oneworld - Merged - Which ME3 to join oneworld? Answer - Qatar

Tom Horton recently hinted - during an interview with the FT - that ow is close to bring one of the ME3 into the alliance. Any speculation going on? Etihad seems a good candidate...

As this is not related to American Airlines or AAdvantage, I am moving it to the oneworld forum.

~Microwave, AA Forum Co-moderator

Qatar is another possible candidate. As there have been many hints that Qatar is favouring oneworld

Not that this means anything, but was re-routed recently after missing a BA Heathrow-Bahrain flight onto Air Qatar. Overall a very good experience, and it seemed like they were going out of their way for the displaced BA passengers.

Side note: was also on their 777-300ER and the 3-3-3 config in the back was pretty nice, especially from my super middle seat. Not sure how AA is going to fit an extra seat in there.

Not that this means anything, but was re-routed recently after missing a BA Heathrow-Bahrain flight onto Air Qatar. Overall a very good experience, and it seemed like they were going out of their way for the displaced BA passengers.

Side note: was also on their 777-300ER and the 3-3-3 config in the back was pretty nice, especially from my super middle seat. Not sure how AA is going to fit an extra seat in there.

You mean Qatar Airways?

After being rejected by Star Alliance. Qatar is rumoured to have the go ahead with British Airways in terms of oneworld membership. Would expect news any time soon.

You mean Qatar Airways?

After being rejected by Star Alliance. Qatar is rumoured to have the go ahead with British Airways in terms of oneworld membership. Would expect news any time soon.

That would be a great addition

You mean Qatar Airways?

After being rejected by Star Alliance.

Would you happen to know who rejected them and why they were rejected?

You mean Qatar Airways?

After being rejected by Star Alliance. That sounds a bit weird, any idea why? Star has always seemed to be the street-walker of the alliances, they will take anyone that wants to join.

Dave

You mean Qatar Airways?

After being rejected by Star Alliance. Qatar is rumoured to have the go ahead with British Airways in terms of oneworld membership. Would expect news any time soon.

I'm not sure if I would say they were rejected. There was at least some mutual interest between the two parties for some time. Why this interest waned is a big question mark to the best of my knowledge.

Strong indication here that it will be Qatar - http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/british-airways-considers-secondary-chinese-cities-possible-codeshare-with-china-southern-80649

Been talked about often in this forum in other threads.

Would you happen to know who rejected them and why they were rejected?

late 2010 or early 2011, can not remember exactly when, Lufthansa CEO or head of group standed out firmly critizised the ME carriers and do not see them any time soon in alliances...

In that time, Qatar was having a great time with United and then US Airways, and busy signing codeshare and FFP with other Star Alliance members which included Asiana and ANA. The rumour went around and believed Qatar would be the first to join alliance among the ME3 and it will be Staralliance.

But earlier this year Qatar terminated the United agreement and Willie Walsh from British Airways hinted Qatar membership in oneworld.

Even though not enough evidences but the current story line hint that Lufthansa is not very keen on any of the ME3 to join star as they are direct competition for Lufthansa Airlines group's Europe-Asia traffic.

I'm not sure if I would say they were rejected. There was at least some mutual interest between the two parties for some time. Why this interest waned is a big question mark to the best of my knowledge.

Yes they did. Especially with United. I believe one stage United was going to court Qatar into star alliance. But there was no response or interest from Lufthansa. I could not find the origional articles, but the head of LH group did make a statement in public about the ME carriers and described them as threats rather than friends. Also when Willie Walsh of British Airways announced the possibility of Qatar Airways joining oneworld he hinted that his airline do not see the Middleeast Airlines as threat, was a response to LH's comment.

Yes they did. Especially with United. I believe one stage United was going to court Qatar into star alliance. But there was no response or interest from Lufthansa. I could not find the origional articles, but the head of LH group did make a statement in public about the ME carriers and described them as threats rather than friends. Also when Willie Walsh of British Airways announced the possibility of Qatar Airways joining oneworld he hinted that his airline do not see the Middleeast Airlines as threat, was a response to LH's comment.

I do recall the article that you speak of where LH refers to the big middle eastern airlines as a threat. I suppose that did officially eliminate whatever aspirations Qatar had to join the Star Alliance. My original thought was they actually applied and were rebuffed (Obviously that didn't happen).

Strong indication here that it will be Qatar - http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/british-airways-considers-secondary-chinese-cities-possible-codeshare-with-china-southern-80649

This now raises questions about Etihad and, by extension, airberlin. Could we possibly see Etihad go to skyteam and take airberlin with them?

This now raises questions about Etihad and, by extension, airberlin. Could we possibly see Etihad go to skyteam and take airberlin with them?

nothing prevents Etihad to also join OW, in fact they seems having fingers in many pies where OW has also theirs, besides AB there's also EI.
Or QR can also get a stake in AB, possibly in conjunction with IAG. This would void any EY attempt to get AB in tow, should they really consider to join ST (if you choose to believe AF government handlers and their trumpeting media).
There are a lot many possibilities at the moment that does not really involve a stark choice between alliances. The CAPA article is summing them quite nicely. I personally think that in the medium to long term, both * and ST are going to lose members. Too big, too unwieldy, too uneven. Further to that, the traditional hierarchy order of each alliance (in * LH, UA and SQ are calling the shots, in ST, AF/KL and DL) is increasingly challenged by new entrants in Asia and Mideast, and is still unclear how each of these stalwarts will react to the threat.

nothing prevents Etihad to also join OW, in fact they seems having fingers in many pies where OW has also theirs, besides AB there's also EI.
Or QR can also get a stake in AB, possibly in conjunction with IAG. This would void any EY attempt to get AB in tow, should they really consider to join ST (if you choose to believe AF government handlers and their trumpeting media).
There are a lot many possibilities at the moment that does not really involve a stark choice between alliances. The CAPA article is summing them quite nicely. I personally think that in the medium to long term, both * and ST are going to lose members. Too big, too unwieldy, too uneven. Further to that, the traditional hierarchy order of each alliance (in * LH, UA and SQ are calling the shots, in ST, AF/KL and DL) is increasingly challenged by new entrants in Asia and Mideast, and is still unclear how each of these stalwarts will react to the threat.

The main reason i say skyteam is because Etihad and Qatar will directly compete against each other more as they grow. Another problem is Etihad's relationship with virgin australia. I believe they even own part of them.

Star will likely lose TAM USairways, and some of the small european members depending on how much money LH is willing to spend to save them. Skyteam is strong for the moment, although Czech, Tarom and to a lesser degree Air Europa are in a precarious position. I could realistically see some shifts away from skyteam in the mid to long term. Oneworld will grow, but as the CAPA article pointed out, things have become hazy with their alliance.

That sounds a bit weird, any idea why? Star has always seemed to be the street-walker of the alliances, they will take anyone that wants to join.

Dave

Star Alliance is just popular ;) oneworld is choosy with it's friends. And SkyTeam get's whoever's left. Just look at the membership. All the best airlines in the world are either Star or OW.

Which SkyTeam airlines would you actually *choose* to fly? Korean for sure, AF/KL maybe, and sometimes AZ. Look at the rest of their partners: AirEuropa, Saudia, Tarom, Vietnam Airlines. Not that I wouldn't fly them! I'd actually like to try out Aeroflot, and VN is fine. They're just not... top tier carriers heh.

Average Star rating of alliances is:
OW: 3.73
*A: 3.29
ST: 3.19

SkyTeam is the only alliance without any 5-star airlines. Star has the most, followed by OW.

I think the close relationship between AB and EY will be over soon. There are already rumors that EY doesn't want to invest more money into AB. Further, it seems they'll buy their way into Skyteam...don't forget the Berlin Airport debacle that causes a lot of issues for AB. I think it will be Qatar who will be joining OW and EY will join Skyteam. For Emirates there is no need for an alliance.

Iff US Airways is taking over AA, we will see them both in OW, most definitely.

I agree with teiring. IMHO this is the most likely scenario.

@arcticbull: I don't see ST as the alliance that gets the left-overs. This was probably true for the first years after ST's founding, but not nowadays anymore. (But it might still look like this today for someone who looks at things from the perspective of the "anglosphere".)
Some aspects:
- ST could have gotten MH if they had wanted. After all they were more picky than OW.
- ST has been expanding big time for some time now. Look at Asia, China in particular. Actually, my prognosis is that ST will be the major player for Europe-Australia travel in about 10 years time.
- I think it was a mistake that OW was too choosy in the past years. Now they are by far the smallest alliance and they even felt it's necessary to choose financially unstable LCC Air Berlin in Europe.

I agree with teiring. IMHO this is the most likely scenario.

@arcticbull: I don't see ST as the alliance that gets the left-overs. This was probably true for the first years after ST's founding, but not nowadays anymore. (But it might still look like this today for someone who looks at things from the perspective of the "anglosphere".)
Some aspects:
- ST could have gotten MH if they had wanted. After all they were more picky than OW.
- ST has been expanding big time for some time now. Look at Asia, China in particular. Actually, my prognosis is that ST will be the major player for Europe-Australia travel in about 10 years time.
- I think it was a mistake that OW was too choosy in the past years. Now they are by far the smallest alliance and they even felt it's necessary to choose financially unstable LCC Air Berlin in Europe.

Well, oneworld would be the second biggest alliance if:
1>, If there is not the ill-fated China Southern CEO went to China Eastern and brought China Eastern to skyteam
2>, If there is not the overconfident of JAL management promised to bring Vietnam Airlines to oneworld. Then VN decide to go to trace their colonial master and danced with AF
3>, If there is not BA so eagerly on Kingfisher instead to let AA and CX take care of jetairways then we would have the first indian airlines in oneworld. But now Jet is going to star.
4>, If Qantas did not turn sore with Etihad...
5>, If oneworld even tried to save Canadian....
6>, If Cathay Pacific had more say in Air China boardroom and the Air China CEO did not become the head of governing body CAAC.

I agree with teiring. IMHO this is the most likely scenario.

@arcticbull: I don't see ST as the alliance that gets the left-overs. This was probably true for the first years after ST's founding, but not nowadays anymore. (But it might still look like this today for someone who looks at things from the perspective of the "anglosphere".)
Some aspects:
- ST could have gotten MH if they had wanted. After all they were more picky than OW.
- ST has been expanding big time for some time now. Look at Asia, China in particular. Actually, my prognosis is that ST will be the major player for Europe-Australia travel in about 10 years time.
- I think it was a mistake that OW was too choosy in the past years. Now they are by far the smallest alliance and they even felt it's necessary to choose financially unstable LCC Air Berlin in Europe.

I actually think that SkyTeam will be the big player in China and Asia in 10 years -- like they are now, but I think the quality of the airlines it already has is going to go up, and fast. China Southern is launching it's A380 service LAX-CAN, and that's a cool plane! Heck, Economy has a 35-37" pitch. As a 6'5" guy, that is music to my ears.

I just don't think they're there at the moment. Maybe you're right, I was being a bit near-sighted. But they are easier to poke fun at ;) Especially since other than the AF/DL/KL/AZ partnership, the other airlines are incredibly loosely coupled to eachother.

This now raises questions about Etihad and, by extension, airberlin. Could we possibly see Etihad go to skyteam and take airberlin with them?

As far as I'm concerned if AB leaves, that's not a huge loss to OW, although it will be a bit embarrassing given the relatively recent addition of AB and the associated hoopla. While OW does need a decent European presence, doing this via an LCC option - AB - is a poor choice, although I really don't see any other options. AB, BA and AY combined do not offer the sort of France/Germany/mainland Europe coverage that AF, KLM or LH can each offer .

Now, if EY does join ST then I suspect the ability to redeem on EY will be lost to OW, which would be a shame. QR should bring some decent Africa and Asia destinations into the network if they do join OW - which will be nice; hopefully making up for the likely loss in options from EY going to ST - assuming again that this happens.

I actually think that SkyTeam will be the big player in China and Asia in 10 years -- like they are now, but I think the quality of the airlines it already has is going to go up, and fast. China Southern is launching it's A380 service LAX-CAN, and that's a cool plane! Heck, Economy has a 35-37" pitch. As a 6'5" guy, that is music to my ears.

I just don't think they're there at the moment. Maybe you're right, I was being a bit near-sighted. But they are easier to poke fun at ;) Especially since other than the AF/DL/KL/AZ partnership, the other airlines are incredibly loosely coupled to eachother.

Thanks for clarifying this.

I think ST has shown, over the past 10 years, that they are able to support airlines that are in the process of becoming a "proper", "respectable" airline. Aeroflot and Korean have developed very well since they entered Skyteam and I am pretty sure things will be similar for the Chinese airlines and Garuda, too, for example.

As a side note: It is worth keeping an eye on ST's activities in Africa, not only in Asia.

I actually think that SkyTeam will be the big player in China and Asia in 10 years -- like they are now, but I think the quality of the airlines it already has is going to go up, and fast. China Southern is launching it's A380 service LAX-CAN, and that's a cool plane! Heck, Economy has a 35-37" pitch. As a 6'5" guy, that is music to my ears.

I just don't think they're there at the moment. Maybe you're right, I was being a bit near-sighted. But they are easier to poke fun at ;) Especially since other than the AF/DL/KL/AZ partnership, the other airlines are incredibly loosely coupled to eachother.

i would refrain to project estimates for whatever time on China market, given the complete unpredictability of the same and the iron grip of CCP and its legions of cronies. ST has had the huge luck to find an extremely well connected individual in Liu Shaoyang, aka the Comrade Chairman, then with CZ, and now with MU. This bout of luck is not guaranteed at all to last. All it needs is for Liu to fall into rough times, and whatever he carefully set up can be destroyed with awesome speed, and ST will never be in position to object anything. What is more likely instead is the main three -CA,CZ and MU- will start to think big thanks to the limitless funding they receive from the government, and sooner or later find their current alliances limiting their prospects. This situation is gonna hurt both ST and * forcing them to pay a high price if they wanna keep serving China.

I fail to see why the current alliances would limit the Chinese airlines' ambitions. All they can go for is to be the major Asian airline(s), and why would ST have a problem with it? It would come down to a major US player (DL), a major European player (AFKL) and a or the major Asian player within the alliance. What would be the problem with this? At least for the next 20 years these are the three "blocks" that will shape the world. (I mean politically and economically.) ST is well prepared for the future, methinks.

Well, oneworld would be the second biggest alliance if:
1>, If there is not the ill-fated China Southern CEO went to China Eastern and brought China Eastern to skyteam
2>, If there is not the overconfident of JAL management promised to bring Vietnam Airlines to oneworld. Then VN decide to go to trace their colonial master and danced with AF
3>, If there is not BA so eagerly on Kingfisher instead to let AA and CX take care of jetairways then we would have the first indian airlines in oneworld. But now Jet is going to star.
4>, If Qantas did not turn sore with Etihad...
5>, If oneworld even tried to save Canadian....
6>, If Cathay Pacific had more say in Air China boardroom and the Air China CEO did not become the head of governing body CAAC.You forgot my biggest pet peeve:
7>, If BA was not so stubborn about frequent flyer program integration causing LX to break off its MOU to join the oneworld alliance, which landed this quality carrier to LH and therefore Star

Especially since other than the AF/DL/KL/AZ partnership, the other airlines are incredibly loosely coupled to eachother.

From an airline operational perspective, the airlines in OW are the loosest in terms of how they work together, miles behind both *A and ST.

From an airline operational perspective, the airlines in OW are the loosest in terms of how they work together, miles behind both *A and ST.

I'd have to agree.

From an airline operational perspective, the airlines in OW are the loosest in terms of how they work together, miles behind both *A and ST.

Any idea, or even knowledge, why OW haven't integrate their operations, rules, allowances etc. more?

Any idea, or even knowledge, why OW haven't integrate their operations, rules, allowances etc. more?

The arrogance of old BA and the current QF. Then there is union issues within AA and QF, especially AA. Thank goodness BA is changing but not enough.

