Air Berlin being forced to leave?
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89L01P20121022

Leaving??? do you think this will happen

Topic has come up before. They aren't being forced to leave, at least not yet. While this does raise questions, it remains to be seen if airberlin will make much out of the ties with air france.

As of right now I'd say 50/50. The reason I say this is that with the recent restructuring of their TATL Operations they are focusing on American Airlines Hubs. Specifically MIA, ORD, JFK & LAX.

Is there a reason they would want to leave OW? The feeder traffic from AA must be significant for their operations. They do seem to be constantly cheaper on LAX-Europe routes than AA and BA.

I would think they get more benefit by being in *O as they are the only western European member. Being in *S would severely dilute this.

Like QF/EK, AB/EY and AB/AF can work as additional relationships.

If czech were to go under, and they are hardly the picture of health, I could see air france and skyteam upping the pressure to try to get airberlin to switch

Air Berlin stands to benefit the most if it remains in One world as it already has a relationship with SKYTEAM via Air France KLM and Etihad(not in an alliance).

So it can tap 2 alliances essentially, and succeed

Kind of what Cathay is doing by establishing Star alliance relationships, Air China/Air New Zealand

I think the picture of Air Berlin's health may be even worse than Czech's...

True enough, but they also have Etihad backing them up. Czech currently is standing alone.

Still, I don't think Etihad is in much of a situation to tip in any more money if things go really belly up at AB...

The headline of this article is overinterpreting the interview. Depending on how AFKL's collaboration with EY and AB develops, we can talk about this again in 3 to 5 years (if AB still exists then). Currently AF/KL have only 5 codeshares with EY each, and collaboration with AB is not very deep either. So the whole thing is very much at the beginning and only time can tell.

:confused: What about BA?

western continental Europe.

no sane person chooses to transit LHR

Agreed! However T5 is a pleasurable transit experience IME.. then again I only ever do D-I so not sure how it is for I-I passengers.

The main question is that we do not know if AB will survive...

In the event they do, they are currently committed to oneworld.

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...-aircraft-1121

Relevant quote is towards the bottom of the article.

Airberlin verlaesst Oneworld (confirmed?)
 

Hi,

just talked to the lounge dragon of the BA Lounge.
She told me, as a AB Status Customer, that from tommorow i can use the Skyteam Lounge or as long AB has still a contract with BA, the BA Lounge.

Globeground the handling carrier of Tegel has been informed that Airberlin will join Skyteam, and the transition is being prepared right now.

if anybody has more information i would be happy to learn about it.

thanks

dp

The last credible news article was this:
http://atwonline.com/airline-finance...team-talk-1022

If(!) Air Berlin were to switch alliances, this would come with an official announcement, say, 1 year ahead. Airlines can't just switch alliances, it takes a long time of preparation to allign systems and procedures.
Also, it would be stupid of Air Berlin to change alliances now. This is an expensive operation and not really suitable for an airline in financial trouble. In particular for Air Berlin, as Oneworld membership is stabilizing the company financially.
There is a third reason: Air Berlin can currently make more money by expanding codeshares with AFKL while remaining in the alliance.
So in the best case you spoke to someone who had no clue what they were talking about, in the worst case someone took the piss out of you.
I would not be unhappy to see Air Berlin in Skyteam, in view of my personal travel patterns, but I can't see this happening (if at all) within the next say 5 years.

But is that really the case?

Anecdotally, at least, AB doesn't seem to get much transfer traffic from oneworld (and how could they, as their main bases are not oneworld hubs). I would strongly suspect that the Etihad tie-up is of far more value and importance to AB than their alliance membership.

However, if there is something about to change tomorrow, it may be that Air Berlin is becoming a Flying Blue partner, and that reciprocal lounge access and mileage accrual/spending becomes possible from tomorrow. That's the sort of co-operation envisaged under the announcements already made, and would (at least to start) only account for the routes for which reciprocal codeshares have been agreed.

It certainly would be unprecedented for AB to switch alliances tomorrow, or anytime in the very short term. The most that could happen is just the extension of the partnership to include frequent flyer programs and lounge access. (I've just checked, and KLM codes are available on Etihad flights as and from tomorrow. I can't now check, but I don't think KL codes were placed on EY flights prior to December. So, tomorrow would appear to be the first day of the actual operation of flights in the new AFKL//EY-AB collaboration. So that's all that will "change" tomorrow. AB will not suddenly drop out of OneWorld and/or suddently join SkyTeam tomorrow. They would have to give notice, to the alliances and to the general public, before doing such a thing).

The trick of AF DL PR in working:
1>, When JAL in trouble, they put lots of articles and PR mechanism stating JAL will sign AF and DL to switch
2>, When JAL in talk with BA for JV, AF put in loads of rubbish online to say JAL will definitely sign up with AF and put in oneworld membership in danger
3>, When QF signed codeshare with EK, mysterious articles always being seen somewhere in the cornor that QF will leave oneworld.
4>, Every hour again there would be rumours that CX will leave oneworld tomorrow
5>, When AA decide to go CH11, DL say that they will buy AA straight away and make AA leave oneworld...lol
6>, Malaysia Airlines......

I urge anyone stop speculating on AB's alliance membership as the management have said firmly that they would remain in oneworld for now as oneworld bring 300K (or 600K? Have to look for original article) passengers to AB per year.

