What do you think of the proposed AA alliance with CO?
Jun 19, 2008, 2:59 pm
#61
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM; UA 1K; AA 1MM
Posts: 4,520
Jun 19, 2008, 4:02 pm
#62
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Now:AUS (again); Previous: LGA/EWR (BLKYN, missing JFK), AUS, SAT
Programs: Current: UA-Silver, Former AA Plat, DL Silver
Posts: 593
Jun 19, 2008, 4:21 pm
#63
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Burr Ridge, IL; Roma, Italia; Vilnius, Lietuva
Programs: AA 1,000,000; Continental; Delta; Alitalia; TWA
Posts: 112
Jun 19, 2008, 4:38 pm
#64
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFO/OAK/SJC
Programs: AA LT PLT, 2.15 million miles; Priority Club PLT
Posts: 987
It is disappointing from a competitive standpoint but I guess to me CO was never a good partnership fit for AA with hubs in IAH and EWR as well as overlap in Latin America. Then the sparse coverage in the West for both. Newer planes and more Europe non-stops were the only pluses.
On paper NW was always the best fit but in reality both are saddled with an aging fleet and bad customer service reputations/statistics. Better that they joined with DL. So for the USA, that leaves AS as others have said. The problem is AA's dismal record with acquisitions, particularly on the West Coast. Any evidence that management has improved enough so that they could successfully pull off an acquisition - in these worst-case-scenario market conditions?
On paper NW was always the best fit but in reality both are saddled with an aging fleet and bad customer service reputations/statistics. Better that they joined with DL. So for the USA, that leaves AS as others have said. The problem is AA's dismal record with acquisitions, particularly on the West Coast. Any evidence that management has improved enough so that they could successfully pull off an acquisition - in these worst-case-scenario market conditions?
Last edited by malcolmkettering; Jun 19, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Jun 19, 2008, 4:40 pm
#65
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: AA; Marriott; SPG; HH
Posts: 3,473
Jun 19, 2008, 4:55 pm
#66
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: LAX
Programs: AA EXP 1.5MM, Asiana Club Silver, KE Morning Calm, Hyatt Platinum, Amtrak Select
Posts: 7,161
Breakdown for North America:
*A: 3 US carriers (UA, US, CO) & 1 Canada (Air Canada)
ST: 2-soon-to-be-1-US-mega carrier (DL + NW) & 1 Mexico (Aeromexico)
OW: 1 carrier (AA) & 1 Mexico (Mexicana in 2009)
AA should definitely start focusing on bringing AS into OW.
*A: 3 US carriers (UA, US, CO) & 1 Canada (Air Canada)
ST: 2-soon-to-be-1-US-mega carrier (DL + NW) & 1 Mexico (Aeromexico)
OW: 1 carrier (AA) & 1 Mexico (Mexicana in 2009)
AA should definitely start focusing on bringing AS into OW.
Jun 19, 2008, 7:28 pm
#67
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Now:AUS (again); Previous: LGA/EWR (BLKYN, missing JFK), AUS, SAT
Programs: Current: UA-Silver, Former AA Plat, DL Silver
Posts: 593
I wonder what's going to happen to the NW/AS cooperation with the NW/DL merger. That mega-carrier still won't have a major presence on the West Coast (sorry SLC doesn't count) so they may be interested in having AS join SkyTeam. I would love to have AS join OneWorld though to give us some more options when it comes to traveling on the West Coast, especially with the Oakland shutdown.
Jun 19, 2008, 9:36 pm
#68
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 5,735
Also interesting how there is now reciprocity between United and CO lounge members... When I fly via SEA (where the AC closed a few years ago) I can't use the AS lounge... It'd be nice to have some reciprocity here (AS used to be able to use the lounge at DCA back when the AS flights used AA gates).
Jun 19, 2008, 9:43 pm
#69
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Potomac Falls, VA
Programs: AA Plat 2MM, MR Gold, Avis Pref
Posts: 41,109
Jun 20, 2008, 6:30 am
#70
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DCA, EGE, IAD
Programs: MR LTT, BA Gold, AA LTP, UA Silver
Posts: 6,078
NO.
AS yes!
I too, am not happy about CO. I was really looking forward to a D or A ONEx and the ability to include Micronesia. That would have locked me into ow.
I guess I will have to use the *A Circle Pacific product (both A and D are currently more affordable than ow if you can avoid flights with D surcharges). For my travel patterns, using the D or A RTW and CirPac products from both alliances, kind of makes needing elite status less of a priority. Yes the eVIPs are nice and the SWUs would be nice, but there are other ways to fly comfortably. The EXP phone line is nice, especially in cases of irregular ops. I will be LT Plat within the next year, so my 100% will be locked in (if we don't go the way of US). So alternating between the two alliances based on where I am traveling that year is a viable option in my particular case. Unless I am going for EXP that year or taking advantage of my eVIPs, there is no compelling reason not to fly another alliance if it can be done in J or F for a reasonable price. I use the MP Visa so have a pile of UA miles for my occasional flights on UA and for scenarios similar to the one that is currently unfolding. I live near a UA hub (IAD), so that is a plus on the side of using *A. I have a lot of reasons to use both alliances, but the CO thing has tilted the scales just a bit in the favor of *A making them even closer to parity in my particular case. AA still gets big marks for AAdvantage FF program. If they go the route of US, then that will definitely be the clincher in me changing full force to *A. Hopefully that will not be the case, because FF program and upgrades are so much better on AA than on UA. Wow, I didn't know I had so much to say on this subject. I intended to just answer NO to US partner suggestion.
AS yes!
I too, am not happy about CO. I was really looking forward to a D or A ONEx and the ability to include Micronesia. That would have locked me into ow.
I guess I will have to use the *A Circle Pacific product (both A and D are currently more affordable than ow if you can avoid flights with D surcharges). For my travel patterns, using the D or A RTW and CirPac products from both alliances, kind of makes needing elite status less of a priority. Yes the eVIPs are nice and the SWUs would be nice, but there are other ways to fly comfortably. The EXP phone line is nice, especially in cases of irregular ops. I will be LT Plat within the next year, so my 100% will be locked in (if we don't go the way of US). So alternating between the two alliances based on where I am traveling that year is a viable option in my particular case. Unless I am going for EXP that year or taking advantage of my eVIPs, there is no compelling reason not to fly another alliance if it can be done in J or F for a reasonable price. I use the MP Visa so have a pile of UA miles for my occasional flights on UA and for scenarios similar to the one that is currently unfolding. I live near a UA hub (IAD), so that is a plus on the side of using *A. I have a lot of reasons to use both alliances, but the CO thing has tilted the scales just a bit in the favor of *A making them even closer to parity in my particular case. AA still gets big marks for AAdvantage FF program. If they go the route of US, then that will definitely be the clincher in me changing full force to *A. Hopefully that will not be the case, because FF program and upgrades are so much better on AA than on UA. Wow, I didn't know I had so much to say on this subject. I intended to just answer NO to US partner suggestion.