CDG is just plain evil - give me AMS anyday.

My one client has it written in thier Corporate Travel Policy "Airline transfer connections through Paris - CDG must be aproved in writing by the Travel Coordinator and Chief Executive officer prior to booking of a reservation."

-Vincent

Austrian, BMI, LOT Polish, SAS, Spanair, TAP Portugal, and USAirways all have 2 classes - Biz and Econ. Some have Econ +, but that hardly counts as a true '3 class' service.

The other 9 carriers - AC, Asiana, ANA, Thai, UA, AZ, LH, Varig, Singapore have 3 classes.

It was once rumored that a prerequisite for Star Alliance inclusion was having 3 classes, but this is clearly not the case and would not be a reason for CO to be barred. Rather, the fact that pretty much every CO destination is already served by a * carrier would be enough reason to not admit them. They wouldn't bring much to the table. USAirways rounded out the alliance nicely with more extensive East coast coverage, as well as a vast Caribbean network.

The Lifetime Plat Card looks exactly like the standard - it is just that the expiration date is "LIFE" - in otherwords - Death. A new one was issued this year which shows SkyTeam Elite Plus.

At TXL - the AF lounge recognizes the CO Plat Card as SkyTeam Elite Plus. They will let you in with the CO Plat Card if you are flying coach on DL to JFK (I showed the agent - she recognizes). AF WILL NOT let you in if you are flying on the CO metal flight from TXL. Any Skyteam Plus flight will work with the CO Plat card (except the CO metal) - like AZ, KL, etc.

At GRU just last week, I was told that only BF could use the AF lounge (with invite) in GRU (I did not know AF had a lounge in GRU - I thought only in GIG). But the CO rep at the check in counter said AF will not let CO Plat - Skyteam Elite Plus - in.

Just seems like AF is putting CO in a different category if you fly CO metal. Even in the AF lounge in TXL - the AF agent was even willing to rebook me on the DL flight from the CO flight.

Let's not forget -- codeshare = no upgrade. :td:

Huh? :confused: Why?

You're telling me that if a connection at CDG is more convenient and/or less expensive that it still requires pre-approval from the big shots?

1. You ever connect through CDG?

The CEO has an absolute hate for it - and so do I; seeing as I wrote the Corporate travel Policy as a favor (I'm the IT consultant).

2. It's a company of 20 people - of which upper management is 4 people.

Yes - time saved / money saved will not allow a connection through CDG unless it is absolutely vital to business (and AFAIK it hs never been so). I can find another way around always...

-Vincent

Perhaps the memo hasn't gone out or the translation from French to US English dint work out so well. :D

Looks like an concern to let Larry know about and look into next time the SkyTeam CEOs habe a pow-wow.

-Vincent

Several times. On multiple airlines. And I agree that CDG is not a very appealing airport.

That's a ridiculous policy, then. CDG isn't particularly pleasant. But a connection there is not the end of the world. Employees shouldn't artificially be restricted from flying through CDG if it saves time and/or is less expensive. Even if you and the CEO hate it with a passion. You guys can avoid CDG like the plague and pick another European gateway for your own travels without imposing a nutty policy on everybody else.

So far CO has been the prejudiced part, when it came to coop`s , codeshares etc. , so blaming AF, because they do not like CO is simply inaccurate.

KLM jsut announced to add a 44 seat all C BBJ 6 times a week from AMS-IAH in addition to the daily 74M and 5 or 6 times weekly 767, so there is huge demand in C class seats.

It would tremendously surprise me, if CO reduces capacity on a hub to hub route, where they make money to put the plane on a thin hub to point / secondary market, where they lose money, like they do in TXL for example...

United has yet to approve US' merger with HP - absent that approval, the UA/US codeshare agreement can be discontinued and US eliminated from the Star Alliance altogether (since US' presence in Star is wholly dependent upon the UA/US codesharing arrangement).

There is no question that CO could deliver far more benefit to the Star Alliance than US Airways. CO's route network is much more complementary, with hubs and route network strengths that can offer much more synergy (i.e., $$$) to the Star partners than PHL/CLT/PHX/LAS ever could. As one example, LH and SQ would greatly benefit overnight from beyond-gateway codeshares at IAH and EWR.

Belgium does not have an overseas airline, since the demise of Sabena. As such, they have less incentive to restrict onward authority of third party carriers. The EU recently got on their case for allowing Ryanair to fly to Charlerois, a little used airport near Brussels, but also convenient to much of France. As an aside, David Bonderman, who has had long involvement with CO, also serves as Chairman of Ryanair, even though it is nominally an Irish carrier.

LH and SQ aren't the only airlines in the alliance. And, there is good LH connecting service from PHL on US and UA. It would be in UA's better interest to keep the new US rather than let it go. I don't necessarily agree that just because CO's route structure is stronger that it would be a better candidate for Star. It's not only about providing connections between carriers, but also insuring vast coverage around the globe. For the places CO flies that US doesn't, another Star carrier already does. That's a significant issue. Aside from opening up EWR (which is already well served by UA) and IAH to connections, CO wouldn't really bring much more to the table.

But with the new USAirways, Star would gain more Southwestern US coverage to PHX and LAS with more extensive connection options.

United stands to lose hundreds of millions in codeshare revenue since the new US will be able to keep nearly all of its East-West traffic in-house versus sendin pax on UA codeshares. Furthermore, LAS and PHX are the two lowest-yield hubs in America, and the last thing a restructuring United needs is a codeshare partner dumping undercut-priced tickets onto its system (HP was notorious for doing this when partnered with CO).

CO, OTOH, brings a strong Latin America, Northeast, and Pacific presence that would be of genuine financial utility to many if not most Star members. The bottom line is that EWR and IAH can bring far more to the table in terms of premium business traffic revenue synergy than PHL, PHX, or CLT could ever hope for. CO's route network has very little overlap with United's (more overlap exists between CO/NW), and poses little threat to the network of any individual Star member airline. Rather, EWR and IAH would plug holes in the Star North American network.

Why does anyone think that CO would leave SkyTeam? I'll agree that the alliance isn't the best, but what evidence is out there that there is any room for realignment of the alliances, particularly with regard to legacy US-based carriers?

There is none - publically atleast... Seems we've fallen into the "What If" game again - to which I must admit some fault into playing...

-Vincent