FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Is Oneworld supposed to be consistent?
View Single Post
Old Sep 9, 2007 | 2:08 am
  #25  
DownUnderFlyer
Moderator: Asiana & Qantas Frequent Flyer
50 Countries Visited
3M
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: STR/SYD/SMF
Programs: QF LTG / P1 , LH LT SEN / HON, OZ LT Diamond +, Marriott LT PT, HH Diamond,
Posts: 15,137
Originally Posted by Darren
Unfortunately, BA acts in Oneworld like Air France acts in Skyteam and Singapore acts in the Star Alliance: like they are the one and only carrier holding the whole thing together and can therefore do whatever they please.
BA is the lead airline of OW and AF the main carrier of Skyteam. SQ on the other hand is not the main carrier of the Star Alliance (I would say this is LH and UA) but they certainly act as if they can do whatever they want.

Originally Posted by Darren
I actually think that the Oneworld alliance is pretty good as far as consistency is concerned. I have a good friend that flies the Star Alliance, and she says that it's as dysfunctional as the Manson family in many respects. Oneworld is as close to a cooperative function system that you have in this industry at the moment. The Star Alliance appears to be nothing more than a cooperative marketing system with a few benefits to justify its existence.
I don't think your friend is right here. I fly all three alliances very regularly and I think *A offers the best product of all of them. You basically get all the OW benefits plus your extra 20kg luggage allowance as a frequent flyer.
Calling it a Cooperative Marketing System doesn't do *A justice.
DownUnderFlyer is offline