Cathay Pacific Asia Miles - Cathay Pacific signs new code-share agreement with Iberia

http://www.cathaypacific.com/intl/aboutus/press/0,3845,31342-110254,00.html

Cathay Pacific Airways and its oneworld alliance partner Iberia, Spain’s national carrier, today announced the launch of their first code-share agreement, which will offer customers better connections between Hong Kong, Madrid and Barcelona.

Under the agreement, which comes into effect on 2 July, Cathay Pacific will place its ‘CX’ code on Iberia flights between Amsterdam and Madrid, and Amsterdam and Barcelona. Iberia will, in turn, place its ‘IB’ code on all Cathay Pacific’s flights between Hong Kong and Amsterdam. Tickets went on sale today.

This is Cathay Pacific’s fourth code-share agreement with a oneworld partner and reinforces the alliance’s aim of strengthening co-operation between member airlines. Cathay Pacific already code shares with American Airlines, British Airways and Qantas.

Cathay Pacific Director Corporate Development Tony Tyler said: “We are delighted to add two new destinations and a new country to our network through our first code-share with Iberia, our Spanish oneworld partner. We will continue to work closely with other alliance partners to bring benefits to all our customers and strengthen Hong Kong as a global hub.”

Iberia Senior Vice President Alliances and International Relations Elvira Herrero said, "We are pleased to announce Hong Kong as a new Far East destination in Iberia's network, made possible through this code-share cooperation with Cathay Pacific. This also is a further strengthening of ties between oneworld carriers."

Cathay Pacific and Iberia are both members of oneworld, the leading global airline alliance, together with Aer Lingus, American Airlines, British Airways, Finnair, Qantas, and LAN. As part of a range of oneworld benefits, passengers on alliance carriers can earn and redeem frequent flyer rewards across each other's networks, and gain access to more partner airline lounges.

AMS never did have enough O/D traffic and I think CX has continued this route mostly for cargo. It used to continue to MAN but that doesn't work well as MAN is also more of a cargo than pax destination. With no OW partner in AMS (AA doesn't fly there, for example) it seems the best they could do was IB. The more logical routing is BCN-FCO-HKG instead of backtracking to AMS but obviously CX needs the feed in AMS more than FCO. This is the weakness of the OW structure (the hubs are at the periphery of Europe, while Star and Skyteam have hubs in the center making the routing more efficient).

"Efficiency of routing" (if there is such a thing, rather efficient connections), and geographical position of an airport have nothing to do with each other.

As for the IB codeshare: quite a pointless excercise if you ask me. BCN and MAD are well connected through LHR on BA/IB anyway. Oneworld is being marginalized as we speak. :(

the issue 2 of CX timetable even shows code-share from LHR to MAD/BCN.

CX pax may be in for an unpleasant surprise :) IB is ghastly (just my opinion)

IB really is ghastly

I shudder at the thought of any poor innocents being fobbed off on an IB after booking an CX flight. God help them - MAKE SURE YOUR LUGGAGE IS EXTRA WELL LABELLED, just in case.

I actually cried with joy when Easyjet started their routes into Spain, and have enjoyed my flights with them infinitely more than on IB.
I know an F1 team that actively avoids IB for their testing in Spain, they prefer Easyjet too, and it's not just the price.
I don't even like getting BA flights to Spain as they often change to IB without warning.
But rest assured - IB are just as awful to Spanish nationals as to non Spaniards (worse perhaps, best to pretend you don't speak Spanish, that will limit how much they can insult you).

must go and lay down somewhere quiet now .... :(
estoy temblando un poco con los recuerdos - y hay muchos, todos malos.

Have you flown IB recently? It seems to have greatly improved in the past year. IB longhaul is very nice in F, competitive with BA F (never thought I would live to say that). And Air Nostrum J in Europe is better than BA J. Perhaps IB has outgrown its reputation? I have only flown IB in the past 2 years and while I see the problems, I also see a pretty good airline and steadily improving. Their weakest part is the ground staff and the reservation systems (which seem to be 1950 vintage).

[QUOTE=number_6]Have you flown IB recently?

Well the only times I have ever flown F were in the BA flights I had to take when IB bumped and re-routed me ;) .

