Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
heretothere wrote:AA doesn’t even codeshare on JL’s NRT-PEK/PVG flights, so I’m still putting my money on China not being in the JV.
heretothere wrote:AA doesn’t even codeshare on JL’s NRT-PEK/PVG flights, so I’m still putting my money on China not being in the JV.
Antarius wrote:heretothere wrote:AA doesn’t even codeshare on JL’s NRT-PEK/PVG flights, so I’m still putting my money on China not being in the JV.
That could be due to practical considerations. Yields to China are trash with round trips selling for 500 bucks frequently - AA would rather send passengers on their own metal at a cheap price vs occupying space on a higher yield flight to NRT and then further on JL.
heretothere wrote:Antarius wrote:heretothere wrote:AA doesn’t even codeshare on JL’s NRT-PEK/PVG flights, so I’m still putting my money on China not being in the JV.
That could be due to practical considerations. Yields to China are trash with round trips selling for 500 bucks frequently - AA would rather send passengers on their own metal at a cheap price vs occupying space on a higher yield flight to NRT and then further on JL.
Limiting your network is a terrible yield management solution. If AA/JL were coordinating on US-China O&Ds, there should be a price at which they’d sell me connections over NRT.
heretothere wrote:Antarius wrote:heretothere wrote:AA doesn’t even codeshare on JL’s NRT-PEK/PVG flights, so I’m still putting my money on China not being in the JV.
That could be due to practical considerations. Yields to China are trash with round trips selling for 500 bucks frequently - AA would rather send passengers on their own metal at a cheap price vs occupying space on a higher yield flight to NRT and then further on JL.
Limiting your network is a terrible yield management solution. If AA/JL were coordinating on US-China O&Ds, there should be a price at which they’d sell me connections over NRT.
Antarius wrote:heretothere wrote:Antarius wrote:
That could be due to practical considerations. Yields to China are trash with round trips selling for 500 bucks frequently - AA would rather send passengers on their own metal at a cheap price vs occupying space on a higher yield flight to NRT and then further on JL.
Limiting your network is a terrible yield management solution. If AA/JL were coordinating on US-China O&Ds, there should be a price at which they’d sell me connections over NRT.
It's good yield management to not occupy otherwise profitable seats with low yield connecting traffic. There is plenty of capacity to China
If you really want to do it, you can likely multi city it as 2 one ways, but again that would be expensive.
Antarius wrote:heretothere wrote:Antarius wrote:
That could be due to practical considerations. Yields to China are trash with round trips selling for 500 bucks frequently - AA would rather send passengers on their own metal at a cheap price vs occupying space on a higher yield flight to NRT and then further on JL.
Limiting your network is a terrible yield management solution. If AA/JL were coordinating on US-China O&Ds, there should be a price at which they’d sell me connections over NRT.
It's good yield management to not occupy otherwise profitable seats with low yield connecting traffic. There is plenty of capacity to China
If you really want to do it, you can likely multi city it as 2 one ways, but again that would be expensive.
spinotter wrote:
I thought that all parties and destinations in a joint venture had to enjoy Open Skies with each other. Does this mean that China is included in the UA-NH, DL-KE, and AA-JL TPAC joint ventures, all three? I have read many times that it does not apply to DL-KE.
Antarius wrote:It's good yield management to not occupy otherwise profitable seats with low yield connecting traffic. There is plenty of capacity to China
If you really want to do it, you can likely multi city it as 2 one ways, but again that would be expensive.
notconcerned wrote:spinotter wrote:
I thought that all parties and destinations in a joint venture had to enjoy Open Skies with each other. Does this mean that China is included in the UA-NH, DL-KE, and AA-JL TPAC joint ventures, all three? I have read many times that it does not apply to DL-KE.
UA/NH and DL/KE JV do not include China. And to another post above, AA does not codeshare with JL on NRT-PEK and neither does UA with NH on NRT-PEK. Same goes for DFW-PEK, JL does not codeshare on it. Of course, all carriers can sell a US-NRT-China ticket (and I have purchased them before), but they are unlikely schedule/revenue coordinated and thus not part of the JV.Antarius wrote:It's good yield management to not occupy otherwise profitable seats with low yield connecting traffic. There is plenty of capacity to China
If you really want to do it, you can likely multi city it as 2 one ways, but again that would be expensive.
If China was part of the JV, this type of yield fare issue could be easily mitigated by modifying the fare rules to not allow TYO transfer/stopover or by only allowing only AA-operated segments, or even restricting inventory on TYO vs. China flights. As another poster noted, adding/removing codeshare is not a practical solution.
Antarius wrote:notconcerned wrote:spinotter wrote:
I thought that all parties and destinations in a joint venture had to enjoy Open Skies with each other. Does this mean that China is included in the UA-NH, DL-KE, and AA-JL TPAC joint ventures, all three? I have read many times that it does not apply to DL-KE.
UA/NH and DL/KE JV do not include China. And to another post above, AA does not codeshare with JL on NRT-PEK and neither does UA with NH on NRT-PEK. Same goes for DFW-PEK, JL does not codeshare on it. Of course, all carriers can sell a US-NRT-China ticket (and I have purchased them before), but they are unlikely schedule/revenue coordinated and thus not part of the JV.Antarius wrote:It's good yield management to not occupy otherwise profitable seats with low yield connecting traffic. There is plenty of capacity to China
If you really want to do it, you can likely multi city it as 2 one ways, but again that would be expensive.
If China was part of the JV, this type of yield fare issue could be easily mitigated by modifying the fare rules to not allow TYO transfer/stopover or by only allowing only AA-operated segments, or even restricting inventory on TYO vs. China flights. As another poster noted, adding/removing codeshare is not a practical solution.
But why would you codeshare in the first place? I'm not understanding the reason AA would ever put their code on NRT-PEK.
