CHINA SOUTHERN officially left SKYTEAM, strengthen cooperation with AA
Nov 15, 2018, 9:53 am
#16
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: PVD, BOS
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 1,664
Oh, I'm sure they'll be along soon.
If the cross-shareholding agreement between CX and CA was the basis for choosing an alliance, then I wonder why CA didn't join OW back in 2007. Since the CX/CA cross-investment dates to 2006, surely CA could have easily joined OW instead of *A.
Also, let's not forget that ZH is a *A carrier and their hub is at SZX, which is much closer to HKG than CAN. Granted, ZH operates a different business model to CX. The same could be said of CZ of course...
If the cross-shareholding agreement between CX and CA was the basis for choosing an alliance, then I wonder why CA didn't join OW back in 2007. Since the CX/CA cross-investment dates to 2006, surely CA could have easily joined OW instead of *A.
Also, let's not forget that ZH is a *A carrier and their hub is at SZX, which is much closer to HKG than CAN. Granted, ZH operates a different business model to CX. The same could be said of CZ of course...
Nov 15, 2018, 12:18 pm
#17
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: TPE / HSZ
Programs: CX GO (=SPH), IHG Diamond Amb, Hertz 5*, Accor, Hilton, National
Posts: 6,437
Oh, I'm sure they'll be along soon.
If the cross-shareholding agreement between CX and CA was the basis for choosing an alliance, then I wonder why CA didn't join OW back in 2007. Since the CX/CA cross-investment dates to 2006, surely CA could have easily joined OW instead of *A.
Also, let's not forget that ZH is a *A carrier and their hub is at SZX, which is much closer to HKG than CAN. Granted, ZH operates a different business model to CX. The same could be said of CZ of course...
If the cross-shareholding agreement between CX and CA was the basis for choosing an alliance, then I wonder why CA didn't join OW back in 2007. Since the CX/CA cross-investment dates to 2006, surely CA could have easily joined OW instead of *A.
Also, let's not forget that ZH is a *A carrier and their hub is at SZX, which is much closer to HKG than CAN. Granted, ZH operates a different business model to CX. The same could be said of CZ of course...
On the other hand, ZH is a CA subsidiary, code-shares with KA, and is a limited AM partner, so it does not seem that CX views ZH as a competitor. In fact, looking it this way, CA is pretty strong in the Pearl River Delta: ZH and NX are both subsidiaries, and CX and KA are PhoenixMiles partners and partially owned by CA.
Nov 15, 2018, 1:53 pm
#18
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 254
If I remember correctly, one of the reasons CA chose to be in *A is that the PRC government CA should join the largest alliance which just happens to be *A
IMO CX is less likely to veto CZ than MU to join oneworld if CZ does apply for membership especially after the jetstar hk attempt. They might in future but I'm not entirely sure if that would happen in the near future, since Xiamen airlines which CZ holds 55% has stated that they have no intention to leave skyteam at the moment and it would be most logical the 2 in the same alliance. On the other hand I don't think CX will join *A in near future either with every member in *A have veto power unlike oneworld, and I can't see why SQ/TG/BR/OZ not using it.
With the cross-shareholding I think CX continuous cooperation is quite certain. What would be interesting to see is that if other oneworld airlines (especially QF/JL) would switch from partnering with MU to CZ for Chinese market. Don't forget JL has only just submitted JV application with MU in summer. Forming partnership when there is no alliance partner in that country is one thing, but with another member in the same alliance but still choosing someone else is completely different. If CZ is really interested in joining oneworld soon, I doubt JL doesn't know about it when they are setting up the JV with MU.
IMO CX is less likely to veto CZ than MU to join oneworld if CZ does apply for membership especially after the jetstar hk attempt. They might in future but I'm not entirely sure if that would happen in the near future, since Xiamen airlines which CZ holds 55% has stated that they have no intention to leave skyteam at the moment and it would be most logical the 2 in the same alliance. On the other hand I don't think CX will join *A in near future either with every member in *A have veto power unlike oneworld, and I can't see why SQ/TG/BR/OZ not using it.
