In the Trenches: Do It Ourselves or Partner with Someone Else? – Intuit Small Business Blog
I’m debating how to deal with frequent flier redemptions.

Andrew Watterson, Vice President, Planning & Revenue Management for Hawaiian Airlines made a comment during the strategy panel that caught my attention. He explained that while Hawaiian is “outside an alliance, we sense the friction between joint venture partners and non-joint venture partners. I can’t imagine what that’s like inside the alliance.” In the end, he suggested that with airlines like JetBlue and Hawaiian (you could throw Alaska in there as well, domestically) offering partnering opportunities without an alliance, some members might start to think twice.

What’s the Difference Between an Alliance and a Joint Venture?
But first, we should back up. Let me explain the difference. Most of us know what airline alliances are. The big three are United-led Star Alliance, American-led oneworld, and Delta-led SkyTeam. These alliances are really focused on providing reciprocal benefits to members of each frequent flier program of the member airlines. You can earn miles (even elite qualifying miles) on all member airlines, and if you’re an elite member, you will get reciprocal benefits like priority boarding, lounge access, etc. There is limited cross-upgrading opportunity between some members but that benefit isn’t a very strong one at this point.

These alliances, are full of independent airlines that still compete with each other, even though they may be partners. When US Airways flies from Philly to Chicago, it is going head to head with United in that market, for example. United and US Airways do codeshare, and that allows them to expand their reach, but it’s not a requirement to codeshare to be an alliance member. In other words, it’s a fairly loose commercial cooperation at its core.

A joint venture, however, is a different story. The idea there is that two or more airlines agree to put all revenues into a big pot for travel in a geographic area. The money is then divided up between the airlines depending upon how much they fly. A good example of a powerful one today is the Atlantic Plus Plus venture led by United and Lufthansa. This also includes Lufthansa-owned Austrian, bmi, and Swiss as well as Air Canada.

The idea is simple. Since governments like that of the US have not been willing to allow mergers across borders, a joint venture is as close as airlines can get to merging under the law. Today, if you fly on a Lufthansa airplane or a United airplane, United shouldn’t care. It works with Lufthansa to coordinate schedules and pricing, and it splits the revenue up. (It’s not as simple of a split in actual terms, because there are adjustments depending upon a variety of factors but let’s not make this too complex.)

Now think about an airline like US Airways. US Airways is a member of Star Alliance, but it is not a member of the joint venture. While US Airways can connect people from all over the US to Europe, Lufthansa now has less incentive to put people on US Airways. Why not connect passengers within the US on United instead where it stands to gain? Lufthansa can keep more of the revenue that way, in all likelihood. It can also work with United to study traffic flows and arrange top connections to be as convenient as possible from a scheduling perspective. US Airways theoretically loses out.

I say theoretically, because in reality US Airways is doing just fine. In fact, I asked President Scott Kirby about this at media day last week. He responded that they are happy to consider joining the joint venture, but their transatlantic flying is doing so well that they would end up having to pay more out because of that. That’s not ideal, but if it starts seeing less benefit from the alliance, you would think it might have second thoughts. Certainly it might think twice about joining today if it weren’t already a member.

Getting Back to the Point . . .
But let’s get back to Hawaiian’s point. There is a feeling of haves and have nots. While US Airways is an incredibly rational airline that looks at numbers above all, not all alliance members will feel that way. There is bound to be a tension that grows when those airlines that feel left out think they deserve to be a part of the “in crowd.”

In the past, even those emotions were too hard to act on since the revenue from cooperation was so good. But if there is an alternative, then does that sway things? The airlines that use this, as JetBlue calls it, “open architecture” which allows for partnerships with any interested airline, have been growing quickly. They provide more schedule options and feed opportunities each day. So at some point, do airlines get fed up with alliances and start going it alone?

It’s incredibly rare for an airline to leave an alliance unless it goes under, but it has been done. Aer Lingus was a member of oneworld but is now independent. It has been aligning itself more closely with JetBlue to the point where there has been discussion about JetBlue buying a stake. There was a discussion last year about Aer Lingus rejoining an alliance, but the costs to join are steep and Aer Lingus didn’t think it could get enough benefit. With more successful niche airlines looking to go it alone, the temptation to stay out of an alliance may very well become a desirable option, especially as core members get closer and closer via joint ventures.

