I find star alliance is far better than one world. Especially in North America.

Extra baggage allowance is a published benefit for BAEC Gold and Silver - 2 x 32kg in any class of travel on BA metal.

And other OW airlines similarly offer extra baggage allowance to their own elite members. However, unlike *A, extra baggage allowance is not a OW elite benefit.

Indeed and for me, the extra baggage allowance is the only thing that *A elite membership offers that is better than OW elite. IMO, OW Emerald is a tier above *G - the better comparison is perhaps OW Sapphire and *G.

bs
 

It's all hype and branding. Very few actual benefits exist for the traveler.

The most important ow advantage is the relaive lack of inconsistency and hassle. I find both *A and ST to be decent if you've chosen the right carrier, awful if not. With the exception of BA CW, by far the worst business class I have ever flown, OW is quite consistent. I suppose that is why I have reamined so OW centric, although I'm losing BA Gold this year.

Lounge access, priority and online check-in, the oneworld rtws and global explorers.
What else are you looking for.

I presume you are referring to shorthaul? BAs longhaul product is great.

CW = clubworld = longhaul business class

I too dislike it - it is narrow, claustrophobic and shoddy build/design (shakes, footrests that do not work and table in the wrong place). That said, there are also far worse business class products.

I agree with you. The extra alliance wide luggage allowance is the only thing *G delivers over OW Emerald. But it is an important benefit. Especially nowadays where charges for bags have become substantial.

Apart of not having alliance-wide extra baggage allowance for tier card holder (and AFAIK this is mostly due to BA reluctance) OW also does not feature alliance-wide MFU opportunities as opposed to Star. As we all know only Asia Miles can be used to upgrade other OW carriers (AA and BA) flights from certain booking classes.

That's likely to change, at least for IB, AA, and BA given the antitrust exemption.

I find CX's business class more claustrophobic, but agree about the footrest - one would've thought BA would have fixed that with the latest generation of their CW seat. Nevertheless, on HKG/LHR routes I prefer BA to CX by a small margin.

CX seats all have direct aisle access and the seat seems a lot longer than BA's. Entertainment options on CX are far superior to BA. Given the choice between CX or BA I'd definitely take CX. I also would take AA over BA but this is because I can sleep quite well in the sloped seat and I find the BA cabin feels positively claustrophobic in comparison to AA or CX.

I'm *G and Emerald on OW and go out of my way to take OW. The first class lounge access/check in lines that Emerald offers is far superior to anything *G offers and OW carriers are more consistent in applying benefits alliance wide as opposed to *G where SQ in particular gives *G flyers the big middle finger salute whenever possible. Not sure how it compares with ST but I don't care to fly on the airlines in that alliance so I can't comment on the benefits.

I beg to differ on AA vs. BA, as I want a flat bed. And I don't care about entertainment so much as I only watch 1 - 2 movies per long haul flight on average.

But I agree with you that OW Emerald is way better than *G as I can always rely on 1st class check-in being quick. That is not always the case with business class check-in on *G. And I dislike the habit of some airlines differentiating between *G and business class lounges as it feels like 2nd class treatment.

And I always thought the CX seats are the chicken cage claustrophobic ones....