Originally Posted by
jimrpa
Generally, I agree with the concept of "the more the merrier" when it comes to alliances. That does have to be tempered with "if you lie with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas." Consider: I can go to my WalMart SuperCenter and hit the McDonalds in there. Note that, if I go to my local Neiman Marcus, there's no McDonalds. Same thing applies with airline alliances (and it's one of my big beefs about both SkyTeam and the SkyMiles program - no truly superior experiences to spend SkyPesos on).
That may be true, but what matters to the vast majority of SM members, I'm sure, is the actual route network and destinations available. For most flying is about getting from point A to B. And for that, "the more the merrier."
I think there is no problem with an alliance having both "five star" members (but you're right, none come to mind on that for ST - KE and MH are good, but at best "four star" if not "three and a half star") as well as "one star" ones (HY comes to mind - their cups are so leaky, that usually when you get a drink it needs to be not just double but triple cupped so it won't leak out - but hey, they still get you from point A to point B in a 767 no worse than the Delta fleet; that is, if you don't feel irrationally squeamish after an announcement such as "This is Captain Mohammad Al-Islam Muhammed, we are coming down on New York right now." (in a thick accent) - not word-for-word, but about how I remember it when HY101 started its descent into JFK, the one time I flew them RIX-JFK (the TAS-RIX-JFK/JFK-RIX-TAS route, HY101/HY102)). There also, the more variety, the better, and it's up to the passenger to choose whether they pick comfort or convenience/best route/shortest flight.