With the cross-shareholding I think CX continuous cooperation is quite certain. What would be interesting to see is that if other oneworld airlines (especially QF/JL) would switch from partnering with MU to CZ for Chinese market. Don't forget JL has only just submitted JV application with MU in summer. Forming partnership when there is no alliance partner in that country is one thing, but with another member in the same alliance but still choosing someone else is completely different. If CZ is really interested in joining oneworld soon, I doubt JL doesn't know about it when they are setting up the JV with MU.
Nov 15, 2018, 7:34 pm
#20
Join Date: Jan 2006
Programs: AAdvantage Asia Miles Air China
Posts: 870
Oh, I'm sure they'll be along soon.If the cross-shareholding agreement between CX and CA was the basis for choosing an alliance, then I wonder why CA didn't join OW back in 2007. Since the CX/CA cross-investment dates to 2006, surely CA could have easily joined OW instead of *A.
The decisions were taken independently and not related which is why the current arrangements exist.
Nov 15, 2018, 7:35 pm
#21
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Dubai
Programs: Emirates Skywards Gold
Posts: 108
Official SkyTeam press release: https://www.skyteam.com/en/about/pre...hina-Southern/
I wonder if MF will follow.
I wonder if MF will follow.
Nov 15, 2018, 8:32 pm
#22
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: SHA，CPH
Programs: SAS EuroBonus Gold, Qatar Privilege Club Gold
Posts: 235
I thought MU is falling apart by its own management team. LOL
MU G is easier to reach if you fly a lot of J international flights.
Same based in SHA, I found that without ST tier it is totally fine, CA has a lot of flights as well.
MU G is easier to reach if you fly a lot of J international flights.
Same based in SHA, I found that without ST tier it is totally fine, CA has a lot of flights as well.
Nov 15, 2018, 11:23 pm
#25
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: TPE / HSZ
Programs: CX GO (=SPH), IHG Diamond Amb, Hertz 5*, Accor, Hilton, National
Posts: 6,437
If I remember correctly, one of the reasons CA chose to be in *A is that the PRC government CA should join the largest alliance which just happens to be *A
IMO CX is less likely to veto CZ than MU to join oneworld if CZ does apply for membership especially after the jetstar hk attempt. They might in future but I'm not entirely sure if that would happen in the near future, since Xiamen airlines which CZ holds 55% has stated that they have no intention to leave skyteam at the moment and it would be most logical the 2 in the same alliance. On the other hand I don't think CX will join *A in near future either with every member in *A have veto power unlike oneworld, and I can't see why SQ/TG/BR/OZ not using it.
With the cross-shareholding I think CX continuous cooperation is quite certain. What would be interesting to see is that if other oneworld airlines (especially QF/JL) would switch from partnering with MU to CZ for Chinese market. Don't forget JL has only just submitted JV application with MU in summer. Forming partnership when there is no alliance partner in that country is one thing, but with another member in the same alliance but still choosing someone else is completely different. If CZ is really interested in joining oneworld soon, I doubt JL doesn't know about it when they are setting up the JV with MU.
IMO CX is less likely to veto CZ than MU to join oneworld if CZ does apply for membership especially after the jetstar hk attempt. They might in future but I'm not entirely sure if that would happen in the near future, since Xiamen airlines which CZ holds 55% has stated that they have no intention to leave skyteam at the moment and it would be most logical the 2 in the same alliance. On the other hand I don't think CX will join *A in near future either with every member in *A have veto power unlike oneworld, and I can't see why SQ/TG/BR/OZ not using it.
With the cross-shareholding I think CX continuous cooperation is quite certain. What would be interesting to see is that if other oneworld airlines (especially QF/JL) would switch from partnering with MU to CZ for Chinese market. Don't forget JL has only just submitted JV application with MU in summer. Forming partnership when there is no alliance partner in that country is one thing, but with another member in the same alliance but still choosing someone else is completely different. If CZ is really interested in joining oneworld soon, I doubt JL doesn't know about it when they are setting up the JV with MU.
