In October 2023, we learned that Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) would get an investment from Air France-KLM, and would leave the Star Alliance in favor of SkyTeam. At the time there wasn’t much info about the timeline for all of that happening, but we now have an exact timeline (thanks to Hans for flagging this). Let’s cover all the details.
In this post:
SAS gets new shareholders, including Air France-KLM
In July 2022, SAS filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The airline was in a rough financial situation, between the impacts of the pandemic, high costs, and the amount of competition the airline faced in many markets. While SAS intended to significantly cut costs and emerge from bankruptcy protection within a year, that didn’t prove to be so easy.
Eventually a more drastic plan was announced, whereby SAS is getting new investors, including airline group Air France-KLM. Specifically, investments in the reorganized airline will total $1.16 billion, with US investment firm Castlelake taking a 32% stake, Air France-KLM taking a 20% stake, and the Danish state taking a 26% stake. It’s stated that Air France-KLM may look to increase its stake in the airline in the future.
The current plan is that the airline will exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection toward the end of the second quarter of 2024, so somewhere around June.
SAS will leave Star Alliance and join SkyTeam
As you’d expect, Air France-KLM investing in SAS has major implications for passengers at the airline. SAS will be leaving the Star Alliance, of which it’s a founding member, and will instead join the SkyTeam alliance. When will this happen? It has now been announced that:
- SAS will leave the Star Alliance as of August 31, 2024
- SAS will start to cooperate with SkyTeam airlines as of September 1, 2024; it’s not clear if the airline will fully join the alliance as of then, or what, but rather it’s stated that EuroBonus members can enjoy “similar benefits with most SkyTeam airlines”
Not only will SAS be changing alliances, but the plan is for the airline to join the SkyTeam transatlantic joint venture, which includes Air France-KLM, Delta, and Virgin Atlantic. This will need government approval, so I’m curious if that faces any scrutiny from regulators. You can bet that will lag SAS joining the SkyTeam alliance by several months, at a minimum.
While I think that both oneworld and Star Alliance are much better alliances than SkyTeam in terms of how seamlessly benefits are offered, I think this is probably pretty logical for SAS (even beyond the Air France-KLM investment).
Keep in mind that as it stands, SAS is not part of the Star Alliance transatlantic joint venture, which includes United, Air Canada, Lufthansa, SWISS, Austrian, and Brussels. So the airline has very much been treated as a second class member of Star Alliance. Being part of a transatlantic joint venture will allow SAS to potentially command higher fares, which the airline could use.
This is a huge win for Air France-KLM and SkyTeam in terms of connectivity, as the airline group will now have a hub in Northern Europe. In the same way, it’s also quite a loss for Star Alliance.
Bottom line
There are major changes coming to Scandinavian Airlines. The airline filed for bankruptcy protection in 2022, and is now getting new investors. Air France-KLM is taking a stake in the airline, and as part of that, SAS is leaving the Star Alliance to join SkyTeam. You can expect that the airline will emerge from bankruptcy protection shortly, will leave Star Alliance as of August 31, 2024, and will join SkyTeam as of September 1, 2024.
While I consider SkyTeam to be the least useful alliance for frequent flyers (in terms of reciprocal opportunities), it seems like quite a win for SAS to join one of the “big three” transatlantic joint ventures, which it was excluded from at Star Alliance.
What do you make of these major changes at Scandinavian Airlines?
Anyone has the information on why one of the founders of Skyteam, Air France has invested in SAS rather than their alliance ITA Airways? Whilst one of the founders of Star Alliance, Lufthansa is not interested in saving SAS instead of eyeing acquisition of ITA Airways?
"Tim Dunn's MoM" LMAFOOOO. Funniest thing all day lol
it's funny only for those that want to trash talk their way out of the reality that Star is shrinking and SkyTeam is growing - all because UA/LH thought they could perpetually push SK into 2nd tier status.
The real surprise of all of this is that AF/KL has made the investment in SK when it is DL and SK that will obtain the biggest benefits. SK will grow its TATL network which is...
it's funny only for those that want to trash talk their way out of the reality that Star is shrinking and SkyTeam is growing - all because UA/LH thought they could perpetually push SK into 2nd tier status.
