burkey

I fully second the motion to have the ability to pool or transfer miles between alliance partners. It just makes sense.

Rudi

"... it just makes sence ...." FOR THE(IR) COSTUMERS.

since when do airlines think in favor (favour?) of their costumers?

Rudi

baobab: "So Rudi, perhaps I should try to get onto the (next) Swiss project..."

We (Gisela and I) are so frustrated, we thought, we might be the reason for a next swiss project ...

[This message has been edited by Rudi (edited 07-01-1999).]

burkey

Rudi's right. Too often things get locked up in corporate BS, instead of focusing on what the consumer wants. Don't get me wrong, OW has it's benefits and I know things take time to iron out, but don't give me a smoke and mirror show either.

And while I'm griping, I can't help but to go back to the AA/BA rule of not being able to accumulate miles on those transatlantic flights. Yes, AA may have the Fed on their heels, but how about at least giving us the choice to earn AA or BA miles on a transatlantic flt if the city is served by only one carrier (AA or BA), such as PHL-LHR is only served twice daily by BA. Now why shouldn't I be able to get AA miles for that flt, AA doesn't even serve that city-pair non-stop anymore. (When they did, it was only for a few months.) OK, I'm done for now.

speedbird001

I believe the BA/AA trans-Atlantic mileage situation was a Fed ruling, to placate both the British and US aviation agencies while they try and work out the ongoing alliance problems.

When I first read about Oneworld, it sounded like you would be able to transfer miles easily, i.e. use my BA miles to upgrade on domestic AA flights. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

Any other thoughts???

------------------
speedbird001

james

I thought the obnoxious might of the European Commission was thrown in as well? In particular they were insisting that BA gave up a lot of landing slots at LHR and they weren't prepared to do it. Presumably the didn't want Virgin to get their hands on them. The details are sketchy in my mind but I would be surprised if it was a unilateral regulatory decision.

burkey

speedbird -- BA and AA might have agreed to not let their ff's choose BA or AA mileage on transatlantic flts to "please" the Fed's and EC/Karl, but they don't need any approval to simply award mileage as such. They do need approval to code-share.

Well, guess what, the UK just cancelled the US/UK talks again scheduled for July 6. I'll post the press rls "In the News"

[This message has been edited by burkey (edited 07-01-1999).]

Celestar340

Speedbird001 - You missed my point. US AIrways, Midway and Alaska Airlines all have their own frequent flyer programme. Qualiflyer is one frequent programme for ALL the Qualiflyer group of airlines. Austrian's ff is Qualiflyer. Sabena's ff is Qualiflyer. Turkish Airways' ff is Qualiflyer. AOM's ff is Qualiflyer. So if SR branches off to oneworld, the emerald, sapphire, and ruby branding will appear on the Qualiflyer cards. So does that mean that other airline's members should not have elite status since their airline has not in theory joined oneworld?

Any Qualflyer member here care to comment?

james

Celestar. I don't see the situation you describe either happening or being a problem. Clearly, Qualiflyer elite staus can not become Oneworld status just because a single Qualiflyer airline joins the alliance. Accordingly, if SR wish to join Oneworld they would have to leave Qualiflyer and relaunch their own ff program. Airlines do relaunch their ff programs occasionally after all (DL, TW, etc.). Even then, they could stay in a single program with any other Qualiflyer airlines who join OW at the same time.

I guess the new program would work along the lines of: New members acquire and redeem miles in the "New SR program" only. Members with miles in both have the choice to redeem them under the "New" chart or the Qualiflyer chart when SR leave. Once a member has spent his Qualiflyer miles he may only use the "new" chart. Elite status would be determined over a transitional year, turning two levels in to three (rather like CO's elite reorganisation last year, but better managed). Even if SR did formally leave Qualiflyer, they wouldn't have to end mileage accrual or redemption with their current partners (at least for a while).

This may be a thorny issue for SR and may introduce legal and marketing difficulties, but it is a price that must be payed for joining a superior, more formal alliance. Such an alliance must have revenue advantages for the airline and hopefully service advantages for the customers. SR and Qualifyer will therefore just have to deal with it.

James

Rudi

james: Qualiflyer IS Swissair (and a little bit of Austrian and others).

Celestar340

A newspaper report in Singapore says that Swissair will not join oneworld. Does Rudi or Merry have any news on this?

Rudi

be assured, when ever I get unconfidential news, I will publish them here without delay.

james

Rudi, I don't really understand your remark 'Qualiflyer IS Swissair'. Are you saying that if SR joins Oneworld, they would keep Qualiflyer and kick the others out? Please can you elaborate? SR may be the dominant partner but there are another 8(?) Qualiflyer airlines involved, however small.

Rudi

the Qualiflyer-program would just have no future, if SR (the founder and "owner" and Sabena) would leave it.

james

OK, thank you Rudi. Given that, what do you thnk is the answer to Celestar's question? If you can't answer that for reasons of confidentiality, does Swissair have any specific reason or obligation why it should not leave Qualiflyer?

I do thank you for your patience - I am just trying to come to terms with this complex and interesting issue.

James



[This message has been edited by james (edited 07-05-1999).]