code share opinion

[CaptWidgeon]

is there anyone who thinks code share has been a benefit to; 1.) the pilot group at their main line company, 2.) the main line company's bottom line.

with the back and forth debates going on at our company i'd like to hear from y'all at other carriers directly affected by code share. right now i'd like to keep it to domestic stuff, if it diverts in another direction, eh, c'est la vie.

i'll just leave it at this and see where we go, thanks for your input.

 

[GuppyWN]

This is gonna be good.

Gup

p.s. It's not really a "debate" on our forum. It's more like a couple mouthpieces trying to justify giving our flying away and everybody else jumping on them.

 

[CaptWidgeon]

oh i totally agree gup. i wanted to get this started but be as neutral as possible for the purpose of the thread.

some keep saying that ship has sailed...i say man the canons, we can still get 'em before the clear the harbor.

looks like one deal might fall through, one to go.

 

[Full of LUV]

oh i totally agree gup. i wanted to get this started but be as neutral as possible for the purpose of the thread.

some keep saying that ship has sailed...i say man the canons, we can still get 'em before the clear the harbor.

looks like one deal might fall through, one to go.

I think a code share makes total sense for SWA, at least to broaden the marketing area and then when sales are going great, viola, introduce your own service to Mexico City, or Toronto, etc.
Obviously, SWA has made a go of it as a domestic carrier, and their partners in Canada and Mexico are likewise, but they have a much smaller market to operate in, and have to provide flights to the US.
It's kind of like Walmart introducing fake coach purses to their customers, and after they build the market, bringing the real thing in for twice the cost.

 

[GuppyWN]

I'm all ears.

Explain, with examples, flying that was started by one carrier and then, "viola", swapped out for mainline or the other partner.

Gup

 

[CaptWidgeon]

I'm more interested in what folks from carriers w/ code share
have say. I have 2 other forms to look at for the Pro group to
opine on. I want the people who are living it, not speculating,
to tell me what they see.

Thx.

 

[CesnaCaptn]

I'm all ears.

Explain, with examples, flying that was started by one carrier and then, "viola", swapped out for mainline or the other partner.

Gup

I can think of two different code shares that turned into native flying. Alaska and America West both used to code share with Hawaiian to the islands. Now they both do their own transpacific ops.

 

[FlyinPiker]

DAL & Air Jamaica.


Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL) will begin seasonal nonstop service between Atlanta and Montego Bay, operating from Dec. 15, 2000 through April 30, 2001.
The new Delta service also will be marketed by Air Jamaica under a codesharing arrangement with Delta. This is an expansion of the carriers' existing marketing arrangement whereby Delta sells seats on a number of Air Jamaica operated flights, including three daily flights between Atlanta and Montego Bay.




1. So it started out with 3 daily ATL-MBJ Air Jamaica flights a day.

2. Then added the one seasonal DAL flight.

3. Fast forward to today and I believe we do 3 of our own nonstops a day between ATL-MBJ alone in addition to JFK, MEM, other seasonal cities and eventually ended the code share.

 

[FlyinPiker]

That's an example anyway...it obviously doesn't always work for the best.

There's good stories and bad stories just like anything else.

Strong contract language is needed when treading these waters. Ala United + Aer Lingus

 

[Full of LUV]

I'm all ears.

Explain, with examples, flying that was started by one carrier and then, "viola", swapped out for mainline or the other partner.

Gup

But wait... I thought LUV management was a different breed, always considering pilot relations before making any marketing decisions. So the mean ole legacies mgt should not apply......

 

[QCappy]

I think for the most part it has worked well at Alaska. After all, we are considered the codeshare whore. Many of the routes to Hawaii and to the east were only codeshares in the past. As Alaska finally realized that people actually wanted to fly on Alaska to places other than the west coast, they added flights to where the codeshare partners had connecting flights out of and it worked. To be fair this has worked well since Alaska flies to many places in the State of Alaska that no one else goes, or cares to go, for that matter.

Now, some may blame this codesharing on Alaska not growing much ever. However, it has certainly added to the bottom line and given Alaska a lot of passengers that otherwise wouldn't have flown on them. Maybe even persuading some customers to use Alaska over it's codeshare partners when possible.

As far as Southwest goes, it's a different operation, with a different route structure and philosophy. It may not work as well there. I don't know.

 

[GuppyWN]

If Aloha hadn't tanked, Alaska would not be in Hawaii.

My .02,
Gup

 

[crj567]

I'm all ears.

Explain, with examples, flying that was started by one carrier and then, "viola", swapped out for mainline or the other partner.

Gup

Lubbock!

-The sky is the limit!

 

[QCappy]

If Aloha hadn't tanked, Alaska would not be in Hawaii.

My .02,
Gup

Alaska wouldn't have been in Hawaii to the extent that it is. However, the process was already well on its way when Aloha and ATA went under to start flights from ANC and SEA. It just created more opportunities for Alaska, as we have seen.

 

[Flyby1206]

This paper is from 2004, but still very pertinent and informative

http://www.darinlee.net/pdfs/codeshare.pdf