I guess I'm still looking for any of the positives. From a UA employee standpoint, I'd be even more upset. If that codeshare flight were a true UA flight, that would be more lines of flying for UA employees.

In practice, codeshares are not perfect, but they are in no way wrong. I think that codeshares are a a wonderful marketing and operation expansion tool, up there with the ranks of whomever thought of frequent flier programs.

The problems arise with codeshares when there are airlines (like Korean Air/KE) that are significantly below the safety standards of their Skyteam partners (Air France, Delta, Alitalia) and that people are not given full information, especially people who are not from the native country that the airline operates out of. This creates an illusion that the passenger is flying on a carrier with a safety record they are comfortable with. Oftentimes the passenger is unaware that it's a different airline until they get to the airport.

------------------
When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.

- Leonardo da Vinci

[This message has been edited by *HighFlyah* (edited 01-25-2002).]

It doesn't matter to me about the lines of flying. The true UA schedule is what it is, and if we could afford to start service in all those markets, we would. Since we don't, its not like lines are being taken away. The passenger gets the ease of single ticketing, and both carriers benefit from revenue they might otherwise not receive.

Could you give one, just one, example of a benefit to the pax? I mean an actual benefit, not the kind of benefit that marketing people invent.

For example, you mentioned "the ease of single ticketing." How exactly is that a benefit of codesharing? I have so far never encountered the situation where I can get a single ticket if I book a connection on a codeshare but where separate tickets are required if booking the same connecting flight under its "real code." Thus, the benefit of single ticketing seems totally unrelated to codesharing.

Good point....just don't ever use a codeshare flight, then, if you're that narrow-minded about it...

Hmmm... I was hoping that someone who has understood this well enough to conclude that "the benefits to PAX way outweigh the negatives of codeshare flights" would explain it to those of us narrow-minded. If you don't share your insight how are the rest of us going to learn?

OK, another good point. This is my 2 cents worth. Codeshares allow me, as a reservationist, to book an itin with a through fare where it might not otherwise be possible for a myriad of reasons (availability, schedule in some cases, legal routings). And yes, sometimes the broken fare is cheaper, but not usually.

The codeshare flights are also (usually, except in the case of MX) timed to meet incoming and outgoing banks of two or more carriers at a given airport much better than if the airlines weren't codesharing. Look at UA/AC ORD-YYZ. Together, they split the market and you end up with hourly service (better for the pax) and fuller planes (better for UA and AC). If we didn't have code share service we would either have to add frequencies (less profitable, but better for the pax) or disservice the pax by not having as much choice, thereby probably losing more pax to AA.

You also generally accrue more mileage on codeshare flights than either *A flights or other partner flights.

Also, generally speaking with *A anyhow, if you are tkted on a flight operated by another carrier, either one can help you get to your destination (which can be helpful in markets with limited frequencies).

[This message has been edited by UAEmployee (edited 01-25-2002).]

UA & AC can coordinate the timing of their flights without selling flight segments to passengers under a codeshare flight number masquerading as the other carrier.

IIRC, without some sort of codesharing agreement, UA and AC would need anti-trust immunity to do this.

I would think they need the anti-trust immunity to codeshare, too.

OK, lets look at UA/AC ORD-YYZ.

Like you (UAEmployee) say, together, UA and AC provide roughly hourly service. But, isn't that because they are in an alliance and have decided to co-operate rather than because they codeshare?

I've looked up some examples in online booking engines, and it seems as if, on a roundtrip ORD-YYZ, I can use any combination of AC/UA aircraft and AC/UA code and still get the same fare and fare rules. So, what is the real benefit to me as a passenger of having the opportunity to book a flight under a code different from the operating carrier's?

If the fare or routing rules don't allow a mix of carriers there are at least two possibilities, one is to introduce codeshares, another is to rewrite the rules to make mixing the carriers "legal." One of these solutions is transparent to the customer, the other leads to unnecessary confusion. I still don't see why the airlines can't choose the solution which is more straightforward to the passenger.

I have often experienced that by pricing an itineary with codeshares was alot cheaper than using true flight nummbers speeking mostly of UA/LH codeshares. Maybe there is no big difference in domestic fares but it did a huge difference on my international ticket. aswell i think that i recieved more bonus miles on the codeshare than on the LH flight on the same route. Its wright that the airlines cannot provide language service on each codeshare flight but i had the experience last month on a UA flight out of London that there was a Swedish speeking flight attendant while chating with her she told me that the company tries to have at least one scandinavian speeking attendant as they codeshare this flight with SK.
Another thing i like with the codeshare flights is that UA can actualy request seats
for me on them this saves me time as i dont need to call the operating airline again.
I started liking the codeshare system some time ago before i got thet senator advantages. There where no more seats on a LH flight i realy needed and my travel agent found seats on exactly the same flight on the UA codeshare number.This saved my day since then i often chek if there is a better availability on the codeshare.

