Except SQ has been trying to sell its stake for years. And if anything reciprocal benefits/arrangements between SQ and VS have been diminishing over the years (for example SQ F used to get access to all VS clubhouses but no more).

An interesting question is whether UA sold or just leased the NYC-LON route authority that it bought from Pan Am and was using for JFK-LHR. I don't remember and while I could probably look it up, I'm sure someone here already knows.

If it was sold, then I doubt they can just add JFK-LHR even if they want to (unless someone is looking to dump the route). If it's leased, there's probably a term or cancellation provision that could give it back (if they cared).

With the current Open Skies policy between Europe and the USA all they need are slots at both ends, not specific route authorities.

Ah. Proves how out of touch I am...so then the question becomes whether UA sold it's old LHR and JFK slots, leased them, or are they still using them all but just from different airports?

Ostensibly UA sold the LHR JFK authority and slot pair to DL. Not long after, Open Skies meant that the authority sale was moot. However the slot sale stood so UA no longer has that slot pair. Having said that, it would be fairly easy to acquire further slots should it desire. UA has been one of the biggest sellers at LHR but separately CO has been acquiring.

VS is a legacy partner from CO's pre-*A days. I don't know if that's going to last now that everything's up in the air and UACO has a *A LHR partner in BMI.

They sold them: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_i...ondon%20Rights

***don't hold me to it*** But IIRC, in the spirit of sbm12's post. I seem to recall less then a year after UA sold this, some sort of agreement/treaty made the above sale worthless to DL.

However Id be very surprised if there wasnt a non-compete clause in the transaction. Basically for X yrs UA can not fly between JFK & LHR, so even if it was possible to do so they wouldnt be able to since DL would sue them and win.

Dont know if codeshares were also a part, if yes then look for the CO/VS sharing to end at least in regards to JFK, since it would be UA/VS

I'd be very surpried if DoT allowed a long term (3-5+ year) no compete clause in the original sale ;)

why would DOT care?? I for 1 dont think DL spent those hundreds of millions for just a couple of yrs of non-compete. Besides BA,AA & VS all served JFK-LHR anyway

I can see VS joining *A. It really makes sense. It's quite shocking that *A doesn't fly JFK-LHR. I wonder if BD would pressure against that. Although there was talk about VS and BD merging, before LH bought them.

They both had an agreement with EK...

That's a shame. I understand changing F and C to a single BF class, but why also regular Y. I would've hoped they'd have kept only E+ throughout.

UA & DL needed DoT approval on the above mentioned deal. The DoT still keep tabs on the airlines from a competition standpoint (much like they nixed (or made them jump through some financial hoops, that made the deal impossible) the original US/DL DCA/LGA gate/slot swaps). I believe the term they use is maintaining a "competitive landscape".

I really don't see the need for VS in the new UA. The partnership with CO was understandable because at its inception, CO had no access to LHR, and only a handful of flights to LGW (from EWR and IAH). UA, on the other hand, has a huge presence at LHR for an American carrier. Only if VS joins Star can I see this partnership to continue.

BD flies short and mid-haul routes. VS flies long-haul. They have virtually zero overlap. Pretending that they fill the same role at LHR is silly.
Agreed. Not that I care too much as I generally find the VS product to be mediocre up front and poor down the back. Still, they have great award inventory availability and it was nice having that option.