Every so often airline X will outrageously claim that by doing a deal with airline Y it has extended its network by 2000 flights a day,- or whatever. The truth of course is that it hasn't done anything of the sort . It may have slapped its code and thereby an override commission of around 5-10% on anything it sells on someone else's flights under its misleading code, but that's the sum total of it.
The latest bit of such hype comes from the former "World's Favourite" whose divorced from its age old partner/adversary/partner Qantas on the Kangaroo route comes through this weekend. Their new best friend of necessity is age old adversary/competitor and now partner as well (Yes, - all these things simultaneously exist in Alliance relationships although some are naive enough to believe they don't and it's all love and brotherhood), Cathay Pacific. This is the same Cathay Pacific who made BA's extensions to Taipei and Manila unviable by prevailing on the Hong Kong government to pin back their permitted uplifts on the trans China Sea routes and who are about to outfly the auld enemy by 5 daily services to 2 on the key Hong Kong-London route.
The BA's Southwest Pacific supremo proudly proclaims ""Our new codeshare with Cathay Pacific will allow British Airways to serve all major Australian cities" (like it once did). Er, no. Offering BA's code is a very different thing to offering BA's actual brand , product and people. It's literally what it says on tin that counts . That's "Cathay Pacific" on each and every one of these new codeshare flights between Hong Kong and Australia.Anyone who chose them because they like BA is therefore not going to get what they bought.
The same thing applies to any codeshare flight anywhere in the world. Other than for the actual operating carrier whose name is painted on the outside, the code on the ticket may carry none of its brand propositions or characteristics. The customer may stand before the departures board and see that he or she has several options for travel to their desired destination. Several timings are all the same so then there is the choice of oriental, continental European, British, American and even South American brands and annd they mean in terms of people and types and styles of service. Great, they like the South American offering but don't care much for the European so reach for the I-pad and book it. Tough luck though when it comes to actual travel. That's the European livery, aircraft, people and product out there on the ramp and that's it. No choice.OK there were things about it being a codeshare and who the actual operator was in the small print but that is not the point. Code and aeroplane do not match. Pure and simple.
It is unlikely that this sleight of hand would be allowed in any other industry. If you buy a Mercedes that's what you get. Not even a lookalike will do and certainly not a Trabant.
Alliance and codeshare addicted airlines eulogise about the huge customer benefits of booking within one of them. Easy interlining, through checked baggage, fares etc. Yes, but the customer had all of those and across virtually every airline and hub airport in the world in the bad old days before codeshares and alliances crept in. Underpinned by the bribe of frequent flyer programmes, the balance between hub airports has been changed, some (notably Heathrow) now offer individual passengers half or less the connections they did in the days of freeflow between all carriers. Benefit or loss and to whom?
There is a lot more to come on the whole question of alliances and codeshares, whether they are really in the public interest or work in favour of the airlines fixing fares and regulating capacities and whether the large or the small airlines benefit most. The same goes for frequent flyer programmes , first introduced in their present form by Pan American in the early 747 days, the 1970s.? Are they really a customer benefit or do they just protect the airlines from having to compete on price, frequency, network, product and style. If they do, the regulators have been negligent in not picking them up for anti-competitive behaviour?
We will come back to those questions. Meanwhile the simple fact about codesharing is that, unlike when you buy a tin of Baked Beans, there is no commitment that you are buying what it says on the tin.
The latest bit of such hype comes from the former "World's Favourite" whose divorced from its age old partner/adversary/partner Qantas on the Kangaroo route comes through this weekend. Their new best friend of necessity is age old adversary/competitor and now partner as well (Yes, - all these things simultaneously exist in Alliance relationships although some are naive enough to believe they don't and it's all love and brotherhood), Cathay Pacific. This is the same Cathay Pacific who made BA's extensions to Taipei and Manila unviable by prevailing on the Hong Kong government to pin back their permitted uplifts on the trans China Sea routes and who are about to outfly the auld enemy by 5 daily services to 2 on the key Hong Kong-London route.
The BA's Southwest Pacific supremo proudly proclaims ""Our new codeshare with Cathay Pacific will allow British Airways to serve all major Australian cities" (like it once did). Er, no. Offering BA's code is a very different thing to offering BA's actual brand , product and people. It's literally what it says on tin that counts . That's "Cathay Pacific" on each and every one of these new codeshare flights between Hong Kong and Australia.Anyone who chose them because they like BA is therefore not going to get what they bought.
The same thing applies to any codeshare flight anywhere in the world. Other than for the actual operating carrier whose name is painted on the outside, the code on the ticket may carry none of its brand propositions or characteristics. The customer may stand before the departures board and see that he or she has several options for travel to their desired destination. Several timings are all the same so then there is the choice of oriental, continental European, British, American and even South American brands and annd they mean in terms of people and types and styles of service. Great, they like the South American offering but don't care much for the European so reach for the I-pad and book it. Tough luck though when it comes to actual travel. That's the European livery, aircraft, people and product out there on the ramp and that's it. No choice.OK there were things about it being a codeshare and who the actual operator was in the small print but that is not the point. Code and aeroplane do not match. Pure and simple.
It is unlikely that this sleight of hand would be allowed in any other industry. If you buy a Mercedes that's what you get. Not even a lookalike will do and certainly not a Trabant.
Alliance and codeshare addicted airlines eulogise about the huge customer benefits of booking within one of them. Easy interlining, through checked baggage, fares etc. Yes, but the customer had all of those and across virtually every airline and hub airport in the world in the bad old days before codeshares and alliances crept in. Underpinned by the bribe of frequent flyer programmes, the balance between hub airports has been changed, some (notably Heathrow) now offer individual passengers half or less the connections they did in the days of freeflow between all carriers. Benefit or loss and to whom?
There is a lot more to come on the whole question of alliances and codeshares, whether they are really in the public interest or work in favour of the airlines fixing fares and regulating capacities and whether the large or the small airlines benefit most. The same goes for frequent flyer programmes , first introduced in their present form by Pan American in the early 747 days, the 1970s.? Are they really a customer benefit or do they just protect the airlines from having to compete on price, frequency, network, product and style. If they do, the regulators have been negligent in not picking them up for anti-competitive behaviour?
We will come back to those questions. Meanwhile the simple fact about codesharing is that, unlike when you buy a tin of Baked Beans, there is no commitment that you are buying what it says on the tin.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.