Lufthansa Alliance or the End of *A?!?
Apr 29, 2008, 7:18 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: OW Emerald, *A Gold
Posts: 6,913
Lufthansa Alliance or the End of *A?!?
Given all the rumors and information on possible mergers and close co-operations between LH and airlines like BD, SN, B6 etc. do you still think that LH needs to be part of *A? LH is constantly growing (LX acquisition, B6 equity holding) and has close relationships with different airlines (OS, LO etc.). So what's the deal for LH (and for the customer) to be part of *A in future? LH could easily start an M&M alliance sooner or later. Is this the beginning of the end of *A?
I know that there are long term contracts within *A and I am aware of several arguments against such a move but I am just curious on your opinion here. Would you like to see LH quit *A and why? Why do you think LH should remain part of *A and what do they gain by this?
I know that there are long term contracts within *A and I am aware of several arguments against such a move but I am just curious on your opinion here. Would you like to see LH quit *A and why? Why do you think LH should remain part of *A and what do they gain by this?
Apr 29, 2008, 9:11 am
#2
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 726
valid point.
in my understanding Lh ended *A with introducing the new M&L on 1.8.2004 (?) and with launching the HON level. Both activities are fully contradictory to the partnering approach of *A:
M&L: mileage credit based on operating carrier, i.e. punishing the usage of *A marketing flights
HON: no *A relationship and value at all.
CL
in my understanding Lh ended *A with introducing the new M&L on 1.8.2004 (?) and with launching the HON level. Both activities are fully contradictory to the partnering approach of *A:
M&L: mileage credit based on operating carrier, i.e. punishing the usage of *A marketing flights
HON: no *A relationship and value at all.
CL
Apr 29, 2008, 9:29 am
#4
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: MUC (home), DUS (office), XXX (customer)
Programs: LH, AB, SPG, CC, Sixt, EC
Posts: 6,334
I think it will make sense at some point but not yet. First of all, they need a real share in the US and a big foot in the Asian market (I don't mean number of flights, shares with a major airline)
The perspective of US and UA possibly merging is really gross. I had really hoped that with the merger mania going on in the US, US Airways would finally be stranded somewhere and maybe a "decent" airline like "CO" would join instead.
The perspective of US and UA possibly merging is really gross. I had really hoped that with the merger mania going on in the US, US Airways would finally be stranded somewhere and maybe a "decent" airline like "CO" would join instead.
Apr 29, 2008, 9:37 am
#5
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: MAA
Programs: BA bronze, Marriott silver
Posts: 2,804
SQ does much the same with their PPS club .. so what's the beef?
valid point.
in my understanding Lh ended *A with introducing the new M&L on 1.8.2004 (?) and with launching the HON level. Both activities are fully contradictory to the partnering approach of *A:
M&L: mileage credit based on operating carrier, i.e. punishing the usage of *A marketing flights
HON: no *A relationship and value at all.
CL
in my understanding Lh ended *A with introducing the new M&L on 1.8.2004 (?) and with launching the HON level. Both activities are fully contradictory to the partnering approach of *A:
M&L: mileage credit based on operating carrier, i.e. punishing the usage of *A marketing flights
HON: no *A relationship and value at all.
CL
Apr 29, 2008, 10:07 am
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
The SQ Solitare and UA Global Services programs both predate the HON program and none of the three offer *A benefits over and above *G.
Apr 29, 2008, 10:45 am
#7
Moderator: Lufthansa Miles & More, India based airlines, India, External Miles & Points Resources
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MUC
Programs: LH SEN
Posts: 48,166
LH needs *A as much as *A needs LH. LH handed the Australian market to SQ/TG and in return only has moderate competition on BKK/SIN-Europe routes. UA&AC are a major partner in the TATL market with revenue share and system integration.
Apr 29, 2008, 11:12 am
#9
Join Date: Sep 2007
Programs: BAEC, M&L, Bonvoy
Posts: 1,339
From carrier perspective LH needs *A and *A needs LH (as oliver2002 nicely put it). The benefits for customers are in simplified traveling booking and having one PNR for the trip, so at least you have some security when flying between regions in case of delays/cancellations/etc. On the FFP, that is a different story, as *A has so many different programs and *G at one carrier is different then *G on another. Do I hate sometimes those situations? Yes, especially when flying North America with UA, AC or US, but then again those guys hate when they are flying LH metal as well. They are in a marriage they don't want, but need.
Apr 29, 2008, 1:21 pm
#10
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ZRH / MUC / VIE
Programs: M&M basic / happy Wizzair+ user :-)
Posts: 6,490
No please, I have already been a "member" of an alliance headed by a carrier which started to acquire smaller airlines just for growing - but there wasn't a close partner in another continent.