Have you ever flown IB in Y like the majority of us do? (ooh! that sounds quite bolshy, it isn't meant to, I'm just curious to know if IB really have improved where, to me at least, it really matters. Making you pay for your meals in Y I don't consider to be an improvement, for instance)

For over twenty years I had the choice of IB or charter airlines (3am take offs and limited to 7, 10 or 14 day stays - ah! the good old days), so you'll have to forgive me for having avoided them since it's been possible to.
What other company would choose to bump unaccompanied minors? - (NB arriving to check-in 2 hours before departure with plenty of people behind on the queue) - they seemed to make a policy of it :mad: , I've even looked after other people's children as I know what it's like to be left standing in corridors while the Ground staff have a coffee and a cigarette. Never once was I offered compensation, just the occasional miserable meal voucher (oh if I'd only known then what I know now!!) And I won't mention the screw ups that have led to lost luggage.
Nevertheless, I have to admit, my last flight was about 2 years ago (a switched BA flight :td: ).
However.... My F1 friends have told me horror stories of IB MAD connections that happened last year - IB flight from LHR is delayed, they make it to gate for connection and are not allowed on the next flight (there was still at least 20 mins before plane was due to depart). As veteran flyers they concluded that IB had used the late arrival as an excuse to bump them off - allowing them to wipe their hands of responsibility and compensation - sweet!
And then there's another friend using IB to return from a music festival where he played last year - the guy next to him was feeling sick and yet he got told off for interrupting the FAs who were chatting at the back when he went to ask for water for him - the guy even ended up hurling into cupped hands as they then ignored my friend's second request for a sick-bag. (there was also a further ground staff drama which I won't go into)
And I was going to fly with them myself just over a year ago, but I got insulted on the phone by the ticket clerk who seemed to think I was somebody else.
I really do hope IB are getting better - but they have an awful lot to make up for.

It just seems to me to be such an unfair shock to be exposed to their hideous concept of CS after the civility of a CX flight.
My apologies to all for the rant (I won't be doing it again... promise!) even my hands were shaking writing this out.

My only experience of IB long haul saw me upgraded from J to F. Very nice. That flight also saw one of the f/a's in the cabin shout very loudly at a passenger because he wanted a DVD player when she was taking dinner orders. She spent the rest of the flight in a MAJOR mood. :eek: Even the most hostile AA crews don't shout at you. I freely admit that 1 flight is not a valid statistical example, but my good feelings towards Iberia were more than eradicated by the ill-behaviour.

I've not flown the Air Nostrum services in Europe, but the mainline flights are a way behind BA and AY in both attitude and catering. And MAD seems to use buses even more than BA at LHT T4.

So yes, CX to IB would be a shock.

The Oneworld alliance would be wise to drop IB in favour of LX. At least let's have some formality. IB is way down there even when compared to AA..

BA and IB have announced revenue pooling for all flights between UK and Spain, and BA has a large ownership stake in IB (I forget the amount but it is something like 25%) ... so it looks more likely that IB and BA will eventually merge in a year or two as the EU airline consolidation kicks in. I would have preferred BA merging with KLM but that didn't happen (neither did a merger with AZ, thankfully). I have limited flying with IB as I avoided them based on their reputation, thus when I did finally fly IB (basically because there was no choice on the schedule -- they have a 6 pm departure MAD-MIA which is unique) I was amazed. An excellent F product, with excellent food, great wines, gracious service. Seat is circa CX old-F equivalent (so not really a bed, but very comfortable). The FAs in F are always the 2 best looking women on the crew (it didn't take me long to spot that pattern) and speak limited English but acceptable. This means if you don't speak Spanish they may appear cold or aloof or even shout at you (apparently the Spanish believe in the English tradition that speaking louder helps communication in a foreign language). Still a very enjoyable experience. IB does look grim in Y and even in J though. And MAD is a poorly run airport in many respects -- but that may change soon when the new terminal is opened and MAD has the best terminal of any airport in Europe (if the description is to be believed; certainly the construction cost is high enough). IB is in the midst of a massive fleet rebuild and I have a hunch that there will be a much larger role of IB in OW (possibly as a surrogate BA, for BA management to use to whip their workers into line). I offer these observations without my own personal comment, it just seems to be happening.
As for the original topic, why did CX start code-shares with IB, it seems to me to be an attempt to reduce dependence on LHR and increase load at other ports in Europe. AMS must be under pressure now with KLM owned by AF, funneling AMS-CDG-HKG.

I think you might be onto something there, No_6, about airlines wanting to take the strain off of LHR and some of the more congested European Airports.

There are talks in Spain of building a new kind of 'mega airport' in a more remote part of the country (the wide, flat, and very red expanse of La Mancha is currently the prime candidate) which could cope with the next generation of super-wide, multi-decker, intercontinental aircraft. The idea is that the airport would be a European landing hub for these gargantuan planes, somewhere to disgorge passengers who then take onward smaller craft. The scheme relies on high speed rail links to MAD so that pax can continue their journey (the rail links are currently in place, BTW).
If any of this is true, then I guess I could see why CX would want to develop a long term relationship with IB.