The real surprise of all of this is that AF/KL has made the investment in SK when it is DL and SK that will obtain the biggest benefits. SK will grow its TATL network which is what it wants; DL will extend the season of some of its Scandinavia services and add more and both will carry traffic beyond their gateways that either flew over Star's network or didn't exist at all.
and when you factor in that AZ won't become an LH group airline anytime soon and TP and LO still in play, there could be a wholesale shift in alliances over the next couple years.
Of course there are a handful of people that are as such as incapable of admitting that reality as they are in admitting that DL will be the only US airline that will report a profit this quarter (tomorrow in fact) while other airlines struggle with FAA safety audits and strategies that put too much confident in one or more suppliers while racing to achieve strategies that were never sustainable let alone achievable.
The real scandal here isn't SAS leaving SA or joining skyteam or whatever. The real scandal is all these "joint ventures" which are really just government-sanctioned monopolies.
All they do is raise prices and lower service as airlines collude to raise their profits. If what SAS needs to arise from bankruptcy is higher fares and they can't get them by offering superior service that customers choose to pay a premium for, then they *should* go...
The real scandal here isn't SAS leaving SA or joining skyteam or whatever. The real scandal is all these "joint ventures" which are really just government-sanctioned monopolies.
All they do is raise prices and lower service as airlines collude to raise their profits. If what SAS needs to arise from bankruptcy is higher fares and they can't get them by offering superior service that customers choose to pay a premium for, then they *should* go bankrupt and not be rescued by some government-sanctioned industry collusion that allows them to raise fares without doing the hard work of actually providing a more valuable service.
And it won't just be SAS. How much you wanna bet other airlines in the JV will also raise their prices to scandinavian destinations now that they have one less competitor to worry about?
Why do people throw around buzzwords that they (clearly) don't understand?
Cite us some specific examples.
And when you do, tell us exactly what the US/EU got wrong, when in August 2019, upon renewing the SkyTeam j/v approval, they noted the number of markets where fares went down, despite patronage/demand going up.
We'll listen.
Here you go, from the Journal of Air Law and Commerce:
https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4102&context=jalc
Here's the key quote:
"It is unlikely that the joint ventures’ efficiency benefits and antitrust immunity goal to encourage metal-neutrality have materialized. The regulators never thought about integration problems, competing goals, and different corporate cultures. Hence, it is unlikely that joint ventures’ efficiency benefits counteracted anticompetitive effects."
And here from page 48:
"The general arguments supporting the creation of alliances
Here you go, from the Journal of Air Law and Commerce:
https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4102&context=jalc
Here's the key quote:
"It is unlikely that the joint ventures’ efficiency benefits and antitrust immunity goal to encourage metal-neutrality have materialized. The regulators never thought about integration problems, competing goals, and different corporate cultures. Hence, it is unlikely that joint ventures’ efficiency benefits counteracted anticompetitive effects."
And here from page 48:
"The general arguments supporting the creation of alliances
and joint ventures are that airlines were able to get around the regulations that prevented mergers and the creation of subsidiaries in other countries, and that “seamless” travel could generate significant benefits for consumers. However, the two primary reasons were more likely capacity control (the industry was susceptible to capacity wars that destroyed profitability) and market dominance, especially on many international routes where there
was only one national carrier in a market."
"One national carrier in a market" -> sounds like a monopoly to me.
P.S. If you read through the article, you'll see that the author discusses why even if fares went down in many markets, that doesn't necessarily mean the consumer benefited overall, and/or that those benefits would not have happened even without the antitrust exemption. Anyway, I highly recommend reading the article if you're sincere about learning more about the affects of JVs. FWIW, the author isn't calling for JVs to be banned, but rather that the government be more rigorous in monitoring the effects and ensuring that they're actually beneficial for customers rather than automatically renewing them. That's a reasonable position, but in the absence of those monitoring mechanisms, I stand by my assertion that current antitrust exemptions do more harm than good for the average consumer.
and yet not a single piece of financial data - which is exactly what governments have used to approve or deny JVs.
The EU is defined as a single market for US air service treaty purposes and there is far more than one airline.
Ummmm, you don't see the issue with citing THEORY, once ACTUAL DATA is available?
This part's just an unadulterated falsehood, particularly the latter part-- which currently is the entire reason the KE/OZ merger is being held up by the USA.
Goalpost, thou art shifted.
...Ummmm, you don't see the issue with citing THEORY, once ACTUAL DATA is available?