GUEST POST: Cranky Flier Mulls Service Prospects for BWI Airport – Aviation Queen
In case you missed it, Benet Wilson is now writing her own blog at aviationqueen.com. I filled in this week with a guest post on prospects for more service at the Queen’s hometown airport of BWI.

In the Trenches: Learning How to Use an Assistant – Intuit Small Business Blog
The idea of having an assistant sounds good, but really, I don’t think I’d even know where to start.

I suppose I should break this down into two different pieces, because there is one aspect of codesharing that does make sense to me: the regional airline relationship. If you fly Delta from LAX to Phoenix, you’re actually flying on SkyWest Airlines operating as Delta Connection. SkyWest doesn’t sell flights on its own. It’s just a hired service-provider, and that type of codesharing I understand. The operating airline isn’t equipped to really handle ticket sales and shouldn’t have to be. It’s really operated on behalf of the larger partner, and that larger partner’s policies and procedures increasingly apply. So let’s exclude this type of codesharing from the discussion.

It’s the other type of codesharing that I’m targeting here, and I would love to see it disappear completely. You know what I’m talking about. It’s when you buy a flight on United but actually fly on Lufthansa. Or you buy a ticket on US Airways and find it’s actually on United. These types of codesharing relationships have grown dramatically over the years to the point where airlines have started to run out of 4 digit flight numbers. (Ever wonder why you see flights with the same number for a roundtrip? It’s to conserve on numbers.)

From a sales perspective, this makes sense. Consumers are more likely to want to buy a ticket on a single airline and at least at one point, there was bias in the reservation systems to display single-airline itineraries first. This practice also allows airlines to double their presence on screen. Instead of one flight display of American from LA to London and British Airways to Athens, they get two. You’ll now see one option on American and the other on BA, even though they’re the exact same flights. This creates a ton of clutter and really adds no value.

But is there any true advantage to a passenger? I think not. Here are some of the suggested advantages and why they aren’t real.

1. You can check your baggage all the way through on codeshares instead of having to claim and re-check in the middle.
   This may be true, but this benefit is in no way limited to codeshares. Most airlines have ticketing and baggage agreements with other airlines to be able to check bags through. For example, if you’re flying United to Paris, you can check your bags through to a connecting flight on Air France even though the two have no commercial relationship involving codesharing.
2. But then I’m subject to a bunch of different baggage policies?
   It’s actually no different. The operating airline sets the baggage policies, so even if you’re on a codeshare, that doesn’t really change anything.
3. You can buy a single ticket on a codeshare but you’d have to buy two tickets otherwise.
   That’s not true at all. There are interline agreements that allow you to buy one ticket across airlines, regardless of the code.
4. But it’s a lot more expensive when you buy a ticket on separate codes.
   That’s airline policy, not a given fact. Airlines may provide lower fares that are booked on their codes, but there’s no reason they can’t do the same for interlining. I was just helping one client go from Geneva to LA and found the best business class option to be on Swiss to London and then Air New Zealand to LA. No codesharing involved, but the price was competitive.
5. When I buy a ticket on one airline’s code, then I can go to that airline to take care of everything.
   This is one of the more dangerous aspects of codesharing. People think the airline they buy from is in charge of everything, but that’s only true when convenient. When it comes to ticketing, whichever airline sold the ticket is the one responsible for changes. It doesn’t matter if it’s a codeshare or not. I just helped someone who had a problem with an Iberia flight on a ticket purchased via Qantas. Iberia said it couldn’t help, and we had to talk to Qantas to get it fixed. But when it comes to things like lost baggage, it goes to the operating airline. The codeshare gives an illusion of responsibility when that’s really not the case.
6. I can earn my miles on codeshares but not otherwise.
   This actually has nothing to do with codesharing but is really a separate business agreement. Any two airlines can provide any level of frequent flier reciprocity regardless of code. If they choose to do otherwise, that’s a business decision.

