LAN LANPASS - 00:39 "...now that Lan is likely to exit its alliance"!!?

I was shocked to hear that Lan is likely to exit its alliance @ 00:39
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/94413961-world-s-biggest-airline-to-form-in-11b-merger.html

I guess MarkXS was right? Post #37
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/star-alliance/1319872-new-latam-members-april-copa-avianca-taca-3.html#post18656176

If each half is in a different alliance, then don't they have to exit one or the other? I also am surprised that they'd exit oneworld though as implied by that broadcaster.

The keyword here is "if". This Bloomberg article suggests that no decision has been announced:

While TAP’S routes to Brazil might be especially attractive should Lan Airlines SA of Chile quit IAG’s Oneworld alliance after merging with Sao Paulo-based Tam SA, a member of the rival Star group, Walsh’s acquisition of U.K.-based BMI from Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LHA) means he now has the slots needed to add flights to growth markets direct from his company’s London Heathrow hub

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-12/ba-iberia-puts-takeovers-on-hold-as-euro-crisis-dents-tap-appeal.html

AA has got the best route network to South America. I don't see why the best South American carrier would move away from that.

Transferred from MilesBuzz to LAN forum where the Alliance implications of the Lan/Tam merger are often discussed.

AA has got the best route network to South America. I don't see why the best South American carrier would move away from that.

Simple. Because LAN is the best South American carrier, and will get even better with TAM added. LAN doesn't need AA lift to South America. They have huge amounts of their own lift from North America to South America. Now with all of TAM's flights from NYC, MCO, MIA. And LAN Colombia improving their Central America and northern South America connections.

What LATAM would want is better connectivity to the rest of the world, both from South America and via North America. Oneworld is an increasingly shaky alliance of failing carriers and those on peripheries of the action: Siberia, Finland, Spain.

Oneworld: Nobody in Africa. Only a very weakened American in North America, just the USA part of it, with no route network in Canada or Mexico. Only one carrier in Asia. European carriers in the worst connecting hub (by hassle and cost), and on the periphery (IB, Finnair).

Compare to what they get in Star, even assuming US buys AA and AA/US is in oneword so US exits Star: TAP, LH, LX from South America to Europe. South African from South America to Africa. United and Air Canada in North America, both who do provide decent lift into LATAM hubs in LIM, BOG, SCL, EZE, GRU, GIG as well as their North American extensive network. UA's huge Mexico and central american route network gained from CO. Copa's network. Far more choices from the Americas to Asia, with the North American carriers and with Asiana, Thai, Singapore. Air New Zealand pretty much swaps for QANTAS for Australasia. United's Micronesia network inheirited from Continental Mike.

Only problem: arranging to keep AviancaTaca Group from joining Star. So far, they haven't joined Star. Hmm, wonder what the delay is?

Again, I could be utterly wrong. But Star management has talked about recruiting LAN, LAN has talked about "making a decision as to which alliance" rather than coming out and saying "of course we have to bring TAM into oneworld because Chile won't allow us to join Star." And it's 2.5 months overdue for AviancaTaca to join Star. And AV/TA did a huge deal with Skyteam's Aeromexico 1 week before AV/TA was supposed to join Star.

Oneworld: Nobody in Africa.BA affiliate Comair is in Africa. Oneworld does have someone in Africa. Their problem is the amount of the continent covered, not lack of a current member. Only a very weakened American in North America, just the USA part of it,AA is not "weakened". They have heaps of cash on hand and are more then capable of exiting Chapter 11 intact and well positioned. AA has a cost problem, not a revenue problem. They are not about to disappear or become drastically smaller with no route network in Canada or Mexico.MX is still on the books and still has a chance of being revived. Oneworld serves most major cities in Canada. Their problem is domestic flights. Something that can be easily solved. Only one carrier in Asia.Two carriers in Asia (CX, JL) with two more joining (MH, UL). European carriers in the worst connecting hub (by hassle and cost), and on the periphery (IB, Finnair).Oneworld European hubs, LHR, MAD, HEL, BER, DUS, AMM, DME. They have hubs surrounding Europe and two hubs in the middle of Europe. Looking at the route maps, Oneworld probably has a better network in Europe then Star does.

Air New Zealand pretty much swaps for QANTAS for Australasia.Sure... a 4 million person market vs a 22 million market.

Only problem: arranging to keep AviancaTaca Group from joining Star. So far, they haven't joined Star. Hmm, wonder what the delay is?There is no delay. Star has always said mid 2012 for AviancaTaca joining the alliance. The April date was unofficial and nothing more then rumor.

