Iin my opinion, the real problem here is that if JL leaves OW there will be one less airline to book "A" class tickets on and a decrease in first class routing for AONE tix.. Already in ASIA we are seeing the demise of intra asia first class options.. At least JL still offers this from NRT-HKG which CX does not.. This is my two cents...

could be one of the reasons why JL is going bankrupt - a lot of airlines have ditched first class completely, and others only use it for transcontinental flights. The only reason must be that first class travel demand has reduced over the years, and JL hasn't kept up with declassing on medium haul/intra continental routes.

I'm sure OW has been courting carriers but I think their emphasis on "quality" has meant they haven't moved as fast as the others, in particular Star.

As for BUD as a hub, it has no OW inter-continental flights other than to Israel/Jordan/Syria. For most flyers based in Asia, Australia or Africa getting to points in central Europe, BUD involves a double connection which makes it useless as hub - and LHR, MAD and HEL involve much more travel time than connecting FRA/MUC/ZRH/VIE or FCO/CDG/AMS. I really wish BA hadn't let LX slip into the clutches of LH back in 2004.

Part of the problem in weighing up the merits of the various alliances is that each person has different priorities in terms of what is important to them in coverage , nonetheless , I am always amused to see OW trumpet their coverage of Australia , a continent with a population of approx 20 million , and gloss over their lack of coverage of the worlds most populous continent , Asia , with a population of nearly 4 billion . I dont really believe that by having Australian coverage 'limited' to BNE/ADL/SYD/MEL/PER/CNS that *A is at a huge disadvantage - all the major business centres and centres of population are served via SIN and/or AKL . Yes , it would be nice to have NTL/HBA/CBR etc also on the *A map , and the ability to include Aussie domestic sectors would also be useful but for most purposes *A does serve Australia .

To me the biggest handicap oneworld seems to have is its inability to take Asia seriously , at the moment they have only two Asian hubs , both on the Eastern periphery of the continent , and they seem quite likely to lose one of those . Two hubs to connect to a vast continent of nearly 4 billion people !

The other big handicap OW faces is the lack of a centrally located European hub forcing pax bound for most of Europe from pretty much anywhere other than the Americas to overfly their intended destination and then backtrack . Both of these deficiencies seem far more serious to me than the deficiency *A and Skyteam suffer from in terms of lack of Australian domestic coverage .

I would love to see OW make a concerted effort to lure in MH who seem to be constantly spurned by Skyteam . A multihub strategy of KUL/HKG/NRT ( assuming that OW can hang on to JL) seems a good start for improving OW Asian coverage . If Kingfisher survive the next year or so they would probably be a good addition too ... they are already on the Global Explorer fare and that is often a precursor to OW membership .

It is all very well for OW to trumpet their 'quality over quantity' message ( with IB in the alliance ? please !! ) but the point remains that they serve only around 70% of the cities that *A serves , and if your business requires you to regularly visit those cities which are missing from the OW map , or to do multi-city itineraries in Asia then OW is never going to get your business .

To a certain extent I agreed with your post until you mentioned your comments about IB. Yes they have their issues but they are not half as bad as you have posted. I've had my fair share of issues including a dreaded ticketing problem ground staff steadfastly refused to help me with, but overall I think they are actually quite a solid carrier contrary to what you have posted.

Without trying to be rude, can I ask whether you have travelled on IB recently? If so, what was so negative about the experience? The only think I can think of is that you have to BOB when it comes to F&B unless in J, but considering BA pretty much only offers birdseed on most routes these days, IB's offering is actually very good. IMHO, the BOB options were actually superior to the offerings BA gave out before it moved to birdseed.

As always YMMV!

Fair question , I could be well out of date , my comments are based on feedback I got from clients when I was a travel agent ( which is a few years ago ) . The two airlines from which I always got bad feedback were AZ and IB , In particular I remember one client I had who cc'd me in on an email they sent to IB shortly after the pax did an AONE5 on which everything was wonderful except for the three IB sectors . I wish I still had the email as it was a real beauty - the only part of it I can remember more or less verbatim referred to the premium checkin staff at MAD - as I recall my client likened them to "surly warthogs in uniform" .


