Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
commavia wrote::checkmark:
AA president Robert Isom today referred to this pending codeshare, and the broader strategic relationship, with China Southern as a "game changer" for AA. I suspect he's right - this is going to dramatically improve AA's competitive position in Mainland China.
LAXintl wrote:Will be interesting to watch this and see where things go with AA.
I do wonder what path CZ will take longer term, whether it maintains relations with both AA and DL, or decides to shed DL/Skyteam and move towards OW?
LAXintl wrote:Will be interesting to watch this and see where things go with AA.
I do wonder what path CZ will take longer term, whether it maintains relations with both AA and DL, or decides to shed DL/Skyteam and move towards OW?
jumbojet wrote:$200,000,000 is a lot of money
IrishAyes wrote:super cool news. thanks for sharing!
why are JFK and YVR excluded from this list?
commavia wrote:And, long-term, there's no question that the "strategic relationship" between China Southern and AA has the potential to generate a great deal of value for both carriers.
uberflieger wrote:It's a bargain considering Delta paid $450,000,000 for its share in China Eastern.
uberflieger wrote:The partnership with a Chinese carrier most certainly is a game changer and already American benefited getting the desired slots for the LAX startup.
Pe@rson wrote:Game changer with a state-owned and state-subsidised airline. Tut, tut.
uberflieger wrote:
It's a bargain considering Delta paid $450,000,000 for its share in China Eastern.
.
mercure1 wrote:While maybe CZ-DL are not best friends, they do have a longstanding deep JV with AF/KL covering Europe, Mideast and Africa. So any exit of ST by CZ would leave it a hole in Europe which I am not sure is filled similarly by OW carrier like BA.
LAXintl wrote:Routes operated by AA
LAX -
Charlotte
Chicago
Dallas
Washington-Dulles
Houston-Intercontinental
Mexico City
commavia wrote:When it comes to an alliance, though, I guess the question becomes the strength of China Southern's relationships with other SkyTeam carriers. China Southern certainly does codeshare with lots of SkyTeam airlines, but it does also have relationships with a notable number of non-SkyTeam airlines, including several oneworld carriers.
panamair wrote:Remember MU was recently granted home carrier status (together with CZ) at the new Beijing Daxing airport... It is expected that MU and CZ will each have about 40% market share at the new airport (with MU targeting about 150-200 aircraft to be based at Daxing). This will essentially give MU dual hubs at Beijing and Shanghai, the two largest and most lucrative markets in China, at the same time.
usflyer msp wrote:CX sees themselves as the Chinese OW carrier.
LAX772LR wrote:Be funny if CX went the other route and ended up hooking up with DL.
Would certainly help DL's historic weakness in HKG, and they'd likely not compete on (m)any routes.
ldvaviation wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Be funny if CX went the other route and ended up hooking up with DL.
The more likely possibility is that CX would join Star Alliance
ldvaviation wrote:The problem with that move is that I doubt the DOT would approve a CX/UA codeshare.
VCEflyboy wrote:What about CAN? Could AA start flying to CAN and expand their cooperation there? That would be a good option for codeshare connections to Southeast Asia and even Australia/NZ/India.
mercure1 wrote:I hope AA-CZ actually work on the connection experience. I don't recall ever using PEK Terminal 2, but in general connecting in China can be a hassle as the appalling long MCT times indicate.
Compare this to ICN with as short as 45min published MCT or, 60min at HKG or NRT.
tphuang wrote:]
I really don't think 45 min vs 60 min makes much of a difference.
The biggest issue inside China is the frequent delays for any number of reasons. And frankly, it doesn't matter which airport the transfer is at.
DeSpringbokke wrote:I'm waiting on AA to take a stab at applying for the seven weekly slots available at CAN for US carriers. United received the slots years ago yet never took up flying, largely due the downturn at the end of last decade. Yes, LAX-CAN is operated by CZ's A380 but its timing on the CAN-LAX end is terrible for connections. With the 787-9, AA operating LAX-CAN is workable, especially if its times are primed for connections at both ends of the flight.
LAXintl wrote:DeSpringbokke wrote:I'm waiting on AA to take a stab at applying for the seven weekly slots available at CAN for US carriers. United received the slots years ago yet never took up flying, largely due the downturn at the end of last decade. Yes, LAX-CAN is operated by CZ's A380 but its timing on the CAN-LAX end is terrible for connections. With the 787-9, AA operating LAX-CAN is workable, especially if its times are primed for connections at both ends of the flight.
Sorry don't see AA on LAX-CAN. Its neither that large of a local market, nor does it have inherent big business demand.
AA needs to figure out how to make its LAX-PVG service profitable first and get its new PEK flight running.
Also regarding CZ, it now operates CAN-LAX 10x weekly, so you do have schedules to choose from.
LAXintl wrote:tphuang wrote:]
I really don't think 45 min vs 60 min makes much of a difference.
The biggest issue inside China is the frequent delays for any number of reasons. And frankly, it doesn't matter which airport the transfer is at.
The "Improved" PEK CZ-AA MCT is 100min. That's still quite a difference compared to other connection options in Far East as mercure1 list.
Overall China really needs to work on its airport transit experience is if expects to truly garner such traffic flow in the years to come.
