Pros and Cons Should VS Join Skyteam

From this post I am wondering if VS will soon be announcing it'll become a member of the Skyteam alliance.

I have nothing to go on other that the new fare code and recent FC changes, which to me indicate getting 'ducks in a line' to join an alliance. A quick search on EF shows that none of the *A airlines use booking code 'I' but strangely all the Skyteam airlines I looked at (e.g. AF, DL, KLM) do use 'I' (OneWorld also use 'I' but that option is the least likely).

Timing wise, it is also about now that SRB said the announcement would be made ... so, what do we see the pros and cons as if this happens:

- Will reward seat availability vanish (after all, if you had Delta miles, would you fly DL or VS)?
- Will the clubhouses be swamped with people?
- Will FC Au = Skyteam Elite Plus?
- Will access to all the Skyteam member networks for points and miles earning be great (after all, I've always flown on CO over DL ...)?
- Will VS pick up DL flights to the US ... could be some slot shares to increase the route network?

Or, is it me just wondering on a wet grey day.

I agree we can pretty much dismiss OneWorld as a partner.
*A is the 'obvious' one as there are so many *A partners already. It would fill in some of the gaps in the VS network (Thailand etc) and the fact that SQ is major shareholder and *A member must influence. In fact maybe VS would be a 'half member' of * like I feel SQ is. They have never really embraced it like the US airlines have.

AS for flooding the lounge - as long as access was limited to actual travellers on VS then the status quo is maintained. If it because a * or SkyTeam lounge in T3 then that would be awful. Again I think SQ restrict it to flyers only and interestingly several * airlines have not relocated to T1.

If VS joined SkyTeam then they would eventually need to terminate so many agreements it would upset a lot of travellers.
They would lose BMI, AZ and what about SQ.
SkyTeam woud probably be a better fit as it is way smaller but it would be like starting all over again with alliances as I don't see how they can have so many * alliances and still be ST.

Personally I do hope not and prefer the "gossip" of the crew freinds we have that they are to join oneworld. Either/or it is just speculation and if its not oneworld I would rather they stay where they are

Personally I do hope not and prefer the "gossip" of the crew freinds we have that they are to join oneworld. Either/or it is just speculation and if its not oneworld I would rather they stay where they are

I struggle to think why BA / AA would want VS in oneworld ... BA and AA's antitrust immunity has given them all they want transatlantic, which is where BA makes it's serious dough.

That said, I was just playing on the oneworld Web site and despite the terrible UI design, their round the world planner is awesome.

Personally I think skyteam have too many marginal carriers with the exception of Delta, KLM, AF and I cant see how that network would be helpful for most of the FF who use VS, at present Vs heavily rely on flying west and with Delta & aeromexico there hardly the best carriers to jump onboard with stateside, shame that CO would likely leave the partnership.

aeroflot
alitalia
china eastern
china southern
tarom
vietnam airlines
kenya airlines

Its hardly the dream team!
Most of the airlines will think their christmas & birthdays have all come at once if VS get in bed with them, kiss goodbye to those G rewards we have all come to love.
In reality I can see a lot moving to Oneworld just because the airlines & destinations work so much better.

Just my two penneth

cheers

alex

[Scrooge]

Many moons ago, VS allowed Skymiles (DL's FF program) to redeem their DL miles for VS flights.

Availability vanished over night.

However, DL has really stepped up it's offering, to the point now where in J DL is on par and in some ways (food) far better than VS.

No matter what alliance VS ends up in it's going to hurt.

No matter what alliance VS ends up in it's going to hurt.

Hurt who? Then why do it?

Is this about survival of VS, or something else?

I might be naive, but I have to confess that I don't "get" this alliance concept, and who gets what benefits...

Surely, you can partner with airlines (as VS do on a limited basis at present), and still get some of the benefits without some of the down sides?

I remain perplexed! And, a little sad that the VS I once knew has perhaps gone forever...

I might be niaive, but I have to confess that I don't "get" this alliance concept, and who gets what benefits...

