EL AL Matmid - LY CEO: Can't Join Alliance Because We're Jewish

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/glob...ocview.asp?did=1000725216&fid=1725

Sorry mods. Didn't see existing thread.

I actually think this deserves a thread of its own to be honest as it may well get lost in the other thread and not everyone will see it.

I think it's a disgrace and incredible those words actually came out of his mouth

Above link doesn't seem to work...

Here it is again:

El Al CEO: Harder for us to compensate passengers (http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000725216&fid=1725)

And here is the one from Calcalist (Hebrew)

שקדי: לא מקבלים אותנו לבריתות התעופה הגדולות בגלל שאנחנו יהודים (http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3562346,00.html)

I suppose that is one possible explanation, on the other hand it could just be because LY's route network wouldn't actually bring much new onto the table for an alliance so they are not an attractive partner from that point of view.

SQ actually has a codesharing agreement with LY but chose not to excercise that option of flying its own metal to TLV because it would cause a logistic nightmare of screening out all islamic staff. And Malaysia & Indonesia have jointly indicated that as long as LY codeshares on any SQ flight, that flight will not be allowed to enter Malaysian or Indonesian airspace. Which if you see how Changi is located, it is impossible for SQ to avoid either airspace.

So that ends that idea.

Disgusting. Knowing nothing of Tibi's bill, I can't comment, but I wouldn't put it past him (considering his track record,) of submitting a bill to spite LY. OTOH, Shkedi is chutzpadik *$%^&*. He does ZERO to improve the airline, make a true premium airline, and airline to compete on global scale, etc. and then has the chutzpa to say that?! Looking at the global business world, I see ZERO evidence that major companies of the world, ESPECIALLY in the US and Europe have any problem whatsoever with working with Jews. Looking at the driving forces behind the three alliances, you have UA/LH might very well be the driving force in *A, DL in ST, AA/BA in OW (yes, there are other players as well,) and none of them have problems working with Jews. LH-owned airline LX has codeshares with LY, as does AA. DL has interline agreements.
Shkedi should be sacked, and a competent CEO should replace him; and competent in the business and airline world, NOT competent simply because he was once IAF commander.

Knowing nothing of Tibi's bill, I can't comment, but I wouldn't put it past him (considering his track record,) of submitting a bill to spite LY.

Why jump to conclusions without first looking up the facts?

Haaretz - Flight's very tardy? Bill would assure you of hotel and meals (http://www.haaretz.com/business/flight-s-very-tardy-bill-would-assure-you-of-hotel-and-meals-1.343634)Airline passengers going abroad whose flights are delayed by at least two hours will be entitled to food and drink, two telephone calls, and either a fax message or an e-mail, if a bill approved by the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee yesterday becomes law. The bill, introduced by MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al ), will be presented to the full Knesset for a vote on first reading.

The bill includes compensation for passengers whose flights have been delayed or canceled and for passengers who have been denied boarding despite having a reserved seat. Under various circumstances, the proposed law would provide practical assistance, expense reimbursement, another airline ticket or financial compensation. The law would require the operator of the flight to clearly and prominently advise passengers of their rights and would have violations of the law handled by the Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry.


Haaretz - No compensation if flight is canceled to avoid violating Shabbat, MKs decide (http://www.haaretz.com/business/no-compensation-if-flight-is-canceled-to-avoid-violating-shabbat-mks-decide-1.370397)The bill, sponsored by MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al ), details the compensation and help airlines are required to give passengers whose flights are delayed or canceled. The committee approved an article stating that airlines that are forced to cancel flights so as not to make passengers violate the Jewish Sabbath need not pay the passengers any financial compensation.

Why jump to conclusions without first looking up the facts?

Haaretz - Flight's very tardy? Bill would assure you of hotel and meals (http://www.haaretz.com/business/flight-s-very-tardy-bill-would-assure-you-of-hotel-and-meals-1.343634)


Haaretz - No compensation if flight is canceled to avoid violating Shabbat, MKs decide (http://www.haaretz.com/business/no-compensation-if-flight-is-canceled-to-avoid-violating-shabbat-mks-decide-1.370397)
:confused: I specifically did NOT jump to any conclusions. I specifically said I CAN'T comment on the article

:confused: I specifically did NOT jump to any conclusions. I specifically said I CAN'T comment on the article

Then why the following?

...but I wouldn't put it past him (considering his track record,) of submitting a bill to spite LY.

Seems very judgmental to me.

BTW, the context of Shkedi's remarks was included in the article linked (http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000725216&fid=1725) in the OP:Eliezer Shkedi told the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee today that the airline was less able to compensate passengers for delayed or cancelled flights than other airlines. The committee is discussing a private member's bill on the issue by Ahmed Tibi (Ra'am-Ta'al).

judgmental because Tibi has a track record. I tried to make that quite clear in my post

I'm not surprised. Typical of LY to blame anything but themselves....

Global alliances typically look to fill "holes" in their networks.

What does LY offer? TLV-Europe, TLV-Russia, TLV-NYC/YYZ, TLV-BKK/HKG and a flight or two to ZA.

SkyTeam has Europe to everywhere that could connect over TLV from KL/AF/AZ, ST has DL NYC-TLV (major route).

Star has Europe to everywhere with LX/OS/LH. Star has the most North America-TLV with YYZ (AC), 2X EWR (CO), PHL (US). No way.

Oneworld has europe to everywhere with BA (and IB I guess), BUT, they have the best fit for LY (possibly) if LY codeshares with RJ on the TLV-far east, those passengers could avoid schlepping around the arabian peninsula. And OW doesn't have any TLV-North america. And, AA codeshares with LY already, so why bother with the "alliance".

The truth is that LY is a penny-ante operator. They're as cheap as possible at every turn. The best thing an alliance could get out of LY is a dumping ground for their old planes.

We all know that if El Al treats its business partners half as badly as it does its business customers, there's no chance of them joining an alliance.

Star Alliance has a huge number of overlapping partners, we know that's not the issue.

El Al likely negotiated too hard, and is too inflexible, by nature of it being an Israeli company. They need to accept fair terms and join an alliance for the benefit of their customers.

One of the many reasons I avoid El Al - outside of Tel Aviv, your status is worthless.

One of the many reasons I avoid El Al - outside of Tel Aviv, your status is worthless.
According to a few other threads here, unless you're TPL your LY status is worthless @ TLV too...

LY is clueless when it comes to business, unfortunately. As you said, to both its customers and business partners. I can only imagine what their discussion with Boeing was on the 787.... "more discount, we may be buying below cost, but we need more discount, otherwise we just buy 20 year old 767s!"

LY is clueless when it comes to business, unfortunately. As you said, to both its customers and business partners. I can only imagine what their discussion with Boeing was on the 787.... "more discount, we may be buying below cost, but we need more discount, otherwise we just buy 20 year old 767s!"
HAHA - quite likely actually

None of the alliances need LY. It really doesn't plug any holes. Getting to TLV from N. America, S. America (via Europe or N. America), is exceedingly easy w/o LY.

The most difficult places to get to from TLV is India and the rest of Asia. But via TLV's handful of flights, connections via IST, AMM, and that random KE flight to ICN, people seem to get by.

When Moshiach comes and there's peace everywhere and everyone loves each other, maybe someday there will be flights on Qatar, Etihad, and Emirates from TLV to DOH, AUH, and DXB. LY would finally have to compete with real airlines instead of being shielded from competition as a side effect of geopolitical realities.

I'm not surprised. Typical of LY to blame anything but themselves....
Global alliances typically look to fill "holes" in their networks.

