Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Why doesn't IAG standardise on OneWorld and other benefits?

Why doesn't IAG standardise on OneWorld and other benefits?

Reply

Old Dec 19, 17, 10:22 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Arizona
Programs: BA (GGL), AA (statusless), HH (Diamond);
Posts: 2,723
Why doesn't IAG standardise on OneWorld and other benefits?

After reading many threads over the months which lead to general confusion by passengers, I still don't understand why all IAG carriers don't join OneWorld, and why IAG thinks it is better to have so many inconsistencies?

Examples:
  • Tier points on a VY flight are only earned if it is BA marketed, not if it is IB marketed, or similar with EI
  • VY and EI don't have a club europe cabin, making shorthaul connections more limited when flying on longhaul premium routes
  • Lounge access inconsistencies (in particular lounge access for Aer Lingus and Vueling flights)
  • Level flights don't earn tier points (isn't it punishment enough to travel on Level as it is?)
I know that there is a cost associated with having an airline be part of OneWorld and providing these benefits, but they have the same parent company. Wouldn't it greatly simplify things overall for IAG if BA, IB, EI, VY, and Level were treated the same from the perspective of OneWorld benefits, tier points, shorthaul business class cabin, and lounge access?

Note, I do not believe IAG should standardise on a revenue based loyalty programme, so I've left that out of the above suggestions.

So, the purpose of this thread is to discuss reasons, perhaps make a list of inconsistencies and maybe persuade IAG to eventually improve in this area.
dylanks is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 10:49 am
  #2  
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: TPA/ABZ
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold. GGL/CCR.
Posts: 8,395
Interesting thread but perhaps better suited to the oneworld forum?

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/oneworld-411/
LondonCanuck likes this.
golfmad is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 11:52 am
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Arizona
Programs: BA (GGL), AA (statusless), HH (Diamond);
Posts: 2,723
Originally Posted by golfmad View Post
Interesting thread but perhaps better suited to the oneworld forum?

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/oneworld-411/
Isn't that the forum where discussions go to die?

More seriously though, I think the current situation has the biggest impact on BAEC members, but I could be wrong. Happy to have it moved if others agree.
thinkingallowed likes this.
dylanks is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 12:06 pm
  #4  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,655
I'll bite on the discussion.

Each airline has to choose to market itself and spend it's money as it sees fit. Why would you force an airline to spend money it doesn't need to? If the airlines feel they need more OneWorld travellers - they'd join OneWorld.
MPH1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 12:07 pm
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Berlin, Germany; Toronto, Canada; and SW Florida, USA
Programs: UA 1K, BA Gold, Hyatt Globalist, and assorted others
Posts: 22,105
I think OW is a bit of a joke. Actually all the alliances are. They project a picture of seamless cohesion, but in actual fact they are widely divergent on service offerings and cross-programme recognition. *A probably does it best (but realise that LH FCT or SQ Private Room are not interested in *G), and you have cheap status carriers like A3 making the playing field very uneven. There is currently a lot of noise about CX leaving OW, and QF already plays nicer with EK than with BA...I wouldn't get my hopes up for more OW integration.
Calchas and headingwest like this.
LondonElite is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 12:47 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 5,803
Walsh is on record as saying that alliances won't last so I would not hold my breat.

oh course the simple answer is a OWE in a €29:99 VY ticket costing IAG £50 in airport fees, taxes, lounge consumption, priority fees and additional Avios etc before even boarding the aircraft, does not make economic sense.
Worcester is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 1:21 pm
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Arizona
Programs: BA (GGL), AA (statusless), HH (Diamond);
Posts: 2,723
Originally Posted by MPH1980 View Post
I'll bite on the discussion.

Each airline has to choose to market itself and spend it's money as it sees fit. Why would you force an airline to spend money it doesn't need to? If the airlines feel they need more OneWorld travellers - they'd join OneWorld.
Is each airline really run that independently?

Originally Posted by LondonElite View Post
I think OW is a bit of a joke. Actually all the alliances are. They project a picture of seamless cohesion, but in actual fact they are widely divergent on service offerings and cross-programme recognition. *A probably does it best (but realise that LH FCT or SQ Private Room are not interested in *G), and you have cheap status carriers like A3 making the playing field very uneven. There is currently a lot of noise about CX leaving OW, and QF already plays nicer with EK than with BA...I wouldn't get my hopes up for more OW integration.
Agreed in their current form they are, though in this case, we don't even have consistency between airlines with the same parent company.

Originally Posted by Worcester View Post
Walsh is on record as saying that alliances won't last so I would not hold my breat.

oh course the simple answer is a OWE in a €29:99 VY ticket costing IAG £50 in airport fees, taxes, lounge consumption, priority fees and additional Avios etc before even boarding the aircraft, does not make economic sense.
Agreed in part. The challenge is that BA does not fly every route I might want to take, but I'd like to be treated consistently well over the course of the year given our spend with BA and their partners. That said, in this case I guess I'm just suggesting that the IAG airlines should up their benefits to match BA and reciprocate the benefits.
dylanks is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 1:28 pm
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist & Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 16,659
Originally Posted by dylanks View Post
After reading many threads over the months which lead to general confusion by passengers, I still don't understand why all IAG carriers don't join OneWorld, and why IAG thinks it is better to have so many inconsistencies?
Joining oneworld is not free.

