FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   British Airways | Executive Club (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club-446/)
-   -   Why doesn't IAG standardise on OneWorld and other benefits? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1883598-why-doesnt-iag-standardise-oneworld-other-benefits.html)

dylanks Dec 19, 17 10:22 am

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.

golfmad Dec 19, 17 10:49 am

Interesting thread but perhaps better suited to the oneworld forum?

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/oneworld-411/

dylanks Dec 19, 17 11:52 am


Originally Posted by golfmad (Post 29193093)
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? :D

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.

MPH1980 Dec 19, 17 12:06 pm

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.

LondonElite Dec 19, 17 12:07 pm

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.

Worcester Dec 19, 17 12:47 pm

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.

dylanks Dec 19, 17 1:21 pm


Originally Posted by MPH1980 (Post 29193464)
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 (Post 29193473)
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 (Post 29193666)
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.

Calchas Dec 19, 17 1:28 pm


Originally Posted by dylanks (Post 29192982)
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.

LordBuckethead Dec 19, 17 1:42 pm


Originally Posted by dylanks (Post 29192982)
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.

Calchas Dec 19, 17 1:46 pm


Originally Posted by LordBuckethead (Post 29193923)
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?

LordBuckethead Dec 19, 17 2:27 pm


Originally Posted by Calchas (Post 29193942)
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.

dylanks Dec 19, 17 8:41 pm


Originally Posted by LordBuckethead (Post 29193923)
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 (Post 29193942)
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.

techie Dec 19, 17 9:19 pm


Originally Posted by dylanks (Post 29195407)
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?

FrancisA Dec 20, 17 1:29 am

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!

Worcester Dec 20, 17 1:58 am

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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:44 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.