Yes CX did opposite because Hainan never tried to talk to CX as Hainan thought they can reach the deal with other airlines in OW. And again in that time CX was trying to get CA in OW but failed. Hainan applied in the wrong time and used the wrong tatics.

You have to blame CX for not recruiting any mainland Chinese carriers. First they failed to persuade CA, then they failed China Eastern and in the same time they killed Hainan.

In the meantime OW is loosing MH to SkyTeam...All thanks to CX being the only member which can nominate members from Great China/East Asia area.

Now the only choice left will be Royal Brunei and Eva Air for OW in Asia.

[QUOTE=chongcao;15520109]
There is no rule that limits nomination in China/east asia to CX alone. Of course CX will be consulted on such a nomination, they are not the sole authority on China membership.

I don't think the prospect of Hainan in OW is dead. With all the other carriers committed to *A or ST, I think HU joining OW is as close to guaranteed as you can get.

There is no rule that limits nomination in China/east asia to CX alone. Of course CX will be consulted on such a nomination, they are not the sole authority on China membership.

I don't think the prospect of Hainan in OW is dead. With all the other carriers committed to *A or ST, I think HU joining OW is as close to guaranteed as you can get.

oneworld Managing Partner John McCulloch in June had stated in one interview that only Cathay Pacific can nominee any future East Asian carriers whereas AA will be the sole sponsor for any new North American recruits, and Qantas being the only Pacific sponsors. John McCulloch also said that oneworld is not in talk with Hainan Airlines at all. He was trying to hint that if Hainan wants to join oneworld, talking to Cathay Pacific is the only way in.

That is interesting , because I have found a news story from 2007 suggesting that JL were looking at sponsoring HU for oneworld membership - admittedly nothing ever came of it at the time and at the moment with the mess JL is in I can't see them having the time or energy to sponsor someone else , nevertheless I don't see why they would not have the right to sponsor a member in North Asia .

http://www.chinahospitalitynews.com/...orld-alliance/

A senior manager from Hainan Airlines disclosed that the company had already passed their application to the Oneworld Alliance, and Japan Airlines, a member of Oneworld Alliance, who is sharing its code with Hainan Airlines, will be the recommender for this application.

Incidentally , if sponsors can only come from the same geographic region why is BA sponsoring ITs entry to OW ?

I can not explain why. I can only guess from various news items I read.

In case of JAL and Hainan, I kind of think that only the four foundation members (AA, BA, CX and QF) can act as the sponsor. Any member airlines can nominee any other airlines but only the Big Four can sponse someone. If that makes sense?

The case of BA is interesting. Because IT located in India where some airline would put it as the region of South Asia and sometimes being consider as a sub-market for Middle-east/South-Asia circle. Thus BA sponsored IT instead of CX. I believe CX is restricted to Southeast Asia and North Asia market. So theoritically speaking, if Gulf Air want to join oneworld, it may be nomineed by AA but can only be sponsored by BA. If BA do not wish to sponse GF then GF will not be accepted. The same would apply to Jet Airways.

Just my two cents. I would like oneworld to explain the process someday.

That doesn't seem right, wasn't the ill-fated Mexicana sponsored by Iberia?

http://www.oneworld.com/ow/news/details?objectID=19405

Thank you for pointing that out.

I hope oneworld officials can explain the procedure. Who can be the nominee and who can be the sponsor...

I didn't think sponsorship was related to being one of the founding airlines. However, the founding airlines tend to be the larger carriers within OW and thus have the resources to sponsor a new member with regards to Pilot, FA, and IT standards.

AA has their Flagship University(which is awesome), and BA has a huge training center at Heathrow that is used by other airlines around the world.

AA Flagship University (more here)
BA Training Center
Cathay Pacific Training

I know it's been said by many others but I sure would like better coverage of Canada. I miss Canadian :(

A lot of people are holding their breath hoping WS joins OW. That would be a real game changer for a lot of fliers. Currently WS is positioned to be purely a commuting and tourist airline. Business travelers often routinely book AC even at much higher fares because the benefits they expect aren't available on WS.