While there are no real benefits, there are plenty of downsides. First and most important is the confusion. People simply don’t know who they’re actually flying. Sure, it’s disclosed (required by law in the US) but people don’t always read every detail. It also adds a ton of clutter. One of the biggest complaints on airliners.net was that codesharing fills departure screens with a ton of flight numbers for the exact same flight so it just makes it more time-consuming to get the information you need.

There’s also the issue of product consistency. Airlines may codeshare but that says nothing about consistency between the products onboard. You might buy a ticket on British Airways, but if you end up on an Iberia flight, you’re going to be disappointed with what you get.

I should clarify that I do see benefits from alliances. They set a basic standard (admittedly, very basic) about what you can expect across the participating airlines in terms of mileage accrual, elite benefits, etc. They also have been working to locate closer to each other in large hubs to make for an easier connection. But codesharing isn’t necessary or even really that helpful to making an alliance work. If you buy a ticket that shows Delta the whole way versus a ticket that has Delta connecting to Air France, the alliance-benefits would remain the same. And if they don’t, that’s a business issue that can be fixed.

In the end, I see no good reason for codesharing, and I wish it would just disappear. Anyone care to argue for why codeshares are good? Am I missing something?

[Photo via Flickr user Samuel P/CC 2.0]

In the Trenches: Changing up the Routine – Intuit Small Business Blog
Making things run better at Cranky Concierge is always a good thing. I just need to make sure I don’t shoot myself in the foot.

Why Airlines Bother to Sponsor Sport Teams – BNET Headwinds
Delta announced it was sponsoring the Lakers, and that spurred me to write this post.

How Airline Alliances Get Put Together, Middle East Edition – BNET Headwinds
SkyTeam has snagged Saudi Arabian, not necessarily a great prize but it’s the best available in a region that’s mostly alliance-free.

December Airline Traffic: Don’t Even Bother, As Winter Weather Skewed Everything – BNET Headwinds
December traffic roundup, but the weather really messed things up.

In the Trenches: Tax Season Approaches – Intuit Small Business Blog
It’s tax time, and I’m not taking any chances. I’m getting professional help.

Let’s start with a map showing in which countries each alliance has a presence. This assumes that all announced members actually become members and it doesn’t include non-alliance partnerships. (For example, Gol may work with American but it’s not part of oneworld.)

Now let’s think about some of the major changes that altered this map in recent months. The list is enormous.

• oneworld member Mexicana went under, leaving Aeromexico’s Skyteam presence as the only one in Mexico
• Avianca and TACA merged and then decided to join Star Alliance
• Copa decided to join Star Alliance
• Aerolineas Argentinas decided to join Skyteam
• LAN acquired AIRES to give it a presence in Colombia

And that’s all pretty recent. Crazy stuff, right? So now we see Star Alliance having a stranglehold on Central America now that TACA and Copa will be in the same alliance. LAN rules the southwest of the continent with Avianca-TACA making strides in the northwest. And then there’s Brazil.

All eyes are on the most important market in Latin America these days. The big player in the country, TAM, is currently part of Star Alliance, but there is plenty of speculation about what will happen after its merger with LAN is completed. Will LAN come to Star? Will TAM go to oneworld? Or will the airlines both keep their respective alliances? My money is on the latter, if they can figure out a way to walk that tightrope.

Then again, Star has given itself a little cushion here. If TAM goes to oneworld, then Star will have the option of trying to help Avianca grow its Brazilian subsidiary, if it thinks it’s necessary. And LAN might want to bring TAM into oneworld to try to push off American’s growing relationship with Gol, right? This is better than a Mexican soap opera.

The one thing we can all agree on now is that Skyteam is mostly left out of this game. Sure, Aeromexico is a part of Skyteam but that’s far from where this fight is taking place. It’s a different market entirely. And Aerolineas Argentinas? Yeah, that’s one mess of an airline. As a government-owned entity, it’s not going anywhere, but it’s not exactly the alliance prize of Latin America.

Latin America is booming and there are a handful of very well run airlines down there (most prominently, LAN). This is going to be a fascinating area to watch as alliances look to cement relationships to give the best coverage in the region.