LAN leaving oneworld has about the same chances of happening as VS being sold to BA.

Simple. Because LAN is the best South American carrier, and will get even better with TAM added...

I do not know how to quantify the amount of drivel in this single post, but i'd like to know where you got the substance necessary to generate it, as I am in a faraway, forlorn place right now, and taking just a little would make my day happy :cool:

Simple. Because LAN is the best South American carrier, and will get even better with TAM added. LAN doesn't need AA lift to South America. They have huge amounts of their own lift from North America to South America. Now with all of TAM's flights from NYC, MCO, MIA. And LAN Colombia improving their Central America and northern South America connections.

What LATAM would want is better connectivity to the rest of the world, both from South America and via North America. Oneworld is an increasingly shaky alliance of failing carriers and those on peripheries of the action: Siberia, Finland, Spain.

Oneworld: Nobody in Africa. Only a very weakened American in North America, just the USA part of it, with no route network in Canada or Mexico. Only one carrier in Asia. European carriers in the worst connecting hub (by hassle and cost), and on the periphery (IB, Finnair).

Compare to what they get in Star, even assuming US buys AA and AA/US is in oneword so US exits Star: TAP, LH, LX from South America to Europe. South African from South America to Africa. United and Air Canada in North America, both who do provide decent lift into LATAM hubs in LIM, BOG, SCL, EZE, GRU, GIG as well as their North American extensive network. UA's huge Mexico and central american route network gained from CO. Copa's network. Far more choices from the Americas to Asia, with the North American carriers and with Asiana, Thai, Singapore. Air New Zealand pretty much swaps for QANTAS for Australasia. United's Micronesia network inheirited from Continental Mike.

Only problem: arranging to keep AviancaTaca Group from joining Star. So far, they haven't joined Star. Hmm, wonder what the delay is?

Again, I could be utterly wrong. But Star management has talked about recruiting LAN, LAN has talked about "making a decision as to which alliance" rather than coming out and saying "of course we have to bring TAM into oneworld because Chile won't allow us to join Star." And it's 2.5 months overdue for AviancaTaca to join Star. And AV/TA did a huge deal with Skyteam's Aeromexico 1 week before AV/TA was supposed to join Star.
Not sure that the German leadership considers Berlin to be on the periphery of Europe.I think Air Berlin is a better catch than that wonderful Greek * alternative.:D

Anything can happen. I will not be surprised. LATAM is the perfect fit to oneworld. But I think the south american business can be tricky. If LATAM decide to switch to star (I mean if). I will not be surprised to see IAG spending a fortune to bid on TAP.

Then again I would not be surprised to see TAM remain in star while LAN in oneworld just like Air China and Cathay Pacific.

Nothing is impossible.

Then again I would not be surprised to see TAM remain in star while LAN in oneworld just like Air China and Cathay Pacific.

Nothing is impossible.

That would be impossible, because the antitrust authorities in Chile have said that LATAM will have to choose an alliance, as in one alliance, and it can't the the one with AV.

That would be impossible, because the antitrust authorities in Chile have said that LATAM will have to choose an alliance, as in one alliance, and it can't the the one with AV.
Is it therefore still a possibility that LATAM could fail to happen if they can't choose an alliance to satisfy the antitrust authorities (and thus the antitrust authorities revoke authorization of the deal as a result)?

Or is LATAM seriously considering SkyTeam? Or is LATAM seriously thinking that AV will fail to go into Star Alliance after all?

It would seem only if one and/or the other of those were the case that they could be considering anything other than OneWorld, right?

I Just saw online that Avianca now has an A320 in Star Alliance Livery considering the anti-trust agreement that means TAM has to leave Star Alliance since the merger with LAN according the the Chile Anti-trust agreement the rumours are now that Copa and Avianca-Taca are both joining star Alliance now tomorrow. http://www.lockonaviation.net/html/showphoto.php?id=7757 heres the link to the photo of Avianca in Star Alliance livery

Is it therefore still a possibility that LATAM could fail to happen if they can't choose an alliance to satisfy the antitrust authorities (and thus the antitrust authorities revoke authorization of the deal as a result)?



LATAM, as an entity, should be in existence within a matter of days.

LATAM, as an entity, should be in existence within a matter of days.
But with its single alliance official when?

(Until then, it makes it sounds like they're considering SkyTeam, since that seems the only legal option besides oneworld, and if not considering SkyTeam and thus committed to oneworld, why not announce it officially already? :confused:)

A. It's not drivel it's speculation. And both LAN and Star execs have in the past talked about possibilities despite the Chilean ruling.

