AC & UA Announce Transborder JV

panam330 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:35 pm

I’m not sure why I already thought this existed, but it looks like the two carriers would like to make it officially a JV now. It will include “all transborder travel” and deeper frequent flier program cooperation if approved by authorities - and IMO that's a big "if" given how much of the market the two would control together.

https://media.aircanada.com/2022-07-22-Air-Canada-and-United-Airlines-Expand-Relationship-to-Make-Transborder-Travel-Easier,-With-More-Choice

YYZORD · Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:45 pm

As someone who lived near YYZ for many years and now ORD is my home airport, this is amazing news for both airports and other *A airports in NA. Hopefully AC can move to ORD's T1 where UA does their main operations alongside NH & LH

LAXdude1023 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:54 pm

This is huge!

Cubsrule · Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:03 pm

YYZORD wrote:
As someone who lived near YYZ for many years and now ORD is my home airport, this is amazing news for both airports and other *A airports in NA. Hopefully AC can move to ORD's T1 where UA does their main operations alongside NH & LH

What's wrong with AC's current gate? It's super easy for O&D and no worse than parts of Terminal 1 for connecting.

STT757 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:15 pm

I would love to see AC bring back the 787 YVR-EWR.

dr1980 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:24 pm

For the uninformed (me), what would be the difference between this and their current arrangement as *A partners from a customer perspective?

codc10 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:26 pm

dr1980 wrote:
For the uninformed (me), what would be the difference between this and their current arrangement as *A partners from a customer perspective?

Nothing. The only meaningfully new item here is the announcement of a revenue share.

panam330 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:28 pm

dr1980 wrote:
For the uninformed (me), what would be the difference between this and their current arrangement as *A partners from a customer perspective?

From the sounds of it, better integration from a frequent flier point of view - earn/burn on either carrier easier. I imagine reaccommodation and fares will be better aligned between the two as well, rather than just being a simple codeshare as it is now.

YYZORD · Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:35 pm

Nothing is wrong but since AC is a new JV partner of UA, it makes sense for them to move to T1 where UA's other JV partners are located. (NH & LH)

Cubsrule wrote:
YYZORD wrote:
As someone who lived near YYZ for many years and now ORD is my home airport, this is amazing news for both airports and other *A airports in NA. Hopefully AC can move to ORD's T1 where UA does their main operations alongside NH & LH

What's wrong with AC's current gate? It's super easy for O&D and no worse than parts of Terminal 1 for connecting.

LAXdude1023 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:39 pm

codc10 wrote:
dr1980 wrote:
For the uninformed (me), what would be the difference between this and their current arrangement as *A partners from a customer perspective?

Nothing. The only meaningfully new item here is the announcement of a revenue share.

Would they not be able to co-ordinate schedules as well?

AVENSAB727 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:42 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
This is huge!

Hopefully, this means that AC will go all mainline out of IAH!

STT757 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:48 pm

panam330 wrote:
dr1980 wrote:
For the uninformed (me), what would be the difference between this and their current arrangement as *A partners from a customer perspective?

From the sounds of it, better integration from a frequent flier point of view - earn/burn on either carrier easier. I imagine reaccommodation and fares will be better aligned between the two as well, rather than just being a simple codeshare as it is now.

I also think since they would be sharing revenues that they would stop competition or reduce competition with each other. There are many routes where they can consolidate to one carrier, ideally with larger aircraft, and the other carrier can reallocate those assets (especially crews) to other areas.

For instance EWR-YUL

UA 3x daily (1 ERJ-170, 2 ERJ-175)
AC 3 x daily (3 ERJ-175)

United could take over EWR-YUL and operate it with 4x daily (1 A319, 1 A320, 2 ERJ-175) etc..

Or YVR-LAX

United 1 x daily 737-800
AC 5 x daily (3 737-8MAX, 1 A220-300, 1 A321)

AC could go six daily or add a 787.

BML87 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:52 pm

I've always wondered why UA doesn't place its code on AC's YEG-SFO

Acey · Fri Jul 22, 2022 6:59 pm

AVENSAB727 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
This is huge!

Hopefully, this means that AC will go all mainline out of IAH!

The CRJ-9 has proven to be a good fit for YYC-IAH despite the occasional fuel stop. It's been on a pandemic break and is restarting this fall but WestJet has established themselves at 9x weekly. I think the RJ is the only way this route works for AC for the medium term regardless of a JV.

idjim319 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:00 pm

Out of interest, in addition to LH and UA across the Atlantic, does AC have a JV with anyone else?