OK , I figure that this must stand for "Your ?????? May Vary" , but I have never been able to figure out what the first 'M' stands for - please help me out and in exchange I will promise to keep an open mind with regard to IB .

I still have my very poor ground experience from a few years back overshadowing my overall view, but I have to state that my more recent experience has been pretty positive. In fact every flight I take seems to be more and more positive.

FWIW, IB have now introduced flat beds on their long haul aircraft making them a real alternative to BA. I was actually meant to be on a flight of theirs last week but circumstances changed and I ended up being across the other side of the planet courtesy of AA and to be fair I was actually quite looking forward to the experience especially since I was going to hit one of the recently reconfigured aircraft.

M = mileage

:)

The AA/LY codeshare was dropped because of the dispute between the Israeli civil aviation authority & the US FAA over procedures @ TLV. Even before that, you still had to buy the AA flt # (rather than the LY flt #) to get AA EQM/EQP, and there was a significant price hit on that.

Next, LY is a lousy addition to any alliance. First, you open yourself up to all the political baggage that an Israeli alliance carries with it (i.e., will people protest BA/IB in Arab/Muslim countries b/c they are partners with LY?). Second, LY offers nothing in the way of regional connections; it doesn't help move people from North Africa to Southwest Asia. Third, OW already has a member in that part of the region -- if you admit LY to OW, WWRJD (what would RJ do)?

Finally, as noted, LY is a one-airport airline. 3 OW members already serve that airport. Why cannibalize one of their more profitable routes?

IB Expereince
 

I flew IB J for the first time a few weeks ago from JFK to MAD.
Pros: Spacious, true lie flat seats. Service was OK.
Cons: Food was not good at all, Cabin felt old, entertainment system was inop, and after moving seats I was really disappointed in the lack of movie selections.

Overall a C+ type of experience; however , this was just one data point and I would try them again.

Actually AY routings between East Asia and Europe are pretty straight without any backtracking (ICN, NRT, NGO, KIX, PEK, PVG, HKG). Of course there are dozens of other important cities in Asia and AY's European destinations do not cover every city in Central Europe. However, the most wanted connections are rather easy and fast.

I've always felt that AY was the red-headed stepchild of the alliance, sorely under-appreciated for connecting flights -- especially to Eastern Europe (it's only a little farther than Heathrow) or on to Asia. JFK-HKG (for example) is only about 1,000 miles more than JFK-HEL-HKG, and I kind of like splitting up that flight -- not the mention the fact that JFK-HKG on CX is often significantly more expensive than JFK-LAX/SFO-HKG (which is even longer).

You mean only a portion of "most wanted connections" are rather easy and fast. The other alliances cover many more cities in Central Europe from all important cities in Asia with one stop and less backtracking. OW doesn't offer e.g. SIN-XXX-NCE, BOM-XXX-VCE, KUL-XXX-ATH without backtracking through LHR (or in some cases doing the dreaded bus transfer to LGW).

AY and MA (and their respective hubs) just don't offer the scale and choice of the continental European hubs of SkyTeam and Star. Whether it's on business or precious holiday time, double-connecting or excessive back-tracking doesn't make sense, which limits the value of the alliance.

I too think MH would be a good fit with OW, both from coverage and service. I don't view IB as being that bad. Flew with them intra Europe and long haul lin business last year and thought they were OK. Intra-Europe business was better than LH, AF and BA. Long haul business was in angled lie flat seats - not much different from AF and LH, or the older MH aircraft.

I believe that it originated during the gas "crisis" of the mid 70s, TV ads took to touting the mileage of the cars, always with the disclaimer that "your mileage may vary" i.e., "that's the mileage we achieved in a very controlled test, but there's no way you're ever going to see that mileage in actual driving."

Others have provided you the answer but you can also check the Flyertalk Glossary when you see an unfamiliar term.
http://www.flyertalk.com/glossary/?letter_start=Y