Originally Posted by
pitz
But booking UAxxxx + ACxxx, if it was cheaper, would be the way you would go, right? I still fail to see how it is to *your* advantage, or even to AC's advantage, to have an AC flight number on your CVG-ORD segment.
Sure, but that's a big if, since this would be combining two fares to get to your destination instead of one (one UA fare for the UA segment, and an AC one for the AC segment). This would almost never be cheaper. Codesharing means the fare is done as a through fare from origin to destination.
The question that I was answering was the one asked about the advantage to the airline. And that is, that, dependent on the details of the codeshare agreement, that AC may get the revenue instead of UA, even though UA is operating the flight. For me, it means I can book the whole thing on AC's Web site, and maybe, just maybe, it is cheaper than if I book on UA's Web site, because they may charge a higher fare for those same flights booked on UA's code. So this is more competition, too.
Can't this be done behind the scenes, and not dumped out onto the public? I mean, even AC realizes that, in Canada, they were creating a big problem by having both the "Jazz" and the "Air Canada" brand displayed in airports --so they arranged for the title, "Air Canada" to be used on all Jazz flights, in public displays.
Even AC realizes that inconsistent branding and inconsistent service is a major problem, and they've been making, much to their credit, huge (and very successful) strides to correct this.
Most organizations have huge problems in integrating things within different divisions of the same company. What makes you think AC would be able to properly arrange this on the backend with other carriers? Or that the other carriers are capable of doing this with AC?
And airlines didn't cooperate in a manner transparent to customers before codesharing?? AC (CP) had no problem booking people onto AI flights back in the 80s, and selling tickets such as YVR-YYZ-YUL-LHR-BOM, acting as an AI agent on the YYZ-YUL-LHR-BOM segments.
Yes, but this involves commissions being paid out to the other carrier like AI (though, not sure what the situation is now), and again, a transfer of revenue for the flights that AC might not have to pay if it was a codeshare. AC does do this in some instances, but mostly to destinations it doesn't have its own flights or codeshares to. These are all on international destinations as well, I believe. In this case, AC thinks that by acting as the agent for the connecting flight, this is the best (or perhaps, only) chance they have to make any money whatsoever, by getting the passenger on their own lucrative trans-atlantic or trans-pacific services before interlining them to the another carrier. For example, a customer going to somewhere in Africa is probably much more likely to book the whole trip on LH, BA or AF through Europe if they didn't get any options on Air Canada's Web site.
I know we take a lot of things for granted these days (ie: nobody calls to 'confirm' flights anymore, like used to be required), but consumers shouldn't have to dissect a bunch of marketing gimmickry, just to figure out whether they're allowed one bag (ie: United), or 2 (AC). Or what website to look at to get a preview of the Buy-on-Board. And when AC puts its code onto, say, UA flights, it seriously dilutes the brand, especially when they read about all the great new AC IFE and on-board service, but get stuck with the typical UA filth.
Not sure about the bag comment above (since when does UA only allow 1 bag?) but unfortunately, like it or not, that's the way the system works. AC wants the revenue to as many destinations as possible, even ones they don't have the demand to serve themselves, so they want to put their code on more flights. Other carriers are the same way.