MarkXS

At this point?

Short term? Yes, TAM will remain in Star, at least for a few more months, probably at least a year. With earn miles/redeem miles/recognize benefits reciprocity with every airline in Star Alliance, except AviancaTacaGroup airlines. I do think TAM will stay in Star for about 8-12 months more, just because they don't have to leave it yet. And because there's money to be made from the existing *A connections and codeshares, and it takes a lot of work and money to join an alliance, never mind to leave another one at the same time.

Long term? No. TAM is gone to oneworld. I was pretty clearly wrong. Or so it seems. Got page views though

The rulings are both from Chile and Brasil that eventually LAN and TAM have to be on only one alliance, not remain in two. Only the Chilean ruling also has the "must not be Avianca's alliance."

I don't have it in front of me, but I think it was specifically Avianca, not AviancaTaca. But whether it was just the Avianca side, or both, AviancaTaca's own merger is a done deal. At this point, contrary to my original speculation (shared BTW by some Copa people before either finished joining) AviancaTaca in Star is a done deal too. Not only are they in Star, they are aggressively promoting Star Alliance in nearly every marketing email and all over their websites, including a special website just to promote it.

So if that Chilean ruling stands as-is, LATAM cannot choose to be in Star, and both Chile & Brasil tell them they have to choose. Of course, as an estadosunidense where everbody goes to court about everything, I find it humorous that everyone believes that LATAM cannot and will never challenge that ruling nor look for a loophole around it. Being from the USA, I know companies are always trying to work around laws and court rulings and antitrust judgements. I'm guessing that LATAM has some very good abogados with the same mindset

Another telling piece of evidence is that TAM and AviancaTaca, though both in Star, have the unprecedented situation of no frequent flyer earning or award reciprocity, none at all. I think they recognize each other's *S and *G status for benefits, but zero earn/burn miles.

This may be an attempt to meet the spirit of the Chilean ruling, showing that even though they are in the same alliance as AviancaTaca for now, they are not acting like they are in the same alliance. But they didn't have to do this. The ruling gave them a year post-merger-closure to decide on the one alliance, letting LAN and TAM stay in their current alliances. I don't recall either the English nor Spanish versions of the ruling nor any analysis of them saying that they had to exclude AviancaTaca during the year that TAM would still be in Star.

And there's the possible loophole. Maybe LATAM management did this deliberately to create "facts on the ground" as to how they are meeting the spirit of the ruling while still being in Star. Maybe one year of voluntarily doing this Star-except-AviancaTaca is how their lawyers will make the case that they really are NOT in the "same alliance" because they have created a carve-out, so "Please let us keep TAM in Star and bring LAN into Star. We'll never cooperate in any way with AviancaTaca, we promise. Look at what we did voluntarily!"

Yeah, conspiracy theory, pure speculation.

Except explain to me why LATAM still has not come right out and said what they will do about alliances? If it's such an obvious decision, in fact one in which they have zero choice, why are they still dancing around with statements about evaluating alliance decisions? As of today, this is still on LAN's website (USA English site):

"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."

ref: http://www.lan.com/en_us/sitio_perso...ome_faqlatam#;

US Airways has come right out and said that if they are allowed to buy American Airlines, they will drop out of Star and the combined new-American Airlines will remain in oneworld. That's an easy statement to make if that is your plan. For US, that's the obvious best/only approach in that merger. If the equivalent "must be in oneworld" is so obviously best/only for LATAM, how come they have never come out and said it?

I do contend there is still a significant non-zero possibility that the two operating airline groups of LATAM, LAN and TAM, will be in Star Alliance in a year or two. That "carve-out" of no AviancaTaca reciprocity may be exactly how they attempt to get around the Chilean ruling.

Companies renegotiate antitrust rulings all the time. Give up slots at DCA, get slots at LGA. Create a browser choice screen for the EU, don't have to remove Windows Media Player and IE from Windows 7. Give up AviancaTaca reciprocity, get to be in Star Alliance.

Unlikely. But 100% possible. And the only possible explanation for why LATAM has never come out and said "of course we have to be only in oneworld, it's obvious."

