I am PLT on AA, due to miles I earned when based in the US, but I'm spending a lot more time in London and I'm thinking of switching to Star Alliance. Is this a really bad idea?

A few questions:
- Why stay with oneworld?

- Is there anything I can do to start at a higher level with Star Alliance because I have a bunch of miles on oneworld?

- Any other tips? Is this a good idea?

This depends on where you're going from London, but given BA's hub in London you shouldn't have any problems finding ways to earn miles in AA's program (especially given the new TATL rules put in place 10/1/10).

Perhaps you should better justify your considerations to leave OW behind for *A, especially living in a OW-dominant city.

Peace.

London must be the best place on the planet for a oneworld flyer. So why would you want to switch to *A? What can *A offer you that oneworld can't?

The make-yourself-feel-good Singapore Airlines with its signature outrages priced First suite and one-arm-one-leg costly A380 Business experience all for the sake of looking-good-nakedpocketed...

Just for form, you only need to post this once. Posting the same message in multiple fora is not considered polite.

Indeed. I forgot about that. ^

The ability to achieve Executive Platinum (oneworld Emerald) and get First Class lounge access etc. whereas SkyTeam / Star Alliance only have 2-tiers.

I live in a city with a *A hub, and thinking of switching to Oneworld. When you have so many members with elite status, I would rather be with an alliance that is keen on my business.... Of course if you have to connect at some other point like FRA, I wouldn't add the extra time and effort - nothing like going nonstop.

IMHO no alliance is more or less keen on your business than others.

If you are someone who redeems miles for Y, then with the new rules BA flights are going to be expensive b/c of FS.

Okay, but this is also true on many other carriers, especially in *A. Even from LHR, you can redeem AAdvantage miles in Y without paying FS on a number of carriers. So I still don't see the point.

Using UA/CO/US miles? OP said he/she had AA miles, so thats why I was comparing it to another US based * member.

+1

And why *A rather than SkyTeam?

Anyways, having "a bunch of miles on Oneworld" won't help you to "get started at a higher level" with *A, to answer your other question. But if you have status, then you'll probably be able to get bmi (British Midland) to match. See their forum for more details. bmi's Diamond Club is a great little FFP with great earn/burn rates and very handy cash&miles redemption options. However, it appears its days are numbered as it is widely expected to be rolled into the far-less attractive Miles & More program next year.

But unless you have a particular reason to suddenly favour *A carriers, I think you'd be crazy to ditch OneWorld when moving to LONDON (!!!!!!!)

I can't really speak for the European market, but I know in the US sometimes it makes sense to go with the alliance that DOESN'T have a hub in your airport, at least from a cost perspective. For instance, it may make sense flying in the DC area to go with ST or OW, as "hub attacks" will often cause DL or AA to have a fare sale from UA's hubs (IAD). It's also a benefit having several airports with the same city code, as fare sales will sometimes be applicable from "WAS", making DL's network from DCA an attractive option. Again, I don't know if this transfers well to London (Does LH or KL offer fare sales from London often? Is there a *A or ST carrier with a hub or semi-hub at LGW or LCY?). It may also be worth noting that someone looking for status on segments may want to take one-hops instead of non-stops, which is easier from a non-hub.

LHR has great lounge options in addition to the extensive OW route network. One could argue that it is an elite heavy city with a lot of competition for upgrades(?). And I would not exclude future upward fare pressure in a BA/AA dominated airport.