True, but top markets from TLV (UK, USA, France, Canada etc.) are already well served by alliance members.


Oneworld has europe to everywhere with BA (and IB I guess), BUT, they have the best fit for LY (possibly) if LY codeshares with RJ on the TLV-far east, those passengers could avoid schlepping around the arabian peninsula. And OW doesn't have any TLV-North america. And, AA codeshares with LY already, so why bother with the "alliance".
Yes, Oneworld would be the best fit, but Oneworld don't want to rule out EY possibly joining them (EY says that they may join an alliance, probably OW or *A). *A also don't want to rule out any Gulf Carriers joining them, and SkyTeam is already written off with Middle East Airlines and Saudi Arabian. If ME, QR, GF, KU, WY, EK, EY and SV don't want to be in the same LHR terminal as LY then I don't see them wanting to be in the same alliance.


The truth is that LY is a penny-ante operator. They're as cheap as possible at every turn.
That's why when they need to expand in London, they become the only non low-cost airline at LTN :p (Instead of LGW)

None of the alliances need LY. It really doesn't plug any holes. Getting to TLV from N. America, S. America (via Europe or N. America), is exceedingly easy w/o LY.
I agree.


The most difficult places to get to from TLV is India and the rest of Asia. But via TLV's handful of flights, connections via IST, AMM, and that random KE flight to ICN, people seem to get by.
Yep, EL Al only operate to BOM, BKK, PEK and HKG, and only have limited codeshares from BKK. But otherwise, connections are okay.


When Moshiach comes and there's peace everywhere and everyone loves each other, maybe someday there will be flights on Qatar, Etihad, and Emirates from TLV to DOH, AUH, and DXB. LY would finally have to compete with real airlines instead of being shielded from competition as a side effect of geopolitical realities.
Yes, there would be competition, but even if peace comes soon, normalisation of relations, trade and travel would take some time to come, and only then would those airlines operate.

I'd like to see LY become part of Oneworld, as it's probably the best fit for the airline if Royal Jordanian and British Airways doesn't make a fuss of it.

LY already operates from the same terminal as various other Middle Eastern airlines in some countries; and not all alliance members operate from the same terminal at all airports where more than one alliance member operates. So I don't see a terminal co-location issue being a major problem. The bigger hurdle will be if standing members of any of the big alliances are willing or unwilling to let LY in for far more narrow, immediate commercial self-interest reasons.

Emirates from TLV to DOH, AUH, and DXB. LY would finally have to compete with real airlines instead of being shielded from competition as a side effect of geopolitical realities.

If there was true peace and EK was able to fly to TLV, LY would be burnt toast.

If there was true peace and EK was able to fly to TLV, LY would be burnt toast.

I beg to differ. If it were possible TLV would have been able to become a real hub - with LY offering real connections, as TLV is positioned extremely well geographically, and if geopolitics and overflight restrictions were not an issue this location could be perfect ( at least as DXB or DOH) for connecting Europe with India, APAC and Africa.

That being said - they would still have to have competent management, which is not the case today.

Please note that the FlyerTalk TOS expressly prohibit use of profanity (http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#q88). Masking it with symbols doesn't make it acceptable. The offensive post and those referring to it have been removed.



Thanks,
yosithezet
Moderator, El Al Forum

I beg to differ. If it were possible TLV would have been able to become a real hub - with LY offering real connections, as TLV is positioned extremely well geographically, and if geopolitics and overflight restrictions were not an issue this location could be perfect ( at least as DXB or DOH) for connecting Europe with India, APAC and Africa.

That being said - they would still have to have competent management, which is not the case today.

I don't think that LY management have the knowledge and experience of working on fares that aren't intended for the O&D market. If they had, then they would have had fares to JNB from NYC, AMS, LON, PAR etc. for the 2012 World Cup. They only offer connections in limited quantity on J-class/O-class from LON to BKK etc. If they were to create a real ladder of fares, perhaps they may fill up some planes during low season to/from TLV.

I agree that if peace comes and relations normalize, LY is toast. It just can't compete with the fancy gulf airlines.

I agree that TLV has potential as a hub esp for connecting traffic from Europe to Africa & Asia. It also is more geographically logical to connect there from N. America to Africa that in Europe or the Gulf.

But TLV & LY would have to move fast.

The reality is that lack of peace in the Middle East has a side effect of protecting LY from a ton of competition and allowing it to become complacent in its way of doing business, treating its frequent flyers, and up keeping its fleet.

I agree that if peace comes and relations normalize, LY is toast. It just can't compete with the fancy gulf airlines.

I agree that TLV has potential as a hub esp for connecting traffic from Europe to Africa & Asia. It also is more geographically logical to connect there from N. America to Africa that in Europe or the Gulf.

But TLV & LY would have to move fast.

The reality is that lack of peace in the Middle East has a side effect of protecting LY from a ton of competition and allowing it to become complacent in its way of doing business, treating its frequent flyers, and up keeping its fleet.
I don't know how much longer that will last. It's competition is now UA - the largest airline in the world, and part of the largest alliance, *A. UA is really working to improve the hard products, is already lie-flat, and may switch to a 3-cabin plane. They offer E+ which is extra legroom, and lots of them (70 seats or so) for about $100, and free for elites. They will be installing WiFi as well.
LH is upgrading C to lie-flat. LX is already there. LH may be installing WiFi, and LX may follow soon after. Factor in AC and US, and *A has a nice wide-body presences will solid carriers.
If you add the other airlines that are there, you can see that the competition is really upping its offerings and game, and is quite large. How much longer can LY last before becoming a competitive airline?

They do have some going for them: To the Far East, they're the only ones. For short-haul flights, they're the best, and pricing is that much off from the competition. Finally, you have a market, for sure in USA, and probably other places, that just won't fly anyone but LY. Some are deluded; some do it to support an Israeli company; some do it for security. Whatever the reason, some of those people can be convinced to switch; others not.

; some do it to support an Israeli company;
I would, but its more important to sleep well (and as long as LY has frayers who pay more and put up with a lousy hard product, what incentive do they have to improve)?

I'd be much happier supporting an Israeli company because they excel.

I would, but its more important to sleep well (and as long as LY has frayers who pay more and put up with a lousy hard product, what incentive do they have to improve)?

I'd be much happier supporting an Israeli company because they excel.
I agree with you 1000%. Unfortunately, not everyone else does. Or maybe they don't realize what a disservice they're doing to themselves (and others).

I've also seen this phenomenon. A good friend of my parents' lives in Center City, Philadelphia. She has grandchildren in Zichron Yaakov so she makes regular trips to Israel.

She *always* makes the trek to EWR or JFK just to fly El Al even though there is a non-stop on US from PHL or easy one stops in Europe on BA/LH/AF. Her reasoning is "safety".

Through tighter integration with partners, LY could achieve the many of the same benefits of joining an alliance without having to satisfy all the alliance requirements.

Terminals - Move to partner terminals or terminals with a particular alliance presence.

Lounges - Contract to use partner lounges at LY destinations and partner hubs.

FFP - Arrange for deep reciprocal benefits between LY and partner programs.

Lounges - Contract to use partner lounges at LY destinations and partner hubs.

They already have this with many partners

FFP - Arrange for deep reciprocal benefits between LY and partner programs.

They have such a crappy program, they need to just restart the whole program entirely

They already have this with many partners


Not really. In ORD they use AZ's lounge, JFK uses the Jet Air lounge, MIA-Club America, etc.

Not really. In ORD they use AZ's lounge, JFK uses the Jet Air lounge, MIA-Club America, etc.
Meaning that you can almost always access a lounge, no matter what the airport

Meaning that you can almost always access a lounge, no matter what the airport

I was referring to alliance partners and not third party lounges.

