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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is each airline really run that independently?

Agreed in their current form they are, though in this case, we don't even have consistency between airlines with the same parent company.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

To pick up just on that point, certainly the IAG investor presentations do quite clearly demonstrate that the portfolio of airlines are run relatively independently.

Yes, Willie Walsh as CEO of the parent group entity (and his colleagues) will have a strong influence on how those businesses are run in practice, but that is not inconsistent with BA/IB/EI/VY and Level operating quite different strategies focussed on their main markets, which then provides IAG with access to a much wider range of customer segments while broadly maintaining individual brand consistency (leaving aside how some of the current BA strategy impacts its brand positioning)

Where commonality is pursued is much more on the “back end”, so procurement of aircraft and their components, IT systems, Avios as a reward currency etc, all of which are in IAG’s control, rather than alliance related activity, which are not wholly within the parent’s control.

For the UK-Ireland market, there are far more choices on EI than BA. But there's little reason to choose EI given the lack of tier points, lounge access, and business class options, unless there are no other reasonable options. In November I had no choice but to fly EI for DUB-NCL-DUB. I still ended up in row 1 by myself, and managed lounge access at both airports with Priority Pass, but I would have been happy to pay a business class fare within reason if one was offered simply to have the tier points. :)

Ha, fair enough, to be clear I would of course prefer existing BA benefits applied across all travel on IAG carriers. I've never flown on an HBO fare in Europe simply because I'm not usually able to pack that light for what is usually a 2-3 week trip across the pond.

Completely agree about Level and I think it's fine to ignore them in this context as long as they are not part of the JBA and tickets on them are not offered by BA or AA. There are numerous routes for business travel where Vueling is one of a few options, and there's really no incentive for a BAEC business traveler to choose to fly them. And of course intra-Europe OW travel options have become very poor (connect via LHR, HEL, or MAD only, none of which are centrally located).

I guess my impression was that they present them as running somewhat independently, but the skeptic in me doesn't 100% believe that's the case. :)

I know IAG has been working to standardise the shorthaul aircraft configuration (not in a good way for passengers). I understand the concepts of customer segmentation and product differentiation. But for the supposedly more valued customer (people who typically fly in business and first class and frequently), why not make it simpler for such travelers to get benefits whenever buying service from an IAG carrier? The main argument has been made that the cost to implement outweighs the benefit to IAG. Any other reasons that I'm missing?

That's a bit sneaky as I suspect therein lies the answer to your question.

On the first bit - running independently - when you've got separate P&Ls and separate management teams - that's independent enough. Sure - coordinate when necessary and where beneficial - but why introduce costs you don't have to - e.g. why give lounge access on Level when the business is about being as low cost as possible.

And to then move that onto the second point - you say you understand the concepts around customer segmentation but then go on to ignore it.

IAG thinks of it like this:
The valuable customer - the one who wants business class - can buy our Iberia product or our BA product.
The customer who wants a bit of value but isn't prepared to pay for business can fly BA, Aer Lingus or Iberia economy
The customer who wants the cheapest flights can do Vueling and Level.

So why would Vueling and Level care about the customers in group 1? And if we then take it up to a group level - why would IAG look to cannibalize BA and Iberia's income by providing benefits on Level and Vueling it doesn't need to? The reality is that if Vueling and Level offered fares at BA's height - they wouldn't compete where they need to (against EZ and FR) - so by making those offerings - they'd simply increase the low cost airline's costs while not significantly impacting revenue (because the individual would be buying a low cost fare) while at the same time removing potential income from one of the other brands who would have otherwise taken the fare.

The reality is that the low cost flyer, in the majority of cases, is going to be swayed by a £1 difference in fare, not 250 avios. And the frequent flyer who would otherwise book BA to get lounge access or whatever, wants to be able to have lounge access on Vueling/Level because they don't want to pay BA's fares. But it's the fare level that enables the lounge access.

IAG aren't looking to create an internal alliance - they are looking to have a suite of successful airlines - each with it's own market, it's own competitive message and it's own strategy - and, in additional, IAG wants a successful loyalty currency.

I see your point. If they flew the same routes, I would agree completely. Because there's very little route overlap between them (Besides LON-BCN, are there any nonstop overlap between BA and VY?), it's about the limited shorthaul route network where it doesn't add up for me. With my previous example of DUB-NCL, it didn't really make sense to fly BA and connect via LHR.

