Code Sharing

I always wanted code sharing in AS, and I know this is gonna be huge if it’s gonna be implemented ever - so I’m just sharing a few thoughts I have lately.

1. It’s only possible between interlined partners.

2. Only possible connections can be code shared. Eg.:

AA and BB are IL partners. AA operates AA1 from its hub JFK to LHR, BB’s hub, and AA2 as the return trip. Let’s say AA1 and 2 are the only flights in LHR operated by AA.

In such case, only BB flights arriving between 1.5 and 8 hours before AA2 departs, and flights departing between 1.5 and 8 hours after AA1 arrives, can be code shared.

3. There is an extra cost associated with that - maybe a little cost for each number assigned. Eg.:

BB101, BB201, and BB301 are the only possible connections for AA1. If AA chooses to code share for BB101 and BB201 only, it’d be $400 extra for AA each week; if AA chooses to code share for all 3 connections, it’s gonna be $600 extra each week!

4. The extra cost should only apply to the company that assigns the flight number. - I don’t think it’s fair to BB if AA chooses to code share every possible connection…even BB21 from LHR to JFK.

5. Since there’s an extra cost, the rating of the overall trip is greater than those trips with no sharing of code. Eg.:

From the ORS, the original AA1-BB101 connection has the rating of 60. With BB101 code shared as AA1101, the new flight rating from the ORS is now 80 - provided that the flight ratings of the two flights remains the same.

6. ORS displays only the codes of the operators in that trip, with the operator of the first flight being the "main code". Eg.:

Let’s say BB also code share flight AA1 as BB9001. In ORS, the trip of AA1-BB101 will be displayed as AA1-AA1101 since the first flight is operated by AA, smaller words of BB9001-BB101 will be displayed next to the “main codes”.

7. Code shared flights can be also displayed in the overall flight schedule of the airline. But there should be a ticker box somewhere near the "time display" to enable/disable this feature, and the operator column in the table should be changed to the original operator of that flight.

8. The shared code will not appear on the route management page. Instead, only write (for example) "Also operated as AA1101, CC4101, DD7777" under "general flight information" on the "details" page of the flight.

9. Code shared flights stats will not be counted into the "facts and figures" of the airline.

This is so far everything I’ve got for code sharing…please give critics - no matter good or bad, or raising any questions!

I just reallly hope this function can be implemented into AS - probably not soon but maybe in a year or two!

but what is the sense of codesharing in AS apart from this the optical issue?


can you say me one essential[font="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"] point? (serious question)[/size][/font]

and in two years a lot of things can happen

Haven’t read the whole post (wayyy too long for me and I’m way too tired to keep concentrated for more than 3 mins), but in general, code-share agreements should be about one airline operating the flight (AC, paying taxes, fuel, etc) and other airlines would be able to "buy" a share of the PAX capacity and sell it at their determined price.

Good idea, yes. But I’m afraid it’s not that easy to implement, as it would require significant overhaul of flight booking system, ORS system and hell knows how many other systems

well to be honest this function is about realism more than anything!

other than that, this function could provide some flights with lower independent ratings to have a higher connection rating…

i’ll keep you posted should i think of any other points ;p

I reject most of the Interlining requests since usually I serve 80-90% of the airports served

by the other airline by myself already. But often I would like to code-share some single flights

of that airline to airports where I don’t plan to go with own planes.

For me code-sharing would be a real huge improvement of the game, although I recognize

that it would not be easy to include it. May be it would indeed unload the servers a little since

more people would code-share instead of interline with too many airlines.

The whole idea of code-share would be that it interjects a new level in passenger preference. Passengers (Real World) generally prefer:

  1. Nonstop

  2. One-stop (not possible in AS - as I understand it)

  3. On-line connections

  4. Code-share connections (not possible is AS)

  5. Interline connections

I am new, so I don’t know if alliances fill the place of #4. I would much rather have #2 filled first. Real airlines like Southwest Airlines (WN) have built a lot of success on the one-stop model.

What do you mean by online connections?

On-line = Same Airlne.

(Real World Examples)

Nonstop: United 1 BOS-LAX

One-Stop: United 2 BOS-ORD-LAX

Online Connection: United 3 BOS-IAD / United 4 IAD-LAX

Code Share Connection: United 9010 (op by US Airways) BOS-PHL / United 5 PHL-LAX

Interline Connection: United 6 BOS-ORD / American 50 ORD-LAX

Typically, airlines in alliances code share… Maybe in AS, Alliances gives some kind of code-share like priority over non-alliance interline connections? That I don’t know. I am a newbie.

I think he meant one-line connections… meaning connections using tow aircraft of the same airline. Just a guess though.

It’s an interesting idea, but would create a mess for the ORS.

Plus trying to arrange those flights, you would have to coordinate with fellow companies. I just imagine it being slow, cumbersome, and headache causing feature.

It’s a great idea, but I just don’t think it would work.

Why would anyone prefer an on-line connection over a code-share and - even more unrealistic - a code share connection over an interline connection? There’s simply no difference in booking behaviour by real passengers.

The only sense for codeshare would be, if joint ventures on routes could be formed (which is far to complicated, I guess). Otherwise, I don’t see any point except the "look" on your timetable.

I think, that along with paying a fee for the flights, that PAX who book through the airline through the codeshare would only get 50% of the profit, the rest would go to the airline "codesharee’’.

I also think, code sharing would be an interesting feature.

And I also think, that the airline that operates the flight, would have to give part of the income to the other, for those pax that booked through the non-operating airline.

Soil would be beneficial for both. One can expand their network without aircraft, while the other gets a higher load at a calculated cost.

I think this feature would be amazing, but difficult to implement.

With interlining only we can’t direct our passengers to the flights we want. It would be possible with external connection and feeding if implemented codeshraing.

I have a lot of ideas about interlining too. One of them is the possibility to see which flights are feeding one flight and to which flight it is connecting passengers. Today, we can have an idea if we look at the numbers and see other flights departing in short range of time, but it’s only a weak estimative. Another idea is to determine what flights you want to feed or connect with discrimination of prices. Today, it’s only possible with via flights, but we can’t do it with multilpe flights from other planes.

For example:

  • I have a flight from A to B (flight 001)

  • I want flights from C, D, E to A to have better connection with flight 001(we could do it via discounted prices/bundling)

  • I don’t want flights from F and G to A to have much connection with 001, since these flights have the capacity to be only made by O&D (Origin and final Destination)

I don’t even know if I’d really like this feature because it would be very difficult to control this, but it’s an idea.

The only benefit would be for an agreement where you can fly from there base and use their traffic rights on a flight. For example an australian airline doing this

syd- sin

sin-lhr (code share with singaporean airline)

The flight will have traffic rights to take pax from sin and End in lhr.

This way being in australia will mean you have a chance to have successful one stop flight to europe whereas now you can not do it as the sin-lhr will be very difficult to fill.