CX makes some good commercial decisions but QF always be lack of good judgement especially under current management.

The perfect example is the universal luggage benefit, which does not exist in oneworld thanks to BA.

Any idea, or even knowledge, why OW haven't integrate their operations, rules, allowances etc. more?

I don't know for sure, but I have read that OW is a relatively loose collection of bilateral agreements and that extends to how the airlines interact with each other operationally and financially - most ST carriers are also aligned in the SkyTeam Cargo alliance and are exploring alliance lounges to save costs, *A is looking into joint procurement of economy seats, but OW doesn't seem to do as much of this.

Losing LX, VN, MU, SN, 9W, the relationship of CX with BA and QF, the reluctance of MH to join for over a decade, AB's lukewarm assessment of the alliance etc doesn't speak well for it's ability to deliver alliance benefits to new member airlines (as opposed to the members of existing OW FFPs). An ME3 joining would certainly make things a little more interesting...

The arrogance of old BA and the current QF. Then there is union issues within AA and QF, especially AA. Thank goodness BA is changing but not enough.

CX makes some good commercial decisions but QF always be lack of good judgement especially under current management.

The perfect example is the universal luggage benefit, which does not exist in oneworld thanks to BA.

Im not sure you can say one is more at fault than the other. OW is full of big, legacy carriers that all have significant government interest. Whilst BA is at fault for the LX situation for example, the blame for the current biggest issue, a lack of Chinese carriers, lies solely at the door of Cathay Pacific.

The perfect example is the universal luggage benefit, which does not exist in oneworld thanks to BA.Are you sure that it's BA? I always presumed it was AA's fault, which after the introduction of the awful fees had the worse bag policies in premium classes of the entire alliance (see multi-hundred-post threads in FT), at 2 x 23 kg and $100 (or was $150?) in enforced fees per bag over 23kg and who knows how much for a third bag.

It's only after the implementation of the joint business agreement with BA/IB etc. that they moved the allowance up to BA's, i.e. 3 x 32 kg

No matter whose fault it is, the lack of a universal baggage benefits is definitely detrimental. As well as the multitude of benefits that sometimes are alliance-wide (e.g. elites PRS benefits) and sometimes not (e.g. FastTrack at LHR, enhanced bag allowance on CX & others, separate elite call centers, etc.)

Are you sure that it's BA? I always presumed it was AA's fault, which after the introduction of the awful fees had the worse bag policies in premium classes of the entire alliance (see multi-hundred-post threads in FT), at 2 x 23 kg and $100 (or was $150?) in enforced fees per bag over 23kg and who knows how much for a third bag.

It's only after the implementation of the joint business agreement with BA/IB etc. that they moved the allowance up to BA's, i.e. 3 x 32 kg

No matter whose fault it is, the lack of a universal baggage benefits is definitely detrimental. As well as the multitude of benefits that sometimes are alliance-wide (e.g. elites PRS benefits) and sometimes not (e.g. FastTrack at LHR, enhanced bag allowance on CX & others, separate elite call centers, etc.)

First bag charge for domestic only which was to align with other US legacy carriers. And it is always two bags free for all OneWorld ruby members and above.

BA have the first bag for free but additional allowance only to its own top tier members. No benefits for OneWorld ruby, sapphire or emerald.

...

BA have the first bag for free but additional allowance only to its own top tier members. No benefits for OneWorld ruby, sapphire or emerald.Certainly no general baggage benefits - however there are specific documented ones for QF elites.

No help here but ...

BA have the first bag for free but additional allowance only to its own top tier members. No benefits for OneWorld ruby, sapphire or emerald.

True, but like many carriers, if you're flying in the F cabin, BA usually doesn't bother with the rules regarding checked baggage limits.

Are you sure that it's BA? I always presumed it was AA's fault, which after the introduction of the awful fees had the worse bag policies in premium classes of the entire alliance (see multi-hundred-post threads in FT), at 2 x 23 kg and $100 (or was $150?) in enforced fees per bag over 23kg and who knows how much for a third bag.

It's only after the implementation of the joint business agreement with BA/IB etc. that they moved the allowance up to BA's, i.e. 3 x 32 kg

No matter whose fault it is, the lack of a universal baggage benefits is definitely detrimental. As well as the multitude of benefits that sometimes are alliance-wide (e.g. elites PRS benefits) and sometimes not (e.g. FastTrack at LHR, enhanced bag allowance on CX & others, separate elite call centers, etc.)

AA is the nice guy in letting OW elites check 2 bags for free on domestic itineraries even though AA don't have to, so I wouldn't blame AA for that.

First bag charge for domestic only which was to align with other US legacy carriers.AA was the first of the U.S. legacy carriers to introduce this fee "for your unbundling benefit", so there was no alignment to be made -- quite the contrary. AA for a while had by far the worse baggage allowance (in premium classes, even for elites) of all carriers across the North Atlantic, bar none, up until the JBA with BA/IB. Even Icelandair had a better allowance. There's a thread in the AA forum with all the details.

The fact that AA applies the baggage fee waivers to all oneworld elite members (whether AA or from another airline) is not an alliance rule, it's AA's decision that could be rescinded at any time.

QF/EK rumours reaching fever pitch - http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qantas-frequent-flyer/1382824-rumour-qf-ek-announcement-next-week.html

Just reading this I was thinking if QF and EK are about to announce a partnership of some kind - it could be including OW.

I think Etihad will go with ST as I can see VA joining ST - with there Delta tie up., and NZ will be there in the mix somehow also

Chances of EK joining any global alliances are slim to none. EK announced many times they are not looking to join an alliance. The best bet i would say is QR goes to oneworld and EY goes to skyteam

I think QR is the best of the middle east carriers to join OW. Turkish is already in Star, Etihad appears to be stagnating and buying failing airlines which could interfere with Oneworld (like Virgin Australia). Emirates has said it doesn't want to be in an Alliance and would steal too many passengers so that leaves the 5 Star carrier which will be based out of a brand new hub soon, offering many unique destinations.


I 100% think too much emphasis is put on AB Etihad and Skyteam.

1. Etihad can legally only own a minority stake, they can still gave a lot of power but not full power especially if it comes to things as expensive as alliance switching.
2. Will AB be alive in a few years? Looking increasingly unlikely.
3. Just because AB may join Sky does that mean they have to bring AB to Sky? CA and CX have cross shareholdings but that doesn't affect their alliance.

Star and Sky appear to be far superior in Europe but in the long-run how many smaller Euro airlines will be alive? Most with bloated costs, lack of a long-haul network and having lots of competition. I am referring to the likes of Adria, TAROM, LOT, Croatia Airlines, Air Europa, CSA, SAS and so on.

Star will still be the best even without these smaller airlines but the playing field would be more level, plus there are a few opportunities remaining such as Aer Lingus . Lets not forget about S7 which gives a good presence eastwards and can be decent to connect on to avoid backtracking eastwards.

Well, oneworld would be the second biggest alliance if:
1>, If there is not the ill-fated China Southern CEO went to China Eastern and brought China Eastern to skyteam
2>, If there is not the overconfident of JAL management promised to bring Vietnam Airlines to oneworld. Then VN decide to go to trace their colonial master and danced with AF
3>, If there is not BA so eagerly on Kingfisher instead to let AA and CX take care of jetairways then we would have the first indian airlines in oneworld. But now Jet is going to star.
4>, If Qantas did not turn sore with Etihad...
5>, If oneworld even tried to save Canadian....
6>, If Cathay Pacific had more say in Air China boardroom and the Air China CEO did not become the head of governing body CAAC.

Those are some major mistakes but the BA and Swiss deal has to be the most unforgiveable thing, they are top quality and highly profitable with a centrally located hub.

CP is hardly an issue, Canada is a relatively small country (by population) and can be accessed via AA.

Thanks for clarifying this.

I think ST has shown, over the past 10 years, that they are able to support airlines that are in the process of becoming a "proper", "respectable" airline. Aeroflot and Korean have developed very well since they entered Skyteam and I am pretty sure things will be similar for the Chinese airlines and Garuda, too, for example.

As a side note: It is worth keeping an eye on ST's activities in Africa, not only in Asia.

I agree, Sky seem to attract up and coming carriers, although can carriers like AR ever become respectable?

As far as I'm concerned if AB leaves, that's not a huge loss to OW, although it will be a bit embarrassing given the relatively recent addition of AB and the associated hoopla. While OW does need a decent European presence, doing this via an LCC option - AB - is a poor choice, although I really don't see any other options. AB, BA and AY combined do not offer the sort of France/Germany/mainland Europe coverage that AF, KLM or LH can each offer .

Now, if EY does join ST then I suspect the ability to redeem on EY will be lost to OW, which would be a shame. QR should bring some decent Africa and Asia destinations into the network if they do join OW - which will be nice; hopefully making up for the likely loss in options from EY going to ST - assuming again that this happens.

I agree AB is a poor choice.


i would refrain to project estimates for whatever time on China market, given the complete unpredictability of the same and the iron grip of CCP and its legions of cronies. ST has had the huge luck to find an extremely well connected individual in Liu Shaoyang, aka the Comrade Chairman, then with CZ, and now with MU. This bout of luck is not guaranteed at all to last. All it needs is for Liu to fall into rough times, and whatever he carefully set up can be destroyed with awesome speed, and ST will never be in position to object anything. What is more likely instead is the main three -CA,CZ and MU- will start to think big thanks to the limitless funding they receive from the government, and sooner or later find their current alliances limiting their prospects. This situation is gonna hurt both ST and * forcing them to pay a high price if they wanna keep serving China.

I agree, the China market is no way near maturity yet, if Gloabal Alliances were formed 10 years before airlines like Braniff and Eastern may have been in Alliances, and look how that turned out...none of them exist anymore.

With Hainan Airlines subsidairy Hong Kong Airlines having certain aircraft grounded due to 'issues' it looks like it may fold therefore giving CX no reason to veto their entry.

Then over the long run will MU and CZ want to be in the same alliance?

Isn't 20% of MU up for sale? If a OW member buys a stake then it could change everything?

China could re-regulate their avaiation industry, we can never tell what will happen but it's not like OW will never ever have a Chinese partner.

Your remark on Etihad in the first paragraph sounds strange. Maybe you can elaborate on what exactly you would like to say?

You seem to assume that people here think that AB will go to ST. I can't see that this is a big aspect or a majority opinion in this thread.

I was referring to the possibility of Etihad joining Skyteam and or partnering with AF-KLM. It has been mentioned a few times in this thread along with many topics discussing Air Berlin.

What now???
http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/media-releases/sep-2012/5440/global/en

What now???
http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/media-releases/sep-2012/5440/global/en

Nothing has changed regarding future 1W memberships.

Nothing has changed regarding future 1W memberships.

This probably makes it more likely that QR will join oneworld by increasing BA's (already stated) interest in that scenario. And hopefully increase from their once-daily service to Australia.

Nothing has changed regarding future 1W memberships.

This probably makes it more likely that QR will join oneworld by increasing BA's (already stated) interest in that scenario. And hopefully increase from their once-daily service to Australia.

Given that the Europe-Australia market is comparably small for BA and given that QR is also some competition for BA to Asia, I don't think BA's interests have changed significantly. Apart from this, airlines are used to thinking a year ahead, so yesterday's announcement did not change the world for BA.

What now???
http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/media-releases/sep-2012/5440/global/en

So as an AA elite, theoretically (if code shared) I can do JFK-DXB-SYD on QF coded flights.. earn full EQP's/EQM's, status bonus and still get to fly EK?? that would be one hell of a deal!!

What now???
http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/media-releases/sep-2012/5440/global/en

So as an AA elite, theoretically (if code shared) I can do JFK-DXB-SYD on QF coded flights.. earn full EQP's/EQM's, status bonus and still get to fly EK?? that would be one hell of a deal!!

I don't think you can earn on a non-1W -operated codeshare unless AA has special arrangements with EK.

I think you are thinking way too much. :eek:

Nothing has changed, you still need to be on an oneworld marketed and operated flight in order to earn elite miles etc! How on earth could a QF-coded/marketed flight operated by EK be eligible for elite status.

You mean Qatar Airways?

After being rejected by Star Alliance.

QR did not seek Star Alliance membership.

It's unlikely Star made an approach as I am fairly sure that LH and AC (if not others) would absolutely veto any such approaches to any of the Gulf Interconnectors.

QR did not seek Star Alliance membership.

It's unlikely Star made an approach as I am fairly sure that LH and AC (if not others) would absolutely veto any such approaches to any of the Gulf Interconnectors.

According to many insider information available, QR certainly had persued Star Alliance membership. They were so close after secure codesahres with united, US, Asiana and ANA. And many people believed that QR will be the first ME airline to join any alliance and it would be star...But LH commented openly opposing such a move and state ME airlines are competitors not friends.

The QF deal with EK doesn't change much, Oneworld airlines have agreements with many unalligned airlines and even with carriers in a competing alliance.

It has been speculated for over a decade that BA is struggling in Australia in comparison to other long-haul routes and wanted to pull out, but the QF JSA agreement meant they had to retain services but now BA can focus elsewhere.


So as an AA elite, theoretically (if code shared) I can do JFK-DXB-SYD on QF coded flights.. earn full EQP's/EQM's, status bonus and still get to fly EK?? that would be one hell of a deal!!

No you can't do that, even if you book an EK flight with a QF flight number you will not get points. You will only get points if you are an EK or QF Frequent Flyer.

According to many insider information available, QR certainly had persued Star Alliance membership. They were so close after secure codesahres with united, US, Asiana and ANA. And many people believed that QR will be the first ME airline to join any alliance and it would be star...But LH commented openly opposing such a move and state ME airlines are competitors not friends.

I couldn't imagine TK/MS being very welcoming to QR either.

Their loss, I can understanding not wanting EK in but QR and EY are substantially smaller. If any alliance wants decent and long term access to the Middle East and the indian Subcontinent then a gulf carrier is the only option.

Not sure, but I would think that QR withdrawing BMI Partnership is not a very good sign to join OW... http://boardingarea.com/blogs/ghettoife/2012/09/12/bmi-and-qatar-earningburning-deal-to-end-on-october-28th/

Not sure, but I would think that QR withdrawing BMI Partnership is not a very good sign to join OW... http://boardingarea.com/blogs/ghettoife/2012/09/12/bmi-and-qatar-earningburning-deal-to-end-on-october-28th/That changes nothing. Oct 28 is when BMI ceases to exist. QR is merely cutting ties with BD on the date that BD will stop operations (all remaining BD ops then becoming BA).

Here I am again to pull another blog post, I know it is not directly connected, but does anyone thinks thinks this has any thuth? http://boardingarea.com/blogs/onemileatatime/2012/09/12/american-airlines-and-us-airways-merger-confirmed-by-apple/

Here I am again to pull another blog post, I know it is not directly connected, but does anyone thinks thinks this has any thuth? http://boardingarea.com/blogs/onemileatatime/2012/09/12/american-airlines-and-us-airways-merger-confirmed-by-apple/

I don't think it has any truth, apart from the comments below, which come to the conclusion that this is a mock up thing.

I don't think you can earn on a non-1W -operated codeshare unless AA has special arrangements with EK.

Er... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-aadvantage/1386980-emirates-ek-aa-partnership-talks-merged.html

Er... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-aadvantage/1386980-emirates-ek-aa-partnership-talks-merged.html

It will be so intersting to watch the coming few months in reminder of 2012:

1>, whether BA will announce any partnership with QR or announce partnership with EK (in case they are in talks as well for few months like AA and EK which nobody knows anything about until now)
2>, whether CX will join the cat fight to persue a partnership with either QR or EK...
3>, I guess EY is down the drain of OW and may join ST soon...

The biggest question would be:
who would be the airline to join OW next from ME and which one will leave as a result...

And also, could anyone remind me which CEO of EK expressed that EK would not join any alliance? Is the former CEO (now QR one) or the current one? If it was the former CEO's oponion then we may see EK joining oneworld maybe?