It's quite a contrast from the US carrier customer segmentation, where they segregate mostly on fare rather than brand or product. All of the mergers here have resulted in forming a single brand to expand the route network, rather than having multiple airlines to operate. In the case of LH and KL-AF their traditional separate brands has made sense as they are country specific brands and there's still a strong sense of flying the local brand carrier (whereas in the US, we almost prefer to fly the non-US brand!). Attempts in the US by legacy carriers to start separate low cost brands have never really worked out (similar to BA's earlier attempts with Go if I understand correctly).

EI was looking at introducing a shorthaul J cabin on certain routes before it was purchased by IAG.

If IAG wants DUB to become a serious hub, they may have to look at that again.

For Level and VY, we have to be honest that they are really the budget carriers and we should expect nothing more than from FR.

btw you can now buy most EI shorthaul flights to/from the UK on a BA codeshare. This would give you TPs and Avios at the BA rate, and they count as qualifying flights for status renewal. However the price is usually a bit more, and you have the inevitable complexity of managing your booking through a codeshare.

Well, VY flies a couple of routes that I could use for business if I found it attractive to do so. As it is, I flew once on VY and will never again until they change their offering. The legroom was unbelievable, and I am not a tall person. The whole feel is as was stated upthread that of a very poorly run leisure airline. I can understand and handle no lounge access when the ticket price is so low but it would be nice to have "first-dibs" at the 6 seats per flight with what I would call acceptable space, even if that is still chargeable.

Yes, this. The one and only VY flight I took was BCN-MUC on a BA code. As a BA GCH, I expect BA benefits on a BA flight, even if it is operated by a "sister-airline". BA decide the cost of that flight and are welcome to package the benefits into that price so that each traveller can select the package he/she wants. If BA had a fare on that flight that guaranteed me seat selection at bulkhead or exit row, lounge and fast-track, as well as giving me Avios, that would make it attractive to me. As it was, flying IB was far more attractive since I would get all those benefits anyway that couldn't even be purchased on the LCC airline from the same group and which was competing on the same sector.

Incedentally, that VY flight was marketed by all of VY, IB and BA. The OWE benefits were largely honoured for IB OWE's booked on an IB code but not for BA GCH on a BA code.

Thanks FrancisA and Tafflyer for coming up with a better explanation and idea of what I was trying to say than my original post achieved, with these two concise replies!

I think that for most people your first sentence provides sufficient rationale to choose EI despite drawbacks you identify later.

I actually want variety in the Airlines I fly. Otherwise it would be so dull!

If you are on a BA issued ticket in J or F arriving at LHR on BA then you get lounge access with EI in LHR for onward to DUB/ORK/SNN if the EI flight is on the same ticket.

Silver or better when flying to/from LHR have lounge access at DUB/ORK/SNN/LHR flying EI regardless of the ticketing carrier

You also get tier points as the EI flight was sold by BA under a BA code

In some cases there are legal issues around this. You cannot offer a codeshare without the approval of both countries on the route. Within Europe that’s no problem, but for instance you could not set up an Iberia codeshare on BA’s LON-MOW without the approval of the Russian government. In some cases that may require a change to the relevant air services treaty at a governmental level.

as others have said, each airline serves a different market and it's not in IAG's interest to have them all offer the same. there are lots of examples in other industries (RBS Group which owns RBS, Natwest, Coutts Brands, Lloyds Banking Group which doesn't standardise offering between Halifax and Lloyds Bank and Bank of Scotland, etc, etc etc.)

so why would / should Vuelling or Aer Lingus offer same benefits / be part of OW? yes, you / we would benefit but not the average flyer that uses them.

on that latter point, KIV that most people outside of Flyertalk will not know of the existence of IAG (which, like Unilever, is not a customer facing brand) and I'd bet the majority of their pax and the general public would not in their wildest dream think there's any connection between Vuelling and Aer Lingus.

but it is different and if anything, the trend is going the other way: IAG launching Level, AF launching their short-haul (hop ish) and long-haul long cost (forgot the name), LH transferring various s/h to Germanwings now Eurowings and launching / running l/h via Eurowings as well. So the trend is towards different brand to cater for different markets - not just based on regions.

