Originally Posted by graraps
??
I seem unable to understand this claim. Star Alliance have been signing any and every orphan airline without giving a damn about how good they are, while OneWorld's coverage is full of holes and its already small network includes a LCC and the miserable excuse for an airline that is IB. These alliances sound far more leftover-ish to me than Skyteam.
Yes, OW has Aer Lingus and Iberia (amongst others), but it also has Cathay and British Airways, Qantas and LAN -- and all four dominant players are much better than what SkyTeam offers in their general geographic areas. And yes, Star Alliance has some leftover-types (actually a bunch of them) too, but it has Singapore. I cannot see where SkyTeam has a better offering than that which either a Star Alliance or OneWorld carrier can provide. I'd be curious to know where exactly?
NW, CO and DL are not better than AA and/or UA for the Americas.
KL and AF are superior to BA?
AZ is certainly a laggard.
KE seems to be not as good as CX or SQ.
CZ is limited.
Aeromexico I don't know much about; just a few flights and no experience vis-a-vis Mexicana.