the rise of the ME3 they would seek out closer relationships...but the ingrained superiority complex may hurt them in the long term unless they bite the bullet.

There is ongoing internal discussion / disagreement within SQ regarding strategic partnerships / JV's, ranging from we definitely don't want them, to selective area specific are OK, right to this is the future (and we want to get aboard before CX).

It'd be expected that they would. SQ isn't the airline to reckon with that they from the 80s to 00s- but to be fair they're doing a damn good job at staying competitive. They still offer among the best products in the industry and although their profits have shrunk, they've never posted an annual loss.

I won't put it past me for SQ to come up with something out of the box to stay profitable. Like way back in the 70s- SQ took part in an airline cooperation scheme of sorts when they co-operated a Concorde from BA- the starboard side was painted in BA colours, and SQ colours on the left.

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

why would SQ start SFO, where UA already is, rather than restarting LAX, a much bigger market with no competition?

For two very simple reasons:
1) they don't currently have an aircraft that can reach LAX nonstop with a profit-potential load
2) they don't currently have a competitor offering LAX-SIN nonstop

...neither is the case with SFO

flythere wrote:

AngMoh wrote:

SQ and UA always have been direct competitors on SIN-SFO and that will never change. Maybe you think that UA was not happy that SQ went non-stop on SFO-SIN, but I am pretty sure that SQ was not happy with UA going non-stop in the first place.

If one single route can be that detrimental towards the relationship between two airlines, I'm afraid it's the problem of the airline itself where there is too much arrogance or pride.

The relationship with Sq and UA has been defined since before the Star Alliance, United's pacific routes came from Pan Am primarily and UAL has cherished hose Routes . We still work SQ's airplanes at SFO as we do LH's and Japan Airlines. What other courtesies should we extend? We all fly off of the International Terminal at SFO .

OzarkD9S wrote:

Outside of LH(?) is SQ really good friends with anyone in Star? The days of SQ being the cat's rear end are behind them, not that they don't offer Grade A service. They've always seemed a bit arrogant to me regarding their so-called alliance partners, and for maybe good reason. But times have changed. It seems to me that with the rise of the ME3 they would seek out closer relationships...but the ingrained superiority complex may hurt them in the long term unless they bite the bullet.

To give credit to SQ, they have been much co-operative recently with many partners, even signing new ones over the past few years. Those I could recall now: Air Mauritius, flybe, S7, Air New Zealand, Virgin Australia, Lufthansa and United Airlines. Some of them are new partners, some are deepening working relationship. They did work out their differences other Star Alliance partners (UA, LH and NZ), at most to certain degree, not all out war. Only gap now is SQ-TG relationship which are at each other neck, from what I know.

UA is not cooperative with many alliance partners, not just SQ. They do not work with AI or Egypt Air either and may be other alliance partners. UA continues to use Jet airways flights within India even though AI is now a full Star partner. When it comes SIN-SFO, both SQ and UA have equal right in starting nonstop. I don't know why UA is unhappy, it is not as if SQ is starting a non stop from SFO to Beijing or Hong Kong with continuing service to SIN.

hohd wrote:

UA is not cooperative with many alliance partners, not just SQ. They do not work with AI or Egypt Air either and may be other alliance partners. UA continues to use Jet airways flights within India even though AI is now a full Star partner. When it comes SIN-SFO, both SQ and UA have equal right in starting nonstop. I don't know why UA is unhappy, it is not as if SQ is starting a non stop from SFO to Beijing or Hong Kong with continuing service to SIN.

To say UA doesn't work with many *A partners is incorrect. They founded the alliance. They have a JV with several Star partners across the Atlantic. They have a JV with NH. They have a JV with AC for US-Canada. They've expanded their partnership with NZ (I think this is a JV too). They do some codesharing with the Chinese carriers. And even SQ they've at least added codesharing. So what you say is not correct.

AI is a recent *A carrier who took half a decade to join due to technical issues. They've gotten aggressive w UA on India routes. As for Egypt Air there is nothing for them to partner on as UA cut their flight to Cairo a while ago. The two carriers you picked are pretty small time players in this alliance.

UA and SQ have a history of bad blood though...

Australian Business Traveller contacted both United and Singapore for their explanations.

United offered non-explanatory statements:

“Our ability to display award inventory on united.com and the United Mobile App is based on a mutual agreement with our partners” the spokesperson told Australian Business Traveller.

“At this time, Singapore Airlines and United have agreed to remove Singapore Airlines’ inventory from these channels.”

Of course everything about partner awards involves mutual agreements. Both partners have to ‘turn their key’ in order to offer award seats and show them online. If one partner doesn’t agree, then there is no mutual agreement!

