No.
It will be put on http://www.oneworld.com/news-information/oneworldnews/ when there is.

The fact that this thread had its 12th birthday during the week speaks volumes.

Rumour on AFF of November.
Unsure how credible but is just under 18mths from initial announcement.

If nothing else, late 2012 was always the time frame since last year's announcement:News - oneworld

12 years is incredible, but what on earth took them so long to join?

MH hasn't been in the process of joining oneworld for 12 years. This thread is 12 years old. There were a few posts in 2000, it was bumped for a few more posts of speculation 9 months later in 2001, and then nothing until mid 2011 when it was announced at the 2011 IATA AGM that MH would join oneworld.

MH has been in the process of joining the alliance for a little over 12 months, which is a normal amount of time for almost any airline to join any alliance.

they were loooong time associated to KLM, hence "bound" to be induced in ST. Rumors had it that AF did not want them (for which reasons frankly don't know and would not comment on the singular pigheadedness to keep at bay a decent to good airline while at the same time inducing industry stalwarts such as GA, CI and MU), and they dragged their feet until QF came to the fore with an enticing offer on OWs behalf, that they accepted in virtually no time.

Thanks lads for clarifying this.

MH is one of the last major airlines to join an alliance, they could have reaped alliance benefits over a decade ago.

I have heard the Air France thing by another person who said they wanted to continue Codesharing with Qantas rather than being obligated to codesharing with MH. I thought that person was crazy as AF could coeshare with who they please while still having a powerful new member like MH. After you have said the same thing it makes me baffled at Sky...

Do you reckon they chose small (many of whom are naff) airlines to join Sky as they will not take control and power away from AF-KLM and will be over-reliant on codesharing with the main members as they have small International networks?

Likely. DL and AF/KL all but control Skyteam, just as UA, LH and SQ all but control Star.
The members of oneworld on the other hand, all seem to act like partners (even though some might not like others that much eg CX/QF).

Probably because OW is built on many "bilateral" agreements instead of centrally dictated co-operation. It has some drawbacks in consistency but the advantages mentioned above.

Date appears to have shifted into early 2013
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story...7&sec=business

Exact date targeted to be announced some time in September

Credit to YQY on AFF for the link

Would you not say that BA (or now IAG) sort of controls OW? Also, I don't think SQ has that much power in *A.

I haven't seen anything out of BA, AA, QF, CX, LA or JL other then what bilaterals and antitrust immunity deals they have.

So what makes you differentiate BA's role in OW versus LH's in *A and AF's in ST? Remember BA was the main reason why OW lost LX.

SQ control *A? Hardly! SQ plays in star out of convenience.