Let's face it, IB is here to say in the oneworld alliance and the relationship between all oneworld carriers will continue to grow.

Just look at Star Alliance and their poor customer service from certain airlines (i.e notably LOT Polish Airlines, UA and LH - very rude).

IB is way down there even when compared to AA..

Not anymore it seems. I asked around before posting, since the last time I was on IB was 5 years ago. It seems that IB has improved tremendously.

I asked around a bit regarding CX and AMS and the move seems to be entirely motivated by pressure from TAs and shrinking loads on the AMS flights. Chinese, Taiwanese and Hong Kong tour groups to southern Europe are on the increase (+34% this year, after SARS though so figures distorted), a class of travellers that usually prefer Asian airlines over Western ones. Appearently CX can sell (group) tickets via AMS to MAD and BCN much cheaper than the LHR routing. CX wanted to fly HKG-ROM-MAD or HKG-CDG-MAD, but BA wouldn't have it. The IB code share seems to be a compromise.

Does BA have a say on what CX wants to do within Europe?

Not anymore it seems. I asked around before posting, since the last time I was on IB was 5 years ago. It seems that IB has improved tremendously.

I asked around a bit regarding CX and AMS and the move seems to be entirely motivated by pressure from TAs and shrinking loads on the AMS flights. Chinese, Taiwanese and Hong Kong tour groups to southern Europe are on the increase (+34% this year, after SARS though so figures distorted), a class of travellers that usually prefer Asian airlines over Western ones. Appearently CX can sell (group) tickets via AMS to MAD and BCN much cheaper than the LHR routing. CX wanted to fly HKG-ROM-MAD or HKG-CDG-MAD, but BA wouldn't have it. The IB code share seems to be a compromise.

Why would BA object to CX flying the routes you mentioned above? I can certainly understand objections for flying ex LHR to MAD. So whatever CX does in Europe, it has to get the approval of BA?

I can only tell you what I hear from a CX country manager I hang out with. I talked to him about how I would love to see fly to more destinations in Europe, and he answered rather cryptically: you need to talk to BA about that. I also looked into the connections between Swire group and BA management .. don't forget Rod Eddington's career path:

Joined Swire group, holding company for Cathay Pacific, in 1978. Worked his way through Cathay being based in Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan, eventually becoming managing director in 1992. Left Swire in January 1997 to become executive chairman of Ansett, the Australian airline owned by Rupert Murdoch, based in Melbourne. Departed in April 2000 after Murdoch sold 50% of Ansett's shares. Joined British Airways as chief executive in April, soon after the dismissal of Bob Ayling. Remains on the board of News Corporation.

Some people in the industry claim he is actually running three airlines right now: CX, QF and BA, aligning basically the entire oneworld strategy according to his masterplan. :D

Some people in the industry claim he is actually running three airlines right now: CX, QF and BA, aligning basically the entire oneworld strategy according to his masterplan. :DI tend to subscribe to this view but the airlines have a complex relationship. They definitely have a convergence of interest along with cross-ownership and other ties as you described. However CX competes aggressively against QF particularly on HKG-SYD, often putting their newest planes and best service on this route (instead of on HKG-LAX for example). Partly it is aircraft utilization and rotation, but partly it is because CX wants the revenue from Australia and China wants SIN/BKK traffic to be diverted to HKG. And it seems to me that out of LHR BA does things to annoy and hinder CX. It is an interesting Oneworld.

Agreed, number 6. And I think the relationship is getting weirder and weirder. Star Alliance figured out long ago that they couldn't avoid competition amongst the carriers, so they turned it into a mileage collection club. Oneworld on the other hand is trying ever closer union, with the oneworld-wide interline e-ticketing, comprehensive baggage handling, integrated IT systems (where are they?), and all the hype they promise in their press releases. I am not sure if it will work out. These type of cohabitative system arrangments tend to confine components to the status quo and leave little room for chaos in the system, or expansion as it is (such restrictions are the reason why they can't ad new members).

There exists a oneworld internal strategy paper which allegedly gives each member airline absolute priority of market development in their home market, including the connections between home markets. Any new flights from one airline's home turf into the home turf of another airline must be negotiated, with the incumbent having a sort of veto right, so BA flying to a new US destination depends on AA's nod and so on. Hence no new CX routes to Europe :(.


I wonder when they'll start HEL operations though ;) Finnair is up and coming, just reported on the success of their Asian routes. HEL would be a cool gateway into Eastern Europe. But it would need a CX flight into HEL to make it attractive, the AY HKG-BKK-HEL is just dreadful.