Originally Posted by
Cheetah_SA
Seriously, though, do you honestly think reputable airlines will codeshare with airlines that have safety issues? Apart from the fact that most codeshares operate within the alliances, if anything the existence of codeshares should be more reassuring than off-putting. I am prepared to buy that airlines are hoping to con pax loyal to their brand, but surely not at the cost of putting them at risk.
Well when AF flew a plane from CDG to SIN (or whatever) with a faulty airconditioning system in Y which later led to the death of an elderly pax, it was revealed that the pax was an Australian and QF maintain a codeshare on that flight.
The Australian media concluded:
- As QF have a codeshare on this flight, they are responsible for ensuring that the operator conforms to the expectations of their passengers. Otherwise, why would they push pax onto a metal which they would not otherwise subject pax through on their own metal?
- QF ticketed people onto this flight; irrespective of the operating airline, they shared responsibility for the welfare of these passengers.
In short, QF were made - directly or indirectly or both - responsible for the death of the elderly man. Relatively speaking, AF got off and flew under the radar (no pun intended). Yes that is an absurd example in BS journalism (a common feature in our country).........
Originally Posted by
colmc
BD flights to Dublin have always had quite a lot of codeshares. For example, todays BD123 was also....[11 more flight numbers]
Originally Posted by
House
I don't mind the codeshares, but do mind the way some flight information systems display them. It's annoying to have half the arrivals/departures screen filled with one flight under different codeshare numbers. Some systems use a much better approach, which is to have one line per flight on the screen, but to rotate the flight number through the various codeshares. Much neater.
The problem is if someone is trying to read what their flight is and they have to wait for up to 11 cyclings of the same line.
I do agree, however, that it is neater than having 12 lines of the FIDs taken up by the same operating flight. Perhaps a better idea still is to have two lines: the first line remains static and is the operating metal flight number. The second line is slightly indented or otherwise denoted specially in some way, but this will cycle between the other codeshares. The presentation of the two lines should make it clear that one is the metal and the others are codeshares of the same operating flight.
Of course, what would be even easier is if the non-operating partners acting as the codeshares simply added an annotation to their BPs informing them of the flight number of the real operator, e.g. if you booked on LH6633, your service information might say "OPERATED BY BD123". That would save a lot of confusion.