ashill

I completely agree that it's proprietary stuff, we don't know, and it may vary between alliances and reciprocal agreements. (It's also straying off topic, but so it goes.)

One piece of evidence that for Skyteam it is operating carrier that pays: most Skyteam airlines provide Elite Plus members lounge access when the lounge access for that flight is a contract lounge (even though the Skyteam, like oneworld and I think Star, rules don't require status-based lounge access to be granted in these cases). Delta doesn't. But it's the operating carrier that determines whether you get contract lounge access: DL and non-DL Elite Plus members get lounge access on non-DL flights; DL and non-DL Elite Plus members do not get contract lounge access on DL flights.

The fact that AS has negotiated status-based access for Golds with a few carriers (including BA, QF, and EK) without a reciprocal agreement for the other airlines' elites suggests to me that, in those cases, AS is paying.

jinglish

I flew QF one-way LAX-MEL several months ago, and I vaguely remember being able to pay for a seats up there, although at the time only an extra-legroom seat was open. I think it's mainly a matter of booking early enough that the OW elites who have free seat selection haven't nabbed all of them yet.

golfingboy

SFO is not going to be AS's best hub full stop -- SEA will be the primary and most important hub by a long shot. Condor will not start SFO either, LH simply won't allow that. If Condor wants to serve the Bay Area it will be OAK or SJC (with LH dropping the SJC Cityline flight).

There will not be a lot for AS/VX to add at SFO to turn SFO into a 200-300 flights per day hub - T2 only has 14 gates and like LAX many airlines want more gates at SFO, but there aren't any. The Terminal 1 redevelopment is not adding more gates, so all gates at SFO are accounted for and there will not be room for significant growth other than upgauging aircraft or increasing gate utilization (good luck with that knowing SFO).

You listed a ton of international airlines serving SFO - and my simple opinion they do not mean much when AS status means nothing in IROPs. Trust me I learned the hard way after several years and this is why I left AS for one of the US3. Being able to arrive at work with minimal delay vs spending overnights in hotels in random cities is a deal breaker for me.

Not trying to put a damper on anything here -- if AS/VX's small route network works for you then great and you definitely should stick with AS. However, you are in the minority here as evidenced with majority of SFO based frequent flyers using UA.

channa

I think that's the case when you're in J or F, not status- or alliance-based lounge access when you're in Y.

diver858

Why do you say this? AA apparently got tired of AS not buying the cow, getting the milk for free; As AS has partner arrangements with most other OW carriers, it should still be possible to strike a deal that Parker would accept, AS could live with.

Any such formal relationship would likely be at the expense of some existing partnerships, something ALK beancounters should be able to quantify.

milypan

I'm a SF resident, and that's not the message I've been getting from them at all. Their first big ad campaign here was the Different Works campaign, which was focused on reassuring VX customers. Now they've moved on to AS-focused ads. I've seen ones that advertise vacation destinations (e.g. Hawaii), ones that advertise the companion fare, and ones that advertise "118+ destinations." The former two are clearly not targeting HVFs, and I don't think the last one is either. 118 destinations is only an average of 2 per state (after factoring in international routes and service to multiple airports in the same MSA); it doesn't sound to me like a dense network.

Notably, I don't recall seeing any billboards advertising their general partner network, and I certainly haven't seen any advertising their AA-serviced domestic network. Nothing in their ad campaign speaks to me of poaching UA GS or even 1K flyers.

Time will tell. But at least it's a business model. Trying to compete toe-to-toe with an encroaching DL, leaving themselves at the mercy of whatever terms AA dictates, and becoming much smaller than the five largest carriers (were B6 to acquire VX) is not a strategy -- it's just burying your head in the sand and hoping for the best. At least now they're on equal footing with WN and B6 in terms of network size (all serve approximately 100 domestic destinations, with different geographic focuses), with the MP as a differentiator.

I think that even Bay Area flyers have trouble appreciating just how dominant UA's position at SFO is. It's not quite as bad as at IAH, but it's close

Even after AS and VX combine, UA will still have triple the market share and more than triple the gates of the merged entity. That's only counting domestic UA/UX operations, ignoring the Intl Terminal entirely (other than the AS flights of course).

AS was never going to compete for the UA GS and 1Ks that make up the majority of the upgrade list. UA/UX serve ~85 North American airports and ~20 overseas airports from SFO. AS+VX serve ~34 North American airports from SFO (after including recently announced services) and zero overseas airports. Even when AS/VX serve an airport, the frequencies are often significantly lower than UA. The AS international partners serve another 10 airports, but the *A partners serve 17 (albeit with some duplication of UA service). The bottom line is that AS was never going to be an attractive option, even with AA, for any SFO-based HVF that cares at all about network and frequency (i.e. almost all of them). Believe me, I dislike UA as much as anyone out there, and I'm going to try moving to AS post merger, but I'm not in denial about UA's huge competitive advantage at SFO.

Other factors that make AS relatively unattractive to HVFs include:

1. MP's main feature is distance-based earnings, but most other elites that I know don't care much about RDMs -- they just want the elite benefits. Certainly none of my colleagues who are UA Gold/Platinum/1K care about RDMs...perhaps in part because actually using RDMs makes it harder to maintain status!

