davistev

Hainan Airlines is certainly superior to Hong Kong Airlines in terms of service and seating quality. I hope we do not lose CX.

safari ari

It would be nice if CX started service to Seattle, or for that matter any of their Asian partners (i.e JAL, SQ), as well as expanding service to multiple gateways from Seattle

Jma12

I would love to see AS partner with QR in the future. QR always has sale in J, it would be nice to credit to AS instead of BA for me.

CDKing

Maybe EY once the codeshare with AA ends.

jinglish

If that happens, EY is going to have to rework their US routes; at the moment, they serve LAX, IAD, DFW, MIA, ORD, JFK, and SFO. Most of those are AA hubs but only two are hubs for AS, and SFO's ending next month. There's very little AS codeshare potential with the current routes, but they could at least get some coverage away from the coasts by doing what EK did and partnering with AS and B6, maybe with a return to SFO or addition of another west coast destination--but even with those two, the loss of AA codesharing means EY won't be able to route pax to cities like MCI and STL with their current set of routes.

And EK already has codeshares with both, so those politics may come into play.

TProphet

Given that this is a speculation thread, here's who I consider most likely:

- Iberia. Given all of the flying AS is doing to Mexico, this only makes sense - Spain is a popular tourist and business destination for people in Mexico and vice-versa. And Alaska is already partners with BA, its parent company. Adding Iberia will give Alaska reach within Europe, to Tel Aviv, and to Africa that it badly needs.

- Cathay Dragon. Cathay isn't happy with its relationship with Alaska, as evidenced by award blocking. Redemptions are undoubtedly out of balance to begin with, and Alaska added Hainan, which is not only an aggressive competitor but the owner of Hong Kong Airlines. However, Cathay also understands that Alaska is looking out for its own interests: it needs a partnership with an airline that is strong in Asia and serves Seattle, and Cathay doesn't have service. And at the end of the day, Cathay needs the reach Alaska can provide, which no other airline is prepared to give. I think this contract will survive, and in some respects improve, but when it is renegotiated the redemption rates are likely to go up significantly. Given that Cathay Pacific is pulling back CX routes within Asia, it's probably reasonable for Alaska to gain access to KA routes. However, I also expect this will come with strings attached: no more partners in Cathay Pacific's region and significantly higher redemption rates (in line with the Asia Miles and AA award charts). The award chart may also be reworked to require North America as an inclusive region on awards. If Alaska agrees to this, I'm guessing that Cathay (and Cathay Dragon) awards would suddenly become bookable online with availability that is no longer throttled. This is the best possible outcome we could hope for because I think there's no way the partnership continues in its current form.

- Interjet: Alaska needs a partner to reach secondary cities in Mexico. Interjet is a quality operation and serves many Alaska cities. This would be a mutually beneficial relationship because Alaska will provide reach they don't have in the Pacific Northwest. The two carriers do compete on some routes, but Alaska has often had partners that compete on some routes. This can be a win-win.

- TAM: LAN will finally compete its complicated merger with TAM and with it, Alaska will gain access to formerly TAM coded flights. It seems like this partnership flies under the radar of LAN and as long as it stays there and isn't much work to maintain, it's likely to remain.

- Jet Airways: This is wild speculation, but I think Jet Airways is finally strong enough to resume service to San Francisco. This will open up an opportunity for code shares and a partnership. A good route to India with significant award availability would take the pressure off Alaska to maintain its relationship with Emirates.

Partnerships I expect to end:

- Air France/KLM: These guys are in a joint venture with Delta. I'm expecting them to fulfill the existing contract and not renew. Alaska adding Finnair, Condor and Icelandair is pretty clearly intended to backfill this. And Virgin Atlantic dropping Alaska like a hot potato (note they are also a Delta JV partner) is a strong hint of the direction this is heading.

- Singapore: I think Cathay may extract this new partnership as their pound of flesh, and it's one Alaska will be willing to give. This one could be dead before it even starts. Singapore isn't all that logical a partner and isn't likely to give Alaska as much revenue traffic. Also, given their track record of making no premium cabin seats available to partners, they will likely be a very poor program partner anyway.

- Emirates: It's not worth keeping a partner who takes a lasseiz-faire approach to honoring contracts, unless that partner is LAN (where the alternative is far worse, and where issues arise largely out of benign neglect). Emirates is a popular route to India for Alaska's tech-heavy Mileage Plan members, but Jet Airways could fill the gap along with British Airways. I think Alaska will quietly backfill the reach Emirates provides and then drop them, much to Emirates' surprise. I'll go out on a limb and speculate jetBlue will do the same shortly after for its own entirely valid reasons, suddenly leaving Emirates in the lurch with no US partners and no US carriers interested in partnering.