Somebody's buying me a pisco sour in SCL in a couple of years. Or I'm buying, depending on if I'm right. If I'm right, we'll meet in the LAN Mistral Star Alliance Lounge, jejeje. If I'm wrong, we'll meet in the TAM oneworld lounge in GRU.

phlashba

Except explain to me why LATAM still has not come right out and said what they will do about alliances? If it's such an obvious decision, in fact one in which they have zero choice, why are they still dancing around with statements about evaluating alliance decisions? As of today, this is still on LAN's website (USA English site):

"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."

I am equally baffled as to what the payoff is for being so coy.

uxb

I think that they have yet to make an announcement because they may be exploring a SkyTeam option. The way I interpreted the Chilean ruling is that they may join any airline alliance, but not the Star Alliance. At the end of the day, however, I believe they will remain Oneworld.

MarkXS

Yes, clearly they can join SkyTeam, despite many people misinterpreting the 'at most one of their currently alliances' to mean 'only a choice of their current alliances'.

But I still find that TAM-vs-AviancaTaca carve-out curious.

AV/TA reciprocity as normal with every single other member of *A... except with TAM, and vice-versa. It does make a case for "look, we're really NOT in the same alliance as AV/TA". This has never happened before: an airline joining an alliance but having an explicit "no reciprocity, no earnings" exclusion for a specific fellow member of the same alliance. Limited earnings, non-earning fare classes, sure, that happens all the time. Including with LAN itself vs other OW partners. But never the 'whole airline excluded' scenario we have here with JJ-vs-AV/TA.

uxb

Sure it has. US vs. UA in *A over JV.

MarkXS

Not at all the same thing. US is not in the A+++ TATL JV. But you still earn US Dividend Miles flying on the UA/LH/AC JV flights as a Star Alliance partner, or earn UAMP or LHM&M or AC AE miles flying on US Airways flights.

There has never been a case of "we're in this alliance but totally excluding any reciprocity with one particular airline of the alliance" before.

I'm also not talking AA "O" fares on TATL or similar not earning in LANPass, or LA intra-single-country low-fares not earning in AAdvantage, or no FF mileage for SK intra-Norway flights in any *A program. Those are particular route/fare earnings carve-outs.

Here, we have an entire airline eliminated from being treated as being "in the same alliance." For all intents and purposes, TAM is not "in the same alliance as AviancaTaca Group".

That's never happened. The fact that it has happened is extremely interesting when combined with LATAM's refusal to come right out and say "of course we can't be in Star Alliance after the first year of the merger, we agreed to that in court in Chile."

This looks like a brilliant way for them to make a case that they can keep TAM in Star Alliance and thus could bring LAN in too. Just argue that the antitrust agreement means "don't act like they are in the same alliance and don't share any benefits whatsoever with the excluded airline."

It's also obvious that LATAM subsidary TAM had to get permission from the Star Alliance to make such an exclusionary exception. Because that's not how the alliance is supposed to work. The Chilean court was 100% ok with JJ remaining in Star for a year after the merger, with nothing saying that they had to exclude benefits with AV/TA during that year - it just said that after the year they can't be in the same alliance. By normal standards, that means until mid-2013, LifeMiles members should be able to earn on TAM and TAM Fidelidades members should be able to earn on Avianca & Taca. But we can't.

There's a reason why JJ-sub-of-LATAM and Star Alliance allowed breaking the rules of Star Alliance. Otherwise it would work like any other time an airline has left one alliance for another or for no alliance: 100% regular alliance benefits with all the other airlines in the old alliance until the day the airline leaves the alliance. Continental leaving SkyTeam. Aer Lingus leaving oneworld. There even can be dual benefits for a transition period, as in this year only a few months ago with BMI, bought by BA, leaving Star but with all Star airlines benefits except on LH, their former parent, for a few months.

Yes, that's another carveout example. But it only happened after BMI officially left Star. As of that date, they had "as if we're still in Star" benefits with everybody except LH, due to contractual reasons between seller LH and purchaser BA parent IAG. During the time they still really were in Star, they had full Star reciprocity including with their parent and cousins in the LH Group.

