I think there should be a wager to see which delayed airport opens first: DOH or BER.

I presume most of us will agree that such a change of alliance will not happen over night and that ties in alliances - in oneworld especially - have losened.
But there seems to be little facts agreed upon as to the costs of such an alliance-hopping and very different opinions on the value of Air Berlin to oneworld and vice-versa.
In spite of the short-term denial from AB Coo Gregorevich (ex KLM/Martinair) however, the possibility does seem to exist: AF/KL is publicly pushing for such an alliance change and Etihad has it's own reasons to be biased against oneworld (and whoever pays for the party chooses the music).
Certainly AB couldn't financially afford a change, certainly Etihad can't buy majority shares in EU-airlines, but a sceanario like EY buying a large minority share in AZ, then trading in both their shares in AB and AZ for a smaller share in bigger AF/KL and by increasing this share enabling AF/KL to buy deeper into AB and AZ have already been discussed elsewhere.
To me it seems that AB is currently making more than desperate cuts and trying to aquire capital on the free market even at disastrous terms just in order to avoid to use up the remainder of their credit from Etihad or even having to ask for more. The public criticism of AB Ceo Mehdorn by Etihad fits into this scenario and could indicate AB is struggling for their last bit of independence from Etihad and to stay in oneworld.
Admittedly, recommending the lounge of a member of a rival alliance to all your status customers (and not only AF/KL codeshare passengers) in Berlin is certainly unprecedented, but probably BA isn't unhappy, as they will have had more AB customers in their Berlin lounge than their own customers (paid for, but taking up scarce seats).

Just as many of you I am disappointed, that AB still has not taken proper care of fair and correct advantages for oneworld status members (entering number in reservation, free seat selection, seat blocking, entry to pseudo-lounges...), shows little effort to fly to oneworld hubs and offers very poor mileage credit for oneworld airline's flights (at least Etihad treated equally bad) to their own customers.
But equally I see too little effort from oneworld partners to connect to Air Berlin flights: S7 was AB-partner already before either's oneworld entry, CX goes everything alone, QF is lately obsessed with fighting their alliance partners, IB at least now has entered into a few codeshare-flights. But where are LAN, RJ or JAL? And where is BA who brought AB into oneworld? Are they not interested to free up slots in LHR for their partner to feed their own longhaul instead of now flying to DUB parallel to their own codeshare partner?
Only with AA and AY seem to be working successfully with AB to the benefit of both sides and indeed the number of English-speaking customers on AB flights has increased to my impression.
Agreed: waiting for your hub to get finished is a good reasons for partners not to fly there. But it doesn't look like this will change once the airport is opened. Yields and potential customers within 2h driving distance might be slightly lower than Frankfurt (if this were the main criteria everyone would fly to DUS), but having an extensive onward feeder network must be of some value.
It is certainly understandable that BA have their hands full with integrating BMI (having to put up with 3 terminals in LHR again is certainly a massive setback) and IAG with IB and that Willie Walsh's "shopping list" issued last year (including TP, AY and AB) is no longer of interest. Especially after BA burned enough money in Germany (ironically DBA is now part of AB) and France it is understandable they allowed Etihad to step in as AB begun to struggle.
It certainly didn't help the cause that BA then favoured Qatar instead of EY into oneworld. EY in my view would have been a better match with a hub where people might want to fly to and established links to oneworld members and partners (AB, EI, UL, MH, ...). Etihad's muscle flexing (AF/KL; Virgin Australia) in advance of negotiations certainly had negative effects, but Qatar did the same towards Airbus (A346), Boeing (B748F) and it's Cargolux-partners. And given BAs track record on finding partners (KL, LX, IT, AB...) I had hoped oneworld would opt for EY.

So, Oneworld doesn't offer enough for a member struggling to remain oneworld member against it's biggest shareholder.

But what can Air Berlin offer to Oneworld?
I still believe that it is a big mistake to believe that you can serve the biggest market in Europe (and from oneworld view this should include Poland, Chzekia, Slowakia, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Benelux and Germany, all connected via AB) from the outside. No sane person flying within Central Europe will connect via LHR. It is the same error as to believe you can serve the market in China and tie frequent customers there only via Hong Kong or the African continent via Comair. In fact, KL always benefitted greatly from the fact, that due to slot restrictions BA even have moreless deserted their own backyard in the UK, which could also be connected to Central, Eastern and Southern Europa via AB.
When BA invited AB into oneworld I had hoped the lessons from the failed attempts with KL and LX had been learnt (after all AB was the last potential partner still available), but I am no longer convinced they have.
I have read some disappointed experiences from oneworld customers here. I guess most are due to the poor treatment of status advantages by AB. But comparing my many flights within Europe (only comparing economy, which is sufficient on shorthaul - but I agree not satisfying after a longhaul connection) AB, in spite of recent cuttings in their network and their service, still is one of the best carriers in Europe (overshadowed by TK, on par with BA,LH, TP, LX and OS, slightly better than KL and AY, noticeably better than AF,SK and 4U, miles ahead of IB, UX and FR).

