Ah, gimmickry! I knew it!

Well, yeah, you're right -- it does allow more visibility in the reservations system. Instead of just 2 or 3 AC-operated flights showing on a route like YYZ-LAX, there's maybe a dozen that show up, compared to, Westjet's 1 or 2 that get drowned out.

But, on the other hand, doesn't the existence of 15 flights sort of create the perception of competition that really doesn't exist? UA might drop their price on the YYZ-LAX codeshare by $10, and suck sales away from AC. When half a dozen codeshares on the same route, on the same physical aircraft, isn't there almost certainly always at least one of the codeshare partners who offers the flight less expensively than the others? Would this not exert a downward force on pricing overall?

I know that, when I'm out shopping for goods and services, if 7 places are offering the same service, I can approach each of them and attempt to negotiate a lower price, ie: I get 7 'kicks at the can'. Whereas, if the service is only offered by 1 operator, there's not much ability to negotiate, eh?

When was the last time AC.com showed comparative prices using the UA flight numbers (or vice-versa)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

How does CO codeshare on routes that AC does not operate but are on the list (eg YYC-YCD)?

The day I can book a flight, lets say the following with metal used in brackets, booked as an AC ticket:

YYZ-ORD(AC)-MSP(UA)-ORD(UA)-YYZ(UA)

Arrive 20 minutes early from MSP to ORD on the return leg, with no checked luggage, and get on the FRICKEN AC METAL WHO I BOUGHT THE TICKET FROM that's leaving in 20 minutes instead of waiting 2 hours for the next UA flight, I'll book a codeshare again.

United Agent: "Sir, we can't book you on another airline - would that make sense to you?"

AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH

I have no reason to believe this will be any different on CO

</rant>

How about this as a connection for additional mileage? YXU-YYC-IAH-XXX. Not bad... I wonder if it will show up in the routing rules.

I think I met that guy in ORD (although I'm sure there are many of them). Only he told me it was unreasonable of me to think that UA would willingly give up revenue and next time I should book directly on AC if that's who I wanted to fly.

I thought maybe AC'd codeshare on YOW-EWR. Too bad.

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.

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?

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.


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.

My *guess* on why this did not happen is that some markets (including YOW-NYC) were excluded (or 'carved out') of the Anti-Trust Immunity agreement given by the US Department of Transportation:

(from DOT-OST-2008-0234)
-Brian

Codesharing was sold to the regulators as a way to offer a larger variety and more frequent routes to the customer under the "name" of one airline. This was supposed to be less confusing and more convenient for passengers. Of course we know that is often not the case. The marketing carrier is supposed to be the customers contact and contract/tariff party BUT the airlines were very good at ensuring that the royal-run-around and finger-pointing occurs regularly.

Still, I recently booked an AC flight operated by Lufthansa that would have cost several $thousand more for the same seats on an LH ticket code.

I see YYC-YQQ on the list. Air Canada dropped this route last year, are they bringing it back? Coming to YQQ often from YYZ, I'd much rather connect thru YYC then do the CMA flight from YVR.

I'm not sure this is the reason. ORD-YYZ has been a carve out route since the beginning, and continues to be under the new agreement. UA and AC still put their respective codes on almost all, if not every flight between these two markets. Carve out doesn't mean they can't codeshare. It just means they can't coordinate on schedules and pricing. Also, IAH-YYZ/YYC are also on the carve out list, but listed as routes that will be codeshared.

You are right. I should have been more clear. It was a guess on my part *because* the carve outs do not limit code-sharing, but that the carve out was the only obvious reason (to me) why this route would not be code-shared...

Brian

Jeez AC is going to run out of flight numbers with all these codeshares... =)