Apart from the EK side, I cannot see why it would be in IAG's, Finnair's and Air Berlin's interest to have EK in the alliance. Things would be different with a small Gulf carrier such as QR, of course. In fact, I think that EK's business model is not compatible with any alliance and I am pretty sure this is recognized by all parties involved.

Apart from the EK side, I cannot see why it would be in IAG's, Finnair's and Air Berlin's interest to have EK in the alliance. Things would be different with a small Gulf carrier such as QR, of course. In fact, I think that EK's business model is not compatible with any alliance and I am pretty sure this is recognized by all parties involved.

Not trying to say that you are wrong.

But I am just thinking from BA's perspective:
1>, Heathrow expansion is still out in the bushes, may take another fifteen to twenty years to realise the full picture
2>, BA is unlikely to add more capacity in near future as they are to retire some B744 and B767s as well as some B737s.
3>, BA stands in a wrong location for Europe-Asia traffic
4>, QF+EK deal will take away some European short haul traffic
5>, IB simply have no capacity to run Spain-Asia direct

Based on the reasons above, it makes sense for BA to have a partner who can work together to achieve the best network connection and share the best of each other's network. EK already have one of the largest foreign long haul market from UK airport with one stop solution to Asia and beyond. Many BA and IB short haul from London or Madrid could easily connect to EK's long haul departures from Europe. IB could benefits from EK's feed from other parts of the world, especially from Middle East and Asia to South America (yes that would request two stops solution but it is a route with potential). So even though compete in some routes, BA and IB could still work with EK to build up some other routes. With a partner in ME (not necessarily be EK, could be QR), BA could move some capacity from ME to Asia.

AB's future is still uncertain eventhough it is in oneworld. I doubt it have much to say about EK or QR.

Finnair could benfits as well. Operating at the high cost base, it is unlikely AY will expand further. With a ME partner, AY can concetrate on building up current network and abandon some unperforming routes thus become a truly boutique carrier rather than a network carrier, which does not fit AY any way.

And also, could anyone remind me which CEO of EK expressed that EK would not join any alliance? Is the former CEO (now QR one) or the current one? If it was the former CEO's oponion then we may see EK joining oneworld maybe?

Tim Clark is the current President and COO of Emirates and has never been with Qatar. He is the one who has repeatedly said that Emirates won't join one of the three alliances (as recently as the QF/EK announcement, he made the comment that these alliances (OW, Star, Skyteam) are anachronisms, and not the wave of the future).

@chongcao: just think about what the European OW airlines would lose if EK joined OW. This is far more than they could ever gain. The current airline alliances work because they combine local short-hauls with money-earning long-hauls. In these alliances, airlines can perfectly feed each others' networks via a combination of SH-LH, LH-SH, SH-LH-SH. A LH-LH carrier of EK's size (and size, i.e. many, many LH-LH connections with only 1 point of transfer, is the key here) does not fit in this concept.
I would go so far as to say that EK has invented a new, third airline concept (with the other two concepts being the classical hub-and-spoke carrier and the more recent shorthaul LCC).

@chongcao: just think about what the European OW airlines would lose if EK joined OW. This is far more than they could ever gain. The current airline alliances work because they combine local short-hauls with money-earning long-hauls. In these alliances, airlines can perfectly feed each others' networks via a combination of SH-LH, LH-SH, SH-LH-SH. A LH-LH carrier of EK's size (and size, i.e. many, many LH-LH connections with only 1 point of transfer, is the key here) does not fit in this concept.
I would go so far as to say that EK has invented a new, third airline concept (with the other two concepts being the classical hub-and-spoke carrier and the more recent shorthaul LCC).

Agree with you in some extend.

But in the case of Finnair, it brought little or no value to oneworld as majority of the city outside Finland is already served by oneworld alliance. Not to mention its EU-Asia routes which can be replaced by BA-CX/JL routes. And Finland itself is such a small country and loosing Finnair does not damage much to oneworld itself if EK or QR intend join OW.

In case of Air Berlin, the value to oneworld is its short haul intra Germany and European routes. Where it could fit perfectly to EK's long haul routes as Air Berlin only operated few intercontinental routes that they do not need to worry about.

So which two other oneworld Eurpean airlines would loose? BA? IB? I think I have emphasised much in my previous post so I will not repeat my view.

Also you said:
In these alliances, airlines can perfectly feed each others' networks via a combination of SH-LH, LH-SH, SH-LH-SH.

I could not agree with you at all. There is no perfect match in alliances. But only friends who could play together in alliances. The SH-LH/LH-SH or SH-LH-SH seems perfect in writting but in reality , it is really the best timing, best price or best value wins over customers. Not to mention the internal fighting within alliance. In many alliance promotional materials, the emphasis are the 'convenience' 'more choice in air travel' rather than words like we will transport you with a short haul operated by Aegean to connect a long haul operated by Lufthansa then a short haul operated by US Airways etc. The fundamental of alliance is to create a virtual airline group that covers global destinations without financial investment among each other. That is why even EK needs partners in several cornors of the world. Alliance is not to make customer to flying five or six stops from Europe to Asia or v.v. Alliance is about to provide the best value to customers which suits their travel needs, whether it is the most time saving routing, the least direct routing or the most outrageous routing. It all about to provide different choices to different customers to keep flying, and to achieve the best network structure and maxinum network earnings. EK will help oneworld to build up the network structure to connect many parts of Europe to Australiasia and Africa which currently oneworld could not provide. Could you fly from Malta to Osaka within 20 hours with oneworld? Could you fly from Birmingham to Hong Kong within 18 hours with oneworld? Not at this moment, but EK can provide more opportunities.

Ok. Let me put it differently. What BA flights do you think will have more passengers if EK is in OW?

Ok. Let me put it differently. What BA flights do you think will have more passengers if EK is in OW?

You know, those big moneymakers LHR-ABZ and LHR-EDI :D

Ok. Let me put it differently. What BA flights do you think will have more passengers if EK is in OW?

Between London and Canada where EK are short of slots. Between London and select US cities including Orlando, Phoenix, JFK, Boston etc. Also Eurpean short haul may see few passengers.

The reality is both BA and EK are very successful in business. They have their own share of this vast market. Being in the same alliance does not change the fundamental of their core business. Yes you will see a small shift in terms of passengers who either seek a more direct route (those from Europe to Asia may stick with BA for non-stop) or a leisurely route. But those passengers are in very small quantity. majority of the passengers choose airline based on many factors that alliance have no impact on them. The biggest benefits for BA is to have an opportunity to sell more tickets via Dubai to more secondary Asian cities which non-stop from London could not be successful. It will be a win-win.

Any guesses this move would happen before the end of 2012? Either EK join OW, QR join OW, or could you all see just BA/IB make a new partnership with one of the ME3 w/o Alliance ?

Any guesses this move would happen before the end of 2012? Either EK join OW, QR join OW, or could you all see just BA/IB make a new partnership with one of the ME3 w/o Alliance ?

I would have said Qatar to oneworld a few weeks ago, but now everything is one big question mark. This AA-EK thing might lead to Qatar not joining if it pushes through. CX is an interesting wrinkle in this. I wonder what they're thinking.

I would have said Qatar to oneworld a few weeks ago, but now everything is one big question mark. This AA-EK thing might lead to Qatar not joining if it pushes through. CX is an interesting wrinkle in this. I wonder what they're thinking.

Same feelings here. The relationship between EY and EK is very interesting too. EK is picking up partners EY abandoned (QF) and in relationship (AA). Also rumour was saying a while ago that EY or QR was aiming for oneworld. So then EK come out to build up relationship with AA and QF...What is EK thinking? What EY would react to this if, I mean if AA dropped the relationship with EY for EK?...What QR would think to work with AA and QF while they know the love and hate relationship with EK? Also if, I mean if AA signed with EK and kept relationship with EY, and then QR joined oneworld......What AA would become? In bed with all big three together?...Oh I can not handle it even thinking about it.

EK QF deal will not have too much an impact on CX. But if, I mean if, which may never happen, that EK joins oneworld that may shake CX's current position. I think similar to BA, CX is somewhat matured during last few years and their network is somewhat stable. I doubt CX would expand very much based on current network and fleet planning. I am sure CX would prefer QR over EK. But again the current seat numbers of EK out from greater China region is not a threat to CX yet.

I think early next year, maybe February-March we shall see the clear picture of what the big ME 3 going to do with their alliance membership or cooperation. Now it is still too early to make any statement or forecast on the possibility of ME3's choice on alliance (while, only thing I think for sure as both BA and QF have denied EY now).

Between London and Canada where EK are short of slots. Between London and select US cities including Orlando, Phoenix, JFK, Boston etc. Also Eurpean short haul may see few passengers.

The reality is both BA and EK are very successful in business. They have their own share of this vast market. Being in the same alliance does not change the fundamental of their core business. Yes you will see a small shift in terms of passengers who either seek a more direct route (those from Europe to Asia may stick with BA for non-stop) or a leisurely route. But those passengers are in very small quantity. majority of the passengers choose airline based on many factors that alliance have no impact on them. The biggest benefits for BA is to have an opportunity to sell more tickets via Dubai to more secondary Asian cities which non-stop from London could not be successful. It will be a win-win.

Hi chongcao,
I had written a long reply for you on Sunday on my mobile, but unfortunately the battery went down before I finished and all my text got lost. My apologies that I do not have the time now to write a long reply again, but I will briefly sketch the main aspects of what intended to post.

1. I do not think that BA's North America routes would benefit a lot. EK is expanding rapidly and will, in a couple of years, have covered most of BA's North American destinations by their own network. For the destinations that might remain uncovered, EK already has a North American codeshare partner, and I assume that most people from Asia would prefer
Asia - Dubai - NYC - short hop to destination
to the (slightly longer) route
Asia - Dubai - London - North America.
Even if there are still benefits for BA, the question would remain why these benefits should be gained within an alliance and not via codeshares.

2. Traffic to Dubai would be the only real benefit for BA. But how many people would go there on a BA flight if they connect with EK afterwards anyway on a LH flight? Dubai is pretty small in terms of originating traffic and being in an alliance means, at least to a certain extent, that it does not matter for the customer which partner airline they are travelling on. Compared with the risk of having EK in OW, increased traffic to a destination as close-by as Dubai from London is not really a big benefit.

3. BA would potentially suffer a lot on Asian and some African routes (present routes and routes that BA might wish to offer once the LHR-bottleneck has been resolved (in whatever way)). In fact, other OW airlines would suffer, too.

The reason is that the idea of an alliance is centred around individual airlines
(a) offering SH-LH flights
(b) via a hub
(c) with strong hub-originating traffic,
(d) who compete only punctually in few markets (mainly hub-hub markets
and some secondary markets, i.e. when an airline from Asia flies not
only to LHR but also to EDI, for example).

The alliance then connects these hubs and
(a) can offer SH-LH-SH flights
(b) better exploit and increase the capacity on inter-hub flights,
(c) channel passengers from the hub into the partner's SH-network, and
(d) while, doing so, decrease some capacity on secondary LH-markets that will go to the SH-flights of the partners.

With EK the entire concept does not work. EK
(a) specializes on LH-LH flights
(b) with low traffic originating at the hub
(c) and competes with many airlines on many sub-markets.

The benefits of having an airline of EK's size in an alliance is very small for the other members of the alliance, and the risk of losing traffic to the new partner due to the flexibility of attractive LH-LH connections is very high.
If we were talking about a smaller Middle East airline with less LH connections to secondary markets, things would be a bit different. (In particular as the SH-connections in the Middle East that the new partner would offer would comparably be more relevant). But EK has already expanded so much that it is somewhat too late for EK to join an alliance for the benefit of its members. EK competes with all big airlines on several parts of their home markets.

In sum, while I can understand that it would be cool for OW-members to have EK as an additional option I think for the airlines in OW (or any other of the 3 alliances), EK is not a compatible partner that would be likely to bring in more benefits than risks. And this is why I situate the idea of EK joining OW in the area of wishful thinking.

I would have said Qatar to oneworld a few weeks ago, but now everything is one big question mark. This AA-EK thing might lead to Qatar not joining if it pushes through. CX is an interesting wrinkle in this. I wonder what they're thinking.

As an airline executive said to me recently, alliances are one solution to the issues facing airlines, the alliances will be very different beasts in 10 years from now.

As OW is the weakest, smallest and loosest in terms of member integration, I wonder whether the current moves are a sign that OW will be the first to see the changes...

I would have said Qatar to oneworld a few weeks ago, but now everything is one big question mark. This AA-EK thing might lead to Qatar not joining if it pushes through. CX is an interesting wrinkle in this. I wonder what they're thinking.

CEO of QR is denying that he is having any sort of negotiations with any members on OW to join the alliance:


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jeMQ-n5swQvtU9GtukHLTuSXeYgA?docId=0bfeac4c2a6347cda580 fd35c97d5a66

Hi chongcao,
1. I do not think that BA's North America routes would benefit a lot. EK is expanding rapidly and will, in a couple of years, have covered most of BA's North American destinations by their own network. For the destinations that might remain uncovered, EK already has a North American codeshare partner, and I assume that most people from Asia would prefer
Asia - Dubai - NYC - short hop to destination
to the (slightly longer) route
Asia - Dubai - London - North America.
Even if there are still benefits for BA, the question would remain why these benefits should be gained within an alliance and not via codeshares.

That is a statement needs lots of fact to support. The market is not what FTs would choose but what the majority of customers would choose. So far many customers on EK have voiced their choice. The row between Canada and UAE clearly will have an impact on Emirates. EK could not fly to anywhere in the frequency they want to. So they need a partner to provide extra capacity. If they are only granted daily capacity or twice daily capacity to JFK they still need a partner to absorb additional demand as the airline grows.

2. Traffic to Dubai would be the only real benefit for BA. But how many people would go there on a BA flight if they connect with EK afterwards anyway on a LH flight? Dubai is pretty small in terms of originating traffic and being in an alliance means, at least to a certain extent, that it does not matter for the customer which partner airline they are travelling on. Compared with the risk of having EK in OW, increased traffic to a destination as close-by as Dubai from London is not really a big benefit.

No. You have to see the whole market. the APD is set to rise again. Some marginal routes BA currently operates to far east may suffer in longer term. With the additional destination planned, it would be difficult to say how many those far east routes would be viable in longer term if the APD rised more than the ticket value, which is likely to happen in near future. If that happens, EK could provide a solution to BA by codeshare on EK's Asian routes. Thus BA could maintain the seats they were allocated and do not need much investment to continue flying. Another big source which may have big impact on BA's operation is union movement. In case of union subjection and BA has to further reduce its capacity, EK would comes in handy to provide many new routes for BA.

3. BA would potentially suffer a lot on Asian and some African routes (present routes and routes that BA might wish to offer once the LHR-bottleneck has been resolved (in whatever way)). In fact, other OW airlines would suffer, too.

That is why BA needs EK in this sense. If APD continue its planned rise, BA will have to shut its some routes to Africa and Asia. EK already has more direct service destinations in Africa and Asia. BA is strong in transatlantic, EK is strong in EU-Asia traffic. Two can work together perfectly.

The reason is that the idea of an alliance is centred around individual airlines
(a) offering SH-LH flights
(b) via a hub
(c) with strong hub-originating traffic,
(d) who compete only punctually in few markets (mainly hub-hub markets
and some secondary markets, i.e. when an airline from Asia flies not
only to LHR but also to EDI, for example).

The alliance then connects these hubs and
(a) can offer SH-LH-SH flights
(b) better exploit and increase the capacity on inter-hub flights,
(c) channel passengers from the hub into the partner's SH-network, and
(d) while, doing so, decrease some capacity on secondary LH-markets that will go to the SH-flights of the partners.