B. As the *A accession for AV/TA is happening, I stand corrected on the accuracy of the immediate part of my speculation: that AV/TA would not join Star. Now, let's see who is in what alliance 1 to 3 years from now.

C. American is massively weakened. The amount of cash on hand during a US bankruptcy reorganization doesn't mean anything other than they mostly were able to do their own debtor-in-possession financing. Their US network is far weaker than UA or DL, and weakening further with all the ERJs. Until very recently the only AA between Denver and supposed hub LAX was an ERJ. Now it's CR7. BFD. Their unions hate them and are encouraging US' takeover effort directly against AA management's plans.

D. There are some weird cross-alliance and outside-alliance arrangements still extant in the AV/TA and other involved airlines scene. I would not count on status quo.

E. I will in the meantime enjoy using my brand-new LifeMiles account as my Star Alliance account, for when I have to travel on UA or other *A partners.

dupe post browser burp deleted

You seem to cling on nothing more than a distant dream, and substantiate it with weak facts. Let me remind you few points:
- getting in two airlines only to dump them within 3 years is something that is gonna cost a lot of money even for a concern like Lufthansa that normally enjoys the full financial support of their country. Same could be said of LAN;
- EU antitrust,no matter how biased it is towards Franco-German interests will have hard times justifying a near monopoly between Europe and Latin America, should LAN "chooses" to switch to *;
- as repeatedly said in the past, the current alliance arrangement has made LAN the dominant force in its part of the world and they are on record saying they valued it a lot. Why they have to switch and incur significant expenses in light of above points does not made any sense.

the Chilean Antitrust decision was what sealed the alliance choice for LAN. Note that at this point neither Avianca nor COPA were near to *, rather to Skyteam, and LH with a clever move scooped them immediately. I suspect the real reason of what may be seen as murky situation could be regional politics: Brazil is a rising economic power and losing their major airline to a regional minnow like Chile is perceived as a snub, hence LAN has one thousand and one reason to keep quiet and let the situation slowly calming.

Their US network is far weaker than UA or DL, and weakening further with all the ERJs. Until very recently the only AA between Denver and supposed hub LAX was an ERJ. Now it's CR7. BFD. Their unions hate them and are encouraging US' takeover effort directly against AA management's plans.

I'm not sure why you think LATAM cares about AA union complaints. In any case it's worth mentioning that LATAM probably cares about MIA (and JFK) a lot more than DEN (and SLC). So that "weaker" network may not be weak to them.

Y would LATAM Even care about DEN they don't even fly into DEN so y do they need to align with UA. LAN is stronger aligned with flying to Oneworld hubs in the States like JFK, MIA, LAX all AA hubs offering connections for them. The only UA Hub they fly into is SFO really cuz AA can do the connection at LAX and the only other us destination they fly to is MCO. And as far as US Traffic goes for TAM they will benefit more from partnering with Oneworld too as they only fly into 3 destinations in the states which are MIA, JFK Both oneworld hubs and MCO. So its absurd that these airlines would benefit on partnering with UA over AA as they fly primarily into AA HUBS.

I'm not sure why you think LATAM cares about AA union complaints. In any case it's worth mentioning that LATAM probably cares about MIA (and JFK) a lot more than DEN (and SLC). So that "weaker" network may not be weak to them.

As long as LAN (TAM) can get you one stop to pretty much anywhere in the USA, that is all they need. Between MIA/JFK/DFW/LAX/SFO and probably another city or two in the next few years, there you have it. They are also partners with AS on the West Coast, so the LAX and SFO connections provide a lot of regional access in addition to the AA connections.

Y would LATAM Even care about DEN they don't even fly into DEN so y do they need to align with UA. LAN is stronger aligned with flying to Oneworld hubs in the States like JFK, MIA, LAX all AA hubs offering connections for them. The only UA Hub they fly into is SFO really cuz AA can do the connection at LAX and the only other us destination they fly to is MCO. And as far as US Traffic goes for TAM they will benefit more from partnering with Oneworld too as they only fly into 3 destinations in the states which are MIA, JFK Both oneworld hubs and MCO. So its absurd that these airlines would benefit on partnering with UA over AA as they fly primarily into AA HUBS.

Wow. Just wow. Not only written in teenage Lulzspeak, but ignores the much stronger North American *A vs oneworld gateways and route networks.