Oneworld NEEDS Malaysia Airlines... You can't travel within South East Asia without having to go up to Hong Kong first. Imagine trying to plan a vacation to Phuket and Bali on the same trip... Doesn't really make sense to fly HKT-HKG-DPS... always end up having to rely on *A.

OW is so lacking in too many areas. However, keeping LAN-TAM is the primary task of 2011. Losing LA-JJ would be a major blow to OW.

Hypothetical question. Currently, LA and QF flights SYD-AKL-SCL (operated by LA) and SYD-EZE (operated by QF) are codeshares with the other airline. If LA were to leave One World (say for *A), would these codeshares be likely to continue? Or would they not do business with the enemy, as it were?

I find codeshares quite bizarre in general

This is a bit OT, but in this hypothetical instance you describe I wouldn't be surprised to see codeshares continue since I assume these routes are not easily flown or easily competed on by rivaling carriers. You see this a bit in Asia where airlines codeshare with each other even through they belong to different alliances. While alliance partners generally receive preference for codesharing agreements, it's not always possible or practical to stick with the alliance for every route.

QF has codeshares with 2 members of *A and 4 members of sky.

Indeed QF and SA codeshare on each other between Australia and South Africa.

I would like to see an US-South Africa route. Something to give an option other than connecting through London.

I would like to see more options in Latin America. Currently, no airlines from the two largest countries (Mexico, Brazil) are members. Flights within the region are limited to LAN which has 1 daily flight each into and out of Mexico and Brazil and a handful of BA flights (GRU-EZE). Flight options from Brazil to Europe are very limited (BA 2x the price of other options, IB especially difficult to deal with if tix purchased in Brazil) and also limited within Europe (connecting flights from Madrid...).

I'm hoping they will sort out the LAN - TAM merger and Mexicana will return, but for now, Latin America is not very well served by any alliances, with OW especially weak.

I agree. JFK-JNB or MIA-JNB would be nice, they're about the same distance wise, I don't know if/how the jetstream or other winds would affect these routes.

You do now also have the option of connecting in Madrid on IB to JNB (not CPT), instead of London on BA, though I don't know how the pricing/connections compare.

My thinking is more on DONE or AONE for avoiding Europe all together. But it is good to know about the connection in MAD as well, thank you.

I know exactly what you mean...I connect in LHR 4 times on my AONE5 this summer as I have to fly to RUH to start the trip. No stopovers...

I can't see BA or IB being very happy with a USA-JNB/CPT as that would enable xONEx without going through Europe (NAm-Africa-SEAsia/SWP)

Even less appealing to the existing members (except maybe QF and LA) would be any of EZE/SCL/GRU-JNB/CPT thus permitting a southern hemisphere DONE3.

I think we will wait awhile for either. Other speculations welcomed.

Fred

Are you serious ? I am a die-hard *A fan , but I will still be the first to admit that OW absolutely dominates South America ( even without TAM ) , between AA , IB , 4 current LAN airlines with a fifth in the works I really don't see how you can say OW is especially weak in South America ? What would it take for you to consider them strong ?

well, it took so long for you to openly admit you're a fanboy:D
Anyway, in the eventuality that * is able to gobble LATAM (and that is a direct will promanating from Cologne, from all places), it will cause more regulatory pains for the alliance right now (TAP has a neat lead for connections between Europe and South America and is both well feeded and aided by good ole LH), and in the future with the accession of TACA and COPA, rather than to OW.

This is already possible through AA ORD-DEL, so more shouldn't make a difference IMO.

Well that's probably going to happen anyway. AA can't sit by for much longer while DL and *A capture the entire US-Africa market. BA/IB needs to realize that the world doesn't need to transit through Europe anymore.


Well thats most likely going to happen when LAN receives their 787's. BA best get used to the changing alliance dynamics.

