Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:01 pm
Why should PR consider an alliance, to gain better U.S. access?
I understand the notion well, one 'legacy' carrier, partnering with another 'legacy' carrier - in the conventional form of an alliance.
That said, based on PR's seat map, changes in recent structure, and perhaps face of forward growth - a better partner for said growth, would be, a lower costing option. As is, in that category - we have B6, AS, and WN - each presenting PR with specific challenges and advantages, but almost all better able to serve PR's needs (of codeshares, and interlining - so that passengers almost anywhere can pick up onto their flights), and saves it from additional costs (such as membership dues, the costs of entering, and ths costs of aligning with alliance standards; all which take years, and are predicated on advancing to a "JV/ATI" agreement that happens years into the future). PR will be recieving those planes soon, and flying ULHR with them - thus theses routes are likely to cost them higher than most others in the network. It does not mean that it will not add to, or as part of a larger context, and/or mature in future to become; profitable, but I can understand that the airline would want to maximize the benefits (not share as much on costs, and not incur any major ones at this point for the short-mid term) for themselves. If so, then put the issues regarding costs, onto the code-share agreement, as essentially this be future revenue that (save for finding a partner) will not occur anyway.
So, backing to the contenders;
AS; Perhaps the best partner of the class, an established history of code-sharing with international partners (the true CodeShare Queen), has hubs as SEA, SFO, LAX, and bonus; ANC (yup, Pinoy Crewman end up, up here, can now fly home via HNL, with some code-share/interlining right-timing). This could also assist in 'right' yielding (and/or cannibalizing) their NYC performance, and with the 'investment' of VX, AS now has a decent level of Trans-Con capability. Thus, either high-yeidling, and/or time sensitive passengers/cargo will go non-stop with PR and those that are more price sensitive - can 'hop' to the west coast via AS and connect to the options of LAX, SFO, SEA, or even LAS - helping to better 'plug' the holes in demand. It many not bode well for PR's NYC performance (if costs - namely fuel - rises, or if a competitor enters, a la an AirAsiaX type, or even perhaps Cebu Pacific) - but it would certainly benefit their other cities much more.
B6: The dark horse, but also with a proven record of keeping 'transitioning' carriers happy (case in point, EI - and how well that partnership fit, or currently - how EK enjoys their partnership as well...). B6 though would increase the pressures upon the performance of the NYC route (see issues listed above with the AS example, however intensify them as Mint's offerings are superb, and perhaps even better than PR's in some fashions). It is limited in what it can offer on the West Coast, but will likely grow to accommodate what it can. Their strong East Coast focus, though, and the relative lessened ability to 'connect' on the West Coast vs the East Coast - limits their offerings and capabilities to PR's needs. However, if B6 did concern itself with West Coast growth - this would be a fantastic add of a partner.
WN; essentially strong everwhere, but with such limited exposure to international flying - and further, no experience with code-sharing. When they do come into the capability, though - they will be a fantastic addition.
I hope PR could resume CEB-LAX. 
