Originally Posted by moondog

My view of the alliances --and their pros/cons-- has evolved over time. When the alliances were first launched, they provided an unprecedented means for people to travel somewhat seamlessly wherever they needed to go. IMO this was an improvement over the system it replaced (if there was one), from the standpoint of both airlines and passengers...a win-win.

But, about 10 years in, we started to see revenue sharing JVs between airlines, which established much stronger bonds (on a bilateral basis) than the alliances themselves. From the individual airlines' perspective, this was great evolution because it permitted much closer coordination wrt schedules and fares, and simultaneously shifted the focus away from aspects of the alliances that didn't directly benefit their bottom lines. On a semi-related note, independent airlines are free to operate without pandering to formal alliance rules or informal pressure from other member airlines. We're seeing this now with CZ; having been written off by DL, it decided to go it alone, inked a JV with AA, and is actively seeking other partners that suit its objectives...not so different from DL in a sense.

It should go without saying that the JV trend hasn't been nearly as well received by passengers; previously competitive markets have trended towards monopolistic pricing, and alliance benefits have steadily eroded.

But, as long as JVs continue to receive regulatory approval, I don't think turning back is especially likely. For DL flyers, I suppose this might not matter so much in the grand scheme, as long as the new partnerships (both in and out of ST) provide decide network coverage and benefits.