Singapore Airlines, though, was a bit more forthcoming:

Singapore Airlines insists that it’s not removing award seats from the websites of Star Alliance partners, and suggests that United Airlines is solely responsible for last week’s removal of SQ award inventory…

“[E]ach Star Alliance member carrier may choose how to fulfill such redemptions differently, which we have no influence over.”

“For example, some Star carriers may choose to allow their respective frequent flier programme members access to redemption online or offline, depending on their respective platforms.

Singapore isn’t usually so candid or definitive.

While United sort of disputes this, “a spokesperson for United Airlines disputed SQ’s claim that it had “no influence over” United’s decision to force members of its Mileage Plus frequent flyer scheme to call the airline’s reservations line to check availability of Singapore Airlines award seats..”

Source: http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com ... s-members/

OzarkD9S wrote:

Outside of LH(?) is SQ really good friends with anyone in Star?

In addition to what others mentioned, they are quite good with TK.

Since 2014 SQ has been codesharing with TK on 20 plus Europe/Middle East markets, while this year they added 5 TK Americas points to the agreement including GRU following SQ decision to pull out.

SFOtoORD wrote:

hohd wrote:

UA is not cooperative with many alliance partners, not just SQ. They do not work with AI or Egypt Air either and may be other alliance partners. UA continues to use Jet airways flights within India even though AI is now a full Star partner. When it comes SIN-SFO, both SQ and UA have equal right in starting nonstop. I don't know why UA is unhappy, it is not as if SQ is starting a non stop from SFO to Beijing or Hong Kong with continuing service to SIN.

To say UA doesn't work with many *A partners is incorrect. They founded the alliance. They have a JV with several Star partners across the Atlantic. They have a JV with NH. They have a JV with AC for US-Canada. They've expanded their partnership with NZ (I think this is a JV too). They do some codesharing with the Chinese carriers. And even SQ they've at least added codesharing. So what you say is not correct.

AI is a recent *A carrier who took half a decade to join due to technical issues. They've gotten aggressive w UA on India routes. As for Egypt Air there is nothing for them to partner on as UA cut their flight to Cairo a while ago. The two carriers you picked are pretty small time players in this alliance.

Star Alliance has developed as an exclusive club within a club. United participates in these JVs with AC/LH family across the Atlantic and NH across the Pacific at the detriment of other Star members, including many larges one such as TG, TK, OZ, and even Star founder SK.

Simply put, UA gives many star carriers the finger - I know as I've been on the otherside of the table dealing with UA. The most basic thing like releasing prorate inventory and fare pricing is mission impossible. Look at how so many Star carriers have opted for carriers like B6/VX for their US connectivity. There is one Star partner I know that connects more people onto both AA and DL in the U.S then they do on UA!

LAXintl wrote:

Star Alliance has developed as an exclusive club within a club. United participates in these JVs with AC/LH family across the Atlantic and NH across the Pacific at the detriment of other Star members, including many larges one such as TG, TK, OZ, and even Star founder SK.

Simply put, UA gives many star carriers the finger - I know as I've been on the otherside of the table dealing with UA. The most basic thing like releasing prorate inventory and fare pricing is mission impossible. Look at how so many Star carriers have opted for carriers like B6/VX for their US connectivity. There is one Star partner I know that connects more people onto both AA and DL in the U.S then they do on UA!

Great points. Are there any big Star carriers who are model citizens with all Star carriers.

hohd wrote:

I don't know why UA is unhappy, it is not as if SQ is starting a non stop from SFO . . . Hong Kong with continuing service to SIN.

Ummm.....lol

chiraagnt wrote:

This is just speculation, but I came across this article where the SIA CEO Goh was being interviewed with regards to his outlook for 2017. While I do know that they have started some limited codeshares out of Houston, is he hinting through this that UA may not be the most easy and ideal partner to work with?

We are very happy to discuss this with United as well; United is a Star Alliance partner, and I think a cross-alliance partnership is a bit difficult.
But there are also those who are not in an alliance, for example JetBlue, Virgin America and others. So we will continue to look for opportunities and cooperation with United, but we would also be open to work with others if the United route network is not available.

Always been interested in the relations between these two airlines (and the tensions/recent thawing of relations?) between them

Source: http://www.travelweekly.com/Preview2017 ... -SIngapore

Actually it is SQ who is difficult to work with. Specifically when it comes to protecting passengers during irregular operations. Star Alliance carriers have an agreement where another can reissue a ticket issued on another's "stock/plating"(using the "old school" terms), if it is irregular operations. SQ, however is the only exception.

