Etihad to build fourth alliance...
 

http://www.traveldaily.com.au/news/t...lliance/204630

The airline that stated until recenlty that they didn't believe in alliances has flip-flopped and now wants to start a fourth alliance.

They already have some kind of alliance with the stakes they have in different airlines but are inviting other airlines to join as well. Even if they're part of an existing alliance. (AB is given as an example here)

I wonder how they will make this happen and if there're no conflicts of interest. Chances of AB quitting OW just got a bit bigger I think.

So if Sky Team is known as "Leftover Team", what name will be applied to this new alliance?

Also, I'd never heard of Darwin Airline - what did it evolve from?

I believe Darwin Airline doesn't exist any longer. I thought EY renamed them to a regional carrier based in Switzerland.

Here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/etiha...-regional.html

Are members really just allied with Etihad or with each other? The former isn't really an alliance.

The article states "a shared passion for superior service, are central to the ethos of the Etihad Airways Partner concept." AB has one of the WORST customer service reputations. How does this align? Based on personal experience I would not mourn the loss of AB from OW.

I think all the airlines named as founding members are owned (partly or fully) by Etihad. There are others not on that initial list.

This bit at the end "shared pilot and cabin crew training at the EY facilities in Abu Dhabi" makes me think it's not a first among equals alliance as per (broadly!) the other three, but an extension of EY's strategy of investing in airlines. I.e. a staging post for possible future investment and/or a way to get the kind of influence EY wants from direct investment but at lower cost.

I'm sure they can get Alaska to partner up with them, AS will partner with anyone!

You can't consider it the fourth alliance bacause they don't have any US based member. Not to mention the 6 airlines but Etihad are all pretty small and the markets they serve are pretty limited.

Is a US based member a requirement of an alliance?

The cant really form an alliance with Etihad being the centre without other airlines forming bonds amongst themselves...it would be more like a corporation.

Of course no, but the U.S. is the biggest aviation market, if you don't have a partner there you'd struggle to compete with the other three.

Me neither

Looks like SAA will soon be a new member - apparently there will be a joint announcement from SA and EY on the 9th December.

Interesting. I hope that doesn't mean they are going to leave *A.

Personally, I hope the major 3 alliances put a stop on this practise by member airlines to join another alliance in the same time. You are either committed to an alliance or out.

EY is not joining any alliance, so they are free to link with any airline that is interested in their proposals. As for SAA leaving their current alliance, fair game i think. Two out of three incumbents alliances are built on the back of a massive, unjustified, and highly distorted european duopoly that never had a reason to exist.

Theyve had a reciprocal points program for a while:
http://www.ausbt.com.au/etihad-guest...irways-voyager

Great news!

AB is atm having a row with the German government over EY's influence

not to mention AB gets more revenue from OW than EY- makes sense AB occupies a gaping whole in the OW network...

And this is...

[guess] *O travel to/from/within Europe that doesn't involve UK connections.

The row was more or less solved. The Luftfahrtbundesamt (comparable to the FAA) authorized the cooperation, there are just some rather weak limitations like only EU citizens on the board.

But AB doesn't really solve that problem too well.

There are other European OW options to avoid UK transits as would be required with BA (IB, AY, S9, RJ at a pinch).

Haha, when you said that I thought of the Darwin Awards

but they are all at the ends of the European continent

no one in the middle like AB...

but you are right the full advantage of AB will only be seen if OW carriers stary flying to Brussels- CX/MH/JL

like CX and JL did to Moscow when S7 joined

going inter Europe it is a pain to have to go to a European end point -LHR/MAD/DME/AMM to say fly from France to Poland or Austria to Poland etc

You mean Berlin not Brussels?

DUS is AB's main hub and comparably central and close to BRU for intra-EU flights whilst avoiding UK taxes for long haul flights. FRA, ZRH, and CDG are actually adding a lot of distance for US to EU connections since they're further south on GC routes.

I'd say OW, by which I mean BA, doesn't value AB very highly since they were traditionally a LCC ,competitor, and still partially owned by another competitor so they are intentionally leaving them underused for long-haul whilst letting them have some intra-EU flights.

If they do leave, it will purely be because Etihad is the largest shareholder. I doubt it would be a wise business decision, but staying in also means playing second fiddle to BA trying to route everything through London even if it is a hodgepodge of disconnected airports and failing ATC computers.

Almost all BA connections are (or can be) through LHR. Not like connecting through New York is a traveller's wet dream!

I'm just trying to understand this sentiment...why would AB leaving the alliance be a good thing? Fine, people hate AB, but what negative impact do they have on our ability to use and enjoy the alliance? Surely the more option to earn and spend miles and to redeem at least some of my elite benefits to more destinations the better?

But maybe I am missing something...UNLESS AB was going to be replaced by someone who filled a real hole in the OW network [most of Africa - and almost all of it if you dont want to pay BA fuel surcharges for redemptions] would be grand.

AB stinks as an airline. If they leave it will hopefully open the door to another airline to join (possibly defecting from *A or that other alliance no one cares about). Clearly AB is better than nothing (marginally so), but a replacement is probably welcomed.

Who would you suggest would/could leave *A that would be A) better than AB and B) fill a OW hole in Europe?

SAS or TAP would be redundant. Aegean and Adria would be pointless. The others are part of LH group. So, would LOT really be that much better than AB?

yes Berlin thx!!

yeah people here do not seem to realize there is no alternative to AB

Yes, you do have a point there. I had momentarily forgotten that LH owns most of *A in Europe!

The sad part about that is Swiss was to join OW back in 2003, but had a falling out with BA.

Why can't an airline be a member of more than one alliance? Seems like it would be good for that airline and for passengers in the alliances.

Forgot to post this before. Visual representation of Etihad's interests. Taken at World Routes 2014:

http://www.viajeromillero.com/wp-con...9754566634.jpg

That can't be a complete list of partners. They parter with AA but that isn't shown.

I don't think they are meant to represent the partners airlines as in "earning miles."

I believe it represents all the airlines in which they have money invested. Own shares.