I am Platinum Elite with Continental, and have been for several years. I am also Platinum with American/Oneworld and Gold with Lufthansa/Star Alliance. 3 Alliances, and all 3 with some form of status. (Not trying to brag but rather just showing that I fly …. A LOT!).

I personally don’t believe Continental joining Star Alliance is a wise move, for ANY OF US! With consolidation comes a lack of choice, yet another set of code-share flight numbers we have to deal with for the SAME flight, and an overall downturn in Customer Service. The ONLY thing the DOT is right about is that this will INCREASE revenue sharing.

Historically, with merger and consolidation comes HIGHER FARES. For those of us who book our business travel with regularity, we know “code-share” flights are usually HIGHER in price than if we booked directly with the operating airline.

I understand Continental’s position, they are running scared! With the approval of the Delta/NW merger, they HAD to do something. But joining Star Alliance is NOT the answer. It would be better to pursue a MERGER if anything, and no doubt whomever they merged with, they (Continental) would end up the surviving/dominant carrier. It is you and I, the “Elite” Frequent Flyer that is going to suffer if this “Alliance” is approved. Currently, as a Sky Team member, we have the options of using NW AND Delta domestically, along with KLM and Air France for the most part, Internationally. With Star Alliance, our ONLY other option domestically will be with United. I don’t know about you, but United is ALWAYS my last choice domestically. Thier Customer Service levels, even flying in thier Premium Cabins, are sub-par at best. Thier Airport Staff are jaded, thier In-Flight staff are ageing and fed-up with Management Golden Parchutes while they are forced to take pay cuts. I want NO part of United, even as 1K member being “Grandfathered-in ” by Continental.

Additionally, right now, United and the other Star Alliance partners, (for the most part), have coordinated services, share the same terminals internationally etc. If Continental comes into the mix, I am “guessing” we will be required to change terminals i.e. London, Frankfurt, Narita etc. Required ground times will be longer, more bags will go astray, and on and on.

I can not see a single benefit to ANY of US if this goes through. All I see is HIGHER FARES, more confusing flight numbers, lost luggage and inconvenince to everyone.

There is more to travelling than “who will honor my miles”. I for one say to the DOT: Make Continental STAY PUT!

I do understand how monopolies are bad for consumers, but really, is this switch that big of a deal?

It’s true when you unite everyone under single entity, price would go up. However, regular consumers like us will find ways to find cheaper offerings. Airlines will eventually bow to that and cutting their yield to respond what we want.

You have pointed out the negative factors. While it strengthen your arguments with the document filed to the DoT, but please also take notes of the positive sides – airpass, quicker way to earn air miles, new travel routing options, cross airline upgrades. Increasing bargaining power on airlines’ side towards corporate travel? Not quite, it would also brings in more travel options to keep the contract.

Being in an alliance is not necessary a good news to the airline, because they’re facing internal product competition in terms of inflight service and hardware, because consumers are accepting the ideas of alliance and expecting you to deliver identical products that you advertised.

Also, lots of corporate companies in America and across the globe are also looking to consolidations, wouldn’t that danger our freedom of….choice, as well?

Jim,
Economic conditions are one reason to fail, the other is being squeezed out of the market by a group of controlling airlines. My reference to Laker was to the power of a handful of airlines, in this case BA, Pan Am and TWA, to drop their prices and drive Laker out of the skies. If three alliances control 90+ percent of the traffic across the Atlantic, you’d better bet that they will make sure no startups succeed.

That is my point. The alliances act like a single corporation. Their Alliance Agreement has clauses like “The alliance shall be administered by a joint alliance committee.” Already, planes are painted with Star Alliance colors.

These three alliances will protect their turf, they will drive a hard bargain and they will do their utmost best to drive out competition. It is in their nature and has been repeated time after time in our domestic markets. Now with Open Skies, get ready for the same internationally.

This has pretty much nothing to do with the alliance itself, but rather the airlines’ operational cost. The success of low-cost airlines on the short/medium-haul is mainly due to shorter hops allowing them to stretch the maximum utilization of a single aircraft per day, for say like 15-16 hours, instead of 10-11 hours. With long-haul flights, you need to have at least 1.5 – 2 aircraft to support 1 Daily operation on a single route where you can have 1 aircraft flying to 5-6 destinations a day. There’s another difference of the expense.

Also, the airport landing cost is another issue.

Why would a low-cost carrier wants to fly from one of the top 20 most-expensive airports per say Tokyo to Los Angeles? The airport landing fee and others is basically killing them. AirAsia X is considering flying to LA and NY. Which airport are they going to choose?

There were many low-cost carriers tried and failed. Even premium-service carriers like EOS, Maxjet, Silverjet. Oasis Hong Kong also failed. Did the alliance killed them? No. In fact they provide superior service than any of these alliance and played a big influence on the role of big air fare reductions. But it was the investors either pulled the plug or shut their umbrella off on a rainy day that killed them.

This is simply a common sense which I think people at DoT examining this are aware of.

It wasn’t about the alliance that kills the new entrants, but rather current economic environment as a whole. Last year alone 82 out of over 1600 airlines collapsed and ceased operation. Even joining an alliance doesn’t gets you immuned – VARIG, Alitalia, Ansett Australia. Which one is worse? Let one go away and make Tour operators, travel agents, corporate travel departments, caterers, jet fuel providers, airplane tire manufacturers, repair facilities and far more suffering? And what about the “Freedom of travel”? If one or two goes away like ATA, Skybus, your so-called “freedom of travel” option is also being reduced.

Alaska Airlines is questioning Virgin America’s “nationality” issue. It’s another tactic to drive their competitor out of business. Aren’t they trying to reduce our “freedom of travel”?

Please say yes.