This part's just an unadulterated falsehood, particularly the latter part-- which currently is the entire reason the KE/OZ merger is being held up by the USA.
Goalpost, thou art shifted.
To which I then reiterate the statement that you don't know what a monopoly is, then.
@concordeBoy @timdunn Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article.
There are economic and financial studies extensively discussed in the article. But sure, keep talking and accusing me of shifting goal posts.
Got a better one: tell me you have a fallacious appeal-to-authority without... oh wait, you ARE telling me that.
Again, why would you think that numbers compiled a decade ago by third parties heavy on speculative theory, apply in 2024 to numbers as new as (for example) KE's submissions in 2023?
@concordeboy unless you or I have done the studies personally, we're both appealing to authority. Your authority is the airlines, as
@concordeboy unless you or I have done the studies personally, we're both appealing to authority. Your authority is the airlines, as
@concordeboy unless you or I have done the studies personally, we're both appealing to authority. Your authority is the airlines, as if they're disinterested parties who wouldn't skew the data for their own self interest; and govt figures as if they can't be lobbied or be subject to regulatory capture. I presented an authority that isn't in the airlines' pockets, and analyzed independent data sources to come to his conclusions, but sure, keep trusting the...
@concordeboy unless you or I have done the studies personally, we're both appealing to authority. Your authority is the airlines, as if they're disinterested parties who wouldn't skew the data for their own self interest; and govt figures as if they can't be lobbied or be subject to regulatory capture. I presented an authority that isn't in the airlines' pockets, and analyzed independent data sources to come to his conclusions, but sure, keep trusting the other guys. Lol. Maybe they'll throw you some peanuts on your next flight to thank you for licking their boots.
To be clear
Are you suggesting JVs lower prices? Lol
The airline behemoths want these ATI JVs in order to increase market concentration and move the market closer to the monopoly end and thereby increase their revenues at the expense of consumers thus facing less of a highly-competitive market. These big airline JVs are meant to screw over consumers, and that is a fact regardless of what some airline, big business and government apologists and “libertarian” ideologues try to sell to the gullible.
As someone...
The airline behemoths want these ATI JVs in order to increase market concentration and move the market closer to the monopoly end and thereby increase their revenues at the expense of consumers thus facing less of a highly-competitive market. These big airline JVs are meant to screw over consumers, and that is a fact regardless of what some airline, big business and government apologists and “libertarian” ideologues try to sell to the gullible.
As someone who flies SAS a lot each and every month and actually sort of welcome SAS joining SkyTeam, I hope SAS is not allowed to join the revenue-sharing TATL JV that DL-AF/KL-VS have.
But you are not talking about the absolute reason for this to happen. It’s because Lufthansa is buying ITA and ITA will soon join Star Alliance. Its actually a huge loss for Skyteam and they are trying to snatch something from Lufthansa… But SAS was such a small player and also keep in mind, that after ITA, TAP could be purchased by Lufthansa as well….
Except the EU is opposing LH’s purchase
Lufthansa is not buying ITA because EC will not approve the deal - perhaps too late, but they finally noticed their job is to prevent monopolies. I expect TAP to end up the same. LHG is already too big and I can't imagine many situations in which further acquisitions by them would be approvable. Any further growth will have to be mostly organic.
Besides, SK is certainly more relevant for an alliance than ITA. Yes,...
Lufthansa is not buying ITA because EC will not approve the deal - perhaps too late, but they finally noticed their job is to prevent monopolies. I expect TAP to end up the same. LHG is already too big and I can't imagine many situations in which further acquisitions by them would be approvable. Any further growth will have to be mostly organic.
Besides, SK is certainly more relevant for an alliance than ITA. Yes, it's slightly smaller, but it gives the alliance coverage of an imporant affluent market with not much competition. ITA's routes are easily replaced by the rest of *A. SK's routes not so much.
ITA's footprint in North America is smaller than SAS's: ITA serves 8 destinations in the USA and Canada; SAS serves 10...; neither has service to Mexico. Thus, the comment, "Its [sic] actually a huge loss for Skyteam...But SAS was such a smaller player..." feels hard to square. Interestingly, SAS serves 14 destinations in Italy to ITA's 20...and ITA serves no destinations in Scandinavia! Thus, if we think about this in terms of North American services...
