http://www7.lan.com/compania/lanchil...005_03_11.html
I welcome LAN's expansion, but from what I read elsewhere it appears LAN will own only 49% of the new venture, so I assume in that sense Lan Argentina will be similar to Lan Ecuador, and therefore unlikely to be part of Oneworld. Comments?
I welcome LAN's expansion, but from what I read elsewhere it appears LAN will own only 49% of the new venture, so I assume in that sense Lan Argentina will be similar to Lan Ecuador, and therefore unlikely to be part of Oneworld. Comments?
Lan Argentina should have the same status as Lan Ecuador. Lan Chile will own only 49% of Lan Argentina (as in Ecuador, in Argentina a foreign company cannot own a majority share of a local airline), that makes it 1% less of what is necessary to become a subsidiarie, 1% less of what is necessary to enjoy automatic inclusion in Oneworld under Lan Chile's membership.
Since Lan Argentina will be a completely separate entity from Lan Chile, the airline would need to be made a Oneworld member on an individual basis before being considered a part of Oneworld.
Since Lan Argentina will be a completely separate entity from Lan Chile, the airline would need to be made a Oneworld member on an individual basis before being considered a part of Oneworld.
Quote:
Since Lan Argentina will be a completely separate entity from Lan Chile, the airline would need to be made a Oneworld member on an individual basis before being considered a part of Oneworld.
To the best of my knowledge, LAN Peru was made a member of OW on the basis of its affiliation with LAN Chile, even though LAN only owned a minority holding. So I don't see a need for LAN Argentina to be made a member of OW on an individual basis. That said, I don't understand what the distinction/logic is behind the inclusion of LANs Chile and Peru vs. the exclusion of Ecuador....Originally Posted by Trotamundo
Lan Argentina should have the same status as Lan Ecuador. Lan Chile will own only 49% of Lan Argentina (as in Ecuador, in Argentina a foreign company cannot own a majority share of a local airline), that makes it 1% less of what is necessary to become a subsidiarie, 1% less of what is necessary to enjoy automatic inclusion in Oneworld under Lan Chile's membership.Since Lan Argentina will be a completely separate entity from Lan Chile, the airline would need to be made a Oneworld member on an individual basis before being considered a part of Oneworld.
Quote:
Cost, presumably. OW demands certain standards of 'excellence' in service, marketing etc. for a carrier to join (as founder member AA is testament to, this has more to do with market impact on existing members than so-called excellence). I'm guessing that it made sense to join LAN Peru because of thru-traffic, while for Ecuador perhaps this makes less sense... just a hunchOriginally Posted by OWdevotee
I don't understand what the distinction/logic is behind the inclusion of LANs Chile and Peru vs. the exclusion of Ecuador....
Am bumping this thread as I've just completed a round trip to UIO on XL (LAN Ecuador) and remain curious about some inconsistencies with the exclusion from OW:
1. My flight was sold under a LA designator, yet according to the disclaimer statements on various OW and OW-member airline sites, flights operated by XL aren't part of OW, therefore don't qualify for mileage earn etc.
2. My BP confirmed this: "XL xxx marketed as LA xxx"
3. AA willingly allowed me to use the AAdmirals Club in SCL (the last chance saloon for us smokers) despite this not being a OW flight
4. At no other point was the word "Ecuador" mentioned in association with "LAN" (ie boarding announcements, in-flight announcements). Merely the shortform of "LAN" was used.
5. Cabin and cabin attendants in mainline LAN livery / uniforms.
6. In-flight magazines all mainline LAN.
7. Menus mainline LAN.
8. A OW logo on the LH side of the door to the plane.
The only noticeable difference was the [dis]comfort of seating - if J was bad on a 6-hour flight, I can't begin to imagine what Y must've been like.
I'm tempted to press for mileage status credits for these flights from QF but doubt I'll get anywhere. Given that this was sold as a OW-member flight and I even sat on a plane with a OW logo on it, is it worth pursuing? Hate to wave adios to just shy of 6K miles and 160 status credits.
1. My flight was sold under a LA designator, yet according to the disclaimer statements on various OW and OW-member airline sites, flights operated by XL aren't part of OW, therefore don't qualify for mileage earn etc.
2. My BP confirmed this: "XL xxx marketed as LA xxx"
3. AA willingly allowed me to use the AAdmirals Club in SCL (the last chance saloon for us smokers) despite this not being a OW flight
4. At no other point was the word "Ecuador" mentioned in association with "LAN" (ie boarding announcements, in-flight announcements). Merely the shortform of "LAN" was used.