I was referring to alliance partners and not third party lounges.
They aren't going to get alliance partners...until they join an alliance.

They aren't going to get alliance partners...until they join an alliance.

LY already has alliances with various airlines. Bilateral alliances are still alliances, and those airlines are alliance partners even as the alliance may be neither deep nor be one reached through membership in one of the big three global airline alliances where partnership includes alliance partner frequent flyer program elite status recognition.

From Australia and NZ it's a long haul, HKG or BKK, long connection, long security screening, then finally the safety and peace of an EL AL cabin, secure with air Marshall's.

I will always travel to the holy land on EL AL as I value my personal safety and have experienced enough hate not to be cautious.

LY already has alliances with various airlines. Bilateral alliances are still alliances, and those airlines are alliance partners even as the alliance may be neither deep nor be one reached through membership in one of the big three global airline alliances where partnership includes alliance partner frequent flyer program elite status recognition.
Until LY status pax can get priority check-in, screening, and boarding on other airlines, and until they get lounge access when flying other airlines in Y, I do not look at "alliances." Sure, they have a relationship with airlines, notably AA, but that isn't an alliance. You can't even earn EQMs for one airline by flying the other

Until LY status pax can get priority check-in, screening, and boarding on other airlines, and until they get lounge access when flying other airlines in Y, I do not look at "alliances." Sure, they have a relationship with airlines, notably AA, but that isn't an alliance. You can't ever earn EQMs for one airline by flying the other

You are of course free to see things as you wish, but you are incorrect about that last line. There is a history of earning EQMs for one airline by flying the other. AA used to codeshare with LY, and people did earn AA EQMs for flying LY, it just had to be AA-coded LY-operated flights. So much for "ever".

http://www.aa.com/i18n/aboutUs/codesharePartners/elAL.jsp

You are of course free to see things as you wish, but you are incorrect about that last line. There is a history of earning EQMs for one airline by flying the other. AA used to codeshare with LY, and people did earn AA EQMs for flying LY, it just had to be AA-coded LY-operated flights. So much for "ever".

http://www.aa.com/i18n/aboutUs/codesharePartners/elAL.jsp
Way too look at a post, and jump the farther stretch to assume the worst. A simple typo was all. But instead of recognizing a possible typo, you assume that instead, I left out lots of words (because the way I wrote it didn't even make sense, ESPECIALLY not the way you wanted to interpret it). I don't care what was...you cannot earn EQMs reciprocally between AA and LY

Way too look at a post, and jump the farther stretch to assume the worst. A simple typo was all. But instead of recognizing a possible typo, you assume that instead, I left out lots of words (because the way I wrote it didn't even make sense, ESPECIALLY not the way you wanted to interpret it). I don't care what was...you cannot earn EQMs reciprocally between AA and LY

Is there a full moon out tonight, or what? I have no idea what you are trying to say above. What assuming the worst? What typo?

As an AirFrance Platinum, I don't get lounge access when flying in economy class (or even business/first) on most of my SkyTeam flights as an AF Platinum, and AF and DL are part of the same alliance. [That's because most of my SkyTeam flights are "domestic".] And with the other major two airline alliances (namely, Star and Oneworld Alliances), there are also benefit aspects which are not reciprocal.

Different people have different ideas of what an alliance must be in order to be an alliance, and so the idea of alliance partners does vary.

Two-member alliances, with no material intrusion upon arrangements for other alliances, do exist even when one or both members of such two-member alliances have other alliances too.

LY can try to cut an arrangement with AA in order to get LY elites benefits when flying AA, but perhaps LY doesn't want to spend the money and/or AA wants too much money.

Once AA again codeshares on LY flights, AA members will once again be able to earn EQMs from LY flights. It has happened regularly before and can happen again.

Is there a full moon out tonight, or what? I have no idea what you are trying to say above. What assuming the worst? What typo?

As an AirFrance Platinum, I don't get lounge access when flying in economy class (or even business/first) on most of my SkyTeam flights as an AF Platinum, and AF and DL are part of the same alliance. [That's because most of my SkyTeam flights are "domestic".] And with the other major two airline alliances (namely, Star and Oneworld Alliances), there are also benefit aspects which are not reciprocal.

Different people have different ideas of what an alliance must be in order to be an alliance, and so the idea of alliance partners does vary.

Two-member alliances, with no material intrusion upon arrangements for other alliances, do exist even when one or both members of such two-member alliances have other alliances too.

LY can try to cut an arrangement with AA in order to get LY elites benefits when flying AA, but perhaps LY doesn't want to spend the money and/or AA wants too much money.

Once AA again codeshares on LY flights, AA members will once again be able to earn EQMs from LY flights. It has happened regularly before and can happen again.
If you're *G (except UA/US,) you get lounge access whenever flying *A. (If UA or US, then only when flying international itins.)
If you have an account with any *A airline, you get EQMs for flying any *A airline. No need to get so convoluted. LY doesn't have this arrangement with any airline. And if what you say is true about ST, then another reason why *A is the best alliance and ST is laughed about by the other alliances. Because the same rules about *A apply to OW.

If you're *G (except UA/US,) you get lounge access whenever flying *A. (If UA or US, then only when flying international itins.)
If you have an account with any *A airline, you get EQMs for flying any *A airline. No need to get so convoluted. LY doesn't have this arrangement with any airline. And if what you say is true about ST, then another reason why *A is the best alliance and ST is laughed about by the other alliances. Because the same rules about *A apply to OW.

I do prefer * and OW myself over ST, but when flying as much as some of us do, getting elite status on all the Big 3 airline alliances is a rather natural outcome -- and that even includes getting elite status in each of the big three alliances with at least two airlines per each alliance.

I'm *G at least three times over currently (as I have been for years now) and like to think that I know a bit how it works and doesn't work. I'm OW elite on two airlines and have lifetime AA mid-tier elite status as a minimum earned from flying well over a million miles on AA and its partners (some of which aren't OW members) in well less than a decade, so I like to think that I know how they work and don't work too. And I also like to think I know how Skyteam works and doesn't work. [ST considers US-Canada international while OW considers it "domestic" for lounge access purposes based on elite status -- so ST is better for such.]

There are regular-paid * coded-and-operated flights which I have flown and they earned no EQMs with any * carrier program. There are other * coded-and-operated flights which earned no EQMs when credited to * programs other than the operating carrier's own program, if even that; both situations continue. Then there are all the times where the number of miles credited are different based on which program the flights are being credited.

The nature of what constitutes an alliance depends on how one wants to see it.

LY has alliances with various airlines; all LY has to do is deepen the relationships even if it costs some money to make sure that LY elites get benefits on LY's partners; and LY may even be able to get somewhat of a discount when making such an arrangment if those bilateral alliance partners' elites get benefits on LY too.

See what AS has done? There are ways for LY to help out LY elites flying on a variety of airlines and create an ad hoc alliance of sorts that is actually papered in contract form with partner airlines. The question is if LY is willing to do that or not. I don't think they are.

Is there a full moon out tonight, or what?

Yes, as a matter of fact there was!

Until LY status pax can get priority check-in, screening, and boarding on other airlines, and until they get lounge access when flying other airlines in Y, I do not look at "alliances." Sure, they have a relationship with airlines, notably AA, but that isn't an alliance. You can't even earn EQMs for one airline by flying the other

You seem to be arguing for the same things I originally said needed to be done.

LY has alliances with various airlines; all LY has to do is deepen the relationships even if it costs some money to make sure that LY elites get benefits on LY's partners; and LY may even be able to get somewhat of a discount when making such an arrangment if those bilateral alliance partners' elites get benefits on LY too.