You have to realise that alliance is not built upon your theory. Alliance is built on the common goal of sharing operation opportunities and to create a global reach for its customers. Alliance was built to suite the ever growing existance of globalisation. The sole reason alliance worked for airlines is that no airline can flying to anywhere today's travellers would like to fly to. Alliance is to create a global virtual airline by closer ties among a group of individual airlines. Some alliance requires commitment, some does not. The hub-spoke strategy is more or less a trend for airline during 1980-2000. But it is not the fundamental of why Alliance was created.

With EK the entire concept does not work. EK
(a) specializes on LH-LH flights
(b) with low traffic originating at the hub
(c) and competes with many airlines on many sub-markets.

First, EK do fly short haul and midium haul flights. Actually when you look at the world map you can see plenty of destinations EK flies can be classfied as SH and MH.

You will also be surprised how many passengers departing from GCC countries and how many origionated from Dubai. Dubai or UAE is a big place and being a major hub for middle east business. The oil trade, domestic servants and large imported construction workers, holiday makers from around the world, residents from all over the world...Dubai is dynamic, not a ghost town. If the traffic is so low, why you think BA would fly to there almost three times a day (2.5ish daily). And not to forget Emirates ONLY handles 60% of the passenger traffic in Dubai.

The benefits of having an airline of EK's size in an alliance is very small for the other members of the alliance, and the risk of losing traffic to the new partner due to the flexibility of attractive LH-LH connections is very high.

No you are totall wrong in this sense. The market is big enough for all the airlines in oneworld and Emirates to work together. As we know there is no plan for BA, AB, AY and CX to increase capacity drastically in midium term. Emirates will only achieve maxinum fllet size by 2020 or so. You will see passengers shift in sort term, but the market is big enough to let individual airline share the traffic without you notice the change.

If we were talking about a smaller Middle East airline with less LH connections to secondary markets, things would be a bit different. (In particular as the SH-connections in the Middle East that the new partner would offer would comparably be more relevant). But EK has already expanded so much that it is somewhat too late for EK to join an alliance for the benefit of its members. EK competes with all big airlines on several parts of their home markets.

It is never too late to join alliance. oneworld is the smallest in the alliance. And oneworld has the least share in Asia/Africa market. Th addition of EK would help oneworld to compete with star alliance and would grow to the second biggest instantly. Do you prefer oneworld to keep its current size and being the number three all the time and continue the loosing trend when some of the skyteam members grow bigger and bigger? Emirates is no bigger than many of the skyteam airlines. Emirates only have 173 aircrafts so far. China Southern have almost 420 aircrafts. And Delta has 773 aircrafts which 722 are mainline ac. Even all the orders fulfiled in Emirates they will only have 370 aircfrats with few to be retired. AF/KL alone has 586 passenger aircrafts as well. Yes many of those airlines have smaller aircrafts like B737 and A320. But overall Emirates does not have more capacity than the airlines like DL,AF/KL,UA,AA,CZ or even BA/IB! The smallest ME3 Etihad only have 61 ac but when orders fulfiled they will have almost 150 aircrafts which is about the size of current EK.

In sum, while I can understand that it would be cool for OW-members to have EK as an additional option I think for the airlines in OW (or any other of the 3 alliances), EK is not a compatible partner that would be likely to bring in more benefits than risks. And this is why I situate the idea of EK joining OW in the area of wishful thinking.

Your perception about airline market is not supported by facts but your imagination of how airline market works. Thus your summery is very weak.

CEO of QR is denying that he is having any sort of negotiations with any members on OW to join the alliance:


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jeMQ-n5swQvtU9GtukHLTuSXeYgA?docId=0bfeac4c2a6347cda580 fd35c97d5a66

I am glad QR is not in talk as i suspect it was very quiet from them since Willie Walsh suggested QR.

So now the focus may be shifted to EY again with EK in question? I quite understand that WW may not identify the real ME airline he intended to court into oneworld. QR may be a slip of word from him. Then he denied EY in that time too. It seems the only one left was EK. However EK CEO denied its intention to join alliance currently. I think I am very confused with the current situation. Anyone else?

So now the focus may be shifted to EY again with EK in question? I quite understand that WW may not identify the real ME airline he intended to court into oneworld. QR may be a slip of word from him. Then he denied EY in that time too. It seems the only one left was EK. However EK CEO denied its intention to join alliance currently. I think I am very confused with the current situation. Anyone else?

Who's focus? Have you considered that the 3 ME airlines may not actually want to join an alliance? Etihad might be happy taking stakes in one airline in each continent like they have with Virgin Australia and Air Berlin to cover destinations they don't fly to directly there, and that sounds like EK's strategy too with their QF tie up and AA discussions.

That is why BA needs EK in this sense. If APD continue its planned rise, BA will have to shut its some routes to Africa and Asia. EK already has more direct service destinations in Africa and Asia. BA is strong in transatlantic, EK is strong in EU-Asia traffic. Two can work together perfectly.

APD won't change a thing... If you are only transiting doesn't matter - you pay APD on final destination...
Note this also means that DXB rather than SIN doesn't change APD for Qantas LHR-Oz pax if not stopping over.

Apart from Asia, which CX (and soon MH) already fulfil the role for BA, and maybe Africa, EK doesn't add much, DXB is too out of the way for UK pax.

EK has been VERY VERY clear consistently that they don't feel they need an alliance... I don't see this changing.

If anything the bilateral partnership with QF and potential AA partnership is smart move, as it makes it much harder for any other ME to join oneworld.

APD won't change a thing... If you are only transiting doesn't matter - you pay APD on final destination...
Note this also means that DXB rather than SIN doesn't change APD for Qantas LHR-Oz pax if not stopping over.

APD will change the 'thing' my dear friend. If the PAD is to exceed £230 for a far east destination. let us say Seoul. BA will have to conisder dropping some non-performing routes as some leisure travellers will consider dropping some of their vacation plans or seek alternative way to travel (e.g. fly to ME, stay in one hotel over night with family of two or three for £100 and that is still a saving for them). APD will have an impact on future travel.

[/QUOTE]Apart from Asia, which CX (and soon MH) already fulfil the role for BA, and maybe Africa, EK doesn't add much, DXB is too out of the way for UK pax.

Asia is very big place, last time I checked CX are very weak in Indian sub-continents, and it requires BACKTRACK. Even southeast Asia CX would have to backtrack. The total flying time (ignor the time in airport) from Europe to Japan, CX would take longer than EK.

EK has been VERY VERY clear consistently that they don't feel they need an alliance... I don't see this changing.

If anything the bilateral partnership with QF and potential AA partnership is smart move, as it makes it much harder for any other ME to join oneworld.[/QUOTE]

We all know that. But AF has constantly critisising ME airline. However it is still in talk with EY. And, the main debate we are having here is whether EK would fit oneworld or not, not what EK is going to do or whether EK will join oneworld.

Who's focus? Have you considered that the 3 ME airlines may not actually want to join an alliance? Etihad might be happy taking stakes in one airline in each continent like they have with Virgin Australia and Air Berlin to cover destinations they don't fly to directly there, and that sounds like EK's strategy too with their QF tie up and AA discussions.

I do not know what you are talking about. I will notconsider 3 ME airlines may not join alliance as EK tried to join star alliance back in 2000 and QR seeks to join star alliance two three years ago.

I do not know what you are talking about. I will notconsider 3 ME airlines may not join alliance as EK tried to join star alliance back in 2000 and QR seeks to join star alliance two three years ago.

That's true enough, but since that time, Emirates has stated time and time again that they are simply not interested in joining an alliance.

That's true enough, but since that time, Emirates has stated time and time again that they are simply not interested in joining an alliance.

(DEVIL'S ADVOCATE] Methink's tha lady doth protest too much![/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE]

Only Tim knows what they want, and he isn't revealing much.

Dave

(DEVIL'S ADVOCATE] Methink's tha lady doth protest too much![/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE]

Only Tim knows what they want, and he isn't revealing much.

Dave

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443819404577634332292314956.html

Mr. Clark said Emirates hasn't changed its long-standing opposition to joining any of the three major global airline alliances, describing them as "an anachronism."

This suggests otherwise.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443819404577634332292314956.html



This suggests otherwise.

That is what exactly thedocta trying to explain to you:

The media report saying Tim Clark saying that EK will not change its position, but what Tim Clark really thinks of the issue is totally unknown to public.

One example is Willie Walsh the head of IAG, he said few months ago that he would court QR to oneworld (not exact words but the translation by media from his interview), but QR denied the story few days ago by saying that they were never contacted by BA or IAG about the potential alliance membership.

CEOs of companies do not have the obligation to tell you what they have planned for future if it was a secret in their evaluation. They will only confirm to you what is happening at exactly this point of time. So what thadocta was trying to say that Tim Clark can only confirm to you that up to the point of time in the interview his company was not in oneworld or going to join oneworld. But he could not confirm anything after the interview. Beacuse in corporate world, things change dramatically in a matter of days. As long as the two parties in competition found one or two similar grounds they can become friends after a long time being enermies.

As per your quote:

Mr. Clark said Emirates hasn't changed its long-standing opposition to joining any of the three major global airline alliances, describing them as "an anachronism."

You should read it as:

Upto the time of interview, Mr. Clark said Emirates hasn't changed its long-standing opposition to joining any of the three major global airline alliances, describing them as "an anachronism."

What will happen after the interview? We do not know. So I can not tell you if EK is going to join oneworld or not. I can only confirm to you Tim Clark is entitled to change his oponion within seconds. And I can confirm to you as well that one day Tim Clark is going to quit from current position just like Al Baker who tried to take EK to star alliance. I hope that makes sence to you: never say never. And Mr. Clark did not say NEVER.

That is what exactly thedocta trying to explain to you:

The media report saying Tim Clark saying that EK will not change its position, but what Tim Clark really thinks of the issue is totally unknown to public.

One example is Willie Walsh the head of IAG, he said few months ago that he would court QR to oneworld (not exact words but the translation by media from his interview), but QR denied the story few days ago by saying that they were never contacted by BA or IAG about the potential alliance membership.

CEOs of companies do not have the obligation to tell you what they have planned for future if it was a secret in their evaluation. They will only confirm to you what is happening at exactly this point of time. So what thadocta was trying to say that Tim Clark can only confirm to you that up to the point of time in the interview his company was not in oneworld or going to join oneworld. But he could not confirm anything after the interview. Beacuse in corporate world, things change dramatically in a matter of days. As long as the two parties in competition found one or two similar grounds they can become friends after a long time being enermies.

As per your quote:



You should read it as:

Upto the time of interview, Mr. Clark said Emirates hasn't changed its long-standing opposition to joining any of the three major global airline alliances, describing them as "an anachronism."

What will happen after the interview? We do not know. So I can not tell you if EK is going to join oneworld or not. I can only confirm to you Tim Clark is entitled to change his oponion within seconds. And I can confirm to you as well that one day Tim Clark is going to quit from current position just like Al Baker who tried to take EK to star alliance. I hope that makes sence to you: never say never. And Mr. Clark did not say NEVER.

I agree that I would not say never. However, given that he very recently stated that they were not interested, I am left to assume that he did not put that statement out there to merely change his mind the next day. As such, I believe that for the near/mid-future, Emirates will likely not join an alliance based on Mr. Clark saying so. Possible? Absolutely. Probable? I don't believe so, again, based on Mr. Clark's most recent statement and on their stance to alliances in the recent past.

I agree that I would not say never. However, given that he very recently stated that they were not interested, I am left to assume that he did not put that statement out there to merely change his mind the next day. As such, I believe that for the near/mid-future, Emirates will likely not join an alliance based on Mr. Clark saying so. Possible? Absolutely. Probable? I don't believe so, again, based on Mr. Clark's most recent statement and on their stance to alliances in the recent past.

Good point. chongcao, notwithstanding his knowledge, seems to be stretching logic -- yeah, sure, Tim Clark could change his mind tomorrow, or he could get fired tomorrow and the airline could do a "180"; or he could have been lying; or perhaps tomorrow the UAE government will decide to become democratic, replace the sheikhs with elected leaders, privatize the airline, and change its business model. All theoretically possible.

It's true that Qatar Airways has been noncommital in response to Willie Walsh's comments. It seems that QR relishes playing hard to get -- basking in the attention and publicity but not committing in any public way.

With regard to Tim Clark statement I don't think it is ironic. In a region like the middle east where the sheikhs control everything and CEOs have not much influence like the royal family members in managing company affairs, CEOs can be fired at any moment without any notice in a similar situation to coaches for european football teams.

Everything is so Quiet.... No Rummors?

Everything is so Quiet.... No Rummors?

The Star Alliance is supposedly talking to Aer Lingus. With Etihad's share in them, I suppose we should expect the Aer Lingus/Etihad/Virgin Australia to Star Alliance rumors to start. This ignoring the fact that Etihad has a stake in Air Berlin, Lufthansa's main rival. LH's attitude toward gulf carriers doesn't help either.

The Star Alliance is supposedly talking to Aer Lingus. With Etihad's share in them, I suppose we should expect the Aer Lingus/Etihad/Virgin Australia to Star Alliance rumors to start. This ignoring the fact that Etihad has a stake in Air Berlin, Lufthansa's main rival. LH's attitude toward gulf carriers doesn't help either.

That was two or three years ago when Aer Lingus started the Madrid-Washington route with United. But this route is withdrawn this year and the cooperation between United and Aer Lingus since quiet down.

Based on what Etihad would like to do with its investments. I see no possibility of Etihad joining star alliance (not to mention Lufthansa's verbal dislikes about ME3 airlines).

There is more possibility of Etihad joining either oneworld or sky team than Etihad joining star. Actually there is more possibility of Etihad, Aer Lingus, Vergin airlines (America, Atlantic, Australia), Air Seychelles and Singapore Airlines to form a fourth alliance than Etihad joinging star.

Everything is so Quiet.... No Rummors?

QR to Oneworld announcement next week is on airliners.net right now.

As an airline executive said to me recently, alliances are one solution to the issues facing airlines, the alliances will be very different beasts in 10 years from now.

As OW is the weakest, smallest and loosest in terms of member integration, I wonder whether the current moves are a sign that OW will be the first to see the changes...

That's a rather grim assessment. Smallest, yes. However, SkyTeam, by all accounts, is something of a hot mess (at least from the perspective of a SkyMiles member and frequenter of the Delta forum) in terms of coordination and service. Delta customers are at best an irrelevance and at worst enemy #1 to partner staff. I've never encountered such hostility as a BA silver when dealing with AA, QF, or CX.

QR to Oneworld announcement next week is on airliners.net right now.

could not find it. But only someone said that the announcement is in September in July. And October is coming......

I think it is still a rumour as Baker denied that few weeks ago...

QR to Oneworld announcement next week is on airliners.net right now. I think you mean www.kiddiestalkingaboutplanes.net - don't you?

Dave

I think you mean www.kiddiestalkingaboutplanes.net - don't you?

Dave

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5573789/

Guy asked for a rumor. I supplied him with one. No need to be snide however easy that might be on interwebs.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5573789/

Guy asked for a rumor. I supplied him with one. No need to be snide however easy that might be on interwebs.

Classic! Plenty of those around!

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5573789/

Guy asked for a rumor. I supplied him with one. No need to be snide however easy that might be on interwebs. Not neing snide, that whole website is full of plane geeks pretending they know what they are taling about.

Dave

Mark 8th October in your calendar:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/oneworld-to-announce-new-member-qatar-expected-377073/

That's a rather grim assessment. Smallest, yes. However, SkyTeam, by all accounts, is something of a hot mess (at least from the perspective of a SkyMiles member and frequenter of the Delta forum) in terms of coordination and service. Delta customers are at best an irrelevance and at worst enemy #1 to partner staff. I've never encountered such hostility as a BA silver when dealing with AA, QF, or CX.

I'm not talking about the perspective of an individual traveler. Airlines are businesses which need to make a return on their capital and OW is the most disparate of the alliances in terms of the airlines working together. And it wasn't my assessment, but from people in the industry.