How the Southwest-AirTran Merger Creates a Labor Problem – BNET Headwinds
The Southwest-AirTran merger presents an interesting problem. What can Southwest offer to labor to make this merger interesting?

Delta’s ScottEVest Ad Rejection Turns into PR Blunder – BNET Headwinds
It’s just a vest, but the company owner is turning it into a David versus Goliath story. It doesn’t seem correct to me, but he’s winning the PR battle.

Antitrust Immunity Enables New British Airways, American Airlines, and Iberia Flights – BNET Headwinds
The joint venture between American, British Airways, and Iberia is now in effect, and the airlines are celebrating by launching new routes.

Antitrust Immunity Deals: How U.S. Airlines Avoid Foreign Ownership Restrictions – BNET Headwinds
My editor at BNET asked me why all these antitrust deals were happening in this industry. The answer? Foreign ownership rules.

Southwest Wages a Battle for Milwaukee in… Oshkosh? – BNET Headwinds
Southwest flew into Oshkosh last weekend. Why? It’s a battle for the hearts and minds of cheeseheads.

Air Berlin’s Alliance Move Signals Big Strategy Ambitions – BNET Headwinds
As a follow up to the oneworld piece, I thought it would be interesting to look at it from the Air Berlin side.

Alaska Airlines Competes For Bellingham via Honolulu – BNET Headwinds
Alaska is trying to beat Allegiant to the punch by starting flights from Bellingham to Hawai’i.

Cranky: One of my big questions is always, how do you measure yourself against other alliances? What do you look at to say, this is how we want to prove that we’re the best alliance out there?

Leo: There are two dimensions. One is global coverage. How many destinations can you open to your customers globally? That’s easy to measure. The second one is of course, the quality of the service, which is more difficult to compare and also not easy on an alliance basis to really get reliable feedback from the customers. We work on interviewing the customers and trying to get their feedback but it is, so far, next to impossible to compare them on an objective basis with the other alliances. You can only have the individual preferences of the customers which may be very much determined by where they live and what level of service is available by the various airlines in their hometown.

But generally speaking we recognize that SkyTeam, in terms of global coverage, the number of destinations, is lagging somewhat but not much, behind Star. They have a larger number of carriers but to some extent they’re overlapping, which is something we try to avoid. We look to only attract members where they add something to the existing network, so it’s complementary not overlapping.

Passengers carried, Star is bigger. There’s no doubt about it. In terms of quality of service, it’s extremely difficult to get a good picture. All in all, we see our position as a very clear number two, just behind Star and significantly ahead of oneworld.

Cranky: When you hear from your customers and you look at what Star is doing, what are your priorities? How are you going to become number one?

Leo: Our mission is to be the leading alliance. You become the leading alliance by offering a better level of service, consistency, and seamlessness in connections. Alliances are about connections. For every customer, generally speaking, a direct service with one carrier is preferred over a stopover or a transfer. But once that is not available, and in many cases, that is not available if you fly complex international and intercontinental itineraries, the ease of connectivity and the level of service consistency is the key differentiating factor.

While in the last decade, we have invested primarily and focused on trying to reach global coverage, now that we have achieved that to a large extent . . . I think for the next decade going forward, the competition between the alliances will be in the area of service consistency and seamlessness in connections and transfers.

Cranky: Do you have any specific projects in particular to help facilitate that?

Leo: One that’s very important but not easy to achieve in the short term is co-location at airports. . . . we’re working very hard at this point in time to have a program where we try to build co-location situations, which means all the SkyTeam airlines, or a large part, in one and the same terminal at major international airports.

From there . . . is it a home base of the one carriers, or is it an important business city? For instance, like in London where we have no home carrier in SkyTeam, we jointly operate a facility in Terminal 4, operate a joint lounge, which kind of creates the connectivity and the seamlessness that we’re looking for. So we have used the Terminal 4 London/Heathrow situation as a showcase and a template for future development.

Cranky: And what have you found with London? Is the facility working well? Is there anything you’d change?