Wildcard:

- Korean: Korean has an independent streak, despite their partnership with Delta. There has been bad blood between the two carriers' management for a long time. And Alaska has been a good partner for Korean. I don't think that Korean will give up the relationship so easily, even though they have recently entered into a joint venture with Delta. My guess is that Korean will maintain the relationship with Alaska in order to remind Delta that it has options.

PVDtoDEL

I think that the SQ partnership actually indicates an opportunity for AS with *A airlines that are not part of the metal neutral JVs. UA does not play nice (domestic feed-wise) with the *A airlines that compete with its JV partners on TPAC and TATL routes.

Therefore, I think AS has the potential to pick up a pretty solid list of *A partners:

AI - flies to both SFO and LAX
TK - flies to both SFO and LAX
ET - flies to LAX
BR - flies to SEA, SFO, and LAX
LO - flies to LAX


Additionally, I think AS could try to make overtures towards these *A airlines as well, although I think they would be less interested or useful partners:

OZ
AV
CM
TG
TP
SA
MS

Apart from *A, I think EI, SU, FZ, KA, MI, JJ, IB, and RJ would be good additions.

jinglish

EI might be a possibility as it comes under the IAG fold, since they fly to SFO, will probably start to cut ties with UA, and are already buddies with B6 back east. TP gets a lot of B6 feed too, but they currently don't fly anywhere west of MIA.

But can we stop posting silly lists of dozens of airlines? AY came out of left field, but they're at least flying seasonally to an AS hub. LO doesn't seem to have any problems connecting people onward to US destinations via UA. BR and OZ have been serving SEA for ages without apparently finding any need for feed on the US side to make the routes work. Meanwhile, MS's only destination with AS service is JFK; SA flies there and to IAD. How the hell do you build codeshare agreements and frequent flyer partnerships out of that? These aren't lists of potential future partners so much as lists of airlines with whom FlyerTalkers may hypothetically like to earn and burn AS miles, and it's only barely less of a stretch than suggesting AS should team up with AirBaltic or Azerbaijan Airlines.

Edit: just now noticed FZ in that list, which is at least as absurd as BT. Seriously, guys...

Baze

Seems a lot of the posters, not all, think only of international partners. With the loss of a lot/most of the partnership with American starting Jan 1. I think there needs to be a domestic partner or purchase to cover the holes left with the loss of AA. Yes you can still get some miles on certain routes on AA after Dec 31 but you get no onboard benefits like we get now. So my vote is either a partnership or a buyout with Jet Blue.

sdsearch

A buyout anytime soon (if ever) is quite unrealistic. They haven't even finished "digesting" VX. And meanwhile, a merger of AS(/VX) and B6 (Jet Blue) would be less likely to pass anti-trust, because B6 is much more major player than VX was.

In fact, I'd say a revived AA partnership (on new terms) is more likely than a B6 buyout, even though they're both unlikely.

Now, a B6 partnership, that's a totally different story. There is precedent: AA has a partnership only on some routes with B6 about half a decade ago.

eponymous_coward

Why?

WN went from being an airline flying to 3 cities in Texas to the way they are today with zero partnerships with legacy airlines. AS has obviously chosen growth over partnerships and staying in a PNW niche with the VX purchase. So why can't we see if they grow?

Quite frankly B6 doesn't bring much to the table to AS, nor does AS for B6. A lot of transcon action is SfO/LAX-NYC. Obviously AS and B6 are competing there. Both airlines have weak presence midcon and off their coasts. There isn't a ton of pax flow Pacific NW connecting out of South Florida or OUT of NYC (SEA-JFK to someplace like say ORF isn't a great connection compared to ORD, and B6 isn't really building JFK as a connecting hub for AS pax). A dumbbell shaped network that treats 90% of the US as flyover country (or forces backtracking connections) isn't a great network.

PVDtoDEL

The post listed *A carriers which could plausibly partner with AS. I didn't say any were likely - just pointing out that apart from UA's JV partners (AC/LH/LX/OS/NH/NZ), there are plenty of *A airlines struggling for feed in the US.

Quite contrary, their prorate agreement with UA is atrocious, and nearly all of their feed is on the European side.


But it doesn't mean that they wouldn't take feed for the right price


Agreed, unlikely. But if AS offered the right deal, they'd probably be open to hearing them out. For AS, it would provide partner coverage of additional regions. For the foreign carrier, it would provide better access to the west coast.


FZ/KA/MI may not serve anywhere near the US, but they would provide completeness to the EK/CX/SQ partnerships.

felicidad76

How can we find out when KLM/AF partnership expires? Would Alaska let us know if we call or there is no way to get that info?

Baze

This is just a wish list. Ideally AS would grow to cover all my destinations, and grow fast. I'm SFO based so I could care less about SEA unless I am going there.

3ur0tr45h

I have no basis for this but I'd love to see Norwegian join up!