2eng2efficient · Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:04 pm

I find it interesting that “certain leisure markets” are excluded from the JV - presumably places like MCO where Rouge operates. No harm/no foul for UA, which is fairly weak in the Southeast US anyway.

Hopefully this means AC can upguage the CRJ-900 that they currently run YVR-ORD.

TrafficCop · Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:09 pm

idjim319 wrote:
Out of interest, in addition to LH and UA across the Atlantic, does AC have a JV with anyone else?

I believe they are working on a JV with Emirates. Could a UA//AC/LH/EK JV be in the future?

YYZORD · Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:18 pm

AC also has a JV with CA. With Europe covered by the LH group JV, UA for transborder, CA for china, all that's left is finding a JV partner for AC when it comes to Asia (non-china). I know AC wanted to pursue a JV with NH at one point for Asian traffic but NH wasn't interested. With UA and AC having a JV now along with LH group, hopefully NH now changes their mind.

TrafficCop wrote:
idjim319 wrote:
Out of interest, in addition to LH and UA across the Atlantic, does AC have a JV with anyone else?

I believe they are working on a JV with Emirates. Could a UA//AC/LH/EK JV be in the future?

ASguy2012 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:38 pm

With this news and let's say, pending approval, this is them basically being one airline. What does this mean for airports where they are currently operating in different terminals? LAX UA T7 and AC T6?

TYWoolman · Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:40 pm

Delta and WestJet now have a better argument for their JV re-application!

codc10 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 8:33 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
codc10 wrote:
dr1980 wrote:
For the uninformed (me), what would be the difference between this and their current arrangement as *A partners from a customer perspective?

Nothing. The only meaningfully new item here is the announcement of a revenue share.

Would they not be able to co-ordinate schedules as well?

They already had ATI and could substantially coordinate schedules.

panam330 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 8:37 pm

2eng2efficient wrote:
Hopefully this means AC can upguage the CRJ-900 that they currently run YVR-ORD.

What? AC runs a 320 on YVR-ORD, and it's loaded as a 321 this fall.

Runway765 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 8:58 pm

How in the heck did they not have one already?

LAXdude1023 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 8:58 pm

[twoid][/twoid]

codc10 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
codc10 wrote:

Nothing. The only meaningfully new item here is the announcement of a revenue share.

Would they not be able to co-ordinate schedules as well?

They already had ATI and could substantially coordinate schedules.

But being metal neutral would make a pretty big difference here IMO.

UALMMFlyer · Fri Jul 22, 2022 9:20 pm

“In 2019, the U.S.-Canada transborder market was the second largest international passenger air transportation market in the world and the largest international market for both Canada and the U.S., as measured by seats.”

Which is the largest international passenger air transportation market or where can I find the information?

strfyr51 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 9:32 pm

BML87 wrote:
I've always wondered why UA doesn't place its code on AC's YEG-SFO

United and Air Canada tried that back before the UA/CO merger and American, and Continental had a "hissy" fit. Then United never tried again after the merger.
Now that American has their OWN alliances to deal with? I guess they don't have time to be meddling in what United is doing with *A anymore. and Continental IS *A within United so there's nobody left TO complain. Unless B6 is going to complain...

strfyr51 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 9:39 pm

STT757 wrote:
panam330 wrote:
dr1980 wrote:
For the uninformed (me), what would be the difference between this and their current arrangement as *A partners from a customer perspective?

From the sounds of it, better integration from a frequent flier point of view - earn/burn on either carrier easier. I imagine reaccommodation and fares will be better aligned between the two as well, rather than just being a simple codeshare as it is now.

I also think since they would be sharing revenues that they would stop competition or reduce competition with each other. There are many routes where they can consolidate to one carrier, ideally with larger aircraft, and the other carrier can reallocate those assets (especially crews) to other areas.

For instance EWR-YUL

UA 3x daily (1 ERJ-170, 2 ERJ-175)
AC 3 x daily (3 ERJ-175)

United could take over EWR-YUL and operate it with 4x daily (1 A319, 1 A320, 2 ERJ-175) etc..

Or YVR-LAX

United 1 x daily 737-800
AC 5 x daily (3 737-8MAX, 1 A220-300, 1 A321)

AC could go six daily or add a 787.