2. For GS and high-spend 1Ks, the MP distance-based earnings aren't that advantageous anyway. A GS member is basically guaranteed to earn 600k RDMs at a minimum. It would be pretty hard to beat that by a big margin on AS flying 100-200k BIS miles unless it's all in BA premium cabins. ;-)

3. The AS international network is useful for earning EQM and RDM, but it's hardly equivalent to *A/ST/OW. You don't get priority check-in, security, boarding, or bag handling with AS partners. You don't get an extra bag allowance. There is no priority handling for IRROPS. Lounge access is spotty at best.

The silver lining to UA's dominance at SFO however is that post-merger AS doesn't have to take that many UA flyers to see big gains. If they can capture just 1 in 20 UA domestic flyers, that's already 15% passenger growth for them. If they could get 1 in 10 that would be 30% growth. Many of those will come from the majority of UA passengers with no status, and others may come from elites who are 30/50 on the upgrade list (myself) or 49/50 on the upgrade list (my wife). Very few of them will come from the top 10 slots on the list, let alone those that actually clear, but that's okay.

rustykettel

What exactly would AS be paying for in OW that they aren't now? Lounge access based on status?

If AA is driving this, the two likely causes are Mileage Plan is more attractive than AAdvantage or AS is increangly overlapping with AA's existing/planned routes. Joining OneWorld won't fix either one. AS has said they see an advantage in their current FF structure and aren't moving to a revenue based plan at this time.

Decreasing overlap isn't going to happen either. Alliances aren't joint ventures in themselves and don't have automatic antitrust waivers. Even if AS wanted to retreat, doing so could invite DOJ scrutiny.

tom911

One of the major features in an alliance such as One World is the ability to reroute across partners during irregular operations. I've been rerouted on BA when AA cancelled their flight at departure time in Brussels, and have been rerouted on Cathay when AA cancelled their flight at the gate in Hong Kong just this last April (other option was to wait for the AA plane 24 hours later - I didn't want to hang around). I'm not sure I'd have the same flexibility if I was on a Condor route that flies once a day - if it doesn't go out are they going to send me over to BA or AA? I'd say the same for Icelandair- if they ground a plane who will they reroute me on with a chance to get out the same day from Seattle? I don't see discussions about partner irregular operations on the Alaska forum so really don't know the answers, but with One World I always felt looked after when things went wrong, though I've had top tier status there for 17 years.

jinglish

It's not so much that AA, BA, and CX are in the same alliance as that FI and DE are both leisure carriers with limited interline agreements, in addition to terms of carriage that don't include rebooking onto other airlines. It probably helps a lot that those are alliance partners--and especially that AA, BA, IB, and AY are part of a profit-sharing joint venture for transatlantic flights--but if a major carrier thinks they really need to, they can rebook you on most other airlines. Hell, UA will even sell a PDX-SFO round trip with an AS segment one way just so they get some of your money.

WebTraveler

Anyone in a situation like mine is screwed. Yes. That's a fact. Living in PDX this code share business on the 2nd leg is crap....one flight a day to ORD and DFW kills it, period. Alaska has spent 1/2 a century advertising its great mileage plan and all its partnerships. That's gone now...betcha Mileage Plan takes a big hit in the next surveys.

I will stand up and say something that is bogus. You bend over and take it? That's your desire, so be it.

SFOPeter

Last month I used my AA EXP card at LHR T3 to get into the BA, AA, and Cathay 1st class lounges while connecting SFO-LHR-PRG with AS FF# on BA ticket. Worked fine at all 3. Cathay was by far the best one.

brp

We've tried all 3 and prefer BA. The booze selection is better by far, and the food, while tasty and interesting in CX is considerably better in nutritional content, for the most part at BA.

Also, the space itself is more interesting.

Cheers.

SFOPeter

Your point is that people shouldn't fly AS partners because of irrops. Well OK, if they are flying with status SFO/UA or SEA/DL that means moot in terms of whether SFO or SEA is a better AS hub for TATL/TPAC AS flyers.

If you want to fly direct TATL/TPAC and credit AS, you are going to be much better off flying out of SFO than SEA. That's just that given the partner flights. There are plenty of people on this forum flying AS partners. I generally fly paid F/biz so am generally pretty well covered with IROPs on whatever airline. Worst case they put me in coach and get me home which has only happened a couple of times to me in millions of miles of flying, fortunately only on shorthauls.

Agree Condor would more likely be SJC than SFO. Last I heard, AA is moving out of T2 into the new part of T1 as it completes and AS is taking all 14 of the T2 gates which will give them some headroom for expansion.

Again, this isn't for everyone. If your SFO travel is primarily US major metros, US West, and TATL/TPAC, AS is a really good fit and a really good program. I think that UA has a lost a lot of premium flyers... they were literally begging me to come back with nutty mileage promotions and I wouldn't even consider it.

beckoa

Well, AS isn't focused on just SFO. They have some expanding ops at SJC as well.

OAK... well it's there with a few flights to SEA/PDX and HI

fly18725

The top Google search for this quote is the post I'm quoting.

AS' references to their strategy are a bit different: Be safe and On Time; Focus on People; Build a deep emotional connection to our brand; Defend and grow our customer base; Win with low costs and low fares.

I think you're drawing a different conclusion and I can't argue with such a negative and entrenched position.

True. Yet, these are different customer bases that may not be targeted by the same airlines.