Note that airlines often change gateways when they change alliances. Continental downgraded service to Amsterdam when they left Delta-Northwest-KLM-AirFrance's SkyTeam with the old NW AMS hub, switching to Star. Continental got the heck out of ST and into Star the moment that the "Golden Share" contract stipulation with NW was voided by NW announcing its merger with DL.

So LAN flies to JFK. BFD. If Star looks better to LAN, LAN will fly that bird to UA's (ex-CO) primary European gateway of EWR a few miles away. LAN will easily if it wants add back its tag flight on that to Air Canada's primary Eastern Canada and European gateway, Toronto International (YYZ), which is probably the best major alliance hub for Europe in eastern or central North America in terms of facilities and connection convenience. LAN flies to Dallas; it can easily switch to United's Houston Intercontinental if Star makes sense. So we've dealt with NYC (JFK/EWR swap). LAX you mention, is a UA hub. With more TPAC connections on UA by far than on AA, and a larger number of *A Asian partners than ow Asian partners.

DEN isn't the point. Other than it's where I live in the USA, anymore than MVD is the point for where I live in South America.

The point is that the North American *A route network is far stronger than the North American ow route network. And the North American ow route network is based on very shaky, in turmoil, could be broken up coming out of bankruptcy, American Airlines. Even if US buys AA and US/AA stays in ow, the USA antitrust authorities will almost certainly make US/AA divest a lot of hubs and routes, or the bankruptcy trustee will do so to add value. Nobody knows what LAN partner and only-north-american-player AA will look like, whereas it is very clear what Air Canada/United look like. It's likely that at least some of AA will end up with Alaska Airlines, or with JetBlue, or Frontier, or Virgin America, in order to get approval for the bigger AA/US deal. Alternately, that AA/US will not happen and some JetBlue/Alaska/AA dealio will come out of the blue.

Not the thing upon which LATAM Airlines, who are very good airline managers and better money makers than any of their North American counterparts, want to count upon.

Add the UA/AC/Lufthansa (and minor airlines) Joint Venture to Europe, and the UA/ANA (NH) joint venture to Asia, and *A looks wicked more beneficial to LAN than does the increasingly marginal ow.

Stay in Oneworld: North American hubs of partner airlines in LAX, ORD, MIA, JFK, DFW (to which they only codeshare with AA anyway.) No partner hub in SFO.

Join Star: North American hubs of partner airlines in LAX (UA), ORD (UA), NYC (EWR instead of JFK, UA), IAH (UA), SFO (UA), YYZ (AC, and LAN has rights there, I've flown LAN to YYZ), YUL, YEG, YYC, YVR (all AC), with far heavier and wider Europe and Asian connectivity via a great number of partners. No hub but extensive ex-CO coverage of Mexico, complimenting or replacing the cross-alliance existing partnership with AM.

Also Central American hubs in BOG (Copa Colombia and Avianca part of AviancaTaca), PTY (Copa), SJO (LACSA part of AviancaTaca), SAL(Taca part of AviancaTaca). Plus a partner in Peru where LATAM has to lessen its own flights to as a merger condition, Taca Peru part of AviancaTaca.

Seriously, you can't argue that oneworld is better for LAN than would be Star. Certainly you can argue that LAN is better for American Airlines than not having LAN would be for AA. But I doubt that LATAM management in Chile and Brasil particularly care about what is good for American Airlines. Certainly you can argue that under the plain-Spanish wording of the Chilean court ruling, LAN cannot possibly join Star now that AviancaTaca did in fact join Star. But court rulings get appealed, politicians get bought off (at least in the USA they do, perhaps South America is less corrupt than 21st Century Corporatocracy USA jejeje), and airlines change alliances.

The very likely outcome that US will leave Star when it merges with AA and joins oneworld is probably more than enough argument to reopen the alliance issue with the antitrust authorities, because "Star has lost an airline in the Americas and oneworld has become stronger, thus we must join Star to restore the balance."

Or somebody throws a lot of money at AviancaTaca to get them to switch to SkyTeam. Or the other 5 countries involved in LATAM Airlines get tired of Chile throwing its weight around making all the rules, because LAN Argentina, LAN Ecuador, LAN Peru, and LAN Colombia, and TAM Brasil all might say they like the idea of Star and can make more money with it than being in oneworld. BTW, LAN Colombia is not in any alliance now. So that's a part of LAN that is already unaligned with oneworld.

Post merger, the LAN site's page on LATAM Airlines Holdings has this text:
Which alliance will LAN and TAM choose after the merge?