It's about feed and traffic and loyalty and benefits:

- VS misses out because it has no feeder network, BMI performed that role well for a while, but that's now lost
- traffic is about increasing numbers from feeds through codeshares where partner can sell tickets on VS and keep some of the revenue, so they are incentivized to do so (and across an alliance the aim is for pax to 'stick' to alliance partners)
- loyalty - FC is great within reason, but how hard is it to get a redemption flight on NZ for example, in a fully fledged alliance these become much easier and the options much greater
- benefits such as lounge sharing, status recognition, priority boarding etc. for frequent fliers across a wide network

The airline world is consolidating around mega carriers and alliances, VS is stuck 'out there'.

So, in what way would this hurt us, (reasonably) still loyal VS customers?

The way I see it, more destination choice and flight options can only be a positive...

Admittedly, FC is likely to get watered down to a lowest common denominator, but this potentially has more upside than down...doesn't it?

Isn't it also likely that VS will need to up it's game in terms of service to remain "equal" in an alliance and not loose slices of the pie?

So, in what way would this hurt us, (reasonably) still loyal VS customers?

You make your reward inventory available to members of partner airlines FF schemes, compared to Flying Club, these are huge (think Delta (NorthWest), Air France, and KLM) ...

Sure - but it works the other way as well...

Afterall, haven't we got discussions here about the reduced (or at least patchy) service offering by VS?

If I get access to DL/KLM as a result, I see that as a plus.....although, I'd probably avoid AF...

I think only a limited number of seats are made available alliance partners. I base this on trying to book a reward flight on Continental with UA and vice versa where availability is totally different even though they have merged.
I also found last week that I can book a CO codeshare on VS but VS award seat was not available.
I believe, therefore, that each airline ring fences seats for their own FF members much the same as opp ups are usually only given to the actual airlines FF members not partners.

With respect I think it is jumping the gun a bit to suggest that fare code changes mean an alliance decision has been made.

There is a lot of systems work that is required to join an alliance (or when a new member joins) and the lead time from an announcement to actually joining an alliance is usually at least 18 months. So I doubt VS would be doing minor tinkering now before any announcement (and ergo an agreement signed). The work required will be much bigger than this.

Usually reward availability is determined by your reward buckets regardless of who comes in and wants to claim it, it's down to simply a matter of currency (aka miles) for redemption. UA used to have a long standing policy of "*net blocking", ie restricting access through Mileage Plus to reward flights one could see were available through expertflyer or the ANA/AC tools. It was, in this respect, truly unique, so much so that even the Washington Post published an article on this. This is now much less common with the merger, and I can typically find lots of LH availability online through the UA site.

I haven't looked at KLM or AF at all, but Delta is notorious for having bumped the price of its redemptions to stratospheric levels, and when I did a quick browse through their program a month or so ago before deciding whether to commit to renewing 1K on United, I wasn't impressed with it. As the big carrier in ST, they have the potential to suck up a lot of reward availability, however they do seem to price rewards on all alliances at the same mileage level, which is indeed very high, so VS pax can hope that their presence would not prove too disruptive to G availability. And with its on board product being arguably on a par with VS, as Scrooge pointed out, on the newer configs, the incentive to jump onto VS flights may not be there.

Short of a major realignment at LHR, lounge crowding might not be an issue. DL has no major overlap on international routes with VS except at JFK or LHR (where they would not be sharing a terminal) as on the west coast they serve westbound destinations, which tend to depart at quite different times. I could see the SFO lounge becoming quite busy, or at least opening for much longer hours, if it were to serve AF and KLM (as it surely must if they joined the alliance) as well as the old NW routes to Japan earlier in the day. If they kept VS on the later time, with KLM and AF typically leaving much earlier anyway, around 3 in the afternoon, I could see the whole deal actually working quite well there.

As Alex points out, the major downside is frankly the lack of truly attractive partners in a lot of areas, at least on paper. Aside from Africa, though, this is in some ways helped by the Virgin brand's own strong network, especially in Australia. For me, with all the flying I do to Italy, France and the Czech Republic, as well as the UK, if this had been announced a few weeks ago I would have been seriously tempted to not re-up on UA and go back to VS. As it is, I am staying put another year.

[honey lamb]

With respect I think it is jumping the gun a bit to suggest that fare code changes mean an alliance decision has been made.

There is a lot of systems work that is required to join an alliance (or when a new member joins) and the lead time from an announcement to actually joining an alliance is usually at least 18 months. So I doubt VS would be doing minor tinkering now before any announcement (and ergo an agreement signed). The work required will be much bigger than this.