I'm not talking about the perspective of an individual traveler. Airlines are businesses which need to make a return on their capital and OW is the most disparate of the alliances in terms of the airlines working together. And it wasn't my assessment, but from people in the industry.

Your perspective was hardly clear.

As for airlines being business seeking profit, I would never have guessed. :rolleyes:

Mark 8th October in your calendar:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/oneworld-to-announce-new-member-qatar-expected-377073/

Why Qatar decline to comment?:confused:

And juts few weeks ago the CEO said they are not in talks...

Confused about the whole situation.

But thank you for the article!!! Looking forward on 8th. I hope it is EK rather than QR though...lol

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/oneworld-to-announce-new-member-qatar-expected-377073/

Most likely Qatar


This means 2 of the major middle east airlines will be linked to Oneworld!

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/oneworld-to-announce-new-member-qatar-expected-377073/

Most likely Qatar


This means 2 of the major middle east airlines will be linked to Oneworld!

The article says most likely Qatar but word on the street says Etihad. W Emirates staying out of an alliance for sure (it goes against their business plan) & the VERY public comments of Sheikh Akbar this week, I doubt it will be Qatar

OP there is a thread beneath this one called Which ME3 to join oneworld and this is discussed very expansively!

Would make things ugly for Virgin Australia if Etihad is true, and probably make approval of QF-EK more interesting.

Lets not get carried away.

If one reads what the article says, the only suggestion that this pertains to Qatar seems to be coming from the author.

This membership announcement could just as easily be, for example, about TAM joining OneWorld. Indeed, with pending uncertainty around the EK-QF deal, I would expect that the announcement to be about anything but the entry of a Middle East carrier.

Oops

This thread should probably be closed

I hope it is EK too, this will be a huge gain for Oneworld in Africa and South Asia

As per the other thread, could it not just be TAM on 8 October.

As per the other thread, could it not just be TAM on 8 October.

Ideally I think they are waiting for December deadline when Aviance-TACA Brazil joins star alliance.

Also TAM have a chance to bid for TAP currently (together with Qatar and Aviance-TACA).

So i think the chances of TAM announcement in October is slimmer than the rumoured Qatar entry.

I would guess EK. This would also explain QF changing their HUB from SIN to DXB!

Ideally I think they are waiting for December deadline when Aviance-TACA Brazil joins star alliance.

Also TAM have a chance to bid for TAP currently (together with Qatar and Aviance-TACA).

So i think the chances of TAM announcement in October is slimmer than the rumoured Qatar entry.

Avianca-Taca are already in the Star Alliance, however I do recall reading that LATAM would postpone alliance membership decisions for TAM until early next year (Which I believe is the deadline).

Avianca-Taca are already in the Star Alliance, however I do recall reading that LATAM would postpone alliance membership decisions for TAM until early next year (Which I believe is the deadline).The deadline for LATAM to decide was last month (August). I think they've decided and have spent the last month completing the paperwork.

Avianca-Taca are already in the Star Alliance, however I do recall reading that LATAM would postpone alliance membership decisions for TAM until early next year (Which I believe is the deadline).

Not their Brazil arm. It is not part of star alliance as long as TAM in star.

I would guess EK. This would also explain QF changing their HUB from SIN to DXB!

This is already fully explained by EK's and QF's new collaboration.

While I would love EK or QR, this (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/oneworld/1364616-tam-award-flights-have-disappeared-united-mileage-plus.html) thread, if true, might seem to point towards TAM.

The QR CEO has stated pretty clearly that the upcoming announcement is not about them joining OW: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/30/us-qatarairways-oneworld-idUSBRE88T06J20120930

This is already fully explained by EK's and QF's new collaboration.

This would especially make sense by EK joining OW!

This is already fully explained by EK's and QF's new collaboration.

This would especially make sense by EK joining OW!

No, it has already been discussed that this decision does not allow for any conclusion about a potential OW-entry of EK.

We might hear about a start date for Malaysia Airlines too...

The QR CEO has stated pretty clearly that the upcoming announcement is not about them joining OW: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/30/us-qatarairways-oneworld-idUSBRE88T06J20120930

According to reuters, it can not be TAM!

LATAM to decide in first half of 2013 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/21/chile-latam-alliance-idUSL1E8KL5WB20120921)

My suspesion should be right and now supported by reuters.

We might hear about a start date for Malaysia Airlines too...

When the codeshare and FFP appeared in either BA, AA, QF and/or CX then I would expect a formal joining date from MH. Now no airline within oneworld have updated any earning/burning information in their FFP, I think the formal joining date is still out of the reach.

Maybe now we are looking at second quarter of 2013 with announcement in december 2012 for MH.

October announcement, if it exists, not a rumour, it has to be something bigger. Anyone dare to think Jetairways?

It definitely seems to be something big. I don't think the joining of LATAM or MH would be big enough! I still think it will be one of the ME3.

October announcement, if it exists, not a rumour, it has to be something bigger. Anyone dare to think Jetairways?

Could be...but I'm not really sure. The former CEO of Jet Airways joined the management of Air Berlin a week ago.

TAM Flights within Brazil are still showing as awards on United. Not that this would mean anything in special, but just to clarify that!

Couldn't it be Qantas exiting Oneworld?

Couldn't it be Qantas exiting Oneworld?Why would Qantas want to leave oneworld? That's as silly as the suggestions that CX will leave and join star.

Here's how I see it:

Qatar flat out said no.

Emirates seems as unlikely as ever.

The timing for TAM isn't right.

Etihad is possible but Qantas would take huge issue given their alliance with virgin autralia.

Hainan is possible but Cathay still seems reluctant to cooperate with them.

US Airways could announce defection but that would be completely out of no where. It wouldn't make sense for them to leave the Star Alliance right now while they are still negotiating the merger.

Jet Airways or Air India announce their pending membership, though this would be completely out of the blue.

Who else could be possible?

Who else could be possible?MH and UL were both announced at IATA AGMs. AB was announced in Berlin. Member-elect final join dates don't normally get a big event, just a press release about 6 weeks ahead.

Tam may be too early according to the media, but the original deadline as per regulatory requirements for the merger were to pick by August.

Other options could be WestJet or Jet Blue.

Couldn't it be Qantas exiting Oneworld?

Why would they celebrate the departure of an airline?!

It won't be Etihad. Unless Qantas leaves, but I do not think oneworld will have a major event to announce that one of its major (and iconic) members is leaving.

My hunch is that it will probably be US Airways and/or JetBlue given the announcement is in New York, but this doesn't seem so major to me.

Given QR's CEO ruled out membership, and AA recently talking with EK (not to mention the QF announcement), Emirates could be likely. However, Tim Clark on announcing the Emirates deal with Qantas did rule alliances out.

Given that IAG and AA will be present, it could be TAM. Especially given the two airlines are heavily involved in the South American market.

I have no idea!! But an interesting week ahead.

My hunch is that it will probably be US Airways and/or JetBlue given the announcement is in New York, but this doesn't seem so major to me.

Don't forget that OW is now headquartered in NYC, so the chance that they specifically picked NYC for this event is less than if it were to take place somewhere else.

Today my choice is leaning towards Jet Airways and Etihad now. Though I think should miracle happens it would be Emirates...seven days to reveal.

Why would they celebrate the departure of an airline?!

Classic!

I just do not understand why there is someone who hoped Qantas to leave OneWorld. It is not going to happen for a long long time.

Somehow, I sense that the announcement, whatever it may be, will be an anticlimax - but here's to hoping I'm proven wrong!!

I just hope that MH will be fully incorporated into OW sooner rather than later!

I think there will be one or two new members announced:

1>, now more likely to be Etihad (and many many are hoping for Emirates)
2>, Jet Airways, or Jetblue as many Americans believes

and removal of:
3>, Kingfisher: no longer a member elect due to its current state...

And finally:
4>, the death of Mexicana...

However, it might be another way of announcement:
5>, Creation of an oneworld exlusive partners membership: that a group of airlines which does not want to join oneworld as full member but want to share the oneworld network and customers. they will be obligated to provide few of the benefits to frequent flyers, and sign bilateral FFP benefits with many of the oneworld members, participate in global explore fare and not to join other two alliances in similar deals...If this is created, Emirates would be no problem to sign up as they will not be full member but only work closely to selected existing members. This would attract airlines like Alaska, Jet Airways, jetstar, Jetblue and some other individual airlines like Aer Lingus, Gulf Air etc...Again this is only an armchair politics. But I can see it happening in long term.

I think there will be one or two new members announced:

1>, now more likely to be Etihad (and many many are hoping for Emirates)
2>, Jet Airways, or Jetblue as many Americans believes

and removal of:
3>, Kingfisher: no longer a member elect due to its current state...

And finally:
4>, the death of Mexicana...

However, it might be another way of announcement:
5>, Creation of an oneworld exlusive partners membership: that a group of airlines which does not want to join oneworld as full member but want to share the oneworld network and customers. they will be obligated to provide few of the benefits to frequent flyers, and sign bilateral FFP benefits with many of the oneworld members, participate in global explore fare and not to join other two alliances in similar deals...If this is created, Emirates would be no problem to sign up as they will not be full member but only work closely to selected existing members. This would attract airlines like Alaska, Jet Airways, jetstar, Jetblue and some other individual airlines like Aer Lingus, Gulf Air etc...Again this is only an armchair politics. But I can see it happening in long term.



I'd be in favor of such a oneworld member lite approach but I don't think that's the announcement since JetBlue, Alaska and Gulf are already AAdvantage partners. I would prefer if Qatar or Etihad signed on over Emirates. But rumors that TAM intl awards have disappeared from UAL.com award searches makes me think that we're in for an anticlimactic announcement of TAM joining oneworld.

I'd be in favor of such a oneworld member lite approach but I don't think that's the announcement since JetBlue, Alaska and Gulf are already AAdvantage partners. I would prefer if Qatar or Etihad signed on over Emirates. But rumors that TAM intl awards have disappeared from UAL.com award searches makes me think that we're in for an anticlimactic announcement of TAM joining oneworld.

This has been discussed in an extend that I can summerise majority evidencse without thinking now:
1>, TAM award is not disappearing from United (there is a thread for that)
2>, Avianca-TACA's Brazil arm is not on star alliance yet and Avianca-TACA expect the earliest time of the decision on its Brazil arm membership is December 2012
3>, Reuters reported on 21st September that TAM will not make a decision on alliance membership until first half of 2013...

I
Creation of an oneworld exlusive partners membership: that a group of airlines which does not want to join oneworld as full member but want to share the oneworld network and customers. they will be obligated to provide few of the benefits to frequent flyers, and sign bilateral FFP benefits with many of the oneworld members, participate in global explore fare and not to join other two alliances in similar deals...If this is created, Emirates would be no problem to sign up as they will not be full member but only work closely to selected existing members. This would attract airlines like Alaska, Jet Airways, jetstar, Jetblue and some other individual airlines like Aer Lingus, Gulf Air etc...Again this is only an armchair politics. But I can see it happening in long term.

It seems we're getting realistic. :-)
This indeed a reasonable strategy for alliances. ST is working on such a concept and on such a basis even your favoured EK could (!) become affiliated with OW.

I think EK either will join OW or be affiliated with. If any one check AA.com in manage reservation section he will be surprised to find EK has been added to the airlines that share with AA the PNR search flight function.

I know that it is not a ME carrier, but I have been reading that Philippine Airlines will be a member in 2014 and will be sponsored by CX. They also plan to get an audit team from ICAO this month to address the CAT II situation by the FAA and EU.

Source: http://philippineairspace.blogspot.com/

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18b19eca-0bbf-11e2-b8d8-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz285ek9WKn




Qatar Airways joins oneworld alliance



By Andrew Parker in London






Qatar Airways is set to be the first of the fast-expanding Gulf carriers to become a member of one of the global airline alliances, by agreeing to join oneworld.

The move is a coup for oneworld, whose members are led by American Airlines and British Airways, and underlines how the Gulf carriers may no longer be viewed with hostility by western airlines.

Well here's an interesting one: a few days ago Al Baker categorically denies everything..........yet tonight:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18b19eca-0bbf-11e2-b8d8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz285ekFG8O

We have the FT reporting "Qatar joins oneworld"

Edit......Beat me by 2 minutes irishguy 28....!

Strange then that neither QR nor OW websites say anything about this. I would have thought these would have been the first to announce the change.

That said, OW then is unique in being the only alliance where two members's names have a Q not followed by a U (and yes, I know QANTAS is an acronym :))

I won't predict which carrier will be joining but I bet we finally get a firm date on when MH will be a part of OW. Let's hope it's by the end of this year.

I think that the announcement will probably be about one of these two airlines joining OW.

Emirates - most wanted candidate
Qatar - most likely candidate

So we'll see what the future brings. I don't expect something less than the announcement of one of these carriers to join oneworld. Maybe both? haha ;)

Folks,

Qatar Airways is a very likely candidate to join OW for a number of reasons. First of all, it has been rumored for months. Secondly, its status as a 5-star airline fits oneworld pretty well - they would now have 3 out of 6 5-star airlines (QR, MH, CX with Hainan Airlines rumored to wanting to join in, CX permitting).

Now let's look at the reasons why QR works. First of all, we are going towards a World of multi-lateral agreements that go beyond alliances. That doesn't mean alliances are dead, it just means airlines have now the ability to go past their enlarged network to seek other partners.

Furthermore, this trend is going to apply to all the MO3 carriers, for a specific reason: their strategic location is simply perfect. There is basically no inhabited spot on Earth that cannot be reached from the Gulf, and of course many airlines are eager to take advantage of this. This means that MO3s can either decide to join an alliance and share their location MAINLY (but not exclusively) with one partner only; or they can stay independent and sign "ad hoc" agreements with various airlines.

Take Etihad Airways for instance: they are reaching a code-share agreemnt with Air France/KLM similar to what Qantas reached with Emirates; yet they have extensive codeshare with American Airlines and own a considerable stake in Virgin Australia and Air Berlin (plus Air Seychelles). Will they join any alliance? Well, it seems unlikely.

And what about Emirates? It reached an agreement wit Qantas and Tim Cook (EK CEO) said they are on about to sign a codeshare agreement with AA. They also have similar agreements in place with JL. Does this mean it will join oneword? Not necessarily, as they can go on and sign better, more aligned deals with other European airlines interested in codesharing with them.

Qhile QR decided to join oneworld is a bit more puzzling, yet I am sure they did their math: of course the carrier that will be most benefited from thsi agreement are BA (which can transfer more easily passengers to more Asian destinations) and IB, which has no Asia network whatsoever. And do not forget LATAM, as QR reach extends to South America.

So, what does this mean to the airline industry? Well, nothing and a lot. It's certainly not the end of alliances, but it's the beginning of more point-to-point (let's call them that way) agreements that can close those gaps that airline alliances naturally have.

To me, this is a huge victory for oneworld. They now have - in a way or another - deals with all MO3 carriers. As the only alliance that always focused on premium business customers, all these deals make a lot of sense and they represent a HUGE vistory against Star Alliance and SkyTeam. What the future holds we do not know, but it seems clear that at the oq office in New York they have done their numbers right.

P.S.
- I think Philippines Airlines would be a terrific addition to oneworld. Very much like Garuda, the airline has freshen itself up and started from scratch in a great way. I flew them twice recently, and their product is definitely competitive; the new airplanes make us think of a big international expansion toward the Americas and Europe - it's definitely a worthy trophy.

P.P.S.
- MO3 airlines are also well positioned to partner with Eastern Asia carriers to transport passengers to Africa, one of the last frontiers (and fast growing markets) of the World.

P.P.P.S.
- I can bet whatever you like that LATAM will join oneworld. No reason to chose Star when they can partner with AA and be the number 1-by-far carrier in South America.

P.P.P.P.S.
- I hope AA doesn't severe its ties with EY because I REALLY want to try EY First Class product :)

Watch, the announcement date is going to roll around, and it's going to be nothing. Oneworld: trolling the analysts hardcore.

