LondonElite

Yes, the Thai-Kini of Tutzing...Oberpfaffenhofen would be so much more convenient than MUC.

Xiaotung

Only SA is going in that direction with some certainty at the moment. If you have to include TG and AI, you might as well include all members as no one can survice without government aid.

spartacusmcfly

The drumbeat continues...

1. AI: No bidder again for AI at auction deadline. Deadline extended for the 3rd time...

2. LH: Lufthansa now threatening to declare bankruptcy as they play hardball with govt on bailout...

oliver2002

SA seems to be revived after structured liquidation

dvs7310

Will be interesting to see how it is treated by *A. I suppose if they operate under the same AOC then *A wouldn't necessarily have to boot them. But if they completely shut it down and star over then certainly *A will terminate the membership the same day as has happened with other operators in recent history when they ended operations.

oliver2002

AOC doesn't matter, the *A is not an aviation authority. Its all about who will honor a commercial multilateral agreement that another commercial entity (old SAA) signed. If old SAA is liquidated, they will most probably also default on the agreement(s) signed with others so as to get out of the liabilities.

dvs7310

In legalspeak, likely so. I just remember the last one in *A, Adria had this press release below, they basically gave them one or two days to find a way to bounce back or they are out for good. AirBerlin was similar with OneWorld. The alliances seem to have very little tolerance for total insolvency then sudden resurrection of a new airline from the rubble, like has happened in the past. Granted it hasn't happened sooooo recently, but Sabena to Brussels and Swissair to Swiss are good examples of airlines that transformed rather than actually went under, if that had happened in modern alliances then they should have been allowed to continue alliance relationships rather than being booted 1-2 days after they declare insolvency. Same with SA, they are going to form a new airline from the ashes, and if that new airline wants to remain part of *A then *A should allow it.

In the case of both Adria and AirBerlin, I thought it was really unfortunate. It would have been nice to see a last minute investor come in and provide a rescue, but without the alliance then both airlines were suddenly worth significantly less. I think all the big 3 alliances should provide a grace period to find a suitor to bring the airlines back if they go under before booting them. 30-60 days perhaps. It's hard enough to get new members as it is, so for God's sake, let's extend every branch we can to keep current members in difficult times.

Xiaotung

I imagine if SA was liquidated, their membership would also terminate by default. If a new airline was born, it would need to re-apply for membership and the Star board would need to vote again.

Of course no airline has in the history of alliances entered into insolvency and restructured to remain in the alliance. Chapter 11 is special and doesn't count.

wijibintheair

Right about now I would probably be adding Avianca to your list of potential departures.

LondonElite

A joke airline if there ever was one. Will they be missed?

dvs7310

Which is purely asinine frankly. If an airline is picked up quickly (say in a week or two) from the ashes, and wants to continue in the alliance (at the applicable cost as usual) then they should be able to. That airline alliance is something valuable to a new investor to rescue the very recently collapsed airline. There really should be a grace period on that to help draw in a new suitor.


Avianca? Seriously? Everyone I know in Peru, at least, says the same about LATAM and to fly Avianca whenever possible, not speaking only domestic routes, AV Peru also had an extensive international network. Really sad though from Peru was Trans American then TACA. Avianca absorbed all the TACA airlines and then shït on them solidly now. Precisely why these mega trans-national airlines should not exist.

ElJudioErrante

Depending who links up (UA/LH/AC??) with the newly nationalized Alitalia, I read AZ could join *A? Dunno if thats true.

dvs7310

Same thing came up in the OneWorld thread. I frankly don't see why they should rush into joining any of the alliances. It's an expense they don't need if they keep focus on the core business. Italy does not NEED an airline reaching every corner of the globe, they need a regional airline keeping them connected with Europe and other key destinations nearby (DXB, TLV, TUN, maybe CAI and CMN). Set up codeshares, and let AF, KL, OS, LX, LH, BA, IB, AY, etc. carry Italians further afield for the time being until they can establish themselves as a viable business again.

spartacusmcfly

Agreed. This statement is true for the vast majority of airlines globally. AI, SA, TG, SQ, TP, etc. should all follow this path.

1353513636

SQ and TG are the last major long haul airlines left in SE Asia since VN, GA and MH have downsized longhaul flying...if they go to regional only there won't be a long haul carrier for the region.