Whoa! AA-KE Codeshare

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

again, you have repeatedly demonstrated your childish foolishness.

and now you move on from Jesus face palms to the same for Godzilla.

breathtaking.

perhaps FWAAA can find a document that shows that AA and JL have ATI on AA's nonstop flights from the US to destinations outside of Japan that do not have Open Skies with the US.

perhaps it exists but it hasn't been demonstrated yet.

I have been schooled at nothing but how childish and vengeful some people are on this site.

 
Just like on numerous other threads,multiple times you have been proven to be wrong or lying, you just refuse to acknowledge and humbly walk away.  You do grasp the meaning of humble, do you not?
 
As for childish behavior, etc., yes, I will continue to embarrass you until you admit you were flat out 100% incorrect.
 
So, do you want to grow up, be a man?  Or do you want to continue?  The ball is in your court/
 

 

[FWAAA]

Well you better let AA know - because they apparently think their US-China routes do, indeed, involve their "ATI," and JBA, with Japan Airlines:
 
"This route [DFW-PEK] will be operated as part of American's joint business agreement with fellow oneworld® alliance member Japan Airlines."

Yep, same thing AA said when DFW-HKG and DFW-PVG were announced:
 

These new routes are operated as part of American's joint business agreement with fellow oneworld® alliance member Japan Airlines. Through oneworld member airlines and their affiliates, American's customers have access to nearly 150 destinations within Asia.

The service to Hong Kong will add a new destination to American's international network, and the service to Shanghai complements American's existing service from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD).

http://hub.aa.com/en/nr/american-airlines-launches-new-service-between-dallasfort-worth-and-hong-kong-and-shanghai

The joint business agreement was granted antitrust immunity October 6, 2010 in the Order to Show Cause, followed up by the Final Order on November 10, 2010.

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480e6afb3&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480e6afad&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

 

[WorldTraveler]

thanks for the documents but I still do not see any geographic details that show that ATI is included to any countries that do not have Open Skies with the US or on flights operated nonstop from the US to countries other than Japan.


can you provide the page numbers where that is noted?


thanks

 

[topDawg]

You still can't just walk away.

nope. This wouldn't happen if he would learn not to get so bent out of shape about it... 
 

 
No question that Delta has leverage in this dynamic with Korean, too, but despite what we've been assured repeatedly - that it was Delta calling the shots, and it was just a matter of time until Korean submitted to Delta's will - the reality has always been that Korean has its own "cards" to "play" as well.  (And, in fact, several of us predicted precisely this - that Korean could and potentially would develop some form of relationship with AA.)
 
It's true that Delta is the second largest U.S. carrier to Asia - behind United - but Korean itself has the most extensive U.S. network of any Asian airline, so they're quite the "catch" for any prospective partner, too.  Plus, the real strategic criticality of Korean to Delta - at least from what I can see - is that Korean offers extensive, fast and convenient connectivity over the exceptional ICN hub deep into Asia - cities large and small.  As Delta's own NRT hub has been progressively dismantled, ICN has become ever-more-attractive as a jumping off point to access "deep" Asia.

not really. This is exactly why they don't have a JV. Delta doesn't want to consolidate to ICN. KE doesn't want to deal with all of Delta's routes outside of ICN. 
 
At least that is what we have been told by management.  
 

I wonder if at some point KE would leave SkyTeam and join OneWorld

I don't think so. KE is quite close with other airlines in SkyTeam. IIRC KE just bought at large part of CSA and works pretty closely with AF/KL. 
 

Dunno if you'd ever see KE in oneworld, but anything is possible.

This also should be an indicator of how fragile alliances and JV's can be in the long run, and why they shouldn't play a role in deciding which US carrier should get a given route authority, e.g. HND.

agree on alliances 
disagree on JVs. I can't think of a single one that is close to breaking up or has broken up. 
 

ATI is not permitted with Chinese carriers or involving US-China routes.

AA could share revenues and JL can help sell them, however.

but your point highlights that JL is trying to get into where passengers want to go in Asia which will hurt them if AA cooperates on the same itineraries with carriers other than JL.

first part, yes
second part no. 
 
All you have to do is look at the DL/AF/KL/AZ JV and just think about it. 
How does that JV and ATI cover India when there is not an open skies............? Because it is about the operating carriers home countries. So DL can have a JV with ANA, KE, JL etc. in open skies counties that covers China. They can not have a JV with MU/CZ/CA etc because of the lack of open skies. Its all about the bilateral in the home countries not out side of them.   
 

 
Antitrust immunity is only given to airlines in countries where the U.S. has Open Skies. The antitrust immunity can be used by those airlines to cover markets that do not have open skies. BA/AA JBA includes Mexico; the JL/AA JBA includes China. 

exactly. Delta's own ATI with KE also covers Delta's Japan and China network. 
and did so in 2002 when Delta and KE got ATI. (no Japan open skies at that point) 

 

[FWAAA]

exactly. Delta's own ATI with KE also covers Delta's Japan and China network. 
and did so in 2002 when Delta and KE got ATI. (no Japan open skies at that point)

Delta and KE have had ATI for their codesharing relationship since 2002, but my understanding is that they don't have a joint business arrangement/joint venture by which they would share revenues and fix prices and make joint decisions about capacity and schedules.

 

[WorldTraveler]

that is correct, FWAAA.

and I don't even know that DL and KE use their ATI. it was granted but given the supposedly tense relationship between the two and DL's upgrade of its ICN flights, I doubt if DL and KE are talking.

and, yes, dawg, it is correct that the DL/AF/KL JV includes destinations outside of the US and Europe.