There's a pattern for airlines that have to leave alliances, and TAM/Star are not following anything like that pattern.

So again, I ask why? The answer to "why" is really obvious, especially because neither LATAM nor Star will talk about it. The answer to "will it work" is yet to be seen.

But it is clearly a ploy for LATAM's desire to be in Star Alliance with the combined group of all six airlines. (5 LAN, 1 TAM). Otherwise they wouldn't be doing what they are currently doing.

Edit: Only thing that even comes close historically was the reciprocal exclusion between BA and AA until about a year ago when the OW TATL JV was finally approved. And that was likewise voluntary as an attempt to appease a set of antitrust regulators to allow them both to be in OW and both fly to LHR from USA despite otherwise controlling too much of the market within OW. They worked as if they were not in the same alliance. Sound familiar?

uxb

Sounds familiar, but will prolly/hopefully never fly in Chile. I guess we will all find out in 18 days when they must announce.

MarkXS

Do they have to announce then? Too bad, puts an end to all the fun speculation!

Despite my speculating they are still trying to create a Star Scenario that would pass antitrust muster, I would prefer the combined airline be in oneworld. Mainly because I now really like AV/TA LifeMiles as a *A program so don't want to decide between which *A program to use

Whereas I increasingly detest AA, and find AS Mileage Plan less helpful now that I won't be in the USA much at all. So I need my LAN flights to go somewhere that's a partner, while that one program still works as a oneworld and non-alliance partner for airlines like AS if I do happen to use them maybe once a year on family visits to West Coast US. Thus LANPass with existing partnerships can work well for me.

uxb

There must be five or six spec threads on this topic. From the news reports I've read, d-day is the end of this month.

Re: *A, I use UA despite their bungling of the merger w/ CO. I dun really mind them. My award reservations get booked quickly. However, YMMV.

MarkXS

UA MP is ok as an FFP for basic reward use, I agree. I've used up the rest of my miles to patch together UA USA gateway-to-Lima, LAN to Uruguay trips.

Of course on the return LIM-IAH UA was in such a bad clustermess for 2 days rolling mech delays that I got them to put me on LAN to LAX instead and then AS to my final destination of SEA. In full-Y revenue class with LA and AS earnings to my AS account. Karmically made up for CO screwing me out of my TAM MVD-GRU-JFK miles a year ago.

So kinda done with UA for anything involving UA (sUA or sCO) metal nowadays for at least 6 more months, till they get their operational act together. And LifeMiles looks to have way more award flexibility with sliding money/miles awards, 1-way or RT, including some that earn miles on the award travel. Thus AV/TA for *A and LA for ow would be personally ideal. If LA did find some way to let LA/JJ go *A, it's likely the program would look like JJ's, and still exclude AV/TA, which I do intend to fly. It's also likely LA would drop AS as a partner.

Thus, JJ into ow with LA staying in ow works best for my own pattern. But maybe not for LATAM Group.

I don't recall the exact articles that mentioned their deadline to announce the chose alliance. I know they have until about Aug 2013 to execute the alliance consolidation but wasn't aware they had a mandated public announcement? Would appreciate a link if you have it, no problema if you don't, I believe you!

uxb

Newer update:

http://atwonline.com/airline-finance...-alliance-0730

It looks like first half of 2013 now???

I_Can_Fly_US_Airways

I think AA is still a better choice right now then United. My vote, would be for the combined carriers to go into one world...

uxb

You don't detest AA because you want a AA/US tie-up.

MarkXS

AA vs UA is like choosing death by scorpions vs. death by hungry rats. Both are rather bad options. US isn't going to do much of anything to make the passenger experience on AA better.

Globally, *A offers far better connectivity than does oneworld. Simple math. Carriers, countries, hubs, routes. With many more quality Asian carriers than oneworld has or will have. As well as better European connectivity, and at least one Africa-based airline (real airline, not the Comair regional sub of BA).