See what AS has done? There are ways for LY to help out LY elites flying on a variety of airlines and create an ad hoc alliance of sorts that is actually papered in contract form with partner airlines. The question is if LY is willing to do that or not. I don't think they are.

I think what LY and Alaskan have are what most of would call bilateral partnerships rather than an alliance.

I think what LY and Alaskan have are what most of would call bilateral partnerships rather than an alliance.

Everyone seems to be arguing over semantics. :confused:

My previous post using the term "alliance partner" was in regards to LY choosing alliance and separately integrating with each individual member as opposed to actually joining said alliance.

This would spare LY the cost and politics(muslim vs jew) of actually joining an alliance.

You seem to be arguing for the same things I originally said needed to be done.

Not everything on FT is an argument :p

I think what LY and Alaskan have are what most of would call bilateral partnerships rather than an alliance.

Exactly

Everyone seems to be arguing over semantics. :confused:

My previous post using the term "alliance partner" was in regards to LY choosing alliance and separately integrating with each individual member as opposed to actually joining said alliance.

This would spare LY the cost and politics(muslim vs jew) of actually joining an alliance.

The semantics are important. A bilateral partnership is a partnership that can always just end. It's only between 2 airlines, and LY is then forced to make lots of relationships. An alliance makes LY a part of a group automatically

Not everything on FT is an argument :p



Exactly



The semantics are important. A bilateral partnership is a partnership that can always just end. It's only between 2 airlines, and LY is then forced to make lots of relationships. An alliance makes LY a part of a group automatically

Alliances include "bilateral partnerships". Think about some of the car company alliances -- bilateral partnerships are a subset of alliances in that industry too. Think about KLM and Northwest from last decade. Bilateral partnerships may widen into a bigger alliance than a bilateral partnership but LY hasn't done much of anything in deepening relationships so as to get reciprocal benefit arrangements when it comes to loyalty program elites and elite benefits for partner-network-wide benefits even on a bilateral alliance basis.

I still don't get why non-alliance members in any of the big three global airline alliances would care about the relationship between LY's home state or the home state's national religion and others when there is no clarity that LY's participation in any of the big 3 global airline alliances necessarily comes with any negative retaliation from any state that already has an airline in one of the Big 3.

I think what LY and Alaskan have are what most of would call bilateral partnerships rather than an alliance.

I was referring more so to AS-DL and AS-AA kind of arrangements than AS-LY.

Alliances include "bilateral partnerships". Think about some of the car company alliances -- bilateral partnerships are a subset of alliances in that industry too. Think about KLM and Northwest from last decade. Bilateral partnerships may widen into a bigger alliance than a bilateral partnership but LY hasn't done much of anything in deepening relationships so as to get reciprocal benefit arrangements when it comes to loyalty program elites and elite benefits for partner-network-wide benefits even on a bilateral alliance basis.

That might be, but at the end of the day, an alliance is clearly better.

I still don't get why non-alliance members in any of the big three global airline alliances would care about the relationship between LY's home state or the home state's national religion any others when there is no clarity that LY's participation in any of the big 3 global airline alliances necessarily comes with any negative retaliation from any state that already has an airline in one of the Big 3.

Huh?

I was referring more so to AS-DL and AS-AA kind of arrangements than AS-LY.

yosithezet wasn't referring to the AS/LY relationship - he was referring to AS's relationships in general and LY's relationships in general. AS and LY have no relationship with each other.

The semantics are important. A bilateral partnership is a partnership that can always just end. It's only between 2 airlines, and LY is then forced to make lots of relationships. An alliance makes LY a part of a group automatically

The term alliance has been used in many instances to describe the relationship between just two airlines. There is no "written in stone" definition that dictates it only be used when referring to the big three.

I think what LY and Alaskan have are what most of would call bilateral partnerships rather than an alliance.

Yes, rather like a marriage. After all both are likely to end up in a בית דין.

Yes, rather like a marriage. After all both are likely to end up in a בית דין.

ROFL, and if they up divorcing, the כתובה also requires a hefty exit fee.

Can you get FF points for all those appearances before the בית דין?

Can you get FF points for all those appearances before the בית דין?
To those wondering, בית דין. pronounced beit din, is a court of Jewish law.
כתובה, pronounced "ketubah", is a Jewish marriage contract.

כתובה, pronounced "ketubah", is a Jewish bill of divorce.

The Ketubah is the Jewish marriage contract. The Jewish bill of divorce is a "Get (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_(divorce_document))."

The Ketubah is the Jewish marriage contract. The Jewish bill of divorce is a "Get (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_(divorce_document))."
We were talking about divorce as I was typing that, so I screwed that up. Thanks

El Al would make a great member of a 4th alliance. It will allow a lot of growth.

El Al would make a great member of a 4th alliance. It will allow a lot of growth.

Unless you count the Virgin group, there's simply not enough quality carriers to form another alliance, especially with so much consolidation going on.

Unless you count the Virgin group, there's simply not enough quality carriers to form another alliance, especially with so much consolidation going on.

The various Virgin branded airlines and one or two of the bigger long-haul-flying Middle East airlines could pull off another major multi-airline global alliance with a route network covering at least four continents. Otherwise there is always Ryanair and Southwest, but they don't seem like the kind to want to engage in such entanglements.

shkadi should listen to the song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVBvy2cc0Io
without flying on 7 days a week it wont get el al near an alliance.
elal needs to focus on making a profit now and not on crying about lcc and alliances.

... and one or two of the bigger long-haul-flying Middle East airlines...

That really boils down to EY and EK. If for some reason both of them changed their strategy and decided to join an alliance, I doubt both would join the "One-Virgin" alliance.


Otherwise there is always Ryanair and Southwest, but they don't seem like the kind to want to engage in such entanglements.

I was going to mention some sort of LCC alliance, but the trouble with that is the lack of any trans-oceanic LCC carrier to link the various networks. WN and FR can partner all they want, but they can't truly codeshare.

El Al couldn't be worse for an alliance than Ethiopian? Ok, sure, Ethiopian has fuel stops in Asia so it is a little more than just ADD.

El Al couldn't be worse for an alliance than Ethiopian? Ok, sure, Ethiopian has fuel stops in Asia so it is a little more than just ADD.

I really don't understand the comparison.

WSJ- Boeing, Airbus in Dogfight Over El Al (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303665904577452612947594688.html)
Mr. [Nissim] Malki [, El Al's chief financial officer,] said El Al is actively pursuing membership of one of the three global marketing pacts that dominate the industry.

"We are working very intensively to be part of a global alliance," he said, acknowledging that Israel's political situation complicates its potential entry. "There are so many factors that prevent it."

El Al had previously looked at establishing a new alliance including airlines from countries in central Asia.

WSJ- Boeing, Airbus in Dogfight Over El Al (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303665904577452612947594688.html)


CEO and CFO not on the same page? Or are one of the "many factors" that LY is Jewish? ;)

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/glob...ocview.asp?did=1000725216&fid=1725

Sorry mods. Didn't see existing thread.

Shkedy always seems to be blaming everyone but himself for his failures as a manager. He blames the fact that EL AL is an Israeli/Jewish company for his inability to gain them admission into an alliance as oppose to its poor hard product and services, amongst a plethora of other issues we discuss extensively on this board.

Shkedy also blames the global financial crisis and the Israeli government (for implementing the open skies policy) for EL AL's current financial troubles when in actuality tourism and business travel to Israel have reached all times highs in the midst of this global crisis while airfares going there remain prohibitively expensive, and LY's load factors are consistently near or over 80 percent. Recently, Shkedy even blamed the pilots union for EL AL's troubles because it's chairman, Captain Nir Tzuk, refused to accept greater concessions until management is restructured and also faces the same level of cutbacks the front line staff have endured.