QF already collaborates with CZ quite extensively I think. If QF can collaborate with both CZ and MU, I don't see why QF should choose just one. JL, on the other hand, will benefit from SHA's location a lot more than CAN, so I think the logical move is for JL to keep focusing on MU partnership, although JL code-shares with CZ, too.
Nov 16, 2018, 3:37 am
#28
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 254
I thought that it's OW that has the veto thing, whereas *A just requires a 1/2 or 2/3 majority or something like that (as in, even LH and UA don't have veto power)? Do you have more information on this?
QF already collaborates with CZ quite extensively I think. If QF can collaborate with both CZ and MU, I don't see why QF should choose just one. JL, on the other hand, will benefit from SHA's location a lot more than CAN, so I think the logical move is for JL to keep focusing on MU partnership, although JL code-shares with CZ, too.
QF already collaborates with CZ quite extensively I think. If QF can collaborate with both CZ and MU, I don't see why QF should choose just one. JL, on the other hand, will benefit from SHA's location a lot more than CAN, so I think the logical move is for JL to keep focusing on MU partnership, although JL code-shares with CZ, too.
QF and CZ is a simple codeshare partner I think, but QF and MU has a joint venture for flights between Australia and China and you can only earn miles for QF ffp with MU and not CZ. Therefore I'd not rate cooperation with MU and CZ at the same level for QF. Same for JL, the joint venture will not just cover Shanghai but the whole China. Currently they already codeshare on all flights between the 2 countries and the JV will allow them to coordinate schedules or depending on terms even profit sharing so it's a lot more beyond codeshare.
Nov 16, 2018, 7:01 am
#29
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: SFO/HKG
Programs: ex-UA 1K, AA EXP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 535
I'll admit I'm not very familiar with CZ's route network, but it appears that other than O&D traffic, it centers around feeding the big 3 SkyTeam players DL, AF/KL,KE.
*A already has the best route network IMO - connections from Europe to SE Asia can be made through IST(TK), SIN(SQ), BKK(TG), TPE(BR), PEK(CA); connections from North America to Asia can be made through YVR(AC), SFO(UA), TYO(NH), TPE(BR), PEK(CA). And let's not forget that LH and LX's reach is pretty broad as well.
If CX did join *A, it'd be terrible news for ex-HKG consumers. Imagine BR/CX codesharing on the HKG-TPE route. They'd have enough flexibility to shrink capacity and drive up prices. Right now, *A is the counterbalance to CX's ridiculously expensive ex-HKG fares.
Nov 16, 2018, 9:55 am
#30
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Seat 1A
Programs: Non-status paid F/J (best value for $$$)
Posts: 4,124
Let’s look at this from another angle. Perhaps this is a signal that the end of the airline alliance model that started in the late 1990s is coming soon?
Instead of being in alliances, airlines would instead have partnerships with others only when it makes sense for certain routes and regions they serve. Just like the CX/AC, EK/QF partnerships.
Expect mutual frequent flyer status recognition to be a thing of the past. Instead, mutual recognition for things like lounge access and the earning of miles will depend entirely on the route you are flying provided the airline pair has a partnership for that route.
Airline frequent flyer programs will be more like Alaska’s Mileage Plan program. Note both SQ and CX are partners with the AS program. However don’t expect to be able to redeem AS miles for SQ flights!
Status in the programs will be granted mainly from flying the airline that hosts the program as opposed to flying its partners (except on certain routes).
Instead of being in alliances, airlines would instead have partnerships with others only when it makes sense for certain routes and regions they serve. Just like the CX/AC, EK/QF partnerships.
Expect mutual frequent flyer status recognition to be a thing of the past. Instead, mutual recognition for things like lounge access and the earning of miles will depend entirely on the route you are flying provided the airline pair has a partnership for that route.
Airline frequent flyer programs will be more like Alaska’s Mileage Plan program. Note both SQ and CX are partners with the AS program. However don’t expect to be able to redeem AS miles for SQ flights!
Status in the programs will be granted mainly from flying the airline that hosts the program as opposed to flying its partners (except on certain routes).