Not sure what you are getting at there - a USA (or for that fact North or South American) flight to Africa is not possible at the moment without connecting through Europe. Really not sure what the AA service ORD - DEL has to do with it?

I think the point was that a *ONE3 is possible without transiting Europe by doing N. America - Asia (on AA's ORD-DEL flight) - SWP - N. America.

*ONE*s including Africa but excluding Europe remain impossible due to the lack of any TATL flights to Africa on OW.

That's not true. DL, UA and SA all fly north america africa. You can also fly EK, EY and QR and connect thru mideast hubs...not to mention via CAI on MS.

I am perfectly aware of that - but we are discussing ONE WORLD, when I last looked DL, UA, SA were not members of One World!

That is not true - if you look at the One World rules, unless they have changed recently, ORD - DEL counts as 3 continents. It is not possible to go through any Southern Hemisphere continent as part of a *ONE3

AA has GOL as a Partner in Brazil, which is also Partner of DL and AirFrance KLM, anyways OW redeemptions in S. America are not good, neither easy to find.

The rules are here:
Nonstop transatlanticTravel on AA between DEL and ORD is permitted. For travel ex South America/South West Pacific- when this service is utilised a minimum of a 4 Continent Fare must be charged. For travel ex North America/Asia - when this service is utilised a minimum of a 3 continent fare must be charged.

Seem like we are getting into semantics here - the whole point of the original post was that there is no way of getting from the Americas to Africa on One World without going through Europe in one direction or the other. That reality means that if you want to include any Southern Hemisphere continent (Africa, Australasia, South America) you have to take a minimum *ONE4 - regardless whether you actually touch down on 4 continents or not (although with Africa you have to touch 4 continents).

Actually, you can get to JNB direct from HKG on CX, so you don't need to go to Africa via Europe. You can also get there (JNB) direct from SYD on QF (and a codeshare from PER)

I agree that the glaring route gap is to Africa, but the gap is across the S.Atlantic, which means that it is impossible to go RTW without going via Europe (unless you take the flight to Delhi, or a Royal Jordanian flight from AMM to JFK or ORD (assuming Amman is counted as being in Asia)).

Star Alliance has a similar gap but across the S.Pacific-Air New Zealand don't feel it's an economic route.

One World is actually pretty weak up and down the West Coast of the US-you end up using Alaskan on codeshares to places like SEA, PDX and OAK.

How can OneWorld's network improve?
 

By co-operation!

This strikes me again and again: oneworld is a collection of islands.
Admittedly some of the worlds finest like CX, BA, QF and even AA in their homeground (then again you have IB and Malev...).
But is there co-operation? Besides special round-the-world tarifs?
Why is SIN still the main link to Australia(instead of HKG or KUL)? Why can you not book reward flights with other oneworld carriers with BA online? Why do X and QF compete more than co-operate? Why is China excluded by preventing Hainan to enter?
Don't get me wrong: I like to fly oneworld. But in Star Alliance and even in Skyteam co-operation is teken much further.

Many routes do not have ATI, meaning that they cannot cooperate to coordinate schedules - otherwise, they'll face legal action. QF and CX is an example for the Hong Kong - Australia market, even if they wanted to cooperate, they can't because there would almost be a monopoly on several routes.

That's why I stated in one direction or the other - i.e. for a RTW you will have to pass through Europe from the Americas to get to or from Africa.

That doesn't make a difference.
With Oneworld there is currently no way to get from Africa to North or South America without touching another continent. This is what makes an xONE3 from the southern hemisphere impossible. Weather you are traveling west or east makes no difference.
Either AA or LA need to start a transatlantic service to Africa (eg SCL or JFK-JNB), QF needs to extend its EZE or JNB across the Atlantic (eg QF17/18 SYD-EZE-JNB or QF63/64 SYD-JNB-EZE), or an airline that already flies transatlantic from Africa joins Oneworld (eg, MH with KUL-CPT-EZE).