-Vincent

There are two facts that could potentially facilitate a shift in alliances for CO:

1. United is essentially required to "approve" the US Airways-America West merger under the terms of its codesharing agreement with US Airways. If this approval is withheld, then the codesharing agreement can be terminated, and US subsequently removed from the Star Alliance.

2. Continental has not sought, and apparently does not intend to seek, inclusion into the SkyTeam Transatlantic or Transpacific Antitrust Immunity arrangements.

I still dont see Continental joing Star, if anything the second point you bring up just goes to show Continental intention to grow instead of seeking shelter through anti trust immunity and to slow growth by the rise of mega codesharing. I feel it means they intend to build thier transatlantic offering to compliment thier own network first and thier partners second.

-Vincent

My whole point of bringing up the Star Alliance was the assumption that UA in its current form will disappear. If CO picks up pieces of UA (with no domestic carrier left in Star) - then CO joining Star as the UA replacement makes sense.

You can say what you want about all these airlines operating in bankruptcy for years, but I think with the price of oil shooting up - some are not going to survive. Most countries have only one major carrier. My prediction now is that likely only two major legacy carriers will survive - and I think it will be AA and CO with both picking up pieces of the others.

Other airlines will be the LCC types. I view the US and HP alliance to be a LCC - not a major carrier.

It's not more convenient or cheaper if the person gets lost at CDG and misses a tight connection. CDG is the only airport where I've gotten turned around, and I've been through most of the major airports of the world.

All the policy says is "don't do it without permission" so if there's a reasonable case, or the person travelling is good with it, there's not an issue.

But I would certainly advise against someone who rarely travels to connect in CDG over AMS, for example.

Steve

As would I, if for no other reason than Schiphol is a fantastic airport and a great place for a layover of any length. But I sure as heck wouldn't make that my corporate policy.

What about travelers to France? Sorry, but we insist you connect at AMS or LHR or FRA or wherever?

There have been several studies about the extent and consequences of codesharing and antitrust immunity on routes across the pond and one thing seemed to be obvious, you can grow faster with codesharing , especially under an antitrust immunity agreement.KL/NW and UA/LH being the perfect examples...

So considering that CO is a relatively small airline comparing international ASK to other US carriers or the European competition they would get their behind kicked, if they try to fly alone across the pond...

Continental is not aiming to be the biggest, actions have proven. They are looking to make money and have done so in market that have tradionally been considered perhaps unprofitable by other major carrier. This is the plan it's apparent they will continue to follow. Serving cities with the right sized aircraft to make money; for this the 757 across the pond has proven invaluable. It has helped to open up many markets where carriers flying a 767 would just not make money.

We are going to continue to see them expand this way into more "secondary" markets where they can produce a profit. Further, they are not trying to "do it alone" but rather taking a bit more independant approach instead of be overly reliant upon codeshares.

-Vincent

After the merger (it's not an alliance US and HP are forming), the new US will be the 6th(?) largest domestic airline. While they may be trying to operate on LCC principles, they still offer all the amenities and routes of a legacy carrier. Don't discount them.

Is there any proof that CO is making money on the routes ?

They will reduce the TXL service already after some months and with the payload restrictions on some days, I really doubt it...

Would love to learn the opposite though....

Is there any proof that CO is loosing money on the routes?

KL is reducing capacity on AMS-IAH by switching the 767 to a 737/BBJ, does that mean they've been loosing money?

Winter has lower demand for US-europe routes. EWR-ARN is also getting reduced service during winter...guess CO must be loosing money there too

They are? I thought the all business 737 service was a supplement to, not a replacement for KLM's other service.

The BBJ is in addition to the 767/74M and not a replacement....

You cannot make money on the 757 across the pond to secondary markets, at least not with the CASM�s of CO and the payload restrictions they are facing.Crew per pax costs are simply higher than on bigger jets and CO is not able to rely on synergies other airlines have in marketing and at the airports...

Being lucky to know people who are working for the handling agent of CO at HAM and TXL, I get a good impression...

However heads up for CO for trying to find a niche, but fuel costs and a declining yield , not to mention the costs to equip the 752 are simply too high...

No, starting in November, the KL 663/4 will be opped by a PrivatAir BBJ on F/S/Su. There will be no more KL 767s coming to IAH starting November.

If flying 757's across the pond is so unprofitable, why has AA started doing it on even smaller routes (ala BOS-SNN), and selling only one class of service on it even?!

On a recent ARN-EWR flight, I met people connecting in EWR to YYZ! CO must be doing something right, in getting people to fly to EWR first, then go to Canada.

Ahh, so can you say they have shown you actual load numbers? Like how many avg. paid BF and Y pax on each flight? That will tell us how the yield would look....
If you know about the performance of HAM and TXL routes, fine, but don't apply what you see across ALL trans-atl 752 flights

They must know something more than you since they're getting ATA's 753s so they can put MORE 752s on EWR-europe routes....

It is indeed correct that KLM will not fly three daily flights from November, but nevertheless increase the capacity of C class seats with the 6 weekly BBJ service

BOS-SNN is no secondary market, how many % of all BOS residents have roots in Ireland ?? And it is the shortest TATL route on which a 757 is actually feasible.I am talking about routes, where the 752 has to fly with severe payload restrictions or has to make a stop.Can you imagine what CO lost when the TXL had to stop a few times last month ?? Makes the whole week a desaster profit wise, because of only one or two diversion..

Offering YYZ via EWR will result in another discount and may be even cheaper than the nonstop fare from ARN ( in addition to that there are two more segments, so even lower yield per ASK ) Classic example is AMS-MEM , where KL/NW charge a huge premium because of their monopoly while other destinations via MEM are much cheaper. But AFAIK SAS does not fly to Canada at all and the yield ex Scandinavia is decent in comparison to Central Europe

It depends what would have happened to the 752 ? Beoing does not produce it anymore , because the 737NG is eating it alive.If they own them and would lose X $ putting them in the desert it is still better for them , if they lose X-1 $ flying them to Europe...

Aviation industry is strange sometimes, better to lose money and fly instead of losing more money paying pilots who cannot work and for planes being kept airworthy in the desert...

In addition to that I pointed out that one player will survive on the TXL � NYC route, however I see LH getting in the market, if either CO or DL drops out ( BBJ ?? ) to get them out of their home market again...

And to be quite honest, TXL does not count as a secondary market, neither does ARN. 3.5 million residents and capital of the third biggest economy in the world...