So the question really is: will AB finally prove to oneworld, that they are worth more assistance from oneworld members to help them stay in the alliance against the will of their biggest shareholder and probably bring their partners Meridiana and Pegasus into the alliance, further closing existing oneworld gaps in Italy and Turkey. By the way: Hainan is also a partner of AB.

it makes perfect sense for AB to stay in One world, it is the only alliance that gives them the most opportunity to grow without directly competing with a One world carrier


Cathay on the other hand should leave with Oneworld alliance members actively trying to compete against it in their home market!!!!, no other airline alliance has an airlines facing that

Perhaps BA will be operating from their spanking new hub at BIG (Boris Island Airport, GB) before those open...

Total BS. How about JFK-LHR (AA/BA), US-NRT (AA, JL), MIA-MAD (AA, IB), MIA-SCL (AA, LA) just for a few important routes for start.

While I don't agree CX should leave OW, in your first 3 examples there's essentially no competition as joint-venture agreement in place. AA and LA have a good degree of co-operation, too. On the other hand, the only carrier CX / KA now has joint-venture is CA, a *A member.

not BS

Cathay has a much greater % of its routes competing with Oneworld carriers than any other one- it is fact.

If that's true, then perhaps CX should open up more routes!

I can't imagine that there are many other oneworld carriers operating on midhaul/shorthaul sectors to/from Hong Kong, though - care to list a few?

Of the oneworld airlines, it appears that Air Berlin, American, Iberia and LAN don't even serve HKG, so the amount of overlap on longhaul routes can't be any greater than, say, BA experience at LHR.

I don't see where this supposed much greater level of route overlap can therefore arise.

CX/KA flies to 80 cities from HKG. PER, MEL, SYD, BNE, TYO and LHR are their only routes which are also served by another oneworld member.

That is what I thought until I had to fly via LHR this year, because BA was absurdly cheap on a favored route. And I can tell you: Much better than CDG and ORD... ok - not really fair comparisons. ;-)

I would question a person's level of intelligence if I heard them say that QF served the HKG-PER market. Yes QF fly PER-HKG round trip three times a week (CX - ten) . In my estimation they are handing that market (and BNE) to CX on a silver platter. The other Australian <> HKG routes have more flights by both parties involved, but I still wonder about the served part.

Unhappy wandering

Fred

http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...in-china-91019

well this article thinks cathay is replaceable-I disagree

at least Air Berlin is not in such a position so Oneworld makes sense for them

AB will probably be bankrupt in a few years anyway with a business model that tries to cater to full service, low cost and charter clientelle. EY can't keep buying shares as there is a limit.

As for all the odd remarks about EY giving AB tonnes of feed yet OW giving no feed at all, that is what I cannot understand. AB/IB/AY/S7 and co all have more flights to Germany than EY could ever hope for (due to bi-lateral restrictions).

AB has a poor network consisting of mainly lesiure routes, Oneworld have 2 decent Eastern European hubs at DME and HEL so are fine without it.

The most value AB has is through Niki at Vienna who actually have a decent Eastern European network, goodness knows if Niki where independent of AB if they would still be in Oneworld but I see them as a valueable niche complementing HEL and DME.

I am glad Oneworld chose QR over EY, they are bigger with a better network and better quality. The last thing Oneworld want is some financial basket case that gets subsidised with oil money who is buying struggling airlines because their network is poor compared to TK/EK/QR therefore are trying to show muscle flex through other airlines.

OW should get rid of CX and instead try to lure in CZ/MU/HU. Whilst they are an amazing airline they are hindering OW in China.

Africa is a tiny market currently, sure it will grow but when it grows new airlines will pop up. It is in the very very early development stages yet and there is opportunity. More developed markets like E.U has more of an issue where new airlines are less likely to rapidly expand and seek alliance membership.


Iberia at MAD?

And LHR is a perfectly fine transit point and is far superior to rivals CDG and FRA.

CX leaving Oneworld means oneworld looses HKG-huge corporate hub and is even set to take over New York as the largest Financial center in 2016.

also as CX is a founding member I do not think they can evict it!!

i agree with your post completely bar the above point. OW was due to induce MU but, as the story goes, in the same period CX took over KA so some bigwig in CNAAC felt OW got already their local airline, and gave the green light to comrade chairman Liu Shaoyong and his backers in Paris and Amsterdam to scoop MU to Skyteam. Since the whole KA affair was organized in Beijing basically to save an almost bankrupted CITIC (the then mayor shareholder) I would not discount the whole matter being suggested and/or urged by certain European diplomatic circles well introduced in Beijing, very keen to reproduce in one of the most forecasted growth market the comfortable duopoly already present in the continent.
I always felt that MU membership is the most shaky about the ones in China now. It is only a matter of time, probably when Liu is moved on to another position or god forsake it, goes through a rough period, before MU will be extracted from ST and reassinged to another alliance. OW probably it is placing their stakes for the occurrence, and this would avoid the embarrassment to go upfront with CX over Hainan membership.