For that matter, SkyTeam is better than oneworld on everything I mentioned, except for not having any Oceania (AU/NZ) based airline. But they do serve Australia via Delta. Not that an ex-US conx to Australia does any good for LAN. But LAN could provide its own lift to Australia and already does to New Zealand. SkyTeam could use that Southern Hemisphere connection.

I'll admit that with Air Berlin now in oneworld, ow is finally decently positioned in Europe, not just on the geographic periphery in London, Madrid, and Helsinki. Adding Berlin helps some with central/eastern Europe. Most travelers to the EU aren't going to backtrack through Moscow so S7 doesn't help there.

But both SkyTeam and especially Star are far better positioned for overall European connectivity. AF/KL and AZ for major SkyTeam hubs, with Spanish (Air Europa) and Czech smaller-airline hubs. Star blows oneworld away, except for no longer having a London hub, with Lufthansa MUC and FRA hubs, VIE and SLZ with Austrian, Geneva and Zurich for SWISS, Norway Sweden & Denmark with Scandanavian, and the former "affiliate regional members" like Croatia, Blue1,etc., and the Mediterranean with Aegean in Greece, plus Turkish Air's Istanbul hub.

Not that oneworld doesn't have capability in the region, but it doesn't have nearly as much. If you consider Royal Jordanian and EgyptAir a tossup for connectivity to the Middle East (no, not a tossup in service, RJ is better no doubt, but general region), oneworld is still far weaker in the Mediterranean and Middle East. Nobody is strong in South Asia, with Kingfisher failing and never joining ow, AI not being allowed to join Star, and no SkyTeam airline native to the area (Delta serving it from the old Northwest AMS hub).

Continue on to Southeast Asia, and you've got the admittedly excellent CX in OW, but that's it. MH is joining, I think, but that doesn't counter the combo of THAI and Singapore Air in Star. Going up to China, Star has Air China, and SkyTeam has 3 or 4 Chinese airlines. Head over to Korea, and Star has Asiana, ST has Korean Air, both considered excellent airlines. Japan - yes, ow has JAL, but Star has ANA, plus United has hub rights there, and from there the old Continental Mike routes to Micronesia and the South Pacific islands, and to Cairns, Australia. Now back down in Oceania, there's Air New Zealand. And LAN service to New Zealand.

Overall, oneworld cannot match what either of the other two alliances would have to offer to the combined LATAM Airlines Group. Despite having several points of excellence, ow does not connect South America to the world the way that Star especially, and SkyTeam still over oneworld, can offer them.

Thus... LATAM needs a way out of oneworld and a way to stay in Star. Trust me, this is not a done deal for oneworld yet, and that pesky carve-out as if AV/TA were not in TAM's alliance at all is not there by accident.

Meanwhile in the USA all the airlines are horrible. So losing AA (and likely AS, as no Star airlines ever partner with independent AS) is no big deal at all. UA directly competes with AS on the West Coast USA so no loss there, and covers more of the USA than AA does. With roughly equally horrible service. But North America also has the quite excellent Air Canada. Something equivalent which oneworld does not have. I know Canadians love to complain about AC. But as an estadosunidense, it is paradise compared to UA, US, AA, DL, and even compared to the smaller decent airlines like Alaska, Frontier, JetBlue, it is better. And provides great North American connection points to Europe and to Asia for travelers from South America without all the idiocy of the USA security and immigration.

I_Can_Fly_US_Airways

[QUOTE=uxb;19119860]You don't detest AA because you want a AA/US tie-up. [/QUOTE

1). I find AA to have acceptable service, planes, FA's, GA's etc (especially when travel in C or F).
2). YES. I do want AA & US to get married it would make my future travel between the US & MVD* MUCH easier


*I can fly COPA between States & MVD. It is just am not crazy about a 7.5 hour flight followed by a 6+ hour flight on a Guppy^ )-:

^Even though I REALLY like COPA, a narrow body 737 (& yes In traveling in F exclusively) is not my first choice. And no, I have not flown COPA's new NG737, but would be willing to give them a try...