We’re carefully evaluating this issue and we will decide make a decision within an established deadline, taking into account the alternative that offers the best benefits to our clients. For the moment, LAN continues with oneworld and TAM in Star Alliance. We will inform you of any coming up changes.
cite: http://www.lan.com/en_us/sitio_personas/lanpass/acerca_de_lanpass/faq_latam_generalidades.html#;

Oneworld fans, do not make assumptions. Much can change.

You seem to cling on nothing more than a distant dream, and substantiate it with weak facts. Not a dream, just some semi-informed speculation. I don't have a dog in this race; I made money on LAN stock a few years ago but don't hold any airline stock now.

Let me remind you few points:
- getting in two airlines only to dump them within 3 years is something that is gonna cost a lot of money even for a concern like Lufthansa that normally enjoys the full financial support of their country. Same could be said of LAN; My point exactly except turned around: Just how many years ago did TAM join Star? Less than 2. And they're going to let TAM go without a fight?

- EU antitrust,no matter how biased it is towards Franco-German interests will have hard times justifying a near monopoly between Europe and Latin America, should LAN "chooses" to switch to *; So having oneworld with that monopoly will be more amenable to the regulators in Brussels? Who do have a few other things to worry about anyway? You thing having IAG's BA, IAG's IB, LATAM's LAN, and LATAM's TAM all in ow looks better for antitrust than having LAN & TAM in *A with weak TAP and strong LH and LH-owned LX as the lift to Europe?


- as repeatedly said in the past, the current alliance arrangement has made LAN the dominant force in its part of the world and they are on record saying they valued it a lot. Why they have to switch and incur significant expenses in light of above points does not made any sense. I'd argue that LAN's route network and its acquisitions and organic growth with other South American country joint ventures under the LAN banner (LP, XL, 4M, and now whatever the code is for LAN Colombia) is the "alliance arrangement" that made them a success, not one QANTAS connection from OZ and some AA lift into SCL, LIM, UIO, EZE which is duplicated at least as much by UA and AC.

the Chilean Antitrust decision was what sealed the alliance choice for LAN. Note that at this point neither Avianca nor COPA were near to *, rather to Skyteam, and LH with a clever move scooped them immediately. I suspect the real reason of what may be seen as murky situation could be regional politics: Brazil is a rising economic power and losing their major airline to a regional minnow like Chile is perceived as a snub, hence LAN has one thousand and one reason to keep quiet and let the situation slowly calming. You're continuing to make my point for me: Brasil does not want to be dominated by Chile. Brasil already lost what was its flagship airline (and *A airline) when VG went under. It only got back a *A airline last year when JJ joined. Now, Brasil is going to be pushed around by Chile telling it what alliance its biggest airline can be in? And Brasil has the Olympics in 4 years, so wants to maximize its connectivity to the world?


As long as LAN (TAM) can get you one stop to pretty much anywhere in the USA, that is all they need. Between MIA/JFK/DFW/LAX/SFO and probably another city or two in the next few years, there you have it. They are also partners with AS on the West Coast, so the LAX and SFO connections provide a lot of regional access in addition to the AA connections.

True that. But nothing that cannot be replaced easily by a US Airways-less-Star. And again, that ignores the entire darn country of Canada, which is not insignificant. Yes, AA runs some jungle jets into a few Canadian airports, and AS runs some Horizon Q400s turboprops. Air Canada runs real airplanes with lots of pax and cargo capacity. Air Canada also opens up a "partner in North America that isn't the paranoid security-invasive USA."

I don't know how all this will play out. But people on this board who are convinced they do know how it will play out, as status quo oneworld, are likely more certain than real-world facts and eventualities imply.

It would be very easy for LATAM to come out and say "As a merger condition, TAM will be leaving Star Alliance and joining LAN in oneworld." LATAM has never said that. Continental switched from SkyTeam to Star Alliance in three days. (obviously with a year's prep, but only a year's prep, and only 3 days to execute the switch.) LATAM could announce the same thing. They have not. There must be reasons why they have not. My speculation is about those reasons.

Datapoint: http://atwonline.com/airline-finance-data/news/tam-absent-star-events-latam-alliance-decision-nears-0622

1. Star Alliance CEO still hopeful TAM remains: "Star Alliance CEO Mark Schwab told ATW in Bogota. “After that, then they’ll make a decision on how to continue [regarding alliance membership]. For Star Alliance, the situation still remains open [regarding] how TAM will decide," he said."