Please, can you show a source for those figures? I would really like to see that.

I'm just wondering where such a high number of transfer passengers could possibly have come from, in a period of little more than 7 months.

That said, AB carried just under 30 million passengers in the year to October, so a 1% (300,000) to 2% (600,000) rate of transfer from oneworld is actually a tiny percentage...

I am merging this thread with the existing speculative thread regarding AB's future in oneworld.

Gardyloo
oneworld moderator

@irishguy28:
I remember having seen that number of 300k passengers per year, too. I don't know where; it probably was in some interview in which Mehdorn explained that AB remains committed to OW. (Maybe he included codeshare sales by AB and the expected development over the next months.)
In any case, it was exactly this number I had in mind when I wrote above that OW membership stabilized AB financially.

I think you overestimate AFDL PR.
#3 and #4 cannot be attributed to AFDL; these rumors are primarily a function of comparably loose ties in OW. #6 is a complex matter and many people here on FT believe that it was AF who kept Malaysia out of ST. #1 and #5 are an aspect of US-market-based strategic behaviour. Putting all these things together into the category "AFDL PR tricks" oversimplifies the state of affairs and comes quite close to a conspiracy theory.

Very interesting.

Referring back to the latest traffic figures for AB, that means that the 300k alliance passengers represents less than 1% of AB's passengers so far this year - and granted, oneworld wasn't a factor for the first 3 months of the year. At this rate, we could perhaps expect about 1.5% of AB's traffic in 2012 to have been generated by oneworld transfers.

That said, AB's traffic for the year to date is down over 5%. So the "new" alliance traffic, even if it were doubled, still won't cover their downturn in passengers for the year.

It would be very interesting to know how many passengers are being funneled between Etihad and Air Berlin - I can't imagine that it's (much) less than those being funneled between oneworld and AB. And with the other oneworld airlines probably taking a cautious approach to AB, and with no planned major extensions of other oneworld carriers into BER or DUS, one wonders if the oneworld feed will increase all that much in the short term.

I could, under those circumstances, see Etihad being ruthless, and pulling AB out of oneworld especially if there is no realistic expectation of that trickle of passengers turning into a flood.

EDIT: without having seen a source for the 300k number, I just realised I have no idea how "old" this number is, and the assumption I made that this is right up to the present, i.e. covering the first full 6 months of alliance membership, may be incorrect. As a result, the actual number, and therefore percentage, of passengers coming from the alliance may indeed by higher by many times. Again, if you could provide a source for the 300k figure, I'd be most grateful.

I believe this is the article you are looking for.

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...-aircraft-1121

In addition, even in a worse case scenario where oneworld membership is bringing in a relatively low number of passengers, how much more of an improvement could air berlin and etihad realistically expect by forcing a switch to skyteam? Sure skyteam is bigger, but air berlin would be sharing similar connecting traffic with czech.

Thank you -that does mention 305,000 and is dated November 23, so the 1% figure is seemingly correct.

I don't expect Air Berlin to leave oneworld (at least, definitely NOT in the short term). And I have even less of an expectation that Air Berlin would join SkyTeam. In fact, I think it's fairly obvious that is NOT going to happen.

Why would they? At the moment, they are picking up some few passengers from oneworld. That is not going to change despite the earlier EY codeshares, and now the AFKL codeshares, but would most definitely change if they left oneworld. The crossover between AFKL and AB is going to be small, at best. Looking at the routes on which they currently codeshare, there can not be a whole lot of demand for these services. But there is still the possibility that they can expand their collaboration, without requiring AFKL to "leave" Skyteam, or AB to "leave" oneworld. Similarly, AB does not have to "join" Skyteam in order to work with AFKL on further routes - it's already working with them, despite the two being in separate alliances. That just proves it's not necessary for all interested parties to be in the same, let alone any, alliance in order to work together.

The rigid days of alliance membership are coming to an end. (Indeed, for carriers like Etihad, they never existed in such a rigid world where you could only collaborate with your choice of airlines from a limited group, i.e. the ones that also signed up to the same alliance as yourself). Just look at oneworld - Qantas will soon be most interested in Emirates rather than in any of its oneworld "partners". AB is already there, with their main focus on Etihad, not on its alliance partners.

For as long as AB themselves, or paymaster Etihad, decides that having a few hundred thousand passengers a year from oneworld is useful, they will stay in oneworld. When either or both decides that's not useful anymore, they can cut their alliance ties, and still work with AFKL and Etihad - they don't need any alliance, if they decide they don't need oneworld. If, somewhere down the track, Etihad joins an alliance - and that's a big if, for now - then maybe AB will join that alliance, too. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Sorry, but isn't one of the major problems of AB TXL?

BER would have allowed/will allow AB to properly hub in one place (for example pulling some long haul flights away from DUS) and for other oneworld carriers to add traffic there (e.g. AA could switch its flights from FRA to BER, which it can't now to TXL due to the latter's capacity issues).

And of course BER is now slated to open...27 October 2013!!!

While BBI will allow AB to hub properly, there won't be many OW flights that are shifted to Berlin. FRA is such an important business destination that the hub options provided by Berlin are pale in comparison. But with eastern Europe growing, there will be a point of time when it makes sense for OW airlines to start flights to BBI and use AB's hub for connections.

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

not happening over night, but of significance for oneworld
 

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... :D

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. ;-)