The Qualiflyer Group was OK for flights ex-Europe, but there was no possibility for earning status miles on flights between other continents (except during a very short period with DL). And how the Qualiflyer Group ended, is well known. I would rather prefer to see a expansion of *A with a (reliable!) partner in Latin America - my big hope is of course the TACA-group (TA C isn't that bad
).
Now all the former members of the Qualiflyer Group (except the French partners which went bankrupt or were quasi-integrated into AF) seem to come under the roof of *A anyway, while LH does not have shares in all of them (yet).
The Qualiflyer Group was OK for flights ex-Europe, but there was no possibility for earning status miles on flights between other continents (except during a very short period with DL). And how the Qualiflyer Group ended, is well known. I would rather prefer to see a expansion of *A with a (reliable!) partner in Latin America - my big hope is of course the TACA-group (TA C isn't that bad
). Now all the former members of the Qualiflyer Group (except the French partners which went bankrupt or were quasi-integrated into AF) seem to come under the roof of *A anyway, while LH does not have shares in all of them (yet).
Apr 29, 2008, 2:13 pm
#11
Moderator, Hilton Honors
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: on a short leash
Programs: some
Posts: 71,422
Yes LH gets a lot of feed to/from SQ & TG in particular (and NZ also) from down under. I assume it works well for them to not incur the costs of directly serving distant markets.
Apr 29, 2008, 4:25 pm
#12
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: US
Programs: LH and BA
Posts: 2,324
Just to clarify a bit:
*A allaince is bascially a matrix of contracts between the individual airlines. Yes there is a framework they adher to but each contract has it's individual little things - earning ratios for specific booking classes - code shares etc.
The real important thing from the airline's perspective is the code-sahre agreements - how much money do they get from a code share - this is the strength and the weakness of the Alliance. LH was able to pull out of Ozeania to have SQ and NZ handle the routes.
Not all flights are code shares with all partners - thus ticketing is not all seamless. The milage issue is more a general area to show unity.
Thus, in the end each airlines can make the partnership as strong or weak as possible (SQ weak - LH quite strong)
My real concenr is the quality of the new partner airlines - the allaince with CA and AI is a big concenr to me as it is a big difference in quality.
*A allaince is bascially a matrix of contracts between the individual airlines. Yes there is a framework they adher to but each contract has it's individual little things - earning ratios for specific booking classes - code shares etc.
The real important thing from the airline's perspective is the code-sahre agreements - how much money do they get from a code share - this is the strength and the weakness of the Alliance. LH was able to pull out of Ozeania to have SQ and NZ handle the routes.
Not all flights are code shares with all partners - thus ticketing is not all seamless. The milage issue is more a general area to show unity.
Thus, in the end each airlines can make the partnership as strong or weak as possible (SQ weak - LH quite strong)
My real concenr is the quality of the new partner airlines - the allaince with CA and AI is a big concenr to me as it is a big difference in quality.
Apr 29, 2008, 4:29 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Just to clarify a bit:
*A allaince is bascially a matrix of contracts between the individual airlines. Yes there is a framework they adher to but each contract has it's individual little things - earning ratios for specific booking classes - code shares etc.
The real important thing from the airline's perspective is the code-sahre agreements - how much money do they get from a code share - this is the strength and the weakness of the Alliance. LH was able to pull out of Ozeania to have SQ and NZ handle the routes.
Not all flights are code shares with all partners - thus ticketing is not all seamless. The milage issue is more a general area to show unity.
Thus, in the end each airlines can make the partnership as strong or weak as possible (SQ weak - LH quite strong)
My real concenr is the quality of the new partner airlines - the allaince with CA and AI is a big concenr to me as it is a big difference in quality.
*A allaince is bascially a matrix of contracts between the individual airlines. Yes there is a framework they adher to but each contract has it's individual little things - earning ratios for specific booking classes - code shares etc.
The real important thing from the airline's perspective is the code-sahre agreements - how much money do they get from a code share - this is the strength and the weakness of the Alliance. LH was able to pull out of Ozeania to have SQ and NZ handle the routes.
Not all flights are code shares with all partners - thus ticketing is not all seamless. The milage issue is more a general area to show unity.
Thus, in the end each airlines can make the partnership as strong or weak as possible (SQ weak - LH quite strong)
My real concenr is the quality of the new partner airlines - the allaince with CA and AI is a big concenr to me as it is a big difference in quality.
When did that happen?
