|
   |
Accueil >> Forum >> Skyteam, future members Forum Aviation civile
Skyteam, future members
Retour à l'index du forum - Poster un message à cette discussion
| |
Message de Hello people! - Envoyé le 10 Dec 18:21 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 11 Dec 12:27 |
|
| |
Nobody(Not even Skyteam nor MEA/TAROM) knows for sure as official full membership depends on many factors. This is the same in the joining process for any global alliances. 1 key aspect is the compatibility of various SkyTeam standards.
These include areas such as: Reservation system/join-ticketing, codesharing, FFP(Frequent Flyer Program), customer service levels inflight+on the ground, co-location/synchronization of flight ops @ airports worldwide, online service stds, joint-mkting, joint-procurement, etc. Each area takes a long time to merge between prospective airline members and SkyTeam existing members. On top of that a team need to 1st, identify/evaluate the current diff. 2nd, remove those diff. 3rd, audit & confirm those diff are fully resolved. Each of these 3 steps may require tremendous time+$ to complete depending on the current status of TAROM and MEA. The bigger the diff, the more time & $ will be required. The shortest time to move from start to finish in this alliance joining process I know of is when JL was joining OneWorld. It took them a little over 9 mths because JL was already a close partner bi-laterally with many OneWorld members and faced little differences. It also helps that JL was already a rich & powerful global player. I don't think that's the case with MEA, TAROM, Avianca and MH so the joining process for them may typically takes 1.5-2yrs or more after official start.
Some alliances publish a target date of completion of these activities but some not.
Fyi, neither Avianca nor MH is a SkyTeam MEMBER and neither has officially applied to join so we don't even know when will the above described process can start, let alone when will it be completed and full membership granted. Both hv announced their interest to join but as we all know, interest does not equal to time+$ committed to the joining process.....
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de Hello people! - Envoyé le 11 Dec 16:06 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 12 Dec 7:02 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de Hello people! - Envoyé le 15 Dec 20:27 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de Werkur737 - Envoyé le 15 Dec 20:35 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de 74823 - Envoyé le 15 Dec 20:52 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de EI-DUB - Envoyé le 15 Dec 22:49 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de oldbold - Envoyé le 16 Dec 3:00 |
|
| |
Unless someone starts a new LCC alliance it seems unlikely Aer Lingus would join, having left Oneworld because its business model was no longer compatible.
Having said that, there are likely to be several flavours of LCC emerging: in the States there are carriers like Virgin America and JetBlue where amenities may be free or available that are not on Spirit or Soiuthwest: in the Asia-Pacific area long-haul routes are spreading: Oasis, Viva Macau, and Jetstar with premium cabins for example.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de EI-DUB - Envoyé le 16 Dec 15:32 |
|
| |
I'd have to agree with you oldbold, there are several flavours of LCC emerging. Whilst I would have to concede that Aer Lingus mightn't be quite up there with Virgin America etc, they certainly aren't down with the like of Ryanair.
For example I was told that on the first day of the Belfast base being in operation, EI didn't charge for the food or drink on board, it is touches like that that put it a step higher than the like of Ryanair.
So I could see them joining an alliance in the future if it was going to be good for the company and compatible with their new model.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de captain bill - Envoyé le 16 Dec 16:37 |
|
| |
I think Aer Lingus are one of the most interesting airlines in Europe right now due to the transition that they are going through and seem to be somewhere between (not budget carrier for that is where Rotten Air are) a low cost carrier and, to my mind, a proper front line carrier so I also think that they will join some sort of alliance in the future.
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de KL1086 - Envoyé le 16 Dec 17:11 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message de FLX - Envoyé le 18 Dec 12:24 |
|
| |
I don't exactly know where EI is heading in terms of mkt strategy. However, if they're targeting a mkt segment that is anything below a FULL service(Not just inflight service) carrier, my view may be diff fm a lot of U here: U won't find them joining *A(StarAlliance), ST(SkyTeam) nor OW(OneWorld). This will be the same for LCC of whatever tier/flavour.
The essence/reason for existence in any 1 of the 3 major global alliances is about achieving superiority worldwide for all member airlines in terms of connectivity, FFP(Frequent Flyer Programs), Departure lounges, Terminal co-location, Codesharing system, Joint-mkting system, Alliance-wide customer support, etc. None of these are priority in a LCC model and as I mentioned earlier in this thread, all these stuff need major investments fm each member initially. Most importantly, global alliance memberships require operational compromises fm individual member thereafter. e.g., let's say EI has the $ to invest & joined ST tomorrow and EI's biz plan call for more direct flights to N.America(I think this is in fact on EI's real biz plan). To make EI's membership worthwile, they'll hv to fly into ST's hubs new for EI in DTW(NW), ATL(DL) and EWR(CO's hub but EI currently flies into JFK) to start to feed/to be fed by their partners there. All 3 may not be the most immediately profitable compared with destinations like LAX, ORD, SFO fm EI's own perspective. Moreover, if EI stick to the LCC point-to-point formula, they'll certainly rather fly to low costs U.S. airports such as OAK(Across the bay fm SFO), Orange County(Close to LAX) and Milwaukee(Close to ORD). Another example is that members need to schedule their flights not too close but not too far fm each other(That usually mean peak hrs) in a hub to make connectivity really work. In contrast, LCC, especially for the ones not with many planes, schedule flights by aircraft availability, own(Not partners') pax demand and off-peak airport charges.
That's why JQ(Jetstar Int'l) is not a OW member even though its parent QF is and membership could hv been achieved easily/cheaply due to similar/same systems between them. In fact, lots of LCCs with major airline parents remain outside of any alliances.
What we'll see, however, are bi-lateral limited partnerships(Codesharing or FFP or other aspect, etc.) between the individual majors in alliances and LCCs where the agreements work for both parties in a few aspects but not all aspects fm full membership status. ST member NW has a few of these partnerships with 2 LCCs(Jetstar and AirAsia) in Asia in terms of FFP mileage redemption but not earning. Similarly, VirginBlue has limited codeshare/joint-mkting with *A member UA within Australia but nothing else.
In a nutshell, global alliance is all about maximizing pax convenience+travel related benefits(Not only when flying) for all member airlines. LCC is about the lowest possible cost/highest value flights(Only when flying) to pax.
oldbold:
U're absolutely correct re EI's new biz model not compatible with OW. In fact, I'll say it's LCC model is incompatible with any of the 3 global alliances. Also, differentiation of LCCs are not just emerging. It has already happened and the differentiation is now becoming finer with stuff such as inflight products+services. e.g. U can find premium cabin in AirAsia X, VivaMacau, Oasis HK and Jetstar Int'l. The former 2 charge premium pax extra for any meal+alcohol at a rock-bottom basic fares while the latter 2 do not but sell basic fares @ nearly major airline level. All 4 are LCCs but each put diff emphasis on the fare vs product value formula. However, all still operate under the LCC principle which weights heavily towards infrastructure/ops simiplicty: The exact opposite of the complex full alliance approach. Even if eventually we'll see such a thing as a LCC alliance, it'll be completely diff to the current 3 global alliances fm the pax benefit perspective(e.g. Don't expect dirt cheap fare+easy free flight rewards co-exist).
|
|
Profil utilisateur
|
Message privé
|
Suggérer la supression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster un message à cette discussion
|
|
Les messages doivent uniquement être rédigés en anglais. Tout message écrit dans une autre langue sera supprimé.
Les messages ne doivent concerner que des sujets liés à l'aviation civile et ne doivent contenir aucune publicité. Votre IP est conservée.
Les balises de format de texte pouvant être utilisées sont
[B]Votre texte[/B] : Texte en gras
[I]Votre texte[/I] : Texte en italique
[U]Votre texte[/U] : Texte souligné
[S]Votre texte[/S] : Texte barré
Pour inclure une photo Airfleets.net dans votre message, utilisez la synthaxe [P]Numéro de la photo[/P] |
|