Originally Posted by
N1Rotate
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).
The two posts by
N1Rotate and
Citytom illustrate the pros and cons of QR
staying in OW from a OW airline viewpoint.
Situations vary a lot depending on pax location and destinations. But let's take the case of a pax located in Europe.
Con:
QR is a major competitor to Asia. QR offers one-stop alternatives to a huge number of destinations (except maybe China) and BA is competing for that business. Flying from CDG, I used to only use BA, which is considerably cheaper than the nonstop alternatives on CX and AF. Now, I mostly fly QR rather than BA (plus a few expensive nonstops on other airlines). Remember that BA longhaul does a huge (maybe majority) of business with transit pax. QR is hurting BA badly. As QR product is better than BA in J, it is now the case that BA one-stops are systematically cheaper than QR.
Pro:
It's an incentive for some pax to remain in OW rather than switch to ST or *A and take some business away from other OW airlines.
We could multiply the examples and each one is a bit different from another. But I believe that OW airlines would not be unhappy to see QR leave. The pro argument is weak compared to the con. They probably did not expect QR to be so successful when QR started negotiating to join OW. Frankly, the fact that QR is a large but minority shareholder in BA is weak. IAG/BA does not need more capital, they are very profitable, therefore QR has currently little leverage at IAG. The situation is a bit different at CX, but not dramatic.