P.S.
- I think Philippines Airlines would be a terrific addition to oneworld. Very much like Garuda, the airline has freshen itself up and started from scratch in a great way. I flew them twice recently, and their product is definitely competitive; the new airplanes make us think of a big international expansion toward the Americas and Europe - it's definitely a worthy trophy.


I seriously hope not. OW's major selling point for many is that the airlines are higher quality than Star and especially Skyteam who'll take anyone who asks. To accept an airline that has been banned by the two major aviation authorities for a number of years is not good for that image. I know a number of people who refuse to fly with them.

I seriously hope not. OW's major selling point for many is that the airlines are higher quality than Star and especially Skyteam who'll take anyone who asks. To accept an airline that has been banned by the two major aviation authorities for a number of years is not good for that image. I know a number of people who refuse to fly with them.

People who refuse to fly with them haven't probably given them a try recently.

I think this article would give some weight to Qatar.

http://www.ausbt.com.au/qatar-seeks-qantas-alliance

I would like Etihad however I think the alliance with Virgin Australia would be a hindrance plus the fact that they have stake in Air Berlin who is OW member.

Yes but the AusBT article was written before the QF-EK announcement

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18b19eca-0bbf-11e2-b8d8-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz285ek9WKn




Qatar Airways joins oneworld alliance



By Andrew Parker in London






Qatar Airways is set to be the first of the fast-expanding Gulf carriers to become a member of one of the global airline alliances, by agreeing to join oneworld.

The move is a coup for oneworld, whose members are led by American Airlines and British Airways, and underlines how the Gulf carriers may no longer be viewed with hostility by western airlines.And shortly after that story was published, QR again said they weren't.

And shortly after that story was published, QR again said they weren't.

When and where? Please quote. The article was written yesterday.

The article also mentioned that QR declined to comment when the journalist called. If QR is denying, they should have done when the FT made the contact. I would like to invite you to share your source of your comment.

http://www.ameinfo.com/qatar-airways-dismisses-reports-joining-oneworld-313598

http://www.ameinfo.com/qatar-airways-dismisses-reports-joining-oneworld-313598

Thanks! If you read this very short article very carefully you would notice all the materials is from the earlier Reuter's report. They even made small alternation of the quotation from AL Baker. There is no new material in this article but full of Reuter bs. I would not call it is after the FT report at all.

1>, now more likely to be Etihad (and many many are hoping for Emirates)

Not sure how likely this is - if Etihad were to join, they would have to form all sorts of bilateral agreements with Qantas including codeshares and effectively send business their way, splitting what they provide to Virgin Australia, which they own ~10% of and which competes vigorously with QF.

Not sure how likely this is - if Etihad were to join, they would have to form all sorts of bilateral agreements with Qantas including codeshares and effectively send business their way, splitting what they provide to Virgin Australia, which they own ~10% of and which competes vigorously with QF.

I had the same concern. But that sentence was written between the denial by Al Baker and the new FT note. In that time it seems EY being the only possible candidate as it kept quiet while EK seems to be reluctant. Now it seems QR is back to the vision again!

I seriously hope not. OW's major selling point for many is that the airlines are higher quality than Star and especially Skyteam who'll take anyone who asks. To accept an airline that has been banned by the two major aviation authorities for a number of years is not good for that image. I know a number of people who refuse to fly with them.

How do you come up with that statement. I'll take LH & LX over BA any day. SQ, TG & NH are close to CX, MH & JL so that's a wash. QF is going downhill fast & will be moving further away from OW the closer it gets to EK (a mistake AFAIC by EK). *A has Africa covered & TK is turning into a world class airline. I'll take Star over OW any day but can understand arguments for both. What we all agree in I guess us SkyTeam is worth nothing

When and where? Please quote. The article was written yesterday.

The article also mentioned that QR declined to comment when the journalist called. If QR is denying, they should have done when the FT made the contact. I would like to invite you to share your source of your comment.

Actually, the article came out yesterday. Who knows when it was written. The CEO of Qatar just said it was not true on Thursday if last week. Who knows if he way being coy or not. All I know is EK won't join any alliance thank God (for us EK customers)

I think there will be one or two new members announced:

1>, now more likely to be Etihad (and many many are hoping for Emirates)
2>, Jet Airways, or Jetblue as many Americans believes

.

I don't know why so many are hoping for EK? EK IMHO is one of the greatest airlines out there but A) they have no interest in joining any alliance & with the very public anti alliance statements made recently by Tim Clark, he'd look like a real fool if he quickly changed his mind (which he's not)

But more important - No one should expect award redemptions on EK for standard OW redemption rates. EK charges some if the highest mileage in the industry for award tickets. They are not going to change that. I've even discussed it with some at EK who are involved with the QF deal & while it's true, QF pax will be able to redeem mileage for tkts on EK, it will be at the standard EK rates, not the OW or QF rates. Same w lounge access. QF F pax will get access to the EK F lounge but QF Emerald pax won't. The idea behind this EK/QF tie up is strictly marketing, code shares, etc. members. Of each others programs can earn mileage on each other and visa versa but EK has no plans to make award seats easier to get & certainly not cheaper.

OW members would be much better off w Qatar or Etihad, both of which have shown they have no problem opening seats for redemptions w partners at standard OW or STAR rates

Actually, the article came out yesterday. Who knows when it was written. The CEO of Qatar just said it was not true on Thursday if last week. Who knows if he way being coy or not. All I know is EK won't join any alliance thank God (for us EK customers)

Financial Times is the bible newspaper who seeks the most up to date and most accurate financial/company informations. There are many REAL insiders leak REAL informations to FT. It is one newspaper you can genuinely trust. It is a sin for FT to publish old news. And I think you are making a mistake on question the FT journalists in terms of their timely manner.

But more important - No one should expect award redemptions on EK for standard OW redemption rates. EK charges some if the highest mileage in the industry for award tickets. They are not going to change that. I've even discussed it with some at EK who are involved with the QF deal & while it's true, QF pax will be able to redeem mileage for tkts on EK, it will be at the standard EK rates, not the OW or QF rates. Same w lounge access. QF F pax will get access to the EK F lounge but QF Emerald pax won't. The idea behind this EK/QF tie up is strictly marketing, code shares, etc. members. Of each others programs can earn mileage on each other and visa versa but EK has no plans to make award seats easier to get & certainly not cheaper.

OK first of all, EK will not charge the OneWorld frequent travellers. They charge the airlines who issues the ticket. How much they charge the OneWorld member airline is unknown to you and me. We know that EK offers a different earning rate to its members compare with QF. So how many miles QF will charge QF members will be entirely up to QF and QF's business cost. You are making a wrong assumption one EK mile cost = one QF (or any airline which will sign FFP with EK) cost.

Second, your statements about QF and EK alliance seems to make sense. But, until QF and EK publish details of the FFP treatment after their alliance is approved by regulators, I will hold my view on this.

OK first of all, EK will not charge the OneWorld frequent travellers. They charge the airlines who issues the ticket. How much they charge the OneWorld member airline is unknown to you and me. We know that EK offers a different earning rate to its members compare with QF. So how many miles QF will charge QF members will be entirely up to QF and QF's business cost. You are making a wrong assumption one EK mile cost = one QF (or any airline which will sign FFP with EK) cost.

Second, your statements about QF and EK alliance seems to make sense. But, until QF and EK publish details of the FFP treatment after their alliance is approved by regulators, I will hold my view on this.

What you say makes complete sense. While I should not say what & how I know anything (and admittedly ANYINE can say anything on an annonymous message board). My post was not assuming anything. I just spoke with a few people at EK who are involved w the QF deal & Skywards (informally) and I was actually repeating what they said

How do you come up with that statement. I'll take LH & LX over BA any day. SQ, TG & NH are close to CX, MH & JL so that's a wash. QF is going downhill fast & will be moving further away from OW the closer it gets to EK (a mistake AFAIC by EK). *A has Africa covered & TK is turning into a world class airline. I'll take Star over OW any day but can understand arguments for both. What we all agree in I guess us SkyTeam is worth nothing

OW or Star are both pretty equal on their major members... my statement is due to OW having arguably a lesser percentage of the questionable airlines (which someone like Philippines wont help).

OW or Star are both pretty equal on their major members... my statement is due to OW having arguably a lesser percentage of the questionable airlines (which someone like Philippines wont help).

If you really think that ow and *A major members are equals... well, likely you haven't tried the premium products of each airline. Once AA retrofits its planes with a new product, even among US airlines ow will have the lead.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18b19eca-0bbf-11e2-b8d8-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz285ek9WKn

Qatar Airways joins oneworld alliance

By Andrew Parker in London

Qatar Airways is set to be the first of the fast-expanding Gulf carriers to become a member of one of the global airline alliances, by agreeing to join oneworld.

The move is a coup for oneworld, whose members are led by American Airlines and British Airways, and underlines how the Gulf carriers may no longer be viewed with hostility by western airlines.

And in the latest twist to the soap opera, Qatar's CEO today once again denied that his airline will be joining OW:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/qatar-boeing-dreamliner-idUSL6E8L2BIT20121002?type=marketsNews

Gulf Air is not one of the ME3, but I'd bet on it joining OW

Yes but Qatar would have had to have prelim discussions about joining OW and Qantas would have been one of the major parties they had to discuss possible joining with. Just posted for the conspiracy theories! Yes but the AusBT article was written before the QF-EK announcement

Gulf Air is not one of the ME3, but I'd bet on it joining OW

I bet GF will shut down before joining OW :D

If you really think that ow and *A major members are equals... well, likely you haven't tried the premium products of each airline. Once AA retrofits its planes with a new product, even among US airlines ow will have the lead.

Yeah, once AA retrofits those planes they sure will be giving SQ a run for their money :D:rolleyes: I've flown every major airline in both alliances & there is absolutely no argument for one alliance being much more superior then another. As far as AA is concerned, it's crap now & it will be crap next year (like all other Amerucan carriers). If / when US takes it over it will be in the same position UA Is in now. Of course this is just my opinion as opposed to the FACTS in your post :rolleyes:

CX is a great carrier (the best in OW as far as I'm concerned but I'll still take SQ over CX any day. As far as European carriers I've spent a lot of time in BA F & I don't believe they hold a candle to LX or the new F on LH. As I said before , JL & NH is a wash. I happen to like MH a lot but TG is just as good & has more routes with F.

While your entitled to your opinion I can guarantee I've flown almost every airline in the world with an F cabin & there is nothing to suggest OW is any better then Star

And in the latest twist to the soap opera, Qatar's CEO today once again denied that his airline will be joining OW:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/qatar-boeing-dreamliner-idUSL6E8L2BIT20121002?type=marketsNews

At least it gives us lot another few days of speculation

Gulf Air is not one of the ME3, but I'd bet on it joining OW

It's got to be Etihad. EK won't join an alliance as long as Tim Clark is the president. It goes against their entire business model. QR wants to be the next EK & every year adopts more of its practices. That leaves Etihad which makes sense as they already have code shares & let's face it - EK is kicking the crap out of them right now

I am really curious to see how the whole thing will pan out. This thread has been speculating about so many potential candidates and I have mot seen any conclusive argument why any of the airlines mentioned here will join soon. I wonder if there is going to be an announcement on 8 Oct at all.

If you really think that ow and *A major members are equals... well, likely you haven't tried the premium products of each airline. Once AA retrofits its planes with a new product, even among US airlines ow will have the lead.

The majority of passengers are not flying in premium cabins... and i have tried enough of both airlines to form that opinion. BA and CX are my 'local' airlines, but i recognise that SQ and LH both provide a pretty good service in competition.

The majority of passengers are not flying in premium cabins... and i have tried enough of both airlines to form that opinion. BA and CX are my 'local' airlines, but i recognise that SQ and LH both provide a pretty good service in competition. From someone who knows a lot about aviation and regularly travels down the back, OW is miles ahead, * is okay, but for the airlines you mentioned, LH is great, but you would have to drag me kicking and screaming onto an SQ flight

A number of reasons.

CRM: Nobody is prepared to challenge someone higher up the chain of command when an incorrect decision is made. That is what happened in Taipei.

Aircraft airworthiness: Whilst not saying that SQ aircraft are not airworthy, they have a noted history of disposing of aircraft well before their use-by date, mainly to avoid the major C- and D-checks.

Airlines which intend to keep their aircraft long term (i.e. AFTER the D-check) perform non-required maintenance on the aircraft in order to minimise the down-time and work-load on the heavy checks.

Airlines that do not intend to keep the aircraft do not perform such maintenance. Why would they, the cost of the heavy check is going to be borne by whoever buys the aircraft.

But that mainteance will still have an effect on the reliability and airworthiness of the aircraft, and is the reason why I will always go with safe airlines with older aircraft rather than safe airlines who constantly recycle their fleet.

Not to say that SQ is unsafe, they clearly aren't, just that someone else is safer.

Dave

More evidence in favor of QR (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-qatarairways-idUKBRE8910A220121002).

Interesting how star alliance becomes the best alliance only because of Singapore Airlines, in spite of the rest being crap.

I hope Jet joins, they have been looking for an alliance for long, and considering the fact that Oneworld is behind it China it better get ahead in India and Latin America to compensate.

If it is Gulfair I will be so DISAPPOINTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure someone at OW knows who's about to join???
Possibly not even QR knows, they will find out on Oct.8! SURPRISE.

You were selected to join One World, WELCOME!

Al-Baker will be speechless with all the NYC Broadway show prepared and it will all become true!!!

Yeah, once AA retrofits those planes they sure will be giving SQ a run for their money :D:rolleyes: I've flown every major airline in both alliances & there is absolutely no argument for one alliance being much more superior then another. As far as AA is concerned, it's crap now & it will be crap next year (like all other Amerucan carriers). If / when US takes it over it will be in the same position UA Is in now. Of course this is just my opinion as opposed to the FACTS in your post :rolleyes:

CX is a great carrier (the best in OW as far as I'm concerned but I'll still take SQ over CX any day. As far as European carriers I've spent a lot of time in BA F & I don't believe they hold a candle to LX or the new F on LH. As I said before , JL & NH is a wash. I happen to like MH a lot but TG is just as good & has more routes with F.

While your entitled to your opinion I can guarantee I've flown almost every airline in the world with an F cabin & there is nothing to suggest OW is any better then Star

Comparing AA to SQ is like comparing a Nissan to a Maserati. AA belongs to the Air Canada/United/Delta league - anyone with a certain knowledge of airline economics should know that. SQ competes against other Asian carriers.

I had your similar experiences, and I disagree completely. While Star top products are nice (think SQ First or biz class or OZ new biz class) they do not match the consistency of the network and of service on ow. No other western airline offer the service and the amenities that QF and BA offer. Find me a better lounge than MEL and SYD QF ones or BA COncord/Galleries lounges out there. Or the spa at HEL airport.

The truth is: you should look at where and how different alliances are strong. While ow lacks notably in Africa, it is set to gain dominance in the fast growin South American market when LATAM join ow. Now tell me: would you like to partner with SA that can connect you to Windhoek or Gaborone... or with LAN that can connect you to Sao Paulo, Santiago, EZE?

It all seems unreal... QF-EK tie up... EY buys a stake in AB and partner with AA... and now QR... qould make much more sense if EK signed a code share agreement with AA and BA :)

Comparing AA to SQ is like comparing a Nissan to a Maserati. AA belongs to the Air Canada/United/Delta league - anyone with a certain knowledge of airline economics should know that. SQ competes against other Asian carriers.

I had your similar experiences, and I disagree completely. While Star top products are nice (think SQ First or biz class or OZ new biz class) they do not match the consistency of the network and of service on ow. No other western airline offer the service and the amenities that QF and BA offer. Find me a better lounge than MEL and SYD QF ones or BA COncord/Galleries lounges out there. Or the spa at HEL airport.

The truth is: you should look at where and how different alliances are strong. While ow lacks notably in Africa, it is set to gain dominance in the fast growin South American market when LATAM join ow. Now tell me: would you like to partner with SA that can connect you to Windhoek or Gaborone... or with LAN that can connect you to Sao Paulo, Santiago, EZE?