Apart from the annual membership fee, there are also costs associated with integrating with dozens airlines across the globe.

As for inconsistencies, I think most passengers would have no idea that EI, VY, BA, and IB have a common owner. They are deliberately distinct brands.
LTN Phobia likes this.

Last edited by Calchas; Dec 19, 17 at 1:39 pm
Calchas is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 1:42 pm
  #9  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by dylanks View Post
I know that there is a cost associated with having an airline be part of OneWorld and providing these benefits, but they have the same parent company. Wouldn't it greatly simplify things overall for IAG if BA, IB, EI, VY, and Level were treated the same from the perspective of OneWorld benefits, tier points, shorthaul business class cabin, and lounge access?
Simplify = yes.
Worth the cost? Probably not.

EI is the best example. The inter-relations needed between airline systems to allow an alliance to work are large and complex, so when they left oneworld they shut it all down and went 'pseudo-Ryanair-style' for a semi-standalone system. Now they're in IAG, they're having to work through a mountain of issues to build the systems required to do it again, and it's such a headache that they're seriously considering stopping... or they would, if it weren't a pre-requisite for joining the JB.

Fast-forward to VY... is it worth all this, just to give a few DYKWIAs access to a lounge? I don't work for them or have the numbers... but given their relative average fare and the market in which they're competing, I very much doubt it.
LordBuckethead is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 1:46 pm
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist & Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 16,659
Originally Posted by LordBuckethead View Post
or they would, if it weren't a pre-requisite for joining the JB.
You are the second person to say that ... but I have not been able to find any evidence for this pre-requisite. I am genuinely interested but there is only so many hours an employed man can spend in DoJ documents without causing his colleagues a good deal of concern.

Everyone accepts VS as a member of the (formerly) Sky Team JV without it being a member of any alliance. What is the difference with EI?
Calchas is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 2:27 pm
  #11  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by Calchas View Post
You are the second person to say that ... but I have not been able to find any evidence for this pre-requisite. I am genuinely interested but there is only so many hours an employed man can spend in DoJ documents without causing his colleagues a good deal of concern.

Everyone accepts VS as a member of the (formerly) Sky Team JV without it being a member of any alliance. What is the difference with EI?
The AA/BA/IB one was set up 'on the basis of' the relationship they already had within OW. I will see if I can dig anything out that would confirm it. How formal it is in the rules I don't know, but it definitely came out of the alliance and wouldn't have been approved without that prior relationship.
LordBuckethead is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 8:41 pm
  #12  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Arizona
Programs: BA (GGL), AA (statusless), HH (Diamond);
Posts: 2,723
Originally Posted by LordBuckethead View Post
Simplify = yes.
Worth the cost? Probably not.

EI is the best example. The inter-relations needed between airline systems to allow an alliance to work are large and complex, so when they left oneworld they shut it all down and went 'pseudo-Ryanair-style' for a semi-standalone system. Now they're in IAG, they're having to work through a mountain of issues to build the systems required to do it again, and it's such a headache that they're seriously considering stopping... or they would, if it weren't a pre-requisite for joining the JB.

Fast-forward to VY... is it worth all this, just to give a few DYKWIAs access to a lounge? I don't work for them or have the numbers... but given their relative average fare and the market in which they're competing, I very much doubt it.
I will say it pretty much means I have zero incentive to fly VY or EI unless they are the only option. Not so much a DYKWIA as a preference to maintain status and get the benefits from that status.

Originally Posted by Calchas View Post
You are the second person to say that ... but I have not been able to find any evidence for this pre-requisite. I am genuinely interested but there is only so many hours an employed man can spend in DoJ documents without causing his colleagues a good deal of concern.

Everyone accepts VS as a member of the (formerly) Sky Team JV without it being a member of any alliance. What is the difference with EI?
I believe VS was allowed to join because they are 49% owned by DL anyway. I would be surprised if EI had to join OW, unless that was a requirement of their JBA rather than a government requirement. VS passengers get reciprocal benefits, so EI would. We'd to do at least that I think before AA would welcome them into the JBA.
dylanks is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 17, 9:19 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: EMEA and US of A
Programs: BA Silver, Delta Gold, United Gold, Marriott Gold, Starwood Gold, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum
Posts: 1,749
Originally Posted by dylanks View Post
I will say it pretty much means I have zero incentive to fly VY or EI unless they are the only option. Not so much a DYKWIA as a preference to maintain status and get the benefits from that status.
If VY and EI do not find it in their interest to provide those benefits to you, why would they incentivise you to travel with them?
techie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 17, 1:29 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Programs: BA Gold, IC Ambassador, HH Gold, SPG Gold, Fairmont Platinum
Posts: 3,153
I would say be careful what you wish for. The biggest issue would be lounge access on low cost intra-Europe routes. The easy solution would be to remove it from all IAG carriers up to and including band 3. Introduce same rule that BA has about no additional status luggage on HBO fares and you have probably just saved the IAG Group a lot of money and now all its airlines can afford to be OW members.

That addresses the OP’s concerns about TP/Avios earning, but I sense it might not be everyone’s optimum solution!
Calchas likes this.
FrancisA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 17, 1:58 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 5,803
Also OW is really there to entice business travelers. Vuelings & Level are aimed at the leisure market. The economics of both don't really mix.
Worcester is online now  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread