Originally Posted by
dylanks
I see your point. If they flew the same routes, I would agree completely. Because there's very little route overlap between them (Besides LON-BCN, are there any nonstop overlap between BA and VY?), it's about the limited shorthaul route network where it doesn't add up for me. With my previous example of DUB-NCL, it didn't really make sense to fly BA and connect via LHR.
It's quite a contrast from the US carrier customer segmentation, where they segregate mostly on fare rather than brand or product. All of the mergers here have resulted in forming a single brand to expand the route network, rather than having multiple airlines to operate. In the case of LH and KL-AF their traditional separate brands has made sense as they are country specific brands and there's still a strong sense of flying the local brand carrier (whereas in the US, we almost prefer to fly the non-US brand!). Attempts in the US by legacy carriers to start separate low cost brands have never really worked out (similar to BA's earlier attempts with Go if I understand correctly).
If I understand what you are saying about the US market, then the proposition is not about offering the full OW benefits package on the lowest cost fare; but about offering a fare that offers that package.
In effect this is what code shares do, but normally involve booking another flight connecting to the code share. If it were possible to book a BA or IB fare on any IAG airline without any requirement for another flight, that would address the OP’s point. IAG could restrict that to routes not served by its legacy carriers, but I’d have to say if it were a separate fare why do this. Indeed what business reason prevents IAG doing precisely this?