It includes Canada and a number of countries in the Americas as well as destinations in northern Africa and the Middle East and India. and India and the US do have Open Skies, IIRC.


the question is regarding antitrust immunity to countries where the US does not have Open Skies.

for instance, the US and Egypt do not have Open Skies. I do not know that AF/KL and DL can cooperate on schedules from Egypt.

since the geographic distribution of where ATI as well as the revenue sharing sections are allowed is blocked out in the public documents, I do not know where ATI or revenue sharing actually is allowed.

It is still possible that carriers can share revenues including on traffic that flows beyond the gateway (either NRT for AA-JL) or CDG/AMS for DL-AF/KL) even if they do not have ATI for a specific country. DL has its code on AF/KL flights out of CAI while AA codeshares on JL flights to/from China.

btw,
here is a list of US Open Skies agreements
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ata/114805.htm

 

[jimntx]

 
 
But the words used by both sides implied way more.

"We look forward to a successful relationship with American Airlines," said Yong Soon Park, Korean Air's Senior Vice President of International Affairs and Alliance.  "We are delighted with this partnership which will provide our customers with better access between Korea and the U.S. and to destinations throughout North, Central and South America."
 
Definitely sounds like more than just DFW-ICN.  I can't imagine that KE would codeshare just DFW-ICN and then just give away the business to "North, Central and South America" to AA when the customers reached DFW.  I spec KE will want some codeshare action on the whole ticket they sell on AA, not just the first leg.
 
And, it saves them the bother of having to provide service to those destinations.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I am sure that AA would love for KE to leave Skyteam and become an AA partner.

Since AA, not DL has a JV partner in Asia, addition of another partner is going to impact JL.

Everyone else has recognized that, including Cranky.

and just as with AS, some can't accept that the reason why DL doesn't want a deeper relationship with either is because they want a very imbalanced partnership. If AA is willing to give up its own growth in order to feed KE, then I'm sure that KE would be just fine. Given that multiple people have said that the problem with the KE relationship is that KE wants DL to be KE's US feeder airline and not grow DL's own TPAC network, then it is clear why DL is not interested. if that is what AA wants, go for it.

 

[jcw]

So when DL has more than one JV partner in Europe it's OK - however if someone other airline wanted to have a second JV partner in another part of the world it doesn't work
 
How do you have so many double standards?

 

[jimntx]

Also, he seems to have missed the whole point, as usual.  That, or he's starting some early deflection into other topics he has imagined anyone but him cares about...just in case KE does in fact defect to OneWorld.  He will, of course, take credit for having been the first to predict this change shortly after the last Ice Age when KE was caught sharing dog sleds with JL.
 
But, if you keep responding to him, it makes him think that someone cares what he thinks.  PUT HIM ON IGNORE.

 

[WorldTraveler]

yet you participated in the topic, Jim, and want to be able to throw your 2 cents in but don't want to have to be accountable for what you post.

there is nothing wrong with ANY carrier having multiple partners in a region. UA has multiple carriers in its TPAC JV.

what UA hasn't given up in Asia and what DL hasn't given up across the Atlantic is DL or UA's position in those markets including that DL and UA serve the top markets.

also, AF-KL is the same company.

again, tell me how AA is going to grow its presence in Asia when KE flies every route which AA could fly and JL operates a Tokyo route on every route that KE also serves from that same city.

again, I am not the only one that said that having multiple codeshare and JV partners in Asia will hurt JL.

and the same principle will apply to JL as exists between AA and AS. If AA were really interested in expanding its LAX operation, it would fly LAX to PDX and SEA but it can't because if it does it will step on AS' toes.

AS can't share its revenue with AA so for the sake of loyalty to AS, AA is smaller on the west coast than it could be on its own.

the same dilemma will exist for AA in Asia

 

[jcw]

Last time I checked the JV DL has in Europe did not prevent them from growing in Europe. Therefore having a JV partner or two partners in Asia will not hurt AA. Once again your double standard at play. You accuse AA of not being able to grow in Asia because of a JV partner, you accuse AA of losing money on every route in Asia, you accuse AA of growing DFW over LAX when their strategy was rounding out that hubs connections to Asia.

It never stops does it. AA is executing their strategy and we will see overtime if it works.

 

[WorldTraveler]

neither does UA's multi-carrier JVs in Asia and Europe prevent them from growing there either.

AA has to have a presence of its own in Asia in order to be able to share its revenue.

we read for years about how AA would strengthen its position in Japan because of the JL JV.

hasn't happened.

AA is smaller in Japan, hasn't improved its average fare or share performance relative to DL and UA, and JL decided the best way to grow its revenues was to tap into AA's growth in non-Japan markets.

JVs don't make weak operations stronger. AA/BA works because AA had a decent presence in the LHR market before AA/BA. AA doesn't have a decent presence in Asia or one that is even close to competitive with DL or UA on routes other than from DFW.

A JV can't fix AA's problems to Asia in highly competitive markets. AA tried that with JL and the results are clear to see. It is up to you and others including AA to prove that this time will produce different results.

so far, AA has yet to demonstrate that any JV can help it on Asia routes from highly competitive markets.

and this partnership with KE is NOT about a competitive market with DL or UA.. .it is about DFW to ICN, a route where AA apparently has succeeded at pushing KE out.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

So when DL has more than one JV partner in Europe it's OK - however if someone other airline wanted to have a second JV partner in another part of the world it doesn't work
 
How do you have so many double standards?

 
Well you  know, it's all about clearing that spec in your brothers eye while ignoring the log in your own ... ... ...

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, logs and specs have to do with finding fault - a subjective exercise.

you don't want to admit clear facts which are clearly objective.

If/when AA produces revenues on par with DL and UA in highly competitive markets to Asia, let us know.

It is a fact that right now AA operates every one of its routes from the US to Asia that compete with DL or UA at a significant fare disadvantage.