VA partners in the news
 

I couldn't find an appropriate recent-ish thread to post this in, so thought I'd start a new one. Some interesting news regarding VA partners that could potentially influence future moves from VA..:

VS in sale talks with DL/AF/KL - announcement expected soon

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1226533199228

EI announced as operator for VS short haul flights

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...e-partner.html


So, a fun little bit of conjecture on my behalf - if DL is successful at acquiring SQs stake in VS this time around - AND if AF/KL are also involved - I think that it's reasonable to assume that VS would look at joining SkyTeam.

Pushing that conjecture about as far as it can go - could that lead to VA working with more SkyTeam carriers (or even potentially joining SkyTeam themselves)? Ignoring the 30-ish% of VA that is owned by *A carriers for a moment .. watching what EY is up to in Europe could be quite instructive, seeing that most of VAs codeshares in to Europe are on EY metal. As a summary, EY own a large-ish chunk of AB, a small-ish chunk of EI, have signed a reasonably substantial codeshare deal with AF/KL and may well be doing the same with AZ.

I'm getting in to fantasy land here, but it's definitely within the realms of possibility - John Borghetti has previously mentioned that he sees SkyTeam as a formidable choice and it would give VA the intra-Europe network that they don't have right now.

Also, if EI are cozying up to VS (which I'm a little surprised at, given their long term partnership with BA) - maybe EI might also partner with the other Virgin airlines?

Skyteam is the only alliance (if any) that I can see Virgin joining in the future, so will be interesting to see any developments over the coming years.

DJ need to be in an alliance (IMO) and I would personally hope for *A, but can realistically see them leaning towards Skyteam.

I agree. As things currently stand, they are more likely to end up with ST than with *A IMHO. But we can discuss this again in 3 to 5 years. It's not on the table right now.
For me personally, it does not matter which of the two alliances it will be, but VA being in either of them would definitely make a huge difference for me.

What benefit to VA FFs would there be in VA joining ST though? They're such a crap group of airlines!

I wish they would join *A.

There are quite a few lower-grade airlines in *A as well, if we're being honest!

Also, it was announced this morning that DL has agreed to acquire all of SQs stake in VS for USD $360 million..:

http://australianaviation.com.au/201...rgin-atlantic/

1. Pretty comprehensive European network with hubs in Spain, France, UK, Italy, Netherlands, Czech Republic and Romania. (Neither OW nor *A covers Europe so broadly, hubwise.)
2. Many direct flights to from Australia to Asia (JKT, SGN/HAN, CAN, TPE, PVG, ICN) with loads of connections to other Asian cities.
3. Many new options to connect to Europe via Asia.
4. Most comprehensive cover of China, Australia's most important market, with huge growth potential.
5. Direct connection to South America.
6. Frequent flyer benefits on the 2nd largest airline alliance.
7. Many opportunities for expanding the network. (The Asian ST members are all in important or soon-to-be important markets.)

It is pretty obvious that a ST membership would make sense. Strange question, actually.

VA joining either ST or *A would work for me. VA not joining neither does not: because of the lack of a European network, the complexity of different earn rules and status benefits on VA's airline partners, and the potential lack of status recognition from partners when things go wrong.

Given that good *A packages are offered by of A3, OZ and TK (all off whom offer attainable *G if you fly 1 or 2 return flights Australia-Europe in Y with the right airline at the right fare), VA joining ST would actually suit me more than VA joining than *A, as it would offer me ST status.

If VS, VA, VX, EY, EI and some of EY's other associate airlines all join ST in time, that would make ST a much better positioned alliance, much more able to compete with the other alliances.

VA's SQ and NZ partnerships could continue even if VA joins an ST - the Cathay/NZ partnership shows that this is possible if it benefits both airlines.

I agree that the NZ and SQ partnerships could continue. NZ would be stupid if they moved away from the Trans-Tasman alliance. SQ is well advised to keep VA's SIN-traffic to stay competitive in the race for Asia-Australia connections, where frequencies of service will increasingly matter and many emerging airlines, such as CZ with its own "Kangaroo route", expand their services to Australia. And VA, of course, has a vital interest in keeping strong ties with what currently are the most important neighbouring airlines.

I have no problem with VA joining ST if the SQ and NZ partnerships remain in place. They are very, very strong in Asia -- China, Korea and Indonesia in particular and i think that is a very sensible long term positioning for VA.

So long as both airlines continue to hold a stake in Virgin Australia, it won't matter what Virgin Austrlia's alliance status is, their interests should be adequately covered.

http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...r-virgin-91791

This article seems to suggest DJ would likely team up with CX.

While I normally respect CAPA articles, I do think this one is a bit far-fetched. CX have said a number of times that they are sticking with oneworld (which presumably means sticking with their partners in the alliance..?), CX and SQ are very strong competitors and, to the best of my knowledge, CX have never codeshared on any QF flights AU-HKG in order to direct more traffic in to their network .. so why would they start doing so with another non-alliance carrier?

Presumably VA will want to start flying in to Asia on their own metal at some point .. it would absolutely make sense to fly to HKG under their own steam (maybe something like MEL-HKG with VS codesharing on it), but if they're after a Northern Asian partnership - wouldn't NH or KE make more sense? Underserved markets, quality carriers that aren't aligned with QF already, etc..

The biggest problem with any japanese or korean carrier, at least from Virgin Australia's perspective, is how far north they are. Travel times to Taiwan and southern China would be significantly longer then they needed to be because of the amount of backtracking that would be involved. Geographically, Manila would be ideal for sending flights into North Asia, but MNL is a mess and Philippine Airlines isn't the greatest. Taipei isn't bad but neither China Airlines nor Eva Air are particularly big. In this sense Cathay is a logical partner because no one else is and they have a reasonably located hub along with significant scale. The only other large carrier in the area is China Southern, but most of their scale is concentrated in china (not that that's a bad thing if you're looking to get to china, but for anywhere else connections would be limited).