[Potakas]

Yes, and I think that was FlyingChinaman’s point of view. Who cares about Siberia when there are only 40 million people there.

[FlyingChinaman]

In Europe you have Switzerland (ZUR) as the centre of Western Europe. Like HKG It may or may not be completely dead in the centre of the continent but this is measured in economic and political terms.

BTW Bucksnet, 5-6 hours of flying west from HKG will reach Delhi, the new emerging Asian power. Similar flying time the other way east is Tokyo, the old power house. Under 4 hours to the north is Beijing, the current new power house and again 4-5 hours south to Jakarta which is destined to be the new Asian economic region.

Central Asia may one day be included in this Asian economic club! Until then no commercial airlines would consider a shift!

[BRUSHES]

would be good for me as i am 1 k for life on ual however, if asiana airlines ever had more frequent service and better intra asia routes, i would never fly anyone but them

[Scandinavian]

CX have denied the rumour! Huge sigh of relief 🙂

[FlyingChinaman]

That is also a relief to me!

I think it’s good for Cathay to send out the message to the Oneworld group that “they should show a bit more respect to one of the founder airlines and not to upset it by admitting second/third rate airlines from China into the group!!!!

[RichHI1]

Me too …..
On a cultural note one wonders how these alliances are governed as CX, SQ, JL, NH all seem far less integrated than AA/BA or UA/LH or DL/AFKL.
AA have a separate Joint Business with JL as with IAG but although they trumpet the synergies the differences and the things that do not work seamlessly are still huge.
Is ther perhaps some cultural imperialism form one side of the Atlantic or both at play?

[Scandinavian]

The alliances operate something like the European Union with different levels of membership depending on the airline in question.

Each alliance has a number of airlines who are focused on deepening cooperation and not just increasing the number of carriers in the alliance. Lufthansa, United, Air Canada are the main players in Star, IAG, AA and possibly QF in oneworld, and AF/KLM and DL in Skyteam. These carriers have JVs on the North Atlantic with Star’s Atlantic ++ cooperation being possible the most advanced (UA, AC, LH). In other words you have a group of airlines within each alliance who have much deeper level cooperation (something like the Eurozone). On the North Atlantic for example these three groupings with anti-trust immunity now act as one airline respectively.

The next level is where you have more selective levels of bilateral cooperation. CX cooperating with AA but having relatively little cooperation with QF and BA. In other words the carrier deepens cooperation with another alliance members when there is an overwhelming commercial reason to do so, but is not at the forefront of integration.

Thirdly, you have an outer level who are part of an alliance but where cooperation with the other alliance carriers is limited to the basic requirements (FFP compatibility, thru check-in etc.) that are required upon joining an alliance. These requirements are designed to improve the passenger experience when flying on more than one of the member airlines. They do not involve integrating operations with any of the other carriers. These airlines primarily gain a larger network and more competitive frequent flier programme. Singapore Airlines and US Airways are two good examples of such carriers in Star Alliance. In Singapore’s case its probably an active decision by their management, in US Airways’s case it is more probable that they have been pushed into the cold following CO’s and UA’s merger.

So in response RichHI1, I doubt that it is cultural imperialism rather it is up to each member to decide how integrated they want to be in an alliance. However, in terms of integration it is currently the US and European carriers that are leading the field.

[RichHI1]

Thanks Scandinavian. I was not suggesting some conspiracy, rather that the need states of the western carriers might be more immediately aparent to the alliances.

[Scandinavian]

I think integration on the North Atlantic is definitely easier at this stage and therefore in focus. You basically have United, Delta and American marrying LH, AF/KL and IAG respectively. Three airline groupings who have access to a market with 800-900M inhabitants.

In terms of air transport Asia is not legally one air market like Europe. Consolidation has yet to take form. In turn the alliances are more fragmented and there is a limited amount of multilateral Joint Ventures between carriers in an alliance. This does not lessen the importance of Asian carriers, it’s just that the industry is still more fragmented. Additionally SIA and CX have been very profitable and have not had the same need for integration or cooperation as their less profitable European and North American counterparts.

[RichHI1]

One issue which I find equally interesting is the Latin American one. With LAN and TAM merging it will be interesting to see whether they follow TAM into *a or LAN into 1W. Whilst TAM is in my view the better airline, I think LAN has the upper hand in the merge.

[Scandinavian]

Definitely a relevant question. They could decide to pursue a two alliance strategy with LAN remaining in Oneworld and TAM in Star. This is not unworkable. However, AA and IAG are two strong oneworld partners in South America. The new United is still not as strong in South America as AA. Additionally AA’s hubs of MIA and NYC are very important destinations for both TAM and LAN.

The new TACA/Avianca group seem to be in the process of joining STAR, which means STAR would gain an incredibly strong position if LAN were to defect to them.

My personal hope is the TAM joins LAN in the oneworld camp!

[Author]

Posts