What is a problem, is that SFO is often plagued with ATC and flow control. Flights to SFO often get delayed or cancelled, as a result. To give you an example that happens fairly often......you have a passenger in PDX, taking UA to SFO, and then SQ to SIN. UA trip gets delayed, due to ATC, and will misconnect. The natural choice is to reroute them via LAX onto the SQ flight. No big deal, right? Wrong.

If the ticket is issued by SQ, they will not release control of the E-ticket to the UA agent. Same two carriers, same origin and destination, but different connection city. Agent will call SQ to get a release or endorsement, so it can be reissued. They will refuse to do it, and the instructions given to the UA agent is to tell the customer to go to SFO anyway, and deal with a SQ agent there.

Not good for anyone. A bit of a dis-service to the passenger, who will usually be one day behind, due to an unnecessary overnight in SFO.

LAXintl wrote:

ua900 wrote:

SQ isn't part of A++, that's equally LH/UA/NH to blame for that. For LH/UA it evidently doesn't provide enough added value to have SQ in A++ and for NH it would be too close to home.

You are confused.

AA++ is the enhanced Atlantic venture. SQ would really have no place in it due to its token capacity. Also NH obviously has nothing to do with A++ either.

Yeah, so J+ for LH/NH and the TPAC JV between UA and NH. It's hairsplitting, the fact remains that UA, LH, and NH are super close and neither UA nor NH want SQ closer at this point.

As others have pointed out, UA also has comparatively frosty relations with AI, ET, AV and TP.

SFOtoORD wrote:

hohd wrote:

UA is not cooperative with many alliance partners, not just SQ. They do not work with AI or Egypt Air either and may be other alliance partners. UA continues to use Jet airways flights within India even though AI is now a full Star partner. When it comes SIN-SFO, both SQ and UA have equal right in starting nonstop. I don't know why UA is unhappy, it is not as if SQ is starting a non stop from SFO to Beijing or Hong Kong with continuing service to SIN.

To say UA doesn't work with many *A partners is incorrect. They founded the alliance. They have a JV with several Star partners across the Atlantic. They have a JV with NH. They have a JV with AC for US-Canada. They've expanded their partnership with NZ (I think this is a JV too). They do some codesharing with the Chinese carriers. And even SQ they've at least added codesharing. So what you say is not correct.

AI is a recent *A carrier who took half a decade to join due to technical issues. They've gotten aggressive w UA on India routes. As for Egypt Air there is nothing for them to partner on as UA cut their flight to Cairo a while ago. The two carriers you picked are pretty small time players in this alliance.

May be SQ is a difficult carrier to get along too. However with UA, I have direct evidence. AI station manager has told me that for AI it is better to book on AA from ORD or EWR than with UA !! UA never gives a decent rate on connecting domestic flights forcing fellow Star carriers to non-Star alliance partners. Once travelling on a UA frequent flyer ticket an Egypt Air rep commented that UA expects its passengers who are using MIleageplus to be treated fairly (when there are misconnects or issues) but many Egypt Air frequent flyers had bad experiences on UA.

hohd wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

hohd wrote:

UA is not cooperative with many alliance partners, not just SQ. They do not work with AI or Egypt Air either and may be other alliance partners. UA continues to use Jet airways flights within India even though AI is now a full Star partner. When it comes SIN-SFO, both SQ and UA have equal right in starting nonstop. I don't know why UA is unhappy, it is not as if SQ is starting a non stop from SFO to Beijing or Hong Kong with continuing service to SIN.

To say UA doesn't work with many *A partners is incorrect. They founded the alliance. They have a JV with several Star partners across the Atlantic. They have a JV with NH. They have a JV with AC for US-Canada. They've expanded their partnership with NZ (I think this is a JV too). They do some codesharing with the Chinese carriers. And even SQ they've at least added codesharing. So what you say is not correct.

AI is a recent *A carrier who took half a decade to join due to technical issues. They've gotten aggressive w UA on India routes. As for Egypt Air there is nothing for them to partner on as UA cut their flight to Cairo a while ago. The two carriers you picked are pretty small time players in this alliance.

May be SQ is a difficult carrier to get along too. However with UA, I have direct evidence. AI station manager has told me that for AI it is better to book on AA from ORD or EWR than with UA !! UA never gives a decent rate on connecting domestic flights forcing fellow Star carriers to non-Star alliance partners. Once travelling on a UA frequent flyer ticket an Egypt Air rep commented that UA expects its passengers who are using MIleageplus to be treated fairly (when there are misconnects or issues) but many Egypt Air frequent flyers had bad experiences on UA.

I would never set foot on AI so in that regard I'm fine w a lack of coopertain.