The Beginning of the End for the OneWorld Alliance?
Jul 10, 2003 | 2:10 am
#1
Original Poster
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
The Beginning of the End for the OneWorld Alliance?
With the recent changes on BA, QF, LA, and AA's new chart, are we seeing an unravelling of the ties that bind the OneWorld alliance or at least the ties that bind a OneWorld elite to OneWorld flights?
For mixed leisure-business travellers, BA and IB are to be avoided, if frequent flier mileage and tier status are sought. For AA members QF award flights from the US to Sydney are out of the question basically. Apparently, LA does not honor certain fare classes for the appropriate cabin.
Most oneworld carriers don't treat the elites of other carriers any differently than non-status members (except for check-in/lounge privileges).
As a personal example, I am now just as well (or better off) flying the AA-codeshares on Swiss to/from India/Middle East than I am flying on BA. US-UK BA flights give no credit to my AA account at all, and in my BA account they are only worth 25% of actual miles travelled except for my few (6) business trips on BA. Flying London-Europe on BA or IB is basically pointless as leisure trips give 25% credit at most, and business trips that are less than 2.5 hours are mandatory cheapest coach now which means 25% mileage too