Keep in mind one thing, UA-ALPA has a stake in this in that United cannot just give away any of their flying , To Anybody.. If a route is going to be flown in a JV? Then it will be flown By United as part of the JV. AC can upgrade all they want. But? UA will be also flying the route. you guys are making assumptions that might not hold up in reality.

yyztpa2 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 9:43 pm

2eng2efficient wrote:
I find it interesting that “certain leisure markets” are excluded from the JV - presumably places like MCO where Rouge operates. No harm/no foul for UA, which is fairly weak in the Southeast US anyway.

Hopefully this means AC can upguage the CRJ-900 that they currently run YVR-ORD.

Some of those 'leisure' markets have a substantial business market that gets overlooked with focus on Rouge. TPA is an MSA with close to 4.5M residents but AC primarily addresses Canada originating leisure with Rouge. If I'm booking United to YYZ, Rouge flights are not bookable.

CrewBunk · Fri Jul 22, 2022 9:49 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Keep in mind one thing, UA-ALPA has a stake in this in that United cannot just give away any of their flying , To Anybody.. If a route is going to be flown in a JV? Then it will be flown By United as part of the JV. AC can upgrade all they want. But? UA will be also flying the route. you guys are making assumptions that might not hold up in reality.

Union agreements are already in place. The agreement between ACPA and UAL-ALPA mirrors the one already in place with regard to codeshares and is very similar to the Atlantic JV AC has with its Atlantic partners.

I won’t go into specifics, but as the vast vast majority of trans border flying is generated by AC, AC pilots will be flying it. Future flying is predicated on the current formula and decided on a per route basis. Again, using the metric of who is generating the flying.

LAXdude1023 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:00 pm

AVENSAB727 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
This is huge!

Hopefully, this means that AC will go all mainline out of IAH!

Nah. The E75 is the right plane for IAH-YUL. The could do some on YYC or YYZ. IAH-YYC was a massive market pre pandemic.

MIflyer12 · Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:02 pm

UALMMFlyer wrote:
“In 2019, the U.S.-Canada transborder market was the second largest international passenger air transportation market in the world and the largest international market for both Canada and the U.S., as measured by seats.”

Which is the largest international passenger air transportation market or where can I find the information?

Seats is a poor measure. Passenger count is a poor measure of market size. Both measures ignore distance. RPMs or ASMs would be better but the data are tougher to find. AC and UA surely have them but take the low-road.

The U.S. DOT regularly publishes a lot of data on traffic by country and by foreign airport to n/s U.S. destinations.

https://www.transportation.gov/policy/a ... TheReports

Acey · Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:26 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
IAH-YYC was a massive market pre pandemic.

Maybe pre-2010 it was, but prior to pandemic it had already crumbled. What was 5x CO daily service back in the day fell to 1-2x UA service in 2019 and is currently only 1x daily 737 while everything else transborder is fully back for the most part.

It's still strong with WS now at 9x weekly but LAS and LAX are both overall bigger from YYC now. AC is going double daily 7M8 on LAX-YYC which is significantly more seats than pre-pandemic.

B752OS · Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:45 pm

YYZORD wrote:
Nothing is wrong but since AC is a new JV partner of UA, it makes sense for them to move to T1 where UA's other JV partners are located. (NH & LH)

Cubsrule wrote:
YYZORD wrote:
As someone who lived near YYZ for many years and now ORD is my home airport, this is amazing news for both airports and other *A airports in NA. Hopefully AC can move to ORD's T1 where UA does their main operations alongside NH & LH

What's wrong with AC's current gate? It's super easy for O&D and no worse than parts of Terminal 1 for connecting.

Do both LH and NH arrive and depart from T1 at ORD?

portola2727 · Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:23 am

ASguy2012 wrote:
With this news and let's say, pending approval, this is them basically being one airline. What does this mean for airports where they are currently operating in different terminals? LAX UA T7 and AC T6?

it's basically going to be that way at LAX until T9 gets built. T7 is already nearing full capacity just with UA. Once T9 gets built, UAL Long Haul and JV + Star Partners will probably consolidate there.

ytib · Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:23 am

B752OS wrote:
YYZORD wrote:
Nothing is wrong but since AC is a new JV partner of UA, it makes sense for them to move to T1 where UA's other JV partners are located. (NH & LH)

Cubsrule wrote:

What's wrong with AC's current gate? It's super easy for O&D and no worse than parts of Terminal 1 for connecting.

Do both LH and NH arrive and depart from T1 at ORD?

Both arrive in T5 and leave from T1. FIS is only in T5.

yeogeo · Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:24 am

B752OS wrote:
Do both LH and NH arrive and depart from T1 at ORD?