All of this does not surprise me. This man was commander of the IAF during the Second Lebanon War in 2006 and I remember watching an interview with him where he blamed the vast network of tunnels and vegetation of South Lebanon for the IAF's failure to effectively stop the rocket fire, as if he was caught with those two facts by surprise and did not have years to prepare plans to counter them.

If EL AL is to survive and thrive as a private enterprise, the board needs to appoint executives who spend their time coming up with solutions rather than excuses.

Shkedy always seems to be blaming everyone but himself for his failures as a manager. He blames the fact that EL AL is an Israeli/Jewish company for his inability to gain them admission into an alliance as oppose to its poor hard product and services, amongst a plethora of other issues we discuss extensively on this board.

Air India certainly had a worse hard product and services when they were accepted as a candidate to Star Alliance so I don't see why this would prevent candidacy.

Air India certainly had a worse hard product and services when they were accepted as a candidate to Star Alliance so I don't see why this would prevent candidacy.

In-flight product and service of questionable status have not been a strong barrier to joining Skyteam. And Star Alliance have had LCC service elements as part of the picture (e.g., on SK short-haul, even getting a free glass of soda has a troubled history). Oneworld has taken in AirBerlin, which is an LCC of sort that is less LCC than SK on some routes.

There are other barriers to joining major airline alliances, but LY's in-flight product and service aren't going to get LY into one of the big three alliances or keep them out of one of the big three alliances.

There are other barriers to joining major airline alliances, but LY's in-flight product and service aren't going to get LY into one of the big three alliances or keep them out of one of the big three alliances.

Well, frankly, LY's substandard product will fit in well with AF/KL/AZ in SkyTeam. How weird is it that DL is actually the best carrier in that alliance?

*A's most rigid flippers being UA/LH/SQ with relatively high standards internationally (except LH, with lie flat in C). They seem to have the most solid coordination and quality of the 3 alliances, and UA makes bank on EWR-TLV, I doubt they want to dilute it.

OW probably has the least consistency in its members, ranging from garbage to excellent.

So with those things taken into account, i would say that it is very likely that political issues keep LY from joining an alliance. But my guess is that they haven't done anything significant in order to try to join one.

So with those things taken into account, i would say that it is very likely that political issues keep LY from joining an alliance. But my guess is that they haven't done anything significant in order to try to join one.

It would not surprise me that airlines from hostile-to-Israel countries might indeed serve as a barrier to join an alliance. Having said that, I have NO DOUBT that it is LY management's lack of professionalism - more than any other factor - that has kept the alliance membership elusive for El Al.

Not only that . . . the AA codeshares, which is the next best thing to an alliance, have still not been re-instated even though we are back to FAA Cat 1 for a while already. Want to bet that there isn't so much as a project manager over at LY to work on it!?!

It would not surprise me that airlines from hostile-to-Israel countries might indeed serve as a barrier to join an alliance. Having said that, I have NO DOUBT that it is LY management's lack of professionalism - more than any other factor - that has kept the alliance membership elusive for El Al.

Not only that . . . the AA codeshares, which is the next best thing to an alliance, have still not been re-instated even though we are back to FAA Cat 1 for a while already. Want to bet that there isn't so much as a project manager over at LY to work on it!?!

Latus,

I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment of LY's management's lack of professionalism being the greatest impediment to the company being able to join an alliance. I also think cost has something to do with it as well. EL AL would have to expend a considerable amount of money upgrading its operations and technological infrastructure to coordinate with alliance partners. Given how cheap LY is and management's preference to put profits in their own pockets rather than reinvest back into the airline, this is likely another major contributing factor. Is the fact that LY is Israeli/Jewish a factor in preventing its admission into an alliance? Perhaps, but it's not the only one or even the most overwhelming one. Besides, Israel as a whole has thrived in the face of very strong opposition to its very existence, certainly EL AL could do the same.

So with those things taken into account, i would say that it is very likely that political issues keep LY from joining an alliance. But my guess is that they haven't done anything significant in order to try to join one.

One or more the big three airline alliances may find that there is a risk in not being able to pick up/retain some MENA and some other Asian players if LY were part of the alliance today. I think those concerns aren't what they used to be.

That said, either way there are ways for LY to enter into deeper partnerships with the big players in one or more of the big three airline alliances or join up with various other airlines while stopping just short of actual membership in any of the big three airline alliances; however, LY management hasn't even delivered on that possibility as of late. That failure to deliver on deep partnerships with other airlines is not a surprise given it would involve costs/investments and risks for LY that LY management may not consider worthwhile.

Intra-company politics and intra-alliance politics is almost certainly more the basis for LY's current situation with hooking up with other airlines than any inter-governmental political machinations on a state level.

I'm not sure what I would make of China Airlines and EVA from Taiwan in relation to this situation, but the former airline became a member of Skyteam while the latter airline is scheduled to become a member of Star Alliance this coming year. And PRC airlines joined the three major airline alliances even before the ROC airlines joined any of them.

It would not surprise me that airlines from hostile-to-Israel countries might indeed serve as a barrier to join an alliance. Having said that, I have NO DOUBT that it is LY management's lack of professionalism - more than any other factor - that has kept the alliance membership elusive for El Al.


Look, if you see the name of this topic alone, someone tries to politicise it already. And pulling that card won't help to join any alliance either IMO.

I can't imagine any of the leading carriers of any of the 3 alliances to make such decision against LY easily, and then looking what they bring to the table, what market do they open for any other alliance?

All have their flights to TLV. In the environing markets, LY or TLV are not brands that pull very well (I say this without any judgment, I think that is a fact, I had on X-Mas wine from Upper Galilea on the table).

Take a map, look around TLV, where are all the destination/routes you open with LY for any alliance?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Prevailing_world_religions_map.png/800px-Prevailing_world_religions_map.png

Edited for comparision: all direct destinations from all airlines departing from TLV:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/32/Flights_from_Ben_Gurion_Airport.png/800px-Flights_from_Ben_Gurion_Airport.png

Competition to DXB? Benefit? Disadvantage with all the extra tight security on TLV?

Do they really want to have for the same security reasons excess numbers of transit traffic there? Which you btw. can't really expose to TLV styled/required enhanced security. (But they are smart, security is done as far as I experienced, by beautiful ladies, just to make the suffering a bid easier if they run away with your laptop or the enhanced interviewing about visa stamps/marks from environing countries). No good for a transit hub IMO.

I keep my fingers crossed that the smart people in IL (which already do great things by the smart power of civil disobedience), will prevail in a couple of weeks and hopefully in 10, 15, 20 years, things have been solved and normalized in that part of the world. As said, without any personal judgement, just reality as it is.

Well, frankly, LY's substandard product will fit in well with AF/KL/AZ in SkyTeam. How weird is it that DL is actually the best carrier in that alliance?



With all due respect, I think that it is a rather absurd comment. I'm not sure if you happen to have flown long haul AZ J recently, but it is certainly the best long haul J product of any European airline, significantly superior in both hard and soft products to the likes of BA and LH. For Star, LX has a very good J but less so than AZ, and OS and TK have excellent soft product but average hard product. (AZ and AF also have very good PE although TK is better in my view).

The new long haul J products of Skyteam's MU and CZ are also miles above the long haul J of Star Alliance's Chinese partner CA, and to be honest, I much prefer DL long haul new J (across its aircraft variations) to UA's new J, which is much improved over UA's old J but has far less pleasant configurations.