While accepting what you say about the systems work required, there have been other things to hint that there is an alliance decision in the offing such as changes in mileage and especially tier point earning - enough to make us sit up and take notice

With respect I think it is jumping the gun a bit to suggest that fare code changes mean an alliance decision has been made.

I freely admit it's speculation, however as HL says, SRB has said in repeated interviews that an alliance announcement is forthcoming. Why else rearrange fare codes, FC rules and tiers, etc. Chitchat is a part of this site as much as 'Load Check Please' ... in many cases more interesting, so just airing my guesswork.

However, we all know SRB can shoot his mouth off before the fact, and VS can take time and make mistakes ... so let's see?

With respect I think it is jumping the gun a bit to suggest that fare code changes mean an alliance decision has been made.

I freely admit it's speculation, however as HL says, SRB has said in repeated interviews that an alliance announcement is forthcoming. Why else rearrange fare codes, FC rules and tiers, etc. Chitchat is a part of this site as much as 'Load Check Please' ... in many cases more interesting, so just airing my guesswork.

However, we all know SRB can shoot his mouth off before the fact, and VS can take time and make mistakes ... so let's see?

Plus we don't know what else is happening at Crawley. When VS wants to keep something really secret it seams to be able to keep it secret.

To add to to conspiracy theories I am going to throw the changes to the website and booking engine into the mix.

Plus we don't know what else is happening at Crawley. When VS wants to keep something really secret it seams to be able to keep it secret.

Indeed, like the new UCS, it's been designed, I know people in Crawley have seen it, but it's being kept very close at hand!

Don't forget that if VS joins alliance they would also join the transatlantic joint business of whichever alliance it chooses and that requires regulatory approval and that can't be kept under wraps and needs to happen sooner rather than later, so I think as soon as a decision is made on an alliance it will be public. The other members of the alliance would also have to inform their institutional investors as it is share price sensitive.

I don't see a compelling competitive reason (as there is with a new product) to keep it all under wraps.

We'll no doubt find out one way or another soon!

As it is pure speculation my money is on either a totally new alliance (but there are not many 'decent'airlines that are not already committed) or *A.
It is inconceivable that VS could be in a different (competing) alliance to that of its 49% shareholder unless a change in ownership is part of the alliance deal.

As it is pure speculation my money is on either a totally new alliance (but there are not many 'decent'airlines that are not already committed) or *A.
It is inconceivable that VS could be in a different (competing) alliance to that of its 49% shareholder unless a change in ownership is part of the alliance deal.

This would be my guess, given the talk of the SkyTeam members not being 'good enough' for VS. If they bring the other Virgin brand airlines, a few unaffiliated and perhaps tempt a few decent airlines out of their existing alliances, then there could be the makings of a great fourth alliance....

As it is pure speculation my money is on either a totally new alliance (but there are not many 'decent'airlines that are not already committed) or *A.
It is inconceivable that VS could be in a different (competing) alliance to that of its 49% shareholder unless a change in ownership is part of the alliance deal.

This would be my guess, given the talk of the SkyTeam members not being 'good enough' for VS. If they bring the other Virgin brand airlines, a few unaffiliated and perhaps tempt a few decent airlines out of their existing alliances, then there could be the makings of a great fourth alliance....

Agreed - I could see Etihad playing a part. They've been rumoured before to be interested in acquiring the 49% stake held by SQ.

I could also see US Airways joining the alliance. Tbh, I can't see them remaining in *A for much longer, with the giant that is UA beside them.

Totally thinking outside the box, LAN/TAM could join as well, once they complete their merger. Throw in a few other non-alliance carriers, and it would be a winner.

I just don't want to see VS swallowed by LH or DL/AF-KLM for that matter. Don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell of VS joining OneWorld either!
Time for me to get my head out of the clouds now

Sky Team members not being good enough? Wow, that's quite a statement given some other discussions on here...

A fourth, and new, alliance - now that would be a turn up, and not a bad idea, now I come to think of it.

I was wondering why the other vs brand airlines didnt team up together to make another alliance as it makes so much sense, would it be to do with rules like the issue with AA & BA trying to form an alliance? Or would it be simple to do in relative terms?

cheers

alex