I'm glad it worked out, but again, was this really because of the codesharing? Or could it be that the reason there was no availability under LH code was in fact that some seats were set aside to be booked under UA code?

No matter how many airlines put their codes on a given flight, it's the aircraft type and its cabin configuration that determines how many seats there are to sell. The plane doesn't change size just because you add flight codes in the timetable.

Codeshares allow me to build longer routings (which mean I earn more miles) for the same (or near the same) fare.

I know this is the UA board, but let me use a Northwest example. I can fly ANC-MSP nonstop on Northwest OR utilize the NW/AS codeshare system and fly ANC-SEA on AS and then SEA-MSP on NW using only a NW ticket and paying the same fare.

So there's one example of a benefit!

For Channel 9 fans, here's some good information about radio callsigns.

General aviation aircraft

These aircraft include private aircraft, or belonging to a large corporation. At first, the callsign is the entire registration code (e.g. N234S for a aircraft registered in the USA) for the first transmission. After a couple of transmissions, the last two or three characters can be used. Sometimes the callsign is the aircraft's model followed by the last two or three characters of the registration code
Private Cessna Citation, registry N1451W:
"November One Four Five One Whisky"
"Citation Five One Whisky"

Private Raytheon King Air, registry N18769:
"November One Eight Seven Six Niner"
"King Air Seven Six Niner"

Private Cessna 411, registry C-FFTG:
"Charlie Foxtrot Foxtrot Tango Golf"
"Twin Cessna (Foxtrot) Tango Golf"

Private Boeing 707, registry N2811S:
"November Two Eight One One Sierra"
"(November) Eleven Sierra"

Private Mitsubishi MU-2, registry JA8845:
"Juliet Alpha Eight Eight Four Five"
"Mitsubishi Eight Four Five"

Commercial aircraft

The flight number is used as reference, preceeded by what is called the airline's callsign, and followed by the word "Heavy" if it is an aircraft capable of generating a large amount of wake turbulence (see the glossary). Once the identification is done, after a couple of transmissions, the word "Heavy" can be left out, and for expedited communications, the airline's callsign can be omited.

Air Canada flight ACA404, an Airbus A340:
"Air Canada Four Oh Four Heavy"

Air France flight AFR1561, an Airbus A320:
"Air France Fifteen Sixty-One"

British Airways flight BAW592, a Boeing 747-400:
"Speedbird Five Ninety-Two Heavy"

Singapore Airlines flight SIA333, a Boeing 777-300:
"Singapore Triple Tree (Heavy)"
(Singapore Airlines operates only heavy aircraft on its passenger flights)

Military aircraft

Among the most important military callsigns, there is of course "Air Force One", which identifies any aircraft carrying the President of the United States. In the case of a helicopter, it becomes "Marine One". Other presidential callsigns include "Air Force Two" for the Vice President, and "Executive Foxtrot One" for the First Lady.

In many countries, military aircraft use "tactical callsigns" which differ depending on the mission, followed by a series of numbers. Some other examples include: "Liberty 24", "Voter 51", "Kasey 15", "Top Gun 71", "Jolly 31", "Navy Rescue 18".

Aircraft in the Force's passenger fleet (used, for example, for flying in VIPs or diplomats) often bear civilian-type callsigns. For example, in the Canadian Forces, it could be "Canforce 814".

Priority handling

The usage of the callsign prefix "Lifeguard" indicates a priority status of the aircraft in what could be called a life-or-death mission, i.e. transportation of time-sensitive cargo (such as organs for transplants) or medical emergencies. Example: "Lifeguard TWA 800 Heavy" (The ill-fated flight 800 plane did bear the "Lifeguard" prefix).

Medical voluntary flights that require some kind of priority status (however not as high as "Lifeguard") use another special callsign. The Air Care Alliance and the FAA defined "Compassion" as the callsign prefix to be used for such flights, followed by the last three characters of the aircraft's registry. N1234X would become "Compassion 34 X-ray" and would be displayed as CMF34X on flight plans and radar scopes.

If you want even more information, check out:http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/3819/COMM.HTM or http://www.airodyssey.net/reference/radiocomm.html



[This message has been edited by eastwest (edited 02-02-2002).]