In short, I think that your perception of Skyteam's airlines' qualities is very much mistaken and I could conversely mention many bad Star Alliance airlines.

Back to topic, I agree with others that the main reason why LY may not be as courted by the three large alliances as they may want is neither related to service quality nor to geopolitics, but to the fact that they don't add enough. Specifically, because of Israel's situation, LY would only make sense as a partner if they served as a 'bridge' between America/Europe, Asia, and Africa, but their Asian and African network are far too limited to allow the airline to play this bridging role. It is a shame as I think that becoming an alliance member would push LY to be less 'random'/more focused in some of their policies and perhaps more rigourous. It's an airline I have a lot of affection for but I do not think that current management does it much justice.

With all due respect, I think that it is a rather absurd comment. I'm not sure if you happen to have flown long haul AZ J recently, but it is certainly the best long haul J product of any European airline
Must admit AZ's new Magnificat does look rather good, although I wouldn't want to be stuck with a stranger in one of the pairs.

Must admit AZ's new Magnificat does look rather good, although I wouldn't want to be stuck with a stranger in one of the pairs.

It's really great. To be honest, it's most unlikely you would need to: the setting is of the type

U- U--U -U (odd rows) -U -UU- U- (even rows) so not only is it only 4 seats per row but you only get two seats next to each other every other row and more than enough travelling in pairs for them! :) The problem with Alitalia is that there back office is totally rubbish so when you have problems it is always a bit of a nightmare to have it fixed (it usually always is at the end but better have a good heart!). However, their in flight product is top level. Anyway, sorry for the OT, wish LY would poach, AZ's J product, I would fly them much more! :)

Must admit AZ's new Magnificat does look rather good, although I wouldn't want to be stuck with a stranger in one of the pairs.

and with the promotion they had just 2 months ago (25% off) - you could have bought a round trip in biz class tlv-fco-jfk for 2100$ ! ! a steal.

Except that the TLV-FCO product is so horrible, including the bus rides to/from the plane that it's far worse than Easyjet.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 6_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10A525 Safari/8536.25)

Do you mean bus rides at TLV?

At FCO you have to walk down stairs, take the bus to the terminal and vice versa on all flights to/from TLV (on AZ - it's frustrating watching the LY pax get on the jetway at FCO at the gate next door). Last AZ flight I had FCO-TLV we had to take a bus to the terminal in TLV as well so I guess AZ is determined to save money by not paying for jetways. AZ is truly a 3rd world airline, unfortunately but they are often cheapest for me from TLV so I end up flying them more often than I'd like.

Except that the TLV-FCO product is so horrible, including the bus rides to/from the plane that it's far worse than Easyjet.

i would take the bus anyday, for a 2100$ Business class ticket to the US

Except that the TLV-FCO product is so horrible, including the bus rides to/from the plane that it's far worse than Easyjet.

:rolleyes:

Which part? The free catering? The much larger seat pitch? The entertainment? The lounge access? The free luggage? The fact that you can choose your seats? I'm not too sure which of the above is the worst part of AZ that makes it much worse than U2 ;)

Let's compare:

If you factor in that the cost of an Easyjet ticket to, let's say, London, including speedy boarding (I get a window seat every time), a checked bag, and purchasing food and even coffee that is far superior to what I get for "free" on AZ is usually way lower than on AZ, and it's nonstop saving me hours, it's a no brainer to choose U2 over AZ if I'm going to one of their destinations in Europe. Entertainment? I don't think the "comedy" reels on the overhead screens of the AZ A320 counts as entertainment and the seat pitch is about the same. Seriously, even the coffee on Easyjet is way better than on Alitalia - and on Easyjet you can sometimes even get Pizza - che vergogna!

I get lounge access at TLV because of either Diner's or Priority Pass so I'm only sacrificing lack of a lounge at LTN.

I just did a random check on Kayak of a 2 day out and back trip from TLV-LON in January - $429 nonstop on Easyjet vs. the lowest "traditional" airline - Aegean, at $706 with a 17 hour travel time with a layover in ATH. I could buy myself a bottle of champagne and some caviar for my Easyjet flight, get there 12 hours before and still come out way ahead cash-wise. BA was $788 - that's a lot of caviar. I wish Easyjet flew to more destinations from TLV.

Folks,
Please note that this thread is about LY and alliances. Please stick to the topic.

Thanks,
yosithezet
Moderator, EL AL Forum

What Shkedy meant wasn't that others will reject LY for being Jewish; but rather that LY will be too picky about choosing who to join. That must be it ;)

What Shkedy meant wasn't that others will reject LY for being Jewish; but rather that LY will be too picky about choosing who to join. That must be it ;)


It's often extremely difficult to decipher what 'Shkedy' is trying to convey when he utilizes the English language. Remember that infamous interview in English where he introduced the new Economy Plus service (which BTW I think is a mistake for LY to have)? There is a thread involving that infamous interview on this board. I showed the interview and thread (along with the comments by posters here) to Danny Saadon when I met with him in New York and he actually tried to convince me that Shkedy's English is good but he just couldn't find the words during the interview. I suppose he had to defend his boss even at the expense of making himself look ridiculous doing so.

What Shkedy meant wasn't that others will reject LY for being Jewish; but rather that LY will be too picky about choosing who to join. That must be it ;)

I disagree. LY is hindered in its ability to join a marketing alliance due to the political baggage associated with being the flag carrier of the only Jewish state. This could have implications when trying lure other Middle East carriers, who sadly will see this as a liability.

Furthermore, I think the nature of LY and their strategy if you will aren't especially complimentary to the purpose of a global airline alliance. Between the security procedures, route network from TLV to major Jewish & Israeli population centers around the world and difficulty transiting at TLV (it wasn't designed for this purpose) make it less attractive. The good news is with the category II restrictions behind they an once again codeshare with AA and hopefully re-instate MIA along with another gateway.

I personally believe that too much value is being placed on this idea of the alliances as a solution. El Al should invest in making the program more valuable by expanding reciprocal frequent flyer benefits and strategic code share agreements as follows:

Cathay Pacific (HKG)
Air China or Hainan or China Eastern or China Southern (PEK)
South African Airways (JNB) [existing]
LATAM (GRU/SCL)
American Airlines (JFK/LAX) [existing]
AeroMexico (MEX) [existing]
S7 Airlines (DME)
Swiss (ZRH)
Singapore Airlines (SIN)
Air India (BOM)
Qantas (SYD) [existing]
WestJet (YYZ)

This would help add to the value of the Matmid program. The issue is that this would cost money. These agreements don't just involve a free sale and marketing of each others flights, but the actual payment and sale of points/miles to other carriers. But if you look at the new models of the industry (QF/EK or AF/KL/EY or NZ/CX etc.) carriers are looking for strategic partners who will help fill their aircraft with higher yield passengers and not looking to be part of an alliance where they will cooperate with carriers that they may even directly compete against.

I disagree. LY is hindered in its ability to join a marketing alliance due to the political baggage associated with being the flag carrier of the only Jewish state. This could have implications when trying lure other Middle East carriers, who sadly will see this as a liability.

Furthermore, I think the nature of LY and their strategy if you will aren't especially complimentary to the purpose of a global airline alliance. Between the security procedures, route network from TLV to major Jewish & Israeli population centers around the world and difficulty transiting at TLV (it wasn't designed for this purpose) make it less attractive. The good news is with the category II restrictions behind they an once again codeshare with AA and hopefully re-instate MIA along with another gateway.

AAerSTL,

The global aviation alliances are full of member airlines who hail from politically unstable countries and whose hubs weren't meant to serve as global transit points. In the wake of the "Arab Spring" nearly all of the Arab airline alliance members fall into the above category. So, the fact that EL AL and its TLV hub may or may not bring significant route/transit value to an alliance is not the main reason why EL AL is not an alliance member.

The real reason why LY is not an alliance member has to do with LY itself. Around 10 years ago when alliances were more or less in their infancy, LY was courted by the alliances however then CEO Amos Shapira decided against joining one. Though he was perhaps the best CEO EL AL ever had, Shapira nevertheless lacked the foresight to see the benefits of being in an alliance and forewent the opportunity because of the high costs associated in getting LY to harmonize its operations with what an alliance requires. By the time the Borovich family took control of the airline and Haim Romano became CEO the ability to enter an alliance became nearly impossible because the alliances grew in members to a point where all three had TLV covered and therefore did not need to have LY part of their networks nor wanted to deal with the security hassles associated with such.

I personally believe that too much value is being placed on this idea of the alliances as a solution. El Al should invest in making the program more valuable by expanding reciprocal frequent flyer benefits and strategic code share agreements as follows:

Cathay Pacific (HKG)
Air China or Hainan or China Eastern or China Southern (PEK)
South African Airways (JNB) [existing]
LATAM (GRU/SCL)
American Airlines (JFK/LAX) [existing]
AeroMexico (MEX) [existing]
S7 Airlines (DME)
Swiss (ZRH)
Singapore Airlines (SIN)
Air India (BOM)
Qantas (SYD) [existing]
WestJet (YYZ)

This would help add to the value of the Matmid program. The issue is that this would cost money. These agreements don't just involve a free sale and marketing of each others flights, but the actual payment and sale of points/miles to other carriers. But if you look at the new models of the industry (QF/EK or AF/KL/EY or NZ/CX etc.) carriers are looking for strategic partners who will help fill their aircraft with higher yield passengers and not looking to be part of an alliance where they will cooperate with carriers that they may even directly compete against.

NYC2TLV,

The main drawback to expanding codeshare agreements is the lack of harmonization. When your airline is a member of an alliance, your benefits are harmonized throughout the system and you know what to expect. Having individual codeshare agreements inherently requires different rules for different agreements all of which will result in a lack of harmonization of benefits and confusion for the frequent flier. Therefore currently is no realistic or viable alternative to the alliance scheme.

With that said, I believe that EL AL could be inducted into an alliance. Doing so would require out of the box thinking and sort of pushing their way in. In the business plan I submitted to the board I highlight suggestions just how EL AL can and should go about doing so. I will, however, forgo making those ideas public in this forum for now.

I disagree. LY is hindered in its ability to join a marketing alliance due to the political baggage associated with being the flag carrier of the only Jewish state. This could have implications when trying lure other Middle East carriers, who sadly will see this as a liability.

Furthermore, I think the nature of LY and their strategy if you will aren't especially complimentary to the purpose of a global airline alliance. Between the security procedures, route network from TLV to major Jewish & Israeli population centers around the world and difficulty transiting at TLV (it wasn't designed for this purpose) make it less attractive. The good news is with the category II restrictions behind they an once again codeshare with AA and hopefully re-instate MIA along with another gateway.
I disagree that LY's problems are political in nature. They are not the best airline when it comes to someone the world looks up to. Not such great hard products, and the soft product, while decent, doesn't have nearly enough "wow" to make up for it. They're also not an admired company in terms of their business acumen, that it hardly makes sense for any alliance to want them.

If they improve all these issues, they will certainly be a more worthy candidate for an alliance, that if their active initiative to join one is turned down, it would be much easier to say has to do with either them being "politically undesirable" or "not that necessary" (considering the high service already in place to TLV). But right now, it's hard to make those arguments. I also don't think LY has tried hard enough to join one as it is.

The main drawback to expanding codeshare agreements is the lack of harmonization. When your airline is a member of an alliance, your benefits are harmonized throughout the system and you know what to expect. Having individual codeshare agreements inherently requires different rules for different agreements all of which will result in a lack of harmonization of benefits and confusion for the frequent flier. Therefore currently is no realistic or viable alternative to the alliance scheme.

With that said, I believe that EL AL could be inducted into an alliance. Doing so would require out of the box thinking and sort of pushing their way in. In the business plan I submitted to the board I highlight suggestions just how EL AL can and should go about doing so. I will, however, forgo making those ideas public in this forum for now.

That is actually NOT the case of how it works in the alliance. Only under a JV agreement do you get the harmonization that you consistently refer to. As part of an alliance, you work individually with each carrier until you integrate to the point you (the carrier) are satisfied with.

Also, there is no need for an alliance if you have the right partners. In LY's case the network does not operate via a real hub and nearly every O&D sold involves a start or finish in TLV. This gives no added value to LY's inclusion into an alliance. As such, if it is such a daunting task for them to get to the point where they could be sponsored for membership, then they should be working with the tools they have to make themselves stronger. Code shares/SPA agreements are the way to go. QF knows this. This is why they abandoned their OneWorld partner for Emirates on operations to LHR. Air New Zealand, a very well run airline, knows this too. Opting to work with Cathay Pacific even though they are in different alliances.

This cannot be the end all be all of a healthy LY.

That is actually NOT the case of how it works in the alliance. Only under a JV agreement do you get the harmonization that you consistently refer to. As part of an alliance, you work individually with each carrier until you integrate to the point you (the carrier) are satisfied with.

Also, there is no need for an alliance if you have the right partners. In LY's case the network does not operate via a real hub and nearly every O&D sold involves a start or finish in TLV. This gives no added value to LY's inclusion into an alliance. As such, if it is such a daunting task for them to get to the point where they could be sponsored for membership, then they should be working with the tools they have to make themselves stronger. Code shares/SPA agreements are the way to go. QF knows this. This is why they abandoned their OneWorld partner for Emirates on operations to LHR. Air New Zealand, a very well run airline, knows this too. Opting to work with Cathay Pacific even though they are in different alliances.

This cannot be the end all be all of a healthy LY.

The harmonization I spoke of has to do with points accrual, reciprocal lounge access as well as treatment of elites. It also has to do with delays. Last time I flew EL AL was back in August of 2011. I was suppose to fly back to EWR the day the hurricane hit New York. My flight was obviously cancelled. EL AL informed me that I would need to wait 1 week to get a seat on a flight back to New York on their metal. When I inquired as to whether they can book me on another airline so I can return to New York quicker, they told me they cannot because they don't have the necessary agreements with other airlines to do so (even though they had a codeshare agreement with AA). As a result, I ended up staying at Ben Gurion Airport for 36 hours and was able to get on the first flight back to New York (after significant haggling with the ticketing office people) with another EL AL NY bound stranded passenger I met at the airport.

Had EL AL been in an alliance, they could have easily re-booked me on a partner airline instead of 1 week later on their metal. This is the benefit of an alliance; should a schedule be interrupted for whatever reason you can lean on your partner carriers. Unless EL AL can arrange the exact same sort of relationship with codeshare partners and enable the free and full recognition of elite status and benefits with every codeshare partner then they fall far short of being able to recreate the benefits of an alliance without being in one.

Also, the Qantas and Air NZ example you highlight are instances where these carriers form codeshare agreements extraneously to their alliance membership. Alliance member airlines are not forbidden from engaging in extraneous codeshare agreements with carriers outside the alliance. Neither of these two south Pacific carriers withdrew their membership in their respective alliances (One World and Star). What they did is form a separate codeshare agreement with airlines outside their alliance for the purpose of one or two routes in their network in order to generate value added benefits for themselves and their fliers on top of the ones they enjoy as members of an alliance. Clearly, if being in an alliance was not worth it, neither of these two airlines would remain in one and would simply go the codeshare route.