2. TAM has to pay $25 million USD to leave Star. LAN has to pay zero to leave oneworld. $25 million pays a lot of lawyers (or Chilean judges) to change or ignore or modify that ruling. "TAM will have to pay a $25 million fee to leave the alliance. Oneworld, on the other hand, does not have an exit fee."

And from nasdaq.com:

"AviancaTaca's decision also means that Latam, the Latin American airline formed by the takeover of Brazil'sTAM SA (TAM, TAMM4.BR) by Chile'sLan Airlines SA (LFL, LAN.SM), won't be able to be part of the Star Alliance."


http://www.nasdaq.com/article/aviancataca-to-enter-star-alliance-thursday---avianca-brazil-20120620-00974

Also a good analysis on likely scenarios from Centre for Aviation:

"TAM legally cannot remain in Star and it is not feasible for LAN to leave oneworld for Star."

http://www.centreforaviation.com/analysis/avianca-taca-and-copa-put-star-on-top-in-latin-america-but-the-victory-will-be-short-lived-76504

Folha de S. Paolo reports in both english and portuguese that TAM's CEO admits that TAM will leave Star. It will then have to decide whether to join OW or remain independent. Perhaps independence will be preferable (I hope not) because it would be able to keep and enter into valuable codeshares? I still think OW is the most likely outcome but I had not really considered independence before reading this article.

Another thing we need to remember in this is that Delta has a stake in GOL. So that means GOL would be likely to join SkyTeam because of the Delta influence because it wouldn't make sense to have GOL and TAM in the same alliance. However if I was OW I'd be kissing the rear ends of LAN and TAM anyway.

I am a realist looking again at the total TAM route network right now they will benefit more from either being in Oneworld or unaligned as far as alliances goes. They service the AA Hubs in the US like MIA, LAX, JFK. In Europe they service LHR and MAD Both Oneworld Hubs and CDG, MXP which are sky team hubs and in Europe they only service FRA which is the only Star Alliance hub in Europe they service. FRA connections can be easily taken over by Air Berlin which granted doesn't have as big of a presence as LH at FRA but still have a presence there. As far as Canada goes Lan can easily sign a codesharing agreement with WestJet who is currently unaligned and have a great route connections out of YYZ and will only expand more next year with the launch of WestJet Regional starting (no official name given yet to WestJet regional partner). As far as Tams Hubs goes whatever is loss for Star Alliance by Tam as far as domestic markets concerned can be made up by Avianca Brazil which will join Star Alliance if Tam decides to exit Star Alliance which seems very likely. Avianca Brazil granted doesn't have as many routes right now as Tam but they are quickly expanding and with entry into Star Alliance and acting as a Brazil Feeder airline for the Alliance they can expand even more rapidly then they already are.

True that. But nothing that cannot be replaced easily by a US Airways-less-Star. And again, that ignores the entire darn country of Canada, which is not insignificant. Yes, AA runs some jungle jets into a few Canadian airports, and AS runs some Horizon Q400s turboprops. Air Canada runs real airplanes with lots of pax and cargo capacity. Air Canada also opens up a "partner in North America that isn't the paranoid security-invasive USA."


My point is that LAN/TAM will be likely content with a one connection to pretty much anywhere partner in the USA, whichever airline(s) it may be, and with OW or ST, it doesn't necessarily need to be an alliance partner. (I believe *A is more restrictive in this regard.) There are also considerations where alliance doesn't matter at all, such as the massive cargo operation. Onward connecting containerized cargo just needs another big plane to get on, no matter what the paint job.

Although I have absolutely no evidence of same, I believe that *A is a more expensive and more restrictive alliance for its members. The folks running LAN are not stupid, and they are not short-sighted. They (along with policy in Chile) have revolutionized (mostly-western) South America air travel, where air travel was an expensive luxury, and most people took the bus. They have also consistently made money for quite some time.

As a "big boy" of OW, they are probably better positioned to formulate beneficial alliance policy (with their own self interest in mind), which might include revenue sharing on mixed-airline alliance tickets, and the like. In *A, the airline group will always be no higher than second, third, or fourth fiddle to LH, which will likely always occupy the majority of the strings section.

Totally agree that it is most likely that TAM will exit Star and join oneworld. But disagree that it is inevitable and that it is "illegal". A condition imposed by the court of one particular country, even though it is the home country of the acquiring carrier, can be changed or ignored with enough money.

Brasil also imposed a "just one alliance" condition but without the "and must not be the same as AviancaTaca" added restriction.

