See my prior posting in the MAS forum. It seems the MAS Managing Director told a Malay language newspaper that MAS will sign a deal with an undisclosed alliance strongly believed to be oneworld.

I am expecting Thai Airways to switch to Oneworld. TG lost a lot of business when Singapore joined *A. I doubt both MH and TG will go to OW for the same reason that TG and SIA can't live together in *A. Which one will it be?

Please also see:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum83/HTML/000284.html

I suppose if BA and KLM strike a deal KLM will also join.

But what will happen with their alliance with NW ? I suppose AA would not allow NW into OW.

I'd rather have KLM. An excellent airline with excellent routes.

I would think the opposite, if BA and KL team up, BA will leave OneWorld. If the regulators can't swallow BA/AA there is no way that BA/KL/AA will win approval. BA/KL/NW may have a better chance.

In that case not much of OW will remain was QF (and NZ if the deal goes through) would leave with BA. I dont know about CX, but i think they'd rather stay with BA.

It would be easier for KLM to dump NW and join OW than dismantle the whole OW alliance !

I don't know about QF and all leaving with BA. As a lot of analysts are saying, BA seems to be struggling to gain some bargaining position by talking to KLM but there is no way they can offer a compelling alternative to AA.

There are cross-holdings etc. between QF and BA but the key is also access to US market and AA and UA are the dominant players here. CO and NW sued each other until things got settled (with some govt anti-trust meddling of course!)

NW/KLM do not come close to the network that AA alone (now with TWA) offers. I think the core of OneWorld will survive irrespective of BA moves.

This is the same BA that recently dropped service to KL because they saw it as totally unprofitable right???

QF and AA have always had a good relationship and virtually code-share on most US-Aust flights. But it also have a strong relationship with BA. I suppose from QF's point of view the AA relationship is more important as a lot more aussies fly to US than europe. Even if QF-BA alliance collapses and CX stays in the alliance, a lot of QF euro travel can be diverted to CX and MH (if they join).

While this is the reasonable scenario, the fact the BA owns 25% of QF can mean that the reasonable alternative will not go ahead.

Does anyone consider the possibility of NW and AA being in OW together ? They service pretty different regions in US, so i reckon they could live together in OW. Then OW would have 2 US airlines (AA,NW), 4 euro ones (KL,BA,IB,Finn), 2 asian ones (MH,CX) and QF in Aust/NZ. That would make it heaps better than *A. But maybe anti-trust would not allow NW and AA to be under the same alliance.

QuantasAllTheWay

You are forgetting EI in your compilation of Euro One world members

Sorry ! I did forget EI !!! Its really a great airline. And i think i forgot Lan Chile as well.

QATW - the data does not show that "a lot more aussies fly to US than europe", afraid it is the other way around.
Back to MH - the weekend announcement of closer codesharing ties between KL & MH would suggest that MH is more likely to fly with Wings than finally enter the One World.
P.M. Mahathir now has a key role in such decisions. The Dutch have not been involved in Malaysian politics for several centuries, unlike the Brits! Pesky Australians are the butt of much Mahathir criticism, sometimes well deserved!
From an airline perspective, this is a pity. QF was the midwife at the creation of MAS after separation from the Malaysia-Singapore Airlines, and might well be able to work much more closely with MAS throughout the region than they can with CX. In any case One World needs a substantial Southeast Asian airline, and the other choices are Lao Aviation, Vietnam airlines, Garuda, PAL, Royal Brunei, Myanmar and Cambodian airlines! That is, unless Thai flies the * coop! Koala

[This message has been edited by Koala (edited 06-18-2001).]