ITA's footprint in North America is smaller than SAS's: ITA serves 8 destinations in the USA and Canada; SAS serves 10...; neither has service to Mexico. Thus, the comment, "Its [sic] actually a huge loss for Skyteam...But SAS was such a smaller player..." feels hard to square. Interestingly, SAS serves 14 destinations in Italy to ITA's 20...and ITA serves no destinations in Scandinavia! Thus, if we think about this in terms of North American services and potential TATL JVs, SkyTeam isn't really losing all that much for swapping ITA for SAS.
and to add, AZ wasn't a part of the AF/DL/KL/VS JV. When VS joined the JV, AZ left.
Since the AF/DL/KL/VS is profit driven, they don't have room for airlines that perpetually lose money.
and DL has increased its service to Italy since AZ left.
and, if AZ is left out of a JV and is not acquired, then the attempts to frame SkyTeam as coming up short are will be seen...
and to add, AZ wasn't a part of the AF/DL/KL/VS JV. When VS joined the JV, AZ left.
Since the AF/DL/KL/VS is profit driven, they don't have room for airlines that perpetually lose money.
and DL has increased its service to Italy since AZ left.
and, if AZ is left out of a JV and is not acquired, then the attempts to frame SkyTeam as coming up short are will be seen as more ridiculous.
There are other medium sized airlines with TATL flights left in Europe; how those are added to or continue to be passed on JVs will be what moves alliances in the next 5 years.
DL owned a bunch of VS and thus wanted VS more with higher fares more than a faltering AZ with lower fares in the JV.
DL wants what generates the most profits.
While VS is not a hugely profitable company - they will just return to profitability post covid this year - they do provide enormous access to LHR which DL simply cannot do on its own while DL can and has built Italy on its own.
VS has strategic value; AZ does not.
I am curious if the biggest winner in this is DL/VS with now three additional airports to feed their LHR flights...
Alexa, play Traitor by Olivia Rodrigo
the only traitor was Star that refused to allow SK into the UA-LH Group JV.
SK's bankruptcy reorganization clearly set a path to getting SK on a level playing field w/ larger Euro carriers and SK took it.
Given the potential rejection of the LH takeover of AZ, Star could be smaller in Europe fairly quickly.
Timbo, you're just happy that someone wants to join the ghetto alliance that the airline you're obsessed with belongs to. If it's Star, I'll go far. If it's Sky, I'll probably die.
thankfully, the world doesn't revolve around you
Timmy boy, I agree completely with @ORD_Is_My_Second_Home and that you are biased towards SkyTeam and DL to the point where it is unhealthy
Prove that it doesn't. It certainly doesn't revolve around Delta.
None of which changes that SK connections will flow over SkyTeam hubs
Which ones, Timbo? AMS and CDG, presumably. The hubs of your precious Delta will get no more than a trickle.
SAS is the only airline I’ve flown where both pilots were female and all of the cabin crew were male. Was very uncomfortable
Strange comment! Why was it uncomfortable?
@?!
Uncomfortable for incels, maybe.
For the same reason I would be uncomfortable leaving my kids with a male daycare
And I’m a woman for the record, certainly not an incel
Then you must be a femcel, with your outdated and idiotic thinking.
wow. just wow. is that because men molest children and women don't?
Thanks for your service that was very brave of you to endure
strange comment clearly begets an even more bizarre user name and comment.
Let me guess? Butthurt that SK chose to start ATL service before the deal even closes because it sees the value in tapping into DL's massive ability to pump traffic across the Atlantic at ATL
WHAT?!?!? The comment chain was about women pilots and male FAs where the f did DL and ATL come from.
With Tim Dunn, *everything* is about DL.
And beyond bizarre is people that bring someone's mom into the discussion; the only question is to ask why anyone would do that and it's clear it's actually about the Star people - UA supporters here - that can't stand to admit that SkyTeam outsmarted Star AGAIN not just with SK but now that the EU is challenging the LH acquisition of AZ.
What a bizarre comment.
SAS still stands for SH-TTY A-S SERVICE
This is just delaying the inevitable of what is a terrible airline and has been for some decades - it's demise. A waste of AF/KLM's money and waste of the Danish state's money.
SAS moving to SkyTeam is a result of Star's intentional decision for years to keep SK as a 2nd tier airline. They may or may not contribute much compared to the AMS and CDG hubs but SK will at least get a chance to receive its fair share of what it contributes.
