Does this development portend the end of US and The Star Alliance?
- Thread starter ebwgs
- Start date
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #2
Not necessarily, and even if it does it wouldn't be for a few years - in exchange for US' vote to allow CO into *A was a guarantee of 4 or 5 years of continued membership (I don't remember which but it was mentioned in the crew news sessions).
Jim
Jim
nycbusdriver
Veteran
There have been so many threads here dealing with "USAirways actions threatening its membership in the Star Alliance," some posters of which were absolutely sure that something Tempe did would get us kicked out.
Still a member, though, aren't we?
Why in the world would CO joining alter our status if our own race to the bottom in terms of service has no effect?
I think once admitted to Star, the only way out is to quit or close the doors. They may say otherwise, but (like ALPA) Star wants the money and the numbers. Nothing more.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #5
Since it takes two carriers minimum to have antitrust immunity, I can only guess that no one has asked US to take part. While the DOT was petitioned (and has given tentative approval) to add CO to the immunized group, there were questions raised about having 2 U.S. carriers in the same immunized alliance. It could be that the decision was made not to include US since it would be harder to get approval for ATI with 3 U.S. carriers included.
Jim
Jim
Prior to the DL/NW merger, you had CO/DL/NW in the Skyteam alliance. Were there any special approvals needed when that was initially formed?
US still adds value to the *A network, in particular the East coast and Caribbean. CO and UA don't have a very significant presence in those regions of the World, so I don't see any issues having all 3 in the alliance.
US is still a valued member of Star Alliance for now. We offer a an impressive route network in the southeast that CO and UA are currently lacking. We also have the northeast pretty tied up as well. CO brings NYC to the table which Star Alliance is currently lacking any meaningful presence in. CO also has it's Latin America presence which is also another bonus.
SS255
Veteran
CO's entry into the Star Alliance makes US a less valuable player. But it certainly does not portend that US will be asked to leave. I just think that UA will drive more codeshare traffic through CO instead of US, and that certainly is not good for US. I guess the old saying is true that "two's company; three's a crowd." 
LCC_#1
Veteran
- Nov 16, 2005
- 1,771
- 0
CO's entry into the Star Alliance makes US a less valuable player. But it certainly does not portend that US will be asked to leave. I just think that UA will drive more codeshare traffic through CO instead of US, and that certainly is not good for US. I guess the old saying is true that "two's company; three's a crowd."
This would be true if UAL were the only interested party, however UAL and CAL are nothing in the southeast. With your assumption, Star doesn't need US. I feel the opposite. With no true southern exposure, Star needs US.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
I don't know if having >2 American carriers in an alliance would be a problem nowadays. I mean just look at * Alliance in EU. It has SK, LH, SN, LX, OS - which more or less covers the majority of the continent north to south - and the commie EU authorities have no problem with this arrangement (not to mention that LH has an ownership stake in most of these carriers). So what if US and CO overlap a bit in the USA northeast?
By themselves, UA and CO have little presence in the SE. But now, both networks can come together and feed the *A. All of the biggest markets that *A needs: MCO, TPA, MIA, FLL, ATL, DCA (and I don't mean just Reagan National), NYC, along with all of the smaller NE and SE markets will be easily covered through a newly combined IAD and EWR. And the value of our caribbean service is questionable too. We do have lots of flights to the caribbean, but few if any that connect with our transatlantic flights in both PHL and CLT. Believe it or not, the biggest contribution we make to *A is LAS and MCO. Take a look at the connection list on your next TA trip! My hunch is the *A considers US niether an asset or a liability. If we stay, fine. If we go, fine.
SS255
Veteran
I think that US is an asset to the *A. They just will not be as big of an asset once CO joins. I still don't think that it will threaten their existence in the *A.
flybynite
Veteran
Oh...my heavens...we are so out classed by CO and UA it's not even funny. We are the red-headed step-children.
We were doing our best to run with the big dogs and now with the mind-set of the Tumble Weeds of Tempe....we can't even out class Southwest.
Grrr......
We were doing our best to run with the big dogs and now with the mind-set of the Tumble Weeds of Tempe....we can't even out class Southwest.
Grrr......
I think that CO is a great addition to *A, and that US is a very important piece of the puzzle. The route structure is very complimentary. If you super imposed all three carriers route maps over one another, you basically have the perfect alliance for traveling anywhere in the US.