LAXdude1023 wrote:Antarius wrote:notconcerned wrote:
UA/NH and DL/KE JV do not include China. And to another post above, AA does not codeshare with JL on NRT-PEK and neither does UA with NH on NRT-PEK. Same goes for DFW-PEK, JL does not codeshare on it. Of course, all carriers can sell a US-NRT-China ticket (and I have purchased them before), but they are unlikely schedule/revenue coordinated and thus not part of the JV.
If China was part of the JV, this type of yield fare issue could be easily mitigated by modifying the fare rules to not allow TYO transfer/stopover or by only allowing only AA-operated segments, or even restricting inventory on TYO vs. China flights. As another poster noted, adding/removing codeshare is not a practical solution.
But why would you codeshare in the first place? I'm not understanding the reason AA would ever put their code on NRT-PEK.
For the opportunity to sell J class and high fare economy tickets.
Antarius wrote:LAXdude1023 wrote:Antarius wrote:
But why would you codeshare in the first place? I'm not understanding the reason AA would ever put their code on NRT-PEK.
For the opportunity to sell J class and high fare economy tickets.
In theory. No one would take that route when the cost of flying to China directly is so low. AA wont put their number on GRU-BOG and sell me DFW-GRU-BOG for the same, generally low price of DFW-BOG
AA doesnt codeshare on every route for a reason.
Antarius wrote:
But why would you codeshare in the first place? I'm not understanding the reason AA would ever put their code on NRT-PEK.
notconcerned wrote:Antarius wrote:
But why would you codeshare in the first place? I'm not understanding the reason AA would ever put their code on NRT-PEK.
Again, if China was in the JV, they would codeshare on that route because of the JV would allow AA/JL to coordinate on schedule, inventory, pricing, revenue sharing, etc, and allow AA/JL to both sell US-NRT-PEK flights. That doesn't mean that all low fares will fly US-NRT-PEK and take up higher yielding US-NRT seats, they can easily prevent that by not opening any low fare buckets on the NRT-PEK segment. So codesharing in the JV context is for the benefit of AA/JL.
Antarius wrote:notconcerned wrote:Antarius wrote:
But why would you codeshare in the first place? I'm not understanding the reason AA would ever put their code on NRT-PEK.
Again, if China was in the JV, they would codeshare on that route because of the JV would allow AA/JL to coordinate on schedule, inventory, pricing, revenue sharing, etc, and allow AA/JL to both sell US-NRT-PEK flights. That doesn't mean that all low fares will fly US-NRT-PEK and take up higher yielding US-NRT seats, they can easily prevent that by not opening any low fare buckets on the NRT-PEK segment. So codesharing in the JV context is for the benefit of AA/JL.
I understand the concept of a JV and codesharing. But I am arguing that economically, AA and JL would not do this. For example, NRT-PUS has a codeshare with AA flight numbers, passengers can route DFW-NRT-PUS to get to Busan on AA coded flights. They do not, however have a codeshare on NRT-ICN.
LAXdude1023 wrote:Antarius wrote:notconcerned wrote:
Again, if China was in the JV, they would codeshare on that route because of the JV would allow AA/JL to coordinate on schedule, inventory, pricing, revenue sharing, etc, and allow AA/JL to both sell US-NRT-PEK flights. That doesn't mean that all low fares will fly US-NRT-PEK and take up higher yielding US-NRT seats, they can easily prevent that by not opening any low fare buckets on the NRT-PEK segment. So codesharing in the JV context is for the benefit of AA/JL.
I understand the concept of a JV and codesharing. But I am arguing that economically, AA and JL would not do this. For example, NRT-PUS has a codeshare with AA flight numbers, passengers can route DFW-NRT-PUS to get to Busan on AA coded flights. They do not, however have a codeshare on NRT-ICN.
Thats because JL doesnt fly NRT-ICN. JL doesnt fly to ICN at all I dont think.
Antarius wrote:LAXdude1023 wrote:Antarius wrote:
I understand the concept of a JV and codesharing. But I am arguing that economically, AA and JL would not do this. For example, NRT-PUS has a codeshare with AA flight numbers, passengers can route DFW-NRT-PUS to get to Busan on AA coded flights. They do not, however have a codeshare on NRT-ICN.
Thats because JL doesnt fly NRT-ICN. JL doesnt fly to ICN at all I dont think.
I think you are correct - they codeshare with KE. Misread it.
That said, they do fly NRT-GMP. And that does not have an AA codeshare.
LAX772LR wrote:grbauc wrote:I'm pretty much forced to fly CX. I hardly ever get JL has a option and most the time it's priced too high.
Find that very difficult to believe, considering AA's ticketing algorithm on its own site or external, and its financial incentive to favor one over the other.
But, for the sake of objectivity: from what destination, and via what means of ticketing, are you running into this issue?
heretothere wrote:Antarius wrote:LAXdude1023 wrote:
Thats because JL doesnt fly NRT-ICN. JL doesnt fly to ICN at all I dont think.
I think you are correct - they codeshare with KE. Misread it.
That said, they do fly NRT-GMP. And that does not have an AA codeshare.
They don’t fly that either, believe it or not. They do fly to Seoul from HND though, which flies in the face of the idea that NRT always has superior connectivity.
JonNYC wrote:The rumor is highly credible (I've been reporting it for several months now,) which is *NOT* to say it's going to happen or even likely to happen, but it's definitely been discussed, so a JonNYC-caliber rumor.
JonNYC wrote:JonNYC wrote:The rumor is highly credible (I've been reporting it for several months now,) which is *NOT* to say it's going to happen or even likely to happen, but it's definitely been discussed, so a JonNYC-caliber rumor.
https://twitter.com/xJonNYC/status/1177 ... 28416?s=20