5. Cabin and cabin attendants in mainline LAN livery / uniforms.
6. In-flight magazines all mainline LAN.
7. Menus mainline LAN.
8. A OW logo on the LH side of the door to the plane.
The only noticeable difference was the [dis]comfort of seating - if J was bad on a 6-hour flight, I can't begin to imagine what Y must've been like.
I'm tempted to press for mileage status credits for these flights from QF but doubt I'll get anywhere. Given that this was sold as a OW-member flight and I even sat on a plane with a OW logo on it, is it worth pursuing? Hate to wave adios to just shy of 6K miles and 160 status credits.
Quote:
1. My flight was sold under a LA designator, yet according to the disclaimer statements on various OW and OW-member airline sites, flights operated by XL aren't part of OW, therefore don't qualify for mileage earn etc.
2. My BP confirmed this: "XL xxx marketed as LA xxx"
3. AA willingly allowed me to use the AAdmirals Club in SCL (the last chance saloon for us smokers) despite this not being a OW flight
4. At no other point was the word "Ecuador" mentioned in association with "LAN" (ie boarding announcements, in-flight announcements). Merely the shortform of "LAN" was used.
5. Cabin and cabin attendants in mainline LAN livery / uniforms.
6. In-flight magazines all mainline LAN.
7. Menus mainline LAN.
8. A OW logo on the LH side of the door to the plane.
The only noticeable difference was the [dis]comfort of seating - if J was bad on a 6-hour flight, I can't begin to imagine what Y must've been like.
I'm tempted to press for mileage status credits for these flights from QF but doubt I'll get anywhere. Given that this was sold as a OW-member flight and I even sat on a plane with a OW logo on it, is it worth pursuing? Hate to wave adios to just shy of 6K miles and 160 status credits.
I took a few LP flights one a LONE5 last year points didn't post as they are not suppossed to but I thought I would try my luck anyway and faxed my BP to QF along with a few other flights that hadn't posted. QF credited for me but not for my two friends who were on the same flight! So I guess you might as well try your luck they can and do make mistakes with posting.Originally Posted by virtualtroy
Am bumping this thread as I've just completed a round trip to UIO on XL (LAN Ecuador) and remain curious about some inconsistencies with the exclusion from OW:1. My flight was sold under a LA designator, yet according to the disclaimer statements on various OW and OW-member airline sites, flights operated by XL aren't part of OW, therefore don't qualify for mileage earn etc.
2. My BP confirmed this: "XL xxx marketed as LA xxx"
3. AA willingly allowed me to use the AAdmirals Club in SCL (the last chance saloon for us smokers) despite this not being a OW flight
4. At no other point was the word "Ecuador" mentioned in association with "LAN" (ie boarding announcements, in-flight announcements). Merely the shortform of "LAN" was used.
5. Cabin and cabin attendants in mainline LAN livery / uniforms.
6. In-flight magazines all mainline LAN.
7. Menus mainline LAN.
8. A OW logo on the LH side of the door to the plane.
The only noticeable difference was the [dis]comfort of seating - if J was bad on a 6-hour flight, I can't begin to imagine what Y must've been like.
I'm tempted to press for mileage status credits for these flights from QF but doubt I'll get anywhere. Given that this was sold as a OW-member flight and I even sat on a plane with a OW logo on it, is it worth pursuing? Hate to wave adios to just shy of 6K miles and 160 status credits.
Quote:
LP is recognised as a OW affiliate.Originally Posted by bensyd
I took a few LP flights one a LONE5 last year points didn't post as they are not suppossed to but I thought I would try my luck anyway and faxed my BP to QF along with a few other flights that hadn't posted. QF credited for me but not for my two friends who were on the same flight! So I guess you might as well try your luck they can and do make mistakes with posting.
Quote:
Yes but per QF FF terms and conditions LP flight 1-399 do not earn points in "L" among others.Originally Posted by virtualtroy
LP is recognised as a OW affiliate.
Quote:
It's because Lan Argentina, Lan Ecuador and the now defunct Lan Dominicana are all less than 50% owned by Lan Chile so not subsidiaries. A previous poster said that Lan Peru was also less than 50% owned by LA, but that's incorrect. I dont remember the exact amount off hand, but its somewhere around 80% ownership. Most of South America is very protective and foreign ownership has been historically discouraged. Peru and Chile have a bilateral agreement that permits foreign ownership in each others countries. So Lan Chile is legally able to own more than 50% of Lan Peru and is able to make them into a subsidiary.Originally Posted by virtualtroy
Cost, presumably. OW demands certain standards of 'excellence' in service, marketing etc. for a carrier to join (as founder member AA is testament to, this has more to do with market impact on existing members than so-called excellence). I'm guessing that it made sense to join LAN Peru because of thru-traffic, while for Ecuador perhaps this makes less sense... just a hunch