Originally Posted by
atakam
I will refer to OW and *A only, ST still not same level. Comparing from an Emerald and *G point of view. Based in Asia using RTW product from time to time, transpac, Asia regional and Asia-EU.
OW
1) First class check in and FC lounge access
2) No extra luggage allowance
3) Mileage posting takes extremely long time (using AA and LA accounts), when flying other members it can take up to one month. *A system seems to be better connected.
4) Having 3 tiers and achieving Emerald seems to be more exclusive (than *G)
5) Good coverage in EU/US/Asia-Oceania and South America, low-low Africa
6) Premium classes focus on C. F class seats limited and few members offer an integral F product (maybe because Emerald have access to check in and lounges). In general older F seats than *A
7) Lounge experience nothing special, especially F lounges lower than *A (only Concorde Room up to level)
8) Stronger RTW product with many options and flexibility.
9) Customer service not standardized due to irregular quality among members, IB for instance doesn't fit. If you get stuck in MAD nobody will help, OW means nothing (RTW tkt). LA GAs also don't care about OW elites.
10) No OW upgrades
11) FAs tend to recognize Emeralds and give a better service
12) Too many rules and fine print on mileage accrural, example BA/AA over the pond and many 0% and 25% miles fares (AA and LA are not as bad)
*A
1) Biz class check in and *G only lounge access
2) *G gets extra luggage allowance
3) Fast mileage post in account. Using UA and LH accounts when flying other members average 5 days (or less) to see miles posted.
4) Would like to have a 3rd tier, too many *G members around
5) Excellent coverage in EU/US/Asia, good in Africa, fair in Oceania, low-low in South America
6) Overall F class experience better than OW.
7) Best F lounges, SQ F, LH F/HON, NH F, LX F, among others.
8) Good RTW product, but too basic and restricted.
9) *A system well connected and easy to move from one carrier to other (RTW tkt). Average quality GA higher than OW
10) *A upgrades help burning miles on several carriers
11) *G members are transparent for FAs (again maybe because there are too many)
12) Less fine print on getting miles (I use UA MP which is more transparent)
I general, for me *A offers the best solution as an alliance. Good coverage, strong and consistent FCY products and smooth travel when connecting within its members. Big problem is South America.
OW has interesting tkt products and a couple of very strong members (CX/BA/LA) and Emerald exclusivity.
Conclusion: Since I fly more than 300k (BIS) a year I use both alliances keeping 1K and Emerald (LA) and accessing all benefits. No need to fly ST (in the past enrolled in DL and KE) but honestly difficult to use.
Hope it helps.
Sadly I also have to disagree with much that you have posted.
The speed that miles post is very much dependant on your host programme. For example AA tends to credit BA miles 5 or so days after the flight has been taken. The same flights credited to QF will appear 24-48 hours. The same issues also exist on *A. In fact a god 50% of my flights credited to BD (*A) require manual intervention whereas almost all flights for the last couple of years have credited to QF (OW). Most carriers use different loyalty platforms which are different from the airlines GDS and CRS systems so don't expect two airlines to be alike as they are not.
I am surprised you have stated that OW has older F seats than *A. QF, CX and JL all have new F seats and BA has recently announced theirs. *A only has UA, LX, TK & SQ with NH also recently announcing new seats so I think we are pretty much tied there. Also don't forget that the dreaded SQ don't allow anyone to redeem premium awards except with miles from their own programme whereas you don't see those sorts of tricks played out in OW.
I have to strongly disagree with your statement on lounges as I think this is the one area where OW excels both *A and ST. Most of the lounges you mention are not available to partner airlines; take for example the LH HON lounges you mentioned - even has a UA 1K flying in paid F out of FRA you won't be able to get into the HON lounge. Also try flying Y and trying to access the SQ J or F lounges with a *A Gold card and you won't get in, not to mention that the lounges are OK but far from special. Even the SQ Private area for suite passengers is nothing to blow one away with. I feel that the new QF F lounges in both MEL and SYD are pretty much on par with LH in many respects, not to forget that these lounges are open to all Emeralds. CX's HKG lounges whilst starting to date are still pretty good and again these are available to all Emeralds and Sapphires travelling as are the BA lounges in LHR (minus the Concorde room which at the end of the day is really very similar to the F lounge but with table service).
Again in respect to the AA/BA TATL issues, remember these are all related to ATI and until this is actually received, you won't find either alliance partner likely to hand over miles. Also be aware that the 25% issue you mention is related to your programme (AA). For example I earn 100% miles on IB on all codes so you really need to compare apples with apples rather than oranges. For example, when crediting non US based carriers to my BD account (*A), most economy fares earn 25 or 50%.
Finally in respect to the miles fine print issue, I guess you have never played the *A fare class translation game? Once you have actually experienced that, I suspect you might find OW easier as you know what you will earn before you actually take the flight. If you don't know what I am referring to, look at some of the *A carrier forums as this can even affect premium classes so it is not just an issue which affects those flying in Y.