Well, I've spent lots of time in the Concorde room (including when there was even a Concorde to fly) & I'll still take the LH FCT any day over that. I don't know what amenities you are talking about w QF & BA but it's pretty moot since QF will be winding down most of their agreements w BA in favor of EK (and EK has already made it clear that F lounge access will remain for F pax only, no QF Emerald, no nothing. BA is a fine carrier but LH/LX is far superior for my needs. (note i said MY needs). I see no argument for either alliance being better then the other unless your travel patterns dictate it. If I needed to be in London or Stdney often, OW would be the better alliance. If I needed to be in Germany & Seoul often, then Star would be better. The 2 alliances are so equal I can't think of one good argument for one over the other.

An ExPlat might argue about F lounge access w OW but that means nothing to me since I get F lounge access on any airline I fly F on, status or not. A *G could have an equal argument since *G gets lounge access for Mexico & Canada flights, OW doesn't. It' such a wash that there isno good argument for one being better then the other unless the route network is better for YOUR PURPOSES

And in the latest twist to the soap opera, Qatar's CEO today once again denied that his airline will be joining OW:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/qatar-boeing-dreamliner-idUSL6E8L2BIT20121002?type=marketsNews

One more time to go before the rooster crows.

From someone who knows a lot about aviation and regularly travels down the back, OW is miles ahead, * is okay, but for the airlines you mentioned, LH is great, but you would have to drag me kicking and screaming onto an SQ flight

A number of reasons.

CRM: Nobody is prepared to challenge someone higher up the chain of command when an incorrect decision is made. That is what happened in Taipei.

Aircraft airworthiness: Whilst not saying that SQ aircraft are not airworthy, they have a noted history of disposing of aircraft well before their use-by date, mainly to avoid the major C- and D-checks.

Airlines which intend to keep their aircraft long term (i.e. AFTER the D-check) perform non-required maintenance on the aircraft in order to minimise the down-time and work-load on the heavy checks.

Airlines that do not intend to keep the aircraft do not perform such maintenance. Why would they, the cost of the heavy check is going to be borne by whoever buys the aircraft.

But that mainteance will still have an effect on the reliability and airworthiness of the aircraft, and is the reason why I will always go with safe airlines with older aircraft rather than safe airlines who constantly recycle their fleet.

Not to say that SQ is unsafe, they clearly aren't, just that someone else is safer.

Dave

There's a big reason I'll ALWAYS fly BA when given the option - largely summed up in that post ^. OW airlines are all generally speaking leaders in airline safety.

The Luftwaffe are of course leaders on that front, but Star also have the TKs and MSs in there to drag them down.

And then there's Skyteam. There's a reason their flagship airline is nicknamed Air Chance.

Add Content

This thread is really going into a strange direction. Not only that speculation has outweighted the facts discussed here, but now this thread has even seen posts that claim that one airline alliance is better than the other two.

Let me put it loud and clear: among the 3 big alliances there is no such thing as a best alliance.

You can always say "alliance X best suits me because ... . So FOR ME, alliance X is the best alliance", but it is far from reasonable to claim that a certain alliance is generally better than any other alliance.
This is similar to boys in puberty who claim that "theirs" in longer (with the difference being that at least the length in question can be measured easily).

Travellers have many criteria to choose an alliance, such as
- typical itineraries flown
- typical fare classes booked
- award and upgrade availability
- quality of seats, service, ...
- earn/burn ratio on FFPs given a certain status
- etc., etc.

Who could aggregate these things to make a general statement?

Let me show what this means by referring to my own travel behaviour:

I live in Australia and mainly fly, in Business or Premium Economy, to Europe or the US.
I typically do not fly via HKG, so CX's being in OW is completely irrelevant to me.
I do not like making a detour via AKL, so NZ's being in *A is irrlevant for me.
I do not like flying via BKK either and SQ has no Premium Economy and my employer would never pay for a Business class ticket on SQ. So TG and SQ's being in *A is completely irrelevant to me. (I must say that I occassionally fly SQ in Economy though because they have comparably cheap pretty flexible Y tickets and a great service in Y, but I have covered this via VA Velocity and do not need *A for this.)

Having excluded all these airlines, what remains for me?

For Europe:
Actually, I typically fly QF, BA and AF (QF-codeshare Oz-SIN) to Europe.
My personal ranking, from my flight experience is as follows:
In Business: BA > AF = QF
In Prem Eco: AF > QF > BA
In Eco: AF > QF > BA

For the US:
I prefer VA over QF, AA, US.

Now, coming back to the original topic. What does this tell us about which alliance is the best one?
Exactly. Nothing.

If you really wanted to rank the alliances properly you would have to find criteria that are meaningful with respect to the practical travel experience of - and now listen: the majority of travellers. Obviously this is not so easy. ST and *A have in sum 4 times the number of passengers per year than OW. Do you seriously want to claim that these people are all in captive markets or are too stupid to see your "truth"?

This whole question reminds me of these discussions of whether the US (or any other country) is the greatest country on earth. Obviously there is no such thing as THE greatest country on earth. It all depends on the criteria you use (military power, crime rates, average level of education, life expectancy, climate, beauty of landscape, salary levels, job opportunities, gay marriage, ...) The only reasonable statement that can be made here is that FOR ME Australia is pretty much the greatest country on earth. But any generalization does not make sense here.

In sum: One really needs a pretty perfect combination of arrogance and ignorance to make a claim that a certain alliance is better than the other two. I would hope these people are more rational when they compare the alternatives of their business decisions.

This thread is really going into a strange direction. Not only that speculation has outweighted the facts discussed here, but now this thread has even seen posts that claim that one airline alliance is better than the other two.

Let me put it loud and clear: among the 3 big alliances there is no such thing as a best alliance.

You can always say "alliance X best suits me because ... . So FOR ME, alliance X is the best alliance", but it is far from reasonable to claim that a certain alliance is generally better than any other alliance.
This is similar to boys in puberty who claim that "theirs" in longer (with the difference being that at least the length in question can be measured easily).

Travellers have many criteria to choose an alliance, such as
- typical itineraries flown
- typical fare classes booked
- award and upgrade availability
- quality of seats, service, ...
- earn/burn ratio on FFPs given a certain status
- etc., etc.

Who could aggregate these things to make a general statement?

Let me show what this means by referring to my own travel behaviour:

I live in Australia and mainly fly, in Business or Premium Economy, to Europe or the US.
I typically do not fly via HKG, so CX's being in OW is completely irrelevant to me.
I do not like making a detour via AKL, so NZ's being in *A is irrlevant for me.
I do not like flying via BKK either and SQ has no Premium Economy and my employer would never pay for a Business class ticket on SQ. So TG and SQ's being in *A is completely irrelevant to me. (I must say that I occassionally fly SQ in Economy though because they have comparably cheap pretty flexible Y tickets and a great service in Y, but I have covered this via VA Velocity and do not need *A for this.)

Having excluded all these airlines, what remains for me?

For Europe:
Actually, I typically fly QF, BA and AF (QF-codeshare Oz-SIN) to Europe.
My personal ranking, from my flight experience is as follows:
In Business: BA > AF = QF
In Prem Eco: AF > QF > BA
In Eco: AF > QF > BA

For the US:
I prefer VA over QF, AA, US.

Now, coming back to the original topic. What does this tell us about which alliance is the best one?
Exactly. Nothing.

If you really wanted to rank the alliances properly you would have to find criteria that are meaningful with respect to the practical travel experience of - and now listen: the majority of travellers. Obviously this is not so easy. ST and *A have in sum 4 times the number of passengers per year than OW. Do you seriously want to claim that these people are all in captive markets or are too stupid to see your "truth"?

This whole question reminds me of these discussions of whether the US (or any other country) is the greatest country on earth. Obviously there is no such thing as THE greatest country on earth. It all depends on the criteria you use (military power, crime rates, average level of education, life expectancy, climate, beauty of landscape, salary levels, job opportunities, gay marriage, ...) The only reasonable statement that can be made here is that FOR ME Australia is pretty much the greatest country on earth. But any generalization does not make sense here.

In sum: One really needs a pretty perfect combination of arrogance and ignorance to make a claim that a certain alliance is better than the other two. I would hope these people are more rational when they compare the alternatives of their business decisions.

^^^ +1 (that's kinda what I said above, although not quite as eloquently :)

^^^ +1 (that's kinda what I said above, although not quite as eloquently :)

I still stand by my statement. :) But I like you guys posts.

Well if it is Qatar, it will be interesting to see how things at OW evolve, based on this (long) analysis - http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/with-qatar-airways-as-new-member-oneworld-seeks-to-re-gain-momentum-but-may-become-more-divisive-84303

CAPA has definitely stuck their neck out with that piece -ie assuming it is QR

CAPA has definitely stuck their neck out with that piece -ie assuming it is QR

They have stuck with many other things too!

Are you sure someone at OW knows who's about to join???
Possibly not even QR knows, they will find out on Oct.8! SURPRISE.

You were selected to join One World, WELCOME!

Al-Baker will be speechless with all the NYC Broadway show prepared and it will all become true!!!

You know, at this point, this might be the case.

I think it is Qatar. The CEO is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Any statement that is not "we are not joining" is considered a wink wink endorsement that they are joining.

I think it is Qatar. The CEO is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Any statement that is not "we are not joining" is considered a wink wink endorsement that they are joining.

I actually prefer them not to join oneworld if they are not committed. I would much prefer either bigger rival Emirates or smaller rival Etihad. Currently Al Baker is making everyone felt that he was forced by AA and BA to make QR joining.

At this moment I think this round might not be QR joining oneworld. I am sure Al baker would prefer to make the announcement when the new Doha Airport terminal opens later (is that delayed again by the way?)

oneworld: surprise me on 8th october!

I'm not saying they are not committed. Just saying that in speaking to the press, the CEO can either totally deny, or be ambiguous, which will be assumed a confirmation. His comments represent IMHO his difficulty in dealing with the press

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL6E8L26O720121002?irpc=932

I'm not saying they are not committed. Just saying that in speaking to the press, the CEO can either totally deny, or be ambiguous, which will be assumed a confirmation. His comments represent IMHO his difficulty in dealing with the press

I know I know. Nothing against your post. Only some whining about the way Qatar is handling the press issue.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL6E8L26O720121002?irpc=932

Thanks...I wonder if any people would say Reuters have shot their own feet with this three days reporting on the forthcoming 8th october event? I started to wonder where Reuters found the quotation of Al Baker saying they are not joining oneworld...(I highly suspect the quotation by Reuters' earlier report is not porimary source)

I know I know. Nothing against your post. Only some whining about the way Qatar is handling the press issue.

Got it. Having dealt with members of the press myself, I have a lot of sympathy for their situation. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

With all that said given who has been reporting this, I have very little doubt Qatar is the name. I just hope it will be soon as I'd love to use my AA miles to get to MLE nex April :)

Got it. Having dealt with members of the press myself, I have a lot of sympathy for their situation. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

With all that said given who has been reporting this, I have very little doubt Qatar is the name. I just hope it will be soon as I'd love to use my AA miles to get to MLE nex April :)

You could use that on BA already, but very high co-pay! (yes I know, painful!)

Another choice would be Sri Lanka which will be in oneworld by 2013 (CX F to Hong Kong and UL Business to MLE).

I had a look at Qatar frequent flyer programme. It has three elite levels (good fit to oneworld) but major overhaul for them ahead! (the very unfair premium class reward on Tier Points [the so called Qpoints, might be changed to encourage premier cabin travels] and the lounge access for its elite members [would be improved from the current set up when the one guest rule comes along to replace the vouchers]). So will be better for many of its FFPs.

But, I would predict lots of complaining from its current Gold member (would be equivelent to oneworld Emerald) next year when the programme overhaul happens. They would likely to be the one who sees their re-qualification be raised based on current requirement, or loose the ability of a handful long haul economy travel to make the top.

You could use that on BA already, but very high co-pay! (yes I know, painful!)

Another choice would be Sri Lanka which will be in oneworld by 2013 (CX F to Hong Kong and UL Business to MLE).


not to veer off topic but I have done a lot of research into getting to and from MLE... see here (http://milesabound.com/destination-guides/destination-guide-maldives-miles-points/maldives-destination-guide-getting-there/). I would be very happy to see Qatar in OW :)

Can Qatar and its partners book passengers on stand alone intra-EU segments currently flown by Qatar, NCE-MXP for example?

Can Qatar and its partners book passengers on stand alone intra-EU segments currently flown by Qatar, NCE-MXP for example?

Only following routes where QR has traffic rights

Budapest Zagreb
Bucharest Sofia

And selected Asian routes.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL6E8L26O720121002?irpc=932Reuters are having a bob each way ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLNE89001C20121001

Next week will reveal ...

Only following routes where QR has traffic rights

Budapest Zagreb
Bucharest Sofia

And selected Asian routes.

Are you sure there aren't more? Like:

NCE <-> MXP
STR <-> ZRH
CMN <-> TUN
HBE <-> TIP
KGL <-> EBB
CPT <-> JNB
EZE <-> GRU

Are you sure there aren't more? Like:

NCE <-> MXP
STR <-> ZRH
CMN <-> TUN
HBE <-> TIP
KGL <-> EBB
CPT <-> JNB
EZE <-> GRU

Yes to HBE and TIP, EZE and GRU. Nothing else in Europe as far as I know. The best way you can find our is to use Qatar.com to search whether they are selling the routes or not. You will find the NCE and STR reopen short haul is not available unless it is continuing to Doha.

Reuters are having a bob each way ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLNE89001C20121001

Next week will reveal ...

This is the old news from 1st October...

This is the old news from 1st October...Yes, and who to say there won't be new news refuting the other on the 5th.

Simply pointing out two differing articles from the same source.

I think it is Qatar. The CEO is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Any statement that is not "we are not joining" is considered a wink wink endorsement that they are joining.

Using your logic it could be EK (which it's not). No one is more vocal in his anti alliance stance then Tim Clark & I guarantee there is no "wink wink" when he says alliances are bad for the consumer as well as being bad for EK. Looking at the business models of the 4 Gulf carriers (I'm including Gulf Air as they are trying to ramp up service, QR moves towards EK's model slowly year after year. I believe Bakar 100% when he says they are not joining

My money is on Etihad. It's a great airline but just can't compete w EK & needs to try something different (alliance????). While my money is noon Etihad, I would not rule out Gulf Air. They desperately want to grow, have spent a lot of money getting rid of F and putting it into J. They needs a partner desperately & if OW can go w an airline like Air Berlin, why not Gulf

Next airline to watch is Muscat. Took them in AF from MCT-LHR & wow, what an amazing job they've done on the 330's w a great F & unreal C class

Yes to HBE and TIP, EZE and GRU. Nothing else in Europe as far as I know. The best way you can find our is to use Qatar.com to search whether they are selling the routes or not. You will find the NCE and STR reopen short haul is not available unless it is continuing to Doha.

I assumed you had already done the research before you posted. My bad.

FYI: QR does indeed sell and operate KGL <-> EBB.

Would love WY to join any of the three major alliances or some form of partnership so I use points to fly on them :D

The Star Alliance is supposedly talking to Aer Lingus. With Etihad's share in them, I suppose we should expect the Aer Lingus/Etihad/Virgin Australia to Star Alliance rumors to start. This ignoring the fact that Etihad has a stake in Air Berlin, Lufthansa's main rival. LH's attitude toward gulf carriers doesn't help either.

I do not think LH will soften its stance towards MO3s... They lost QR, I do not see them accepting EY...

I do not think LH will soften its stance towards MO3s... They lost QR, I do not see them accepting EY...

Agreed. I think Turkish's massive expansion over the past few years is also playing into LH's attitude. As has been noted in the past, TK is a quasi-ME3 carrier. LH probably sees them as more then enough and didn't feel like bringing on a second one.