DeSpringbokke wrote:LAXintl wrote:DeSpringbokke wrote:I'm waiting on AA to take a stab at applying for the seven weekly slots available at CAN for US carriers. United received the slots years ago yet never took up flying, largely due the downturn at the end of last decade. Yes, LAX-CAN is operated by CZ's A380 but its timing on the CAN-LAX end is terrible for connections. With the 787-9, AA operating LAX-CAN is workable, especially if its times are primed for connections at both ends of the flight.
Sorry don't see AA on LAX-CAN. Its neither that large of a local market, nor does it have inherent big business demand.
AA needs to figure out how to make its LAX-PVG service profitable first and get its new PEK flight running.
Also regarding CZ, it now operates CAN-LAX 10x weekly, so you do have schedules to choose from.
Thanks. Didn't know CAN-LAX was now 10X times weekly. I've wondered why none of the US3 has taken a shot at CAN. I believe CZ operates SFO-CAN at least 10X weekly. Is it a situation more or less like the Korean Carriers and ICN, albeit with much much less demand? AA is upgauging LAX-PVG to a 787-9 soon and LAX-PEK goes 787-9 at the end of March. However this might be more of AA basing its 787-9 fleet at LAX, which was all but announced a few years ago and should't surprise anyone.
tphuang wrote:DeSpringbokke wrote:LAXintl wrote:
Sorry don't see AA on LAX-CAN. Its neither that large of a local market, nor does it have inherent big business demand.
AA needs to figure out how to make its LAX-PVG service profitable first and get its new PEK flight running.
Also regarding CZ, it now operates CAN-LAX 10x weekly, so you do have schedules to choose from.
Thanks. Didn't know CAN-LAX was now 10X times weekly. I've wondered why none of the US3 has taken a shot at CAN. I believe CZ operates SFO-CAN at least 10X weekly. Is it a situation more or less like the Korean Carriers and ICN, albeit with much much less demand? AA is upgauging LAX-PVG to a 787-9 soon and LAX-PEK goes 787-9 at the end of March. However this might be more of AA basing its 787-9 fleet at LAX, which was all but announced a few years ago and should't surprise anyone.
CZ gets transit traffic through CAN. It's a good option for transiting from ASEAN countries to North America. That's also why things are getting so hard for CX.
DeSpringbokke wrote:tphuang wrote:DeSpringbokke wrote:
Thanks. Didn't know CAN-LAX was now 10X times weekly. I've wondered why none of the US3 has taken a shot at CAN. I believe CZ operates SFO-CAN at least 10X weekly. Is it a situation more or less like the Korean Carriers and ICN, albeit with much much less demand? AA is upgauging LAX-PVG to a 787-9 soon and LAX-PEK goes 787-9 at the end of March. However this might be more of AA basing its 787-9 fleet at LAX, which was all but announced a few years ago and should't surprise anyone.
CZ gets transit traffic through CAN. It's a good option for transiting from ASEAN countries to North America. That's also why things are getting so hard for CX.
Haven't heard much about US-CAN-ASEAN connections as compared to US-HKG-ASEAN or US-NRT-ASEAN.
commavia wrote:Some interesting reporting from Aviation Week today in an article entitled China Southern Quizzes Managers About Leaving Skyteam ...
* Management has distributed a questionnaire to company leaders assessing the tradeoffs of leaving SkyTeam
* China Southern’s proposed codesharing with AA would lead to the carrier exceeding its permitted allowance of codeshares outside Skyteam, and the alliance has refused to allow China Southern more leeway in the way this allowance is calculated so as to allow additional codesharing with AA
* China Southern potentially leaving SkyTeam for oneworld would obviously have significant implications for both alliances in east Asia
Personal opinion: given the depth of cooperation proposed with AA and (longstanding) level of overlap with China Eastern and other SkyTeam members, it shouldn't be too surprising that China Southern is exploring its options, potentially including a move to oneworld. Personally, though, I'm skeptical of how severe the consequences of such a move would be for Cathay Pacific - I doubt it would have much, if any, impact on Cathay Pacific at all.
Interesting times ...
LAXintl wrote:AA-CZ have had to halve planned codeshares due objections from Skyteam as CZ has exceeded the maximum number of allowed outside alliance codeshares. Revised reduced codesharing effective January 18th.
http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/ ... share-plan
LAXintl wrote:AA-CZ have had to halve planned codeshares due objections from Skyteam as CZ has exceeded the maximum number of allowed outside alliance codeshares. Revised reduced codesharing effective January 18th.
http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/ ... share-plan
jbs2886 wrote:LAXintl wrote:AA-CZ have had to halve planned codeshares due objections from Skyteam as CZ has exceeded the maximum number of allowed outside alliance codeshares. Revised reduced codesharing effective January 18th.
http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/ ... share-plan
How AA-CZ not know this ahead of time? Lawyers doing due diligence should have caught that provision.
Edit: I wonder if SkyTeam is telling CZ to deal with it or leave as SkyTeam probably has the authority to grant a waiver.
IrishAyes wrote:Sorry to be the bad guy here, but if the story is behind a paywall, ....summarize some of the salient details (besides the high-level stuff, unless there isn't anything) so we can get more information?