Leo: I would say that the lounge and the new standards that we’ve introduced, we’re all very happy with. The joint check in service as a first step is quite good, but what we have not been able to achieve at this stage but we will be able to introduce at a later stage, is to have joint IT applications for check-in, E-services, etc where currently the level of development and interchangeability between SkyTeam partners is not fully at par. So that’s an area where we certainly will focus our attention to focus that further.

Cranky: Here in the US, Delta is branding its premium customers under the SkyPriority name, but that doesn’t translate to people who get benefits throughout the alliance. Is there an effort to standardize the definition of elite or from the alliance perspective do you just have to deal with what the airlines give you?

Leo: One of the complexities in operating in the different parts of the world is that the situations are not necessarily identical. So you have to allow for flexibility to adapt to the local circumstances and the competitive circumstances, but generally speaking, within SkyTeam we have aligned the various frequent flier groups and it is one of the elements for new members that is mandatory to align your frequent flier program . . . to the SkyTeam standard.

So whether you are with Air France/KLM or Vietnam Airlines as our newest member, . . . they aren’t identical . . . because of local circumstances, but the basic setup is identical throughout SkyTeam.

Cranky: You mentioned Vietnam Airlines. A lot of activity is in Asia lately – you have China Eastern coming in, Vietnam just joining, of course you already have China Southern. It would seem there is some overlap there. I know you said you’re trying to avoid that, so what is the strategy in Asia right now?

Leo: Well, between China Eastern and China Southern, there is very little overlap to be honest. China Southern has its main hub in Guangzhou, in the southern part of China whereas China Eastern has its main hub and stronghold in Shanghai. They jointly have a number two position in Beijing so collectively we will see that they have a network that covers all of China.

It is not so different as what we’ve seen in the US with . . . Delta which has a total coverage with multiple hubs in the US and Air France/KLM having a dual hub situation in Europe where KLM covers the northwest part of Europe and Air France the southwestern part of Europe and they’re highly complementary. That’s the same case in the Chinese market which is rapidly growing and geographically as big if not bigger than the US and Europe. I don’t see it as an overlap. They’re very much complementary.

Cranky: So where do you see the biggest holes in terms of coverage right now?

Leo: We did not have a partner in Southeast Asia. With Vietnam Airlines in, the region is covered very well but we can see further additions in Southeast Asia. Clearly the Indian subcontinent . . . is a market where we have not positioned ourselves yet so that’s a white spot we’re strategically focusing on. The two other areas where we feel we can improve our competitive position is in Latin America and Africa.

We have a good position with Kenya Airways in Nairobi, basically the only real hub in Africa. But we believe that with the further growth of the African market, additions to the position in SkyTeam in Africa are certainly, maybe not necessarily the highest priority, but certainly something strategically we’re looking for.

Cranky: What about Australia? I know there’s not much of a presence there yet, but with Delta and V Australia working together and a lot of talk about what Virgin Blue is about to become, is that an area that you’re keeping an eye on as well?

Leo: No, not really to be honest. It is a market that is very difficult to get access to. It is clear that the only real operator with a market position that is of interest is Qantas and they’re in oneworld, so . . . . But there are different ways to deal with access to Australia and Australian markets. So we’re looking at ways to enhance our position not necessarily by finding an Australian partner because that’s not necessarily there, but there are different ways to deal with it.

Cranky: One last question before I let you go. How important are the antitrust agreements and joint ventures to SkyTeam? Do you expect to see more of that between other carriers?

Leo: Yes. Going forward I think that where the differentiating factor is going to be the seamlessness of the service and the effectiveness of the cooperation. We have seen mergers within the different continents, Air France/KLM and Delta/Northwest, we might see more. . . . I don’t beleive that we’ll see mergers between different continents because of the complexity and the manageability of that on the one hand.

At the same time we have proven that if you can operate under antitrust immunity in joint ventures with an intense form of cooperation, [that can] provide a very good alternative. . . . that is probably the model going forward – to intensify the cooperation within the alliance between carriers on different continents rather than seeing mergers.

Cranky: Thanks very much for your time

Leo: My pleasure