My money is on Etihad. It's a great airline but just can't compete w EK & needs to try something different (alliance????).

EY boss want to pull AB out of OW into AF alliance so I doubt he will then join OW himself:

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/neuer-grossaktionaer-klare-ansage-an-air-berlin-1.1486221

EY boss want to pull AB out of OW into AF alliance so I doubt he will then join OW himself:

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/neuer-grossaktionaer-klare-ansage-an-air-berlin-1.1486221

The English version of a similar report said:

EY will keep AB in oneworld but EY want AB to make the top priority of AF/KL alliance. And the CEO of EY said to AB oneworld should be the second in priority. The English version did not state EY want AB out of oneworld. The origional word was EY want AB to be included in the AF/KL alliance but AB to remain in oneworld.

The reason behind this was due to EY's loan to AB is quickly drying out. It looks like AB need another loan soon...

NA-flyer, you are overinterpreting the German text. It says nothing about "pulling AB out of OW". It just says that EY's CEO thinks that bilateral alliances, such as the one he wishes to form with AF, are more important than OW-membership.
And we have just seen in the case of EK and QF that such a bilateral agreement is well possible within OW. So IMHO this article just says that he wants to do with AF the same he has already done with VA, this time for both EY and AB.

(That said, it remains to be seen what impact ST's recently announced concept (currently being developed) about potential loose relationships between ST and other airlines will have in the EY/AF/AB context. But this is an aspect that goes well beyond the content and the scope of the article you have linked.)

NA-flyer, you are overinterpreting the German text. It says nothing about "pulling AB out of OW". It just says that EY's CEO thinks that bilateral alliances, such as the one he wishes to form with AF, are more important than OW-membership.
And we have just seen in the case of EK and QF that such a bilateral agreement is well possible within OW. So IMHO this article just says that he wants to do with AF the same he has already done with VA, this time for both EY and AB.



May be it is not stating it clearly but the logic in this business is that you can not have AB as a member in OW and in the same time channeling business into another alliance led by AF+KL+DL. Mr. Hogan is day dreaming to think that this mentality will work in the airline business.

EK+QF is a totally different situation: EK is not part of any world alliance while AF and KLM are major founders of Skyteam.

EK is not part of any world alliance while AF and KLM are major founders of Skyteam.

KL is not a founder of ST, but yes it is an important player.

NA-flyer, you are overinterpreting the German text. It says nothing about "pulling AB out of OW". It just says that EY's CEO thinks that bilateral alliances, such as the one he wishes to form with AF, are more important than OW-membership.
And we have just seen in the case of EK and QF that such a bilateral agreement is well possible within OW. So IMHO this article just says that he wants to do with AF the same he has already done with VA, this time for both EY and AB.



May be it is not stating it clearly but the logic in this business is that you can not have AB as a member in OW and in the same time channeling business into another alliance led by AF+KL+DL. Mr. Hogan is day dreaming to think that this mentality will work in the airline business.


The point is it's too early draw a conclusion here. The Middle East carriers are game changers. Many people think that the EK/QF collaboration and ST's future concept of loose affiliates will change the way we think about airline alliances and how airline alliances see themselves. The rules of the game are about to change and the outcome is open.

KL is not a founder of ST, but yes it is an important player.

Sorry to be pedantic, but KL was not a founding members. Far from it in fact. The AF part of AFKL however was a founding member alongside AM, DL and KE.

What sort of time do you think it would take for the ME carrier to actually become a full member of oneworld?

What sort of time do you think it would take for the ME carrier to actually become a full member of oneworld?

Likely about the same amount of time as anyone else, 1-2 and a half years generally.

Are you sure there aren't more? Like:

CPT <-> JNB


Not sure about the others, but QR does not have traffic rights JNB-CPT

48 hours and counting...Surprise me oneworld!

How about a Mainland Chinese airline? Perhaps Hainan (more likely)? Or China Eastern or Air China defecting over into oneworld (less likely)?

Someone mentioned MH may not join OW, but I find this hard to believe. Hurry up Monday!

For a few seconds I had a little thought: US defecting from *A to OW :cool:

For a few seconds I had a little thought: US defecting from *A to OW :cool:

Hmmm.... a few months after having closed down their one and only Flagship-style lounge...

I know its just few more hours to vanish the usefulness of this subject... BUT can anyone find any secret tip on the e-mail I just received today??? http://www.qatarairways.com/email/pvc/12/10/07/programme-enhancement/index.html

I know its just few more hours to vanish the usefulness of this subject... BUT can anyone find any secret tip on the e-mail I just received today??? http://www.qatarairways.com/email/pvc/12/10/07/programme-enhancement/index.html

not much i got and thought the same.... other than one could think they are pre-aligning with avios structure. but its a stretch

I know its just few more hours to vanish the usefulness of this subject... BUT can anyone find any secret tip on the e-mail I just received today??? http://www.qatarairways.com/email/pvc/12/10/07/programme-enhancement/index.html

As i suspected. Programme alignment have to be done before Qatar joins oneworld. But it is happening too soon for that.

There should be more details before we can confirm this is indeed for oneworld membership. But i guess some changes is what I highlighted in earlier post that QR may award more Qpoints for premier cabin flyers.

As i suspected. Programme alignment have to be done before Qatar joins oneworld. But it is happening too soon for that.

There should be more details before we can confirm this is indeed for oneworld membership. But i guess some changes is what I highlighted in earlier post that QR may award more Qpoints for premier cabin flyers.

China Eastern is never going to join ow - it's an inferior airline. Same with Air China.

China Eastern is never going to join ow - it's an inferior airline. Same with Air China.

You lost me. Where I have mentioned China Eastern?

he took a wrong post chonghao. he meant about this one by Platinum A332...

How about a Mainland Chinese airline? Perhaps Hainan (more likely)? Or China Eastern or Air China defecting over into oneworld (less likely)?

I think we can safely rule out Etihad;

http://airlineroute.net/2012/10/08/afkl-eyab-codeshare/

I think we can safely rule out Etihad;

http://airlineroute.net/2012/10/08/afkl-eyab-codeshare/

So two choices left: QR and EK. I lean more toward QR. My 2 cents.

China Eastern is never going to join ow - it's an inferior airline. Same with Air China.

That must be why OW was actively courting them and so disappointed when China Eastern decided against joining them :confused:

http://www.eturbonews.com/14713/after-kingfisher-oneworld-looks-again-china-eastern-join

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/iata-agm-oneworld-looks-to-overcome-china-eastern-disappointment-342858/

At what time is the party starting in New York?

Seems AF and EY are making their plans clear today:

http://www.etihadmediacentre.com/file.php?f_ID=3771

October 8, 2012

ETIHAD AIRWAYS AND AIR FRANCE-KLM UNVEIL NEW STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

• Codeshare agreement extends Abu Dhabi-based carrier’s network to 321 destinations
• Offers significant potential for commercial expansion across Etihad’s airline partnerships.
• Closer ties will enable opportunities for multi-million dollar cost efficiencies
• 22.5 million air travellers set to benefit from frequent flyer integration and reciprocal lounge access

Etihad Airways and Air France-KLM have signed a historic agreement to codeshare on flights across the airlines’ networks, the first phase of a much larger strategic partnership which commences on October 28.

The wide-ranging codeshare agreement will see Etihad Airways and Air France-KLM offering joint codes on destinations in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Australia. At the same time, Air France is announcing a new codeshare agreement with airberlin, Europe’s sixth largest airline, in which Etihad Airways holds a 29.21 per cent stake.

James Hogan, Etihad Airways’ President and Chief Executive Officer, said: “This deal, Etihad Airways’ 40th codeshare, marks a momentous milestone for both airline groups and offers countless opportunities to develop an unrivalled commercial relationship.

“It reflects the core elements of Etihad Airways’ 10-year master plan, driven by organic network growth, combined with the forging of strategic codeshare partnerships and minority equity investments in other airlines.

“The linking together of these three components, as we continue to strengthen our bilateral agreements, means all the pieces of our plan are coming together.”

Collectively, the two airline groups expect to carry more than 85 million passengers in 2012.

Air France-KLM and airberlin today also announced a mutual codeshare agreement allowing customers of each of the two carriers to fly seamlessly on all the routes operated by the other between France and Germany.

Hartmut Mehdorn, Chief Executive Officer of airberlin, said: “Our cooperation with the Air France-KLM Group represents another milestone for airberlin in developing a unique, global flight network in conjunction with these world-beating airlines.

“This strategic step will add further interesting services to the choice we can offer our passengers and will have a positive influence on our operations. In this way we will considerably strengthen our presence in the European market and link our Berlin hub to even more destinations.”

Jean–Cyril Spinetta, Air France-KLM Chief Executive Officer, said: “This new partnership between Air France-KLM and Etihad Airways and airberlin reflects our Group’s strategic positioning to ensure the best possible services between Europe and the rest of the world, by developing our network and airline partnerships.

"Working with Etihad Airways allows us to offer our customers a range of new attractive destinations,” Mr Spinetta added.

Initially, the agreement between Etihad Airways and Air France-KLM will see the Abu Dhabi-based carrier’s EY code placed on Air France flights between Paris Charles de Gaulle airport and Bordeaux, Copenhagen, Madrid, Nice and Toulouse.

The EY code will also be placed on KLM flights between Amsterdam and Abu Dhabi, Billund, Cardiff, Newcastle, Oslo and Stavanger.

Air France will initially place its AF code on Etihad Airways flights between Abu Dhabi and the Seychelles, the Maldives, Colombo, Dhaka, Kathmandu and Islamabad.

KLM will initially place its KL code on Etihad Airways flights between Abu Dhabi and Sydney, Melbourne, Islamabad, Colombo and Lahore.

Mr Hogan added: “This deal enables us to further extend our global reach and now gives us a combined network of 321 destinations – the largest of any Middle East carrier.

“The agreement also opens up many new markets for our passengers in Europe and reinforces the importance of strategic commercial partnerships as one of the key enablers for accelerated growth of our network.

“Partnerships are delivering a major source of our revenue growth, by extending our network reach and putting our brand directly in front of millions of new customers. This year to date, they are providing 18 per cent of our revenues and will be a major contributor to our sustained profitability growth this year and into the future.”

The new strategic partners will work together on the proposed integration of frequent flyer programs which includes reciprocal ‘earn-and-burn’ privileges for 1.5 million Etihad Guest members and 21 million Air France-KLM Flying Blue frequent flyers across the combined networks.

Other potential areas of co-operation include joint procurement, as well as maintenance and repair collaboration, as both carriers identify cost savings and seek to benefit from economies of scale, as Etihad Airways is doing with its other strategic partners.


- Ends -


About Etihad Airways
Etihad Airways, the national airline of the United Arab Emirates, began operations in 2003, and in 2011 carried 8.3 million passengers. From its hub at Abu Dhabi International Airport, Etihad Airways serves 87 passenger and cargo destinations in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia and North America, with a fleet of 67 Airbus and Boeing aircraft, and 100 aircraft on order, including 10 Airbus A380s, the world’s largest passenger aircraft. Etihad Airways also holds equity investments in airberlin, Air Seychelles, Virgin Australia and Aer Lingus. For more information, please visit: www.etihad.com.

For more information contact:
Tom Clarke
Etihad Airways Corporate Communications
Mob: +971 50 812 5796
Dir: +971 (0) 2 511 1036
Email: tclarke@etihad.ae

About Air France-KLM:
Air France-KLM, the result of a merger between Air France and KLM in 2004, is one of the leading European air transport groups. Its main activities are the air transport of passengers and cargo as well as aircraft maintenance. In 2011, Air France-KLM carried 75.8 million passengers and 1.1 million tonnes of cargo. The Group's fleet com-prises 586 aircraft, including 173 regional aircraft operated by its partners Brit Air, City Jet, Regional and KLM Cityhopper. Its network covers 230 destinations in 113 countries from its hubs at Paris-Charles de Gaulle and Amsterdam-Schiphol. The Flying Blue frequent flyer programme is leader in Europe and has over 21 million members.

Air France and KLM are members of the SkyTeam alliance which has 18 member airlines, offering customers access to a global network of over 14,800 daily flights to 993 destinations in 186 countries.

www.airfranceklm.com - Air France - Press Office: +33(0)1 41 56 56 00 - KLM - Press Office: +31 (0) 20 6494545

About airberlin:
airberlin is Germany’s second largest airline. The company has a workforce of 9,300 employees. Each year airberlin receives over 10 awards for service and quality. The fleet comprises 152 aircraft with an average age of five years, making it one of the most modern fleets in Europe. The airline's state-of-the-art jets are highly fuel-efficient, which contributes towards a long-term reduction in pollution emissions from aircraft. As one of the major European airlines, airberlin flies to 170 destinations in 40 countries. In 2011, over 35 million passengers were transported. In December 2011 airberlin entered into a strategic partnership with Etihad Airways. Since 20th March 2012 airberlin has been a full member of the global airline alliance oneworld®. airberlin operates codeshare flights with oneworld members American Airlines, British Airways, Finnair, Iberia, Royal Jordanian, S7 Airlines and Japan Airlines.

Press contact:
Uwe Berlinghoff
Senior Vice President Communications
Tel.: + 49 30 3434 1500
Fax: + 49 30 3434 1509
E-mail: abpresse@airberlin.com
www.airberlin.com

At what time is the party starting in New York?

I assume in 3 hours ;)

China Eastern is never going to join ow - it's an inferior airline. Same with Air China.

Granted, but I don't think they are any worse than Malev or Mexicana or even Iberia...

CAPA still seems fairly certain on Qatar
http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/etihad-ties-up-with-air-france-klm-next-qatar-oneworld-and-the-aviation-world-turns-on-its-head-84721

CAPA still seems fairly certain on Qatar
http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/etihad-ties-up-with-air-france-klm-next-qatar-oneworld-and-the-aviation-world-turns-on-its-head-84721

I'm with them. I am preparing my hat for lunch if it is not Qatar. I have no doubt the AF/EY announcement was made today specifically to steal some of the thunder. After years of planning and working out strategy it seems the Middle East carriers are finally starting to show how they plan to integrate and dominate the global alliance world (and clearly that does not necessarily mean the big three alliances, which are products of a couple of decades ago now, but more strategic partnerships and new alliances)

Four more hours. From this article (http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2012/10/08/qatar-airways-oneworld/1619683/):

oneworld's "significant" announcement that is scheduled to be made at 2 p.m. today in New York

Four more hours. From this article (http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2012/10/08/qatar-airways-oneworld/1619683/):

I think the CEO is a joke. Couple of days he announced that he will accept any deliveries of 787 from Boeing before certain modifications. Then Boeing announced yesterday that QR has accepted their first 787.

Then he keeps denying that QR will ever join OW and as of yesterday this is his stand despite many speculations that QR will join OW.

Let's see if Mr. Al Baker is bluffing or he is serious in his statements.

I think the CEO is a joke. Couple of days he announced that he will accept any deliveries of 787 from Boeing before certain modifications. Then Boeing announced yesterday that QR has accepted their first 787.

Then he keeps denying that QR will ever join OW and as of yesterday this is his stand despite many speculations that QR will join OW.

Let's see if Mr. Al Baker is bluffing or he is serious in his statements.

Bluffer the Al Baker he is now known...lol

Needless to say, this is a very interesting monday. Any news as to what Alaska/Delta are doing over in Seattle?

Not so sure at this point QR will actually join oneworld… the oneworld statement said that today “important membership development” will be announced… that sounds like some new rules to join/being associated with oneworld will be disclosed. It will be interesting to see what happened… perhaps Emirates and Qatar will become “preferred partners”, who knows?

Not so sure at this point QR will actually join oneworld… the oneworld statement said that today “important membership development” will be announced… that sounds like some new rules to join/being associated with oneworld will be disclosed.Identical wording from their news release on Sep 28 that prompted the last 10 pages of posts speculating otherwise: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/oneworld-to-announce-new-member-qatar-expected-377073/