The speed with which SK announced ATL - even before all of this is finished - shows that they expect to gain...
SAS moving to SkyTeam is a result of Star's intentional decision for years to keep SK as a 2nd tier airline. They may or may not contribute much compared to the AMS and CDG hubs but SK will at least get a chance to receive its fair share of what it contributes.
The speed with which SK announced ATL - even before all of this is finished - shows that they expect to gain as much from ST as they contribute and DL's ATL/DTW/MSP hubs are undoubtedly going to see more new service to Scandinavia while BOS and JFK will become much more profitable to SK and DL where both operate routes. In Europe, AF and KL will gain much more than LH loses in connectivity to other parts of the world
What connectivity is Star Alliance losing? And what is SkyTeam gaining? SAS barely had any US routes to begin with.
AF/KLM were doing fine already, AMS and CDG are two of the top 4 hubs in EU already.
SK isn't adding ATL because of the large Scandinavian population.
DL already serves several JFK-Scandinavia routes and they are certain to be upgraded to larger aircraft.
AMS and CDG ARE great hubs. CPH and whatever happens at ARN et al are additive for SkyTeam but wins for SK since they will be part of a JV where they get to share from their larger partners
"DL already serves several JFK-Scandinavia routes"
If by several you mean seasonal flights to CPH and ARN, then sure. Whatever gets you through the day.
Who cares about JFK? The key here is another of your precious Delta hubs, MSP. And that is already very well served to Scandinavia. But the traffic there is O/D and VFR, not premium enough for the only premium airline in the US.
Go ahead and list US carrier 2023 summer service to Scandinavia and then SK’s to Star hubs and I will tell you what won’t exist in a couple years and what will be expanding. Hint it will be along alliance lines.
Eh, Scandinavia maybe? You know, the place Scandinavian Airlines are based in? Some of the wealthiest place on Earth. *A will maintain some presence in capitals and a handful of secondary cities (GOT, BGO...) but it won't be nowhere near as comprehensive as it is now with SK. This will give SkyTeam huge boost in Nordics, where many people basically won't have a choice.
Connectivity is not about having a million TATL routes, it's about...
Eh, Scandinavia maybe? You know, the place Scandinavian Airlines are based in? Some of the wealthiest place on Earth. *A will maintain some presence in capitals and a handful of secondary cities (GOT, BGO...) but it won't be nowhere near as comprehensive as it is now with SK. This will give SkyTeam huge boost in Nordics, where many people basically won't have a choice.
Connectivity is not about having a million TATL routes, it's about being able to get passengers from an obscure A to an obscure B.
More likely that serving ATL was a condition in Delta supporting it joining SkyTeam and probably funded some of the costs.
Why would Delta support a JV by inviting another airline into its largest hub unless it gets something bigger in return?
They are getting something "bigger" in return: an actual presence in a part of Europe that is dominated by Star Alliance airlines like LH and LOT. It's not much of one, but it's a presence, since Delta's influence in Europe ends at the eastern border fence of Charles de Gaulle Airport.
Speaking selfishly, I was really hoping that cooperation with sky team would begin before August. I have a flight with sas from nyc to cph and was hoping to credit that to flying blue - would have gotten me 60xp towards gold status… I’m missing out by a week.
Maybe just don't credit it anywhere and do it retroactively? You'll lose some of the status benefits if you have but it's possible that you can credit to FlyingBlue after the transition and worst case, if not you can credit it to an A* programme.
Really? I can credit retroactively to flying blue? To do this, would I not provide any FF number, and then provide it once SAS has joined skyteam? Currently I’ve put in my Aeroplan number as we have some ideas for future redemptions but flying blue would be much more useful.
Can't retrocredit flights made before 1st Sep to SkyTeam airlines.
That’s what I thought, thanks for clearing that up. I’ll credit to Aeroplan as planned.
SAS already has higher TATL fares than its TATL behemoth competitors for the markets of greatest economic relevance to it. Consumers in this market will be much worse off if SAS were to be given government approval to fully collude with AirFrance-KLM-Delta-Virgin Atlantic on fares and revenue-sharing.
How so? They have plenty of competition in BA and LH Group.