For the time being, the only FIS at O'Hare is located at T-5 from which LH & NH are towed to T-1 for departure.

gwrudolph · Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:59 am

LAXdude1023 wrote:
codc10 wrote:
dr1980 wrote:
For the uninformed (me), what would be the difference between this and their current arrangement as *A partners from a customer perspective?

Nothing. The only meaningfully new item here is the announcement of a revenue share.

Would they not be able to co-ordinate schedules as well?

I don’t know about AC moving over to T1. UA is bursting at the seams at ORD T1. It probably won’t be long before mainline UA is operating again at some T2 gates

Acey559 · Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:02 am

gwrudolph wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
codc10 wrote:

Nothing. The only meaningfully new item here is the announcement of a revenue share.

Would they not be able to co-ordinate schedules as well?

I don’t know about AC moving over to T1. UA is bursting at the seams at ORD T1. It probably won’t be long before mainline UA is operating again at some T2 gates

It's been happening for quite a while already. It's been common to see the Airbus or 737 park at the E gates since at least last fall or so.

Planeboy17 · Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:09 am

2eng2efficient wrote:
I find it interesting that “certain leisure markets” are excluded from the JV - presumably places like MCO where Rouge operates. No harm/no foul for UA, which is fairly weak in the Southeast US anyway.

Hopefully this means AC can upguage the CRJ-900 that they currently run YVR-ORD.

Actually they currently run a 320.

Thenoflyzone · Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:49 am

Runway765 wrote:
How in the heck did they not have one already?

AC and UA have been authorized to form an ATI joint venture since 1997. The carriers attempted to establish that joint venture in 2011, but didn't go through with it after the Canadian competition bureau forbade joint ops on 14 high demand routes.

Those routes were:

YYC-IAH/ORD/SFO
YUL-ORD/IAH/WAS*
YOW-WAS/NYC**
YYZ-CLE/DEN/IAH/SFO/WAS
YVR-SFO

*WAS is the IATA code for Washington
**NYC is the IATA code for New York City

LAXdude1023 wrote:
This is huge!

If the carveouts are still in place - and nothing suggests they aren't - then it's not that huge. The press release lacks detail, but does mention they already cooperate in the transborder market (schedule coordination), and it also mentions in a few places that they won't be able to share revenue on all routes. It also gives us a new restriction, which are certain US leisure markets and territories.

So I'm eager to read the next press release, the one that specifies all the carveouts. it's bound to be the majority of the 14 listed above, + the leisure markets that were mentioned today (bound to be Florida/Hawaii/Puerto Rico, etc)

No doubt the leisure market restriction was an AC request.

LAXdude1023 · Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:48 am

Thenoflyzone wrote:
Runway765 wrote:
How in the heck did they not have one already?

AC and UA have been authorized to form an ATI joint venture since 1997. The carriers attempted to establish that joint venture in 2011, but didn't go through with it after the Canadian competition bureau forbade joint ops on 14 high demand routes.

Those routes were:

YYC-IAH/ORD/SFO
YUL-ORD/IAH/WAS*
YOW-WAS/NYC**
YYZ-CLE/DEN/IAH/SFO/WAS
YVR-SFO

*WAS is the IATA code for Washington
**NYC is the IATA code for New York City

LAXdude1023 wrote:
This is huge!

If the carveouts are still in place - and nothing suggests they aren't - then it's not that huge. The press release lacks detail, but does mention they already cooperate in the transborder market (schedule coordination), and it also mentions in a few places that they won't be able to share revenue on all routes. It also gives us a new restriction, which are certain US leisure markets and territories.

So I'm eager to read the next press release, the one that specifies all the carveouts. it's bound to be the majority of the 14 listed above, + the leisure markets that were mentioned today (bound to be Florida/Hawaii/Puerto Rico, etc)

No doubt the leisure market restriction was an AC request.

That is true. If those markets are carved out this wont be as big a deal.

YEGFlyer · Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:55 am

BML87 wrote:
I've always wondered why UA doesn't place its code on AC's YEG-SFO

Reminds me of AC's reluctance to put its code on YEG-IAH back when UA launched it. Seems AC and UA operate pretty independently at YEG, which is not surprising as AC does not pay much attention to the YEG market. I'm not sure the JV will be a good thing for passengers. Effectively, you have one less carrier now offering transborder service, so more pricing power for airlines, more routing to established hubs only.

JRL3289 · Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:30 am

LAXdude1023 wrote:
Thenoflyzone wrote:
Runway765 wrote:
How in the heck did they not have one already?