IAG may have chosen not to align tier benefits across its group, but plenty of other airline groups offer their frequent flyers points earn and applicable benefits on their LCC subsidiaries/group airlines: LH group and Eurowings, Aegean and Olypmic, Singapore and SilkAir, Qantas and Jetstar - there is a precedent for this. IAG must have considered this, and either decided not to do offer it, or perhaps has not got round to deciding on or implementing changes (as far as I remember, the recent investor presentation mentioned something along the lines of looking at a common loyalty proposition across the group).

As a customer who has flown BA, VY and EI, and experienced differing points earning opportunities/status benefits on each, I would prefer all IAG airlines to join (in the case of EI, to re-join) OW, as this would make flying these airlines more attractive for me as a customer, but I recognise that there would be costs to these airlines joining OW, and that this may not be something that IAG wants to pursue for all airlines in the group.

However I do think IAG is missing a trick by not extending points earning (including tier point earning) and applicable/easily transferrable points status benefits across airlines within IAG. True, this is possible to some extent with codeshares, but not everyone flies from a single country to destinations in other countries and back. I have needed to fly intra-continental Europe routes, and from continental Europe to UK regions on routes where VY operates and BA does not have a codeshare on the route, and there must be many others in this situation across IAG's route network.

If there is nothing to be gained from booking VY over Easyjet or Ryanair, a regular BA customer has no incentive to book VY for the occasional flight they need to book on a route where BA do not offer a flight but VY and others do, and similarity for a regular VY or EI booker booking the occasional flight on BA. Lufthansa and others obviously think that this makes sense for them.

The current system is a confusing mesh of rules regarding lounge access and other status benefits on different carriers while making points earn conditional on how the ticket was booked, and many flyers who participate in IAG's loyalty schemes, but predominantly fly one airline may not be aware the detail involved, and book their ticket in a way that reduces or negates points earn and prevents status benefits applying, then be disappointed by their airport or in-flight experiences.

In particular, given VY's situation as an airline owned by IAG and not IB, it makes little sense that IB frequent flyers booking on VY get a different package to BA frequent flyers booking on VY.

​​​​​​​Offering easy points earn and status benefits across IAG group airlines for IAG group frequent flyers, as LH group do, might keep some bookings within IAG that presently go elsewhere, and would improve customer loyalty and brand image amongst IAG group airlines. In most cases, the cost to IAG would be negligible (priority check in and boarding don't cost the airlines anything; increased baggage allowance and seat selection benefits probably do not cost much as not all customers bring more bags, or would use paid seat selection; while lounge access is a relatively low cost which is accepted when an frequent flyer already has status with that airline). IAG might find that the benefits of this could outweigh the costs.

To be clear, it was more the point that I wouldn't book a shorthaul economy connection if I have a choice, because the price is the same and it's a bit of a waste of tier points. :)

In part because BA offers these flights via BA.com... when you book a codeshare on AA or IB or QR you get the same OW benefits.

Agreed. It is rather odd that IB passengers get a different package than BA passengers when traveling on VY, which is a big part of what spurred me to start this thread. :)

You miss out on collecting a small number of tier points as its Y only, that said EI is more reliable on DUB-LHR and T2 is so much nicer than the chaos at T5 and if you arrive into T5B the time to gate isn't hugely different as you can grab the T2 bus from the hidden door in T5B. Folks in my office insist on DUB LHR on EI due regular delays when past flying BA, sure delays happen to every airline but BA shorthaul is always the first to go wrong.

If you travel Y there is no difference at all

It works both ways Aer Club earns nothing unless its EI code, EI aircraft. No lounge access in LHR flying BA either, so BAEC is doing better. That really is where the complaint lies inconsistency. Flight ticketed by an IAG carrier on another IAG carrier with an IAG code should be status earning. The lounge etc is a separate issue (cost)

My other reason for having not chosen EI is T5 does give me the CCR, cabanas, spa pre-bookings, etc. My regular longhaul flight arrives in T3, so I don't get to use the CCR as much as most members. That said, I've yet to actually fly out of T2, so maybe it's worth a try.

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/brit...os-points.html popped up yesterday, which further illustrates the challenge here. corporate-wage-slaves provided very informative and detailed instructions on the process to get VY tier points into your BA account, but the OP decided it wasn't really worth the effort. I came to the same conclusion on a recent pair of EI flights.