Star Alliance has lost airlines since that condition was imposed (not counting this week's joining of CM and AV/TA). It is likely to lose another airline (US). Thus it is not the same worldwide strength alliance as it was when the issue was in the courts. If you go back though the time when it began, even more airlines have left Star. Granted, with little or no service to South America other than perhaps codeshares, if that. Yet those are the minor issues upon which lawyers appeal decisions and corporate masters "donate" to politicians.

Thus anything could still happen, though LAN/TAM both in oneworld is obviously the most likely. I repeat that nobody from LATAM and nobody from Star ever says "of course TAM must leave Star". Whenever LATAM or *A executives are forced to respond to the issue, they always leave it open.

They know more and have much more money than we do here :)

Mark XS The only thing ur failing to mention it is not only looking an alliance as a whole they are not looking at a carrier like BMI or Spainair ceasing to exist has nothing to do with this issue (both don't fly to Latin America) the issue is which is stated in the Chile anti-trust is if Lan, Tam, Avianca-Taca and Copa are in the same alliance Star Alliance would hold a uneven majority on Europe-Latin America Traffic and intra Latin America Traffic making it hard for the other Alliances to compete in the market as these five carriers would do control 90% of the intra South America market. This control can force both Aerolinas Argentina (which already is in finical difficulty) and Gol out of business if they are in the same alliance. The way I see it all its doing is keeping the field more competitive for the consumers which will benefit us in the end. Sure it would be nice to have all 5 in one alliance but with basic supply and demand if Star Alliance holds 90% of the South American market they can charge whatever they want for tickets cuz they know theirs a demand for travel and they have the supply.

If TAM left Star Alliance, what do people think would happen *A partner mileage accrual on TAM reservations that have not been flown? I mean, would *A partner mileage accrual come to a sudden halt or would there be a "transition" period?

my guess with miles is if u booked before they formally exit u'll be fine flying them from a star alliance partner but after they merge they will slowly faze out the star partnership if Tam goes to Oneworld if they go unaligned route i can see them keeping their codeshare with Star Alliance unless if Avianca Brazil tries to stop them because they will join star alliance this upcoming year after Tam leaves

Datapoint: http://atwonline.com/airline-finance-data/news/tam-absent-star-events-latam-alliance-decision-nears-0622

1. Star Alliance CEO still hopeful TAM remains: "Star Alliance CEO Mark Schwab told ATW in Bogota. “After that, then they’ll make a decision on how to continue [regarding alliance membership]. For Star Alliance, the situation still remains open [regarding] how TAM will decide," he said."

2. TAM has to pay $25 million USD to leave Star. LAN has to pay zero to leave oneworld. $25 million pays a lot of lawyers (or Chilean judges) to change or ignore or modify that ruling. "TAM will have to pay a $25 million fee to leave the alliance. Oneworld, on the other hand, does not have an exit fee."

Looks like its going to be called LATAM Airlines after all...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18551857

What this means is that TAM will be absorbed into LAN and therefore they are not leaving Star.. cos they won't exist as TAM anymore ...

Looks like its going to be called LATAM Airlines after all...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18551857

What this means is that TAM will be absorbed into LAN and therefore they are not leaving Star.. cos they won't exist as TAM anymore ...

It appears that the correct link is

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18560343

LATAM is just the parent company name for starters. Its just like Synergy Group is the parent of Avianca-Taca yet both airline operate under their own brands but that article never mention anything about the brand not existing it just talked about the merge expect a decision to be made in August on Alliance choice

Right. Latam Airlines is just like United Continental Holdings back when it owned two different airlines named United Air Lines and Continental Airlines.

Everything I've read states that LAN (which itself is 5 different airlines, 4 of them in oneworld and one unaligned) and TAM will continue to operate as separate airlines and separate but allied brands. Much like AirFrance-KLM.

I don't know how long that will be sustainable. Clearly the rulings from Brazil (Must be in only one alliance) and Chile (Must be in only one alliance AND that must not be AV/TA's alliance) show that the major regulators don't care about any "separate companies" fictions.

Long term I don't think these arrangements make sense. It's better to run as one customer-facing airline even if circumstances require you to really have multiple airlines underneath. It could be like US Airways, which is still American West and old-US Air by union workgroups and thus fleets. Or like United Air Lines since 3/3/2012 with sUA and sCO work groups and thus fleets but plans to integrate. According to UA PetSafe even UA Cargo is still separate groups "per FAA regulation" as I was not able to book a pet connection on an ex-UA UA flight connecting to an ex-CO UA flight.

LAN already is confusing enough underneath with LA, LP, 4M, and XL as mainline airlines in oneworld and 4C LAN Columbia unaligned, but all branded now just as "LAN". But given all that is already in place, adding JJ as "LAN Brasil" with customer-facing branding just as yet another part of "LAN" probably makes the most sense.

Except to Brasil. But it's not like TAM was their long-term flag carrier; it only came to prominence after Varig tanked. Gol ("Delta Brasil"?) is probably a bigger deal nowadays in terms of growth trajectory and mindshare.

I think we'd all be happier if they just made TAM into another piece of LAN, rather than a separate brand of LATAM. Unless they are holding out as some way to hang onto a chance at Star (probably pitting Brasil against Chile), which is increasingly less likely, it makes no sense to keep a separate brand for LATAM Brasil.

My understanding is that the separate brands are not being kept alive for marketing reasons. I agree that things would work better if they combined the airlines. From what I have read, this is being done to comply with Brazilian domestic ownership restrictions whiich limit foreign ownership to 20%. I have never seen even an attempt to explain what must be a very complex structure in detail, but I did read that the family controlling TAM will own 80% of that brand. I can only speculate that there are differn\ent classes of shares and that through this they have satisfied the Brazilian regulators while transferring most of the value (or revenue) to the holding company.

I think we'd all be happier if they just made TAM into another piece of LAN, rather than a separate brand of LATAM. Unless they are holding out as some way to hang onto a chance at Star (probably pitting Brasil against Chile), which is increasingly less likely, it makes no sense to keep a separate brand for LATAM Brasil.

I would be surprised if they weren't all called LAN within 2 years. The good folks in Pudahuel probably have calculated out exactly how many more millions they'd have to spend having an airline name with 5 letters instead of 3 over the course of x number of years (printing, paint, etc etc) - even labor costs for each extra syllable spoken (time, you know) saying the airline name.

Each airline will keep their separate brands but will use a common ffp which is understandable something with all the airlines in the lufthansa group. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/finance/1109485-tam-joins-lan-and-says-it-will-leave-the-star-alliance.shtml

This Meanwhile, passengers on TAM and LAN can now share miles starting on June 27, when their repective programs will be integrated. is hugely optimistic, as 27th is today and there hasn't been any official word about it.

They haven't announced anything yet because TAM can be either in Oneworld or Unalligned. Skyteam is a possible option but really will not happen considering Delta owns a stake in GOL and it seems Skyteam is more interested in GOL then they are in LATAM

They haven't announced anything yet because TAM can be either in Oneworld or Unalligned. Skyteam is a possible option but really will not happen considering Delta owns a stake in GOL and it seems Skyteam is more interested in GOL then they are in LATAM
That is why I think TAM will go to OW is because of GOL because I CAN'T see the Brazilian Government allowing TAM/GOL in the same alliance. Though weirder things have happened. With that being said I give the slight edge to OW with unaligned is a possibility especially since the Chilean authorities won't allow non-outside alliance codesharing IIRC.

In any case it's worth mentioning that LATAM probably cares about MIA (and JFK) a lot more

Thank you. AA with its hub positions is the only natural partner for the premium Latin American carrier. Something so obvious hardly needed to be stated.

I would be surprised if they weren't all called LAN within 2 years. The good folks in Pudahuel probably have calculated out exactly how many more millions they'd have to spend having an airline name with 5 letters instead of 3 over the course of x number of years (printing, paint, etc etc) - even labor costs for each extra syllable spoken (time, you know) saying the airline name.
There is no ariline called LATAM. There is no airline even planning to call itself LATAM.

LATAM is no more the name of the airline than AMR is the name of its USA-based OW partner. LATAM is the parent company of LAN and TAM, just like AMR is the parent comparny of American Airlines (AA) and American Eagle.

Parent companies names are of concern to the people who deal with the company on a company basis. Airline names are what passengers see. And there's no reason for passengers to see LATAM on any planes, on any tickets, etc, just like no passengers see AMR on any planes, on any tickets, etc.

There is no ariline called LATAM. There is no airline even planning to call itself LATAM.

LATAM is no more the name of the airline than AMR is the name of its USA-based OW partner. LATAM is the parent company of LAN and TAM, just like AMR is the parent comparny of American Airlines (AA) and American Eagle.

Parent companies names are of concern to the people who deal with the company on a company basis. Airline names are what passengers see. And there's no reason for passengers to see LATAM on any planes, on any tickets, etc, just like no passengers see AMR on any planes, on any tickets, etc.

You are repeating what I've already said, although mine was more tongue-in-cheek.