The idea of Jet Kingfisher cooperation was conceived around in 2008 under the uncertainty of the recession was underway, bu it was never alive. No agreement was signed and so the idea never really went anywhere. So as far as any tie up between the two is concerned, there is absolutely no constraint.

However, if 9W prefers OneWorld, it might go that way, as GoI probably has no interest in what 9W does, as long as it doesn't go where AI goes. OneWorld is the weakest alliance though.

Yep., My Dad & Uncle, who used to fly MAA - CDG every month, used the AF flights, and from what I heard, the load was pretty good., Lately they are forced to travel in LH and not enjoying it very much,

With Malaysia Airlines deciding to join Oneworld as well, and (by all reports) Kingfisher well on track, OW has certainly enhanced its Asian presence and to an extent compensated for the shrinking of JAL. To this extent, they certainly gain from the AI fiasco.

So it's not the network you are talking about but a paucity of international gateways of Skyteam carriers. The two are different.

Dont they have a baggage handling agreement of sorts in place to ease costs? Something like at smaller airports, one airline handles for the other?

That maybe so. I don't know what the nature of the agreement is. One could be acting as an agent of the other, which is quite different from anything that would suggest some alliance.

Are you sure? I still see AF225/226 operating CDG-DEL-CDG...

Sorry. It is MAA

Now that's an interesting twist.... a merged IT/9W in oneworld - but I doubt
9W would jump in to save another failing carrier after being burnt a bit with S2... I think *A is going to get hurt in India for this, Skyteam isn't a serious player in the Indian market.

There is one factor that 9W will consider, and a reason why oneworld wasn't their pref and that is hub opportunities in Europe. OW gives them LHR as a main hub which is already bursting at the seams and too expensive / not possible to expand from. HEL and MAD aren't great options geographically.
SKY gives 9W CDG, MXP and AMS - all serious hubs (not that CDG is better than LHR, but still plenty of growth options). Star is obviously first choice as BRU gets to grow more and future options include ZRH, VIE etc (FRA being same situation as LHR, but MUC also becomes an option).

I know from the inside *A is 9W first choice but if it comes to it they might settle for skyteam, or even keep out of an alliance till the heat dies down - they've got bilateral agreements with just about everyone (CX/KA/QF/AA and MH - member elect - from oneworld), (LH,LX,TK, NH, OS, BD, SN, SA, UA, US from star) (AF,KL,DL,AZ from Skyteam). Until IT joins OW and actually allows for earning of status miles on their flights, for the international traveller 9W allows the most on options as far as banking miles are concerned.

The question remains will airlines like AA pull their codesharing once IT joins OW from 9W. MAA-BRU gets a fare amount of premium traffic on the AA code with pax connecting to ORD etc.

If 9W can continue to leverage its relationships in spite of competing airlines joining alliances then the strategy of staying out may not be so bad.
If the likes of AA gets pressure from BA/IT and cuts ties - then may not be so great for them anymore.

Excellent point, sir!

re. a possible merger 9W/IT you may well consider that it could come as GoI directive, and thus with some incentives and facilitations (just like it was said previously by Yaatri). Given the size and the comparable situation of the two, it should be easier to achieve than the previous one between AI/IC and the one with Sahara (that was the first choice by OW as a member).
re. hubs choice: i doubt that 9W would find easier to move in one of the big hubs you mentioned for * and ST (i would not classify MXP as a hub though, more a destination for point-to-point connections), where they would be reduced to act as dabbawallahs for the alliance incumbents. On OW side you get Berlin (from next year), Madrid is quickly becoming the door to South America and its growing economy, and you left out LGW where they could have more other opportunities to grow. Also BRU does not seems too high in LH priorities, and in case of an hypothetical accession to * I highly doubt they will allow direct competition on one of their locked markets, US-to-India connections.
re. alleged choice of * by 9W: they used to have a hired gun straight from LH stables as CEO, and those types are always good to swerve direction towards Cologne big momma's wills, so I am not really surprised there. By all accounts he did an excellent work straightening out the grow of the airline, however it seems curious to me when he was recalled by his handlers to head BMI, 9W apparently did not try to retain his services and quickly replaced him with a more neutral people.
As said previously the situation is still confused, and is in the best interest of all concerned parties to let it cool down for a while. I still think 9W would have more advantages going OW rather than * or ST (in strict order of desirability). After the JAL affair OW has demonstrated a lot of savvy, and they have been able to bag some impressive coups (MH, IT, LAN-TAM), i hope at the end the title will become reality and they are able to get 9W to the alliance.

I hope not! I would really like to see 9W and IT in two separate alliances.

And, from a personal perspective, 9W in Star and IT in OW.

TAM has written to all its *GOlds asking for our views on the issue and have empahsised the decision is open. Has there been a decision already on which alliance LATAM will join?

No decision will be made until at least 2012.

That's the official position, I would guess they have actually made a preliminary decision, but will not announce it until they have full regulatory approval.

Despite its difficulties I will welcome IT to oneworld, however I strongly oppose any degradation of the AA-9w relationship.