AC and UA have been authorized to form an ATI joint venture since 1997. The carriers attempted to establish that joint venture in 2011, but didn't go through with it after the Canadian competition bureau forbade joint ops on 14 high demand routes.

Those routes were:

YYC-IAH/ORD/SFO
YUL-ORD/IAH/WAS*
YOW-WAS/NYC**
YYZ-CLE/DEN/IAH/SFO/WAS
YVR-SFO

*WAS is the IATA code for Washington
**NYC is the IATA code for New York City

LAXdude1023 wrote:
This is huge!

If the carveouts are still in place - and nothing suggests they aren't - then it's not that huge. The press release lacks detail, but does mention they already cooperate in the transborder market (schedule coordination), and it also mentions in a few places that they won't be able to share revenue on all routes. It also gives us a new restriction, which are certain US leisure markets and territories.

So I'm eager to read the next press release, the one that specifies all the carveouts. it's bound to be the majority of the 14 listed above, + the leisure markets that were mentioned today (bound to be Florida/Hawaii/Puerto Rico, etc)

No doubt the leisure market restriction was an AC request.

That is true. If those markets are carved out this wont be as big a deal.

Curious... was the DL/AM JV subject to similar carveouts? Realizing, of course, that the US-CA transborder market is different from the US-MX one. I assume any more restrictive measures are on the Canadian side of the equation, but it would be an interesting comparison nonetheless.

codc10 · Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:31 am

LAXdude1023 wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
codc10 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:

Would they not be able to co-ordinate schedules as well?

They already had ATI and could substantially coordinate schedules.

But being metal neutral would make a pretty big difference here IMO.

It is, but aside from the announcement of a revenue share, the rest of the press release is fluff reiterating things already in place (codeshare, schedule coordination, colocation, FF benefits, etc.).

usdcaguy · Sat Jul 23, 2022 5:00 pm

YYZORD wrote:
As someone who lived near YYZ for many years and now ORD is my home airport, this is amazing news for both airports and other *A airports in NA. Hopefully AC can move to ORD's T1 where UA does their main operations alongside NH & LH

How is this amazing news? The fares will just go up with little advantage to travelers who already benefit from their participation in Star. I hope the DOT nixes this.

54678264582 · Sat Jul 23, 2022 5:45 pm

usdcaguy wrote:
YYZORD wrote:
As someone who lived near YYZ for many years and now ORD is my home airport, this is amazing news for both airports and other *A airports in NA. Hopefully AC can move to ORD's T1 where UA does their main operations alongside NH & LH

How is this amazing news? The fares will just go up with little advantage to travelers who already benefit from their participation in Star. I hope the DOT nixes this.

Why would the fares go up?

2eng2efficient · Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:57 pm

Planeboy17 wrote:
2eng2efficient wrote:
I find it interesting that “certain leisure markets” are excluded from the JV - presumably places like MCO where Rouge operates. No harm/no foul for UA, which is fairly weak in the Southeast US anyway.

Hopefully this means AC can upguage the CRJ-900 that they currently run YVR-ORD.

Actually they currently run a 320.

Ah, okay I didn’t realize they had the 320 on it. But if you look, the CR9 is loaded again in the Feb/Mar 2023 timeframe.

jerseyewr777 · Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:52 am

STT757 wrote:
I would love to see AC bring back the 787 YVR-EWR.

Probably return March 2023!

panam330 · Tue Jul 26, 2022 3:20 am

2eng2efficient wrote:
Planeboy17 wrote:
2eng2efficient wrote:
I find it interesting that “certain leisure markets” are excluded from the JV - presumably places like MCO where Rouge operates. No harm/no foul for UA, which is fairly weak in the Southeast US anyway.

Hopefully this means AC can upguage the CRJ-900 that they currently run YVR-ORD.

Actually they currently run a 320.

Ah, okay I didn’t realize they had the 320 on it. But if you look, the CR9 is loaded again in the Feb/Mar 2023 timeframe.

If I didn't see it loaded with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it. I can't think of a longer scheduled route on any CRJ type. That sounds like 4.5 hours of pure hell.

EDIT: UR schedules a CR9 from JNB-EBB; at 1821nm I believe that takes the cake. Thanks but no thanks on that one.

PA815 · Tue Jul 26, 2022 3:34 am

Didn’t they already apply for a JV that was denied years ago? Have changes been made to the application that would increase its chances of success this time?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net