Even Shkedy sees the benefits of being a member of an alliance as oppose to code share agreements. He attempted to spearhead the creation of a forth alliance, called the "WE" alliance, which was to include notables such as Russia's UTAir, Ukraine's AeroSvit (which is now being liquidated) and Armenian carrier Armavia, however that idea went nowhere fast.

http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/El-Al-launches-airline-alliance/

EL AL informed me that I would need to wait 1 week to get a seat on a flight back to New York on their metal. When I inquired as to whether they can book me on another airline so I can return to New York quicker, they told me they cannot because they don't have the necessary agreements with other airlines to do so (even though they had a codeshare agreement with AA). As a result, I ended up staying at Ben Gurion Airport for 36 hours and was able to get on the first flight back to New York (after significant haggling with the ticketing office people) with another EL AL NY bound stranded passenger I met at the airport.

Had EL AL been in an alliance, they could have easily re-booked me on a partner airline instead of 1 week later on their metal. This is the benefit of an alliance; should a schedule be interrupted for whatever reason you can lean on your partner carriers. Unless EL AL can arrange the exact same sort of relationship with codeshare partners and enable the free and full recognition of elite status and benefits with every codeshare partner then they fall far short of being able to recreate the benefits of an alliance without being in one.

Every time an American Airlines or El Al flight is canceled, the reservations agents are instructed to perform an involuntary re-route. The difference in approaches is that while AA will do all necessary to route the customer and keep that customer happy, LY instructs their reservations agents only to search for LY metal over the Atlantic to reduce costs. The fact of the matter is that they are more than able to route passengers via the code share through CDG, LHR, BCN etc. but will not do so in order to keep the revenue within LY.

Part of this is also the reason why the first flights out on LY are blocked off entirely from the reservations system. This way, revenue management and the specific heads of reservations can decide who needs to have a seat reserved and the rest of the seats are reserved for the airport where LY always expects a large walk-up crowd.

This is part of the LY system that needs to change. The focus needs to be more on the customer experience as they have lost the trust of the market.

Also, the Qantas and Air NZ example you highlight are instances where these carriers form codeshare agreements extraneously to their alliance membership. Alliance member airlines are not forbidden from engaging in extraneous codeshare agreements with carriers outside the alliance. Neither of these two south Pacific carriers withdrew their membership in their respective alliances (One World and Star). What they did is form a separate codeshare agreement with airlines outside their alliance for the purpose of one or two routes in their network in order to generate value added benefits for themselves and their fliers on top of the ones they enjoy as members of an alliance. Clearly, if being in an alliance was not worth it, neither of these two airlines would remain in one and would simply go the codeshare route.

EXACTLY! This means that they can do business with LY! The point being that the alliance will come later. They should be going after the companies that can assist them in filling their aircraft. They didn't do this in Europe enough and left the market open to new entrants in airberlin and SAS.

They should be doing this in India and the Far East. New agreements with Air India, Thai and Cathay to take passengers to points beyond, for a free sale of TLV via these carriers as well as a full integration into the Matmid program.

Even Shkedy sees the benefits of being a member of an alliance as oppose to code share agreements. He attempted to spearhead the creation of a forth alliance, called the "WE" alliance, which was to include notables such as Russia's UTAir, Ukraine's AeroSvit (which is now being liquidated) and Armenian carrier Armavia, however that idea went nowhere fast.

http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/El-Al-launches-airline-alliance/

But you have said it yourself that the man is clueless. Hence, I wouldn't then turn around and side with him. :D

Regarding the codeshare partners that El Al has, I would ask them to start filling in the gaps in El Al's schedule due to shabbat. El Al has code shares with American, Swiss, Iberia, Air China, and Thai Air I believe. Out of those 5, Only Swiss and Iberia actually fly to Israel.

They should work on getting American, Air China, and Thai to actually fly their own planes to Israel for the Friday/Saturdays, and maybe one other day each week. This would allow El Al to have a semblance of a normal 7 day a week schedule without actually flying El Al planes on Shabbat.

Additionally, if they're going to have a codeshare with Iberia, can someone explain why there is an LY Metal / IB codeshare flight that from Madrid 10 minutes before a IB Metal / LY Codeshare flight to TLV? Why have two identical flights running at the exact same time with your codeshare partner, instead of spacing them out so they are staggered throughout the day.

Additionally, if they're going to have a codeshare with Iberia, can someone explain why there is an LY Metal / IB codeshare flight that from Madrid 10 minutes before a IB Metal / LY Codeshare flight to TLV? Why have two identical flights running at the exact same time with your codeshare partner, instead of spacing them out so they are staggered throughout the day.

The aircraft scheduling teams sometimes can't take into account the code share partners and have to make use of slots/aircraft availability. Another good example of this are the flights between EWR and OSL on UA and SK. They are so close in schedule and neither fills up in the winter. One should probably just turn their flight into a seasonal service.

Additionally, if they're going to have a codeshare with Iberia, can someone explain why there is an LY Metal / IB codeshare flight that from Madrid 10 minutes before a IB Metal / LY Codeshare flight to TLV? Why have two identical flights running at the exact same time with your codeshare partner, instead of spacing them out so they are staggered throughout the day.

Reminds me of one day where both LY to BRU (LY/SN code share back then), and SN to BRU (again, LY/SN) both left at the same exact hour... Both flights have LY/SN numbers, and even though I hid in the lounge till the final call, I am sure there was a lot of mess of people trying to get to the right plane.

AZ once had 2 flights to TLV from FCO that left within 15 minutes of each other. I never understood why they did that.

CX has 2 daily flights from HKG to CDG : one leaving at 00.05, and the other at 00.55...

That just seems like a prescription for getting an A380 and making it one flight.

שקדי: מחירי הטיסות בשנתיים האחרונות היו יקרים מאי פעם (http://www.educational.co.il/article.php?id=2758)

Interesting quote from Elyezer Shkedi. It seems that because LY is not in an alliance, they believe that by adding new members to the Matmid club, this will translate into revenue. I fail to see how signing up random passersby at a trade show translates into sales. If anything, it costs LY money as they still send those plastic cards. :(

The other interesting quote is that prices are at an all-time high. I don't think that this is 100% true. Here is one limited example:

Escape from New York City (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/13/travel/escape.html?ref=travel)

NYC2TLV,

Wasn't that also the purpose behind the "Globaly" campaign/program? As far as I understood it, Shkedy created that program thinking that if LY managed to sign up every Jewish person they could, somehow it would encourage them to both visit Israel and fly with EL AL on those trips.

Though it is a nice gesture and marketing gimmick, I would be interested in seeing hard data showing how much revenue was actually generated through signing everyone they could up for the "Gloably" and Matmid programs.

NYC2TLV,

Wasn't that also the purpose behind the "Globaly" campaign/program? As far as I understood it, Shkedy created that program thinking that if LY managed to sign up every Jewish person they could, somehow it would encourage them to both visit Israel and fly with EL AL on those trips.

Though it is a nice gesture and marketing gimmick, I would be interested in seeing hard data showing how much revenue was actually generated through signing everyone they could up for the "Gloably" and Matmid programs.

It is so sad that I completely forgot about the GlobaLY program. Any time a passenger would call reservations, they would try to sign them up for Matmid even if they didn't want to book El Al. All to make the quota.

Also, they used to trick revelers at Yom Ha'atzmaut parties etc. outside Israel by making them believe that they could win a ticket if they signed up for Matmid/GlobaLY.