Originally Posted by
citytom
Forgive me if I am being naive - I appreciate your point that QR offers better one-stop options from non-hub airports than any other Oneworld provider, and this is a benefit to passengers, especially situated 1 flight away from hub airports. Though I struggle to see how this benefits the other alliance partners, rather than take away their business?
In the traditional model I can fly from Machester to London to HKG with BA, or from LAX with American, then hop on a short connection flight to somewhere else in Asia with Cathay, both the domestic carrier and destination carrier benefit from alliance. Qatar are directly challenging this model for any origin and destination point , there is no need to use BA, Iberia or Finnair in Europe; Cathay, JAL or Malaysia in Asia. If Qatar will fly you direct to your destination from Doha and bypass the regional hub.
Is the assumption that those situated in Manchester and Bristol only fly BA shorthaul throughout the year because they earn status with Qatar - and would otherwise stick with EasyJet?
At best I can see this being a zero sum game - and understand the broad apathy shown by OW CEOs in response to AAB's comments. As I've already said, from a passenger perspective, I really hope QR stay in the alliance.
It simply makes a membership in a Oneworld FFP much more attractive which benefits all carriers, especially for consumers out of the home markets of the member carriers. If there are big gaps in the network it makes a membership in a competing alliance e.g. Star Alliance more attractive. Think of for example mainland Europe Oneworld status holders, having QR as an option East might be enough for some people to not consider making a switch to Star Alliance (and access to LH/TK's networks).