InsideFlyer.com [English] United States InsideFlyer.uk [English] United Kingdom InsideFlyer.de [German] Germany InsideFlyer.no [Norwegian] Norway InsideFlyer.se [Swedish] Sweden InsideFlyer.dk [Danish] Denmark InsideFlyer.nl [Dutch] Benelux
Discussion in 'American Airlines | AAdvantage' started by JALPak, May 11, 2011.
| Print Topic
No revenue sharing? Well at least that'll squash some of the rumors/desires AA customers have stoked for AA metal to Oz/NZ. At least for now.
Yea just better schedule for AA folks and nothing in return. They know why you fly right?
Oz/NZ routes have never been too high on my wish list. I'd rather see more Asian and some African routes. But, that's just me.
All kidding aside though, a JBV application doesn't make sense unless AA is at least thinking of flying its metal to Oz/NZ. This might be a positive sign....
Interesting analysis in the Australian press:
They are pulling out of Asia and going US! Qantas currently has no ATIs with any airlines right?
But they do have JBV with BA if I recall correctly
Well I am happy they're moving forward, but all these JBVs are for the airlines not the passengers.
Although there have been minor improvements.
What I'm waiting for is IB code mistakes to Australia.
It would seem it's always a catch 22. You get some new benefits but yes in the end it's all for the airlines rather than the customer.
I'd love to see AA fly to HKG. That would open up lots of travel for upgrades. Personally, Australia is one of my favorite places to visit, so an AA flight would be great. Back when an ex-US Circle Pacific was $5k in business, it was feasible to go to Australia on a mileage run/short vacation. But now, with RT business fares in the $11k range, we can only go as part of an ex-non-US DONEx.
Why would fares be reduced?
I wonder if business fares might go down?
The link includes:
But according to AA, it has no intention of entering the route and the airlines argue this means it is not a true competitor and there is no detriment to competition from the deal. They argue that an enhanced relationship is needed to reinvigorate competition and say they would continue the existing codeshare if the alliance is rejected, but it would have "inherent limitations".
So, AA is saying they won't be flying there.
I tend to focus on it being a JBV with ATI. They could just apply for the ATI, which would accomplish the linking schedules portion that they want to do. Going for the JBV only makes sense if eventually they'd want to share revenue on flights, and they'd only be sharing revenue if there was revenue to share, i.e. AA enters the market.
So if AA actually isn't planning on entering the market, why not just get ATI and not go through the trouble of JBV? I could be completely wrong, but maybe AA doesn't plan on entering the market. Yet.
Or I'm totally off, one or the other.