Between this and also possibly losing Asiana as well if the merger with Korean Air goes through, not the best of times for Star Alliance.
Personally I don't think the OZ merger will go through, as it seems they still have some massive hurdles to overcome (The US).
From Business Korea: Given the strong opposition stance of the U.S., some experts suggest that the merger is increasingly unlikely.
Plus A* will eventually gain ITA, and if you look at it from Lufthansa, Swiss and ITA, the have the whole centre of Europe blocked. I won't even consider oneworld despite...
Personally I don't think the OZ merger will go through, as it seems they still have some massive hurdles to overcome (The US).
From Business Korea: Given the strong opposition stance of the U.S., some experts suggest that the merger is increasingly unlikely.
Plus A* will eventually gain ITA, and if you look at it from Lufthansa, Swiss and ITA, the have the whole centre of Europe blocked. I won't even consider oneworld despite really liking oneworld airlines because I am based in CDG and it's just not practical to fly to LHR, HEL or MAD to go anywhere in Europe really. A* will be fine in my opinion. The losers of this deal are really customers in the Nordic market in my opinion.
I'm not sure gaining ITA is a fair trade-off though.
Star was also gonna lose TAP but that might not be happening anymore.
Even if *A gets ITA, it will once again last for a few years before it goes bankrupt again (but I have to say I'm amazed by willingness of Italian taxpayers to keep pouring their money into that black hole instead of simply letting it die). The Lufthansa deal won't go through for the very reason you mentioned - LHG is already controlling the aviation market in central Europe, having basically a monopoly on it....
Even if *A gets ITA, it will once again last for a few years before it goes bankrupt again (but I have to say I'm amazed by willingness of Italian taxpayers to keep pouring their money into that black hole instead of simply letting it die). The Lufthansa deal won't go through for the very reason you mentioned - LHG is already controlling the aviation market in central Europe, having basically a monopoly on it. EC will always be more interested in protecting the internal market and customers flying within it, than in some longhaul issues.
I share your view on oneworld and I really wish we had a bit of a shake up here in this region, distributing market into more alliances and creating some competition. I'm still waiting for the day when LO decide to jump the ship and leave *A - it was indicated by a former manager in an interview he gave that they were indeed considering this (and perhaps still are). Oneworld would be excellent match for LO, and such deal would be a gamechanger for the central European market, breaking LH's monopoly.
LO is not going to leave Star for one good reason: name their frequent flyer program.
With no more split hub stragegy thanks to government interference, AF-KLM will be more than happy to build up Copenhagen as a proper transit hub.
But as per typical Skyteam fashion, CPH is already tiny as an airport and has no room for expansion. This isn’t the big connecting hub that they need imo.
CPH will certainly come in great to offload a part of the traffic that is normally bound through AMS.
Delta could also introduce a each flight from both JFK and Atlanta to Stockholm as well, no, to offload a bit more traffic as well? Its not quite the hub as CPH but hey, use what you can.
Well, exactly...
Hopefully will not come in the form of cutting some KLM/AF flights in places like SFO
Well, the fact of the matter is that SAS had already years ago cut down ARN and OSL as sort of co-primary long-haul hubs. And that was even before AF-KL came into the SAS picture.
Also, ARN is too important to SAS for regional flights in order to cut it down entirely to a non-hub. Sweden has a larger population than Denmark and Norway combined, and in Sweden, Stockholm is the center of the universe even as a lot of Swedes originate trips out of CPH.
They will never get rid of Oslo and Stockholm as hubs. Governments wouldn't allow it and wouldn't be good for Scandinavian relations.
Norwegian government has no direct holdings in SAS. Swedish government is fine with being out of SAS too. So the thing keeping SAS with hubs at OSL and ARN but scaling them down in favor of CPH began years ago — well before the current Swedish government came into power and also before the airline got its current CEO, the Dutch guy. The CCO is also Dutch. You can see where SAS is headed.
The use of "most SkyTeam airlines" all over that press release almost makes me feel like they aren't planning on joining SkyTeam and just plan on having relationships with the SkyTeam carriers they like.
Or more likely, they're not confident about being able to sign bilateral agreements with all 19 airlines from different countries by September 1st.
When can I book their flights with my Peso Skymiles?
Which part of "September 1" was unclear?
Probably never.
When was the last time you were able to redeem skymiles on China Airlines? or Vietnam?