DL Reduces Partner Miles & Devalues Fqtv Yet Again

[WorldTraveler]

I have no problems with that part, E. I have simply noted that AA cannot get the full benefit of a partnership if they can't have a JV and if the only partner with whom they can get a JV is based in another country.

I have noted that JVs are available that involve HKG which is one big part of the equation.

perhaps you can refresh us on what countries UA's JV covers other than the home countries of the airlines involved.

Specific to partner miles, it still says that DL is restructuring its Asian network around at the same time it is restructuring its FF program where it can get the most benefit from each partner.

DL and KE do feed each other codeshare revenue... DL codeshares on many flights beyond ICN.

If rumors that DL is considering moving its hub to ICN turn out to be true, it could well mean that DL is willing to do in ICN what it is doing in SEA... build its own hub alongside a carrier with whom it has codeshare agreements.

Cockpit commonality between the 330/350/320 series aircraft potentially allows DL to operate an intra-Asian narrowbody hub at ICN but without the pilot deadhead costs and with potentially longer stage lengths and multiple banks that allow for greater aircraft usage.

KE has a contractual requirement to be part of Skyteam but no one knows for how long and what they would do if they did leave. KE is a threat to any of the Japanese based int'l carriers because of their lower costs and the greater connectivity available at ICN.

Maybe none of that is part of DL's decision with keeping KE at the bottom level but you can't help but wonder if DL is moving toward the next phase of its Asian restructuring.

 

[eolesen]

You may not have a problem with the facts, yet you've repeatedly questioned why AA & CX don't have a JV and how that places them at some mythical disadvantage...

What's permitted under the ANA/UAL and JAL/AAL are identical as far as I recall. If anything, UA's JV winds up being a little more powerful since they already had fifth freedom rights from PA, and can conceivably carry someone on a LAX-NH-NRT-UA-PEK routing. That's not something AA can do with JL.

 

[WorldTraveler]

It stands to reason that a JV that involves a full partner hub - as AA has with BA at LHR - has more value than a JV that involves JL solely on AA's LAX-HKG flight. AA may codeshare beyond HKG but a full hub to hub JV between two partners is a stronger option.

AA may have that at NRT including mixed metal, UA has it at a couple of hubs, and DL has it nowhere in Asia but is apparently positioning themselves to retain their own hub if they can't economically operate at NRT to the size they need.

the UA JV includes Asiana, IIRC.

IIARC, UA only operates to SIN beyond NRT on their own metal. correct me if I am wrong.

 

[topDawg]

I also don't buy the argument that CX could not be a joint venture partner to AA if they wanted it to.

No one is asking you to buy it. Its a fact. You don't understand a bilateral thats not our problem. 
 

HKG is governed by a separate air services agreement but even China and the US have discussed Open Skies and JVs before.

what does that mean? nothing. HKG/China and the US do not have openskies. If they did not only would AA/CX likely have a JV so would UA and CA and DL/MUZ/CZ 
 
But unless you have openskies (or its in the bilateral like the upcoming Mexico/US bilateral) then openskies is a no go. Having "discussions" about it is meaningless if no pen hits the paper. 
 
 
*and from my understanding the US has been pushing for openskies but China is not interested.* 
 

I'm not sure why CX couldn't have a JV with a US carrier but I suspect it is because they don't want one. Given that KE isn't interested in a JV with DL, it appears that there is a difference between European and Asian carriers and their desire to have JVs with US carriers.

KE is not the party who is walking away from the JV...... 
 
CX doesn't have a JV because, unlike Japan and South Korea, China is not an open skies market. As E said, HKG does have its own bilateral (for now) but the mainland is still calling all the shots. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL has repeatedly offered a JV to KE. KE is indeed the one not interested.
the
I get the whole restrictions on JVs with Chinese airlines.

you are actually the one who said that HKG has its own bilateral which is true. the protests in HKG leave no doubt as to who is calling the shots.

and it is equally true that even if China signs up for Open Skies, AA might be stuck operating DFW-HKG with a JL JV and not CX.

 

[topDawg]

DL has repeatedly offered a JV to KE. KE is indeed the one not interested.

You have proof of this? Management has not (publicly) commented one way or the other. 
 

you are actually the one who said that HKG has its own bilateral which is true. the protests in HKG leave no doubt as to who is calling the shots.

HKG does have its own bilateral, however not an openskies. Also it was a bilateral set up by the British..... 
 
China doesn't seem interested in open skies. 
 

and it is equally true that even if China signs up for Open Skies, AA might be stuck operating DFW-HKG with a JL JV and not CX.

Thats like saying DL would be stuck operating a LHR flights only under the AF/KL JV. Again, leave dream land.

 

[WorldTraveler]

if AA has signed a JV with JL to operate DFW-HKG, which they have, why should they drop their JV because CX comes along?

and DL has absolutely tried to convince KE to develop a JV whether you understand it or not and find a link in Tech Ops.

And the US carriers have also tried to convince their Chinese partners to have JVs.

and, in case you missed the context of why we are discussing this, DL has implemented Skymiles policies that reflect the benefit to DL from each of its partner carriers, some of which like Gol and Alaska have key strategic importance despite not being Skyteam carriers and others like KE that is a Skyteam founding member but who DL views differently.

The concept is not new to DL.

And given that DL has managed to grow its int'l network and its int'l RASM, it appears DL is not being hurt by its decision even though some can't understand the world might involve shades of gray which DL can see but other people do not.

 

[eolesen]

Ironic how instead of discussing Skypesos, the discussion is entirely Squirreled into another direction....

WT, maybe you should ask your friends the moderators to close out this thread, too, like you've done with all the others that have gone badly.

Just be sure to have the last word before reporting it...

 

[WorldTraveler]

it appears to me that someone is bent out of shape that they can't prove that DL's Pacific strategy - which is why KE is part of the FF discussion - is failing.

IN fact, DL is succeeding across the Pacific - they make money.... it's a lofty goAAl but DL goes where others cannot.

DL also has the highest absolute RASM and has posted the strongest RASM growth at least among the network carriers and perhaps the whole industry.

if you and the moderators don't like discussing those realities as to why DL can make changes to its FF program, then there really is no reason to discuss it all.

 

[topDawg]

if AA has signed a JV with JL to operate DFW-HKG, which they have, why should they drop their JV because CX comes along?

 

If DL signed a JV with AF/KL/AZ why are the "dropping" it for a JV with Virgin? 
 
The rest of your post was just typical WT garbage. 

 

[topDawg]

Ironic how instead of discussing Skypesos, the discussion is entirely Squirreled into another direction....

WT, maybe you should ask your friends the moderators to close out this thread, too, like you've done with all the others that have gone badly.

Just be sure to have the last word before reporting it...

because I'll start a thread quoting him on his last word just like i did with the NRT hangar....  h34r:  h34r:

 

[WorldTraveler]

If DL signed a JV with AF/KL/AZ why are the "dropping" it for a JV with Virgin? 
 
The rest of your post was just typical WT garbage.

huh?

from the beginning of DL's introduction of service into LHR, DL's routes at LHR have been "fenced" between different carriers that were part of helping DL become established there.

DL's original LHR slots came from AF while NW's came from KLM. With the equity purchase into VS, the LHR flights that are related to VS slots are maintained separately from those that came from AF/KL.

There are very clear and distinct lines between the JVs DL has with AF/KL/AZ and with VS. If VS decides to join Skyteam and DL agrees to join the two JVs, then things could change. I'm not sure at this point that DL or VS wants to include AF/KL/AZ in the expanded LHR JV.

and by the saem token, AA's decision to operate DFWHKG under a JV with JL might exclude that route from being operated under a JV with CX if one ever becomes available - and it likely will.

and as much as E and others want to argue different, AA does have different relationships with its alliance and non-alliance partners. If they choose to award FF miles and status without showing that difference, then they are the ones that fail to properly incentivize their customers to use those carriers that bring the most benefit to AA.

 

[eolesen]

Did you ever consider the possibility that AA and JL might simply add CX to the existing JV, similar to how LH and UA's JV also includes AC?...

http://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/company/alliances/joint-ventures.html

 

[WorldTraveler]

sure did... and did you consider that perhaps CX which has a growing market would have no interest in sharing its revenues with JL which as your little bud commavia has noted lives in a shrinking and dying market?