LOL! As long as NWA hangs on by a thread, it just won't happen.

The DOJ made it quite clear that they would view any changes to the transatlantic situation as anti-competitive. It was quite clear to AA and BA that they would need the restriction or face action.

Should we go to Open Skies, that restriction will be dropped instantly.

Steve

-- How about adding EUA on 25K domestic coach rewards - just like NW does.

its hard enough getting EUA on paid domestic reservations.

I pulled up an Inside Flyer article from 2003 that discusses the issue (requires paid membership or $1.00 fee for the article only) :

AA, BA get A-OK from DOT
Jul 1, 2003 | 464 words, 0 images

"Sure enough, when British Airways participated in the American AAdvantage program at the start of frequent flyer civilization, members of that program could redeem their miles for free transatlantic flights on British Airways, something they are told can't be done today because the airline doesn't have government approval. Likewise, when British Airways deserted American for the United Mileage Plus program some years later, members of that program could also redeem their miles for free transatlantic flights on British Airways, and earn them as well. Why is it then that for most of the past 10 years, members of AAdvantage have been told the programs are restricted from offering such rewards without government approval? They had such approval (if it was actually necessary) years ago."

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Inside...3/07/01/612815


AA and BA certainly can offer reciprocal earning/redemption worldwide tomorrow if they desired - any statements to the contrary by either AA or BA is distorted propaganda. What AA and BA CANNOT do is: i) engage in the NW/KLM-style FF practice of "forcing" frequent-flyers in one country into a specific airline's program, ii) actually merge their frequent-flyer programs, or iii) otherwise coordinate their FFPs on anything other than a routine arms-length commercial basis.

Plain and simple, AA and BA want to protect their premium traffic flows from poaching by the other airline, and will not allow their FFers reciprocal access because it makes no economic sense to do so. To the extent that the carriers want antitrust approval for any FF activities, it is because the airlines intend to do something that falls in one of the three categories mentioned above.

How about reciprical elite baggage arrangements with partners... i.e., you check in on a codeshare flight connecting to a CO mainline flight and you get the 70lbs & elite tag.

I think that goes into the category of speculation - there are a lot of cons to such a merger. Also, Heathrowguy is probably right - so long as NW exists its 'super voting' share - not to mention the partnership contracts from when NW invested in CO* - could stand in the way of CO doing any mergers.

* Hard to believe but true - there was a time when NW was the one with the money helping CO out - now look at things....

I already get this, not only on Codeshares but on regular SkyTeam flights, like AF, KLM, KE, etc. I travel frequently through AMS and NRT and I always have two bags, usually both of them over 50. I never have any problems. Once on an AF flight I got a little hassle because one flight was on one of their little jets (Brit Air), but I just smiled and showed my Status Card showing SkyTeam elite plus and everything was smooth.

I thought NW was forced to divest those at least a few years ago?

NW sold its common holdings but retains one preferred share of stock which carries gives it first right refusal on any change of control at CO.

Steve

There has been a lot of discussion on this. Someone with a legal background read the relevant documents and was of the opinion that NW could block anything that required a CO shareholder vote. This meant, in his opinion, either a takeover of CO, or CO taking over another carrier, or a merger. All of these would be major enough to require a shareholder vote.

1) I don't see mileage redemption requirements changing - these are also market driven and subject to competitive measures. Within Skyteam, unless NW/DL also up their redemption requirements (especially to Hawaii), I don't see CO doing this.

2) I still don't see CO/DL reciprocal upgrades. No way does CO want to tempt fate by unleashing waves of DL Medallions to wash over the CO (and NW) Elites already competing for a constantly diminishing number of available upgrades

Remember - DL has a much higher quantity of domestic FC seats available for upgrade. They fly 762/764/777 widebodies domestically and their 757s have 27 FC seats, while their 738s are 16FC across the board. Even with those numbers, DL Elites are having quite a time trying to upgrade on their own metal with many upgrades being held for gate assignment.

DL loyalists (Medallions) tend to fly DL and not much else - so there is little chance of a 'poaching' benefit where CO could use upgrades as a tool to lure DL customers to become permanent CO customers. All that will happen is mid/low tier CO customers will find their already challenging upgrade chances will go right down the drain and CO could alienate and drive away customers it already owns - not a good marketing strategy.

I fundamentally believe that analysis is flawed; specifically, the naivete displayed in the aforementioned sentence above.

Anti-trust action is not cut and dried; there's no specific formula under which "A" is right and "B" is wrong.

The article also fundamentally assumes that codesharing ex-LHR to Europe is the same as codesharing ex-LHR to the US.

The DOJ was quite clear about its concerns about oneworld reducing competition over the Altantic.

Steve

HA just laughs.

Additionally CO's 50% EQM policy - reciprocated by DL and NW for CO flights - makes partner flying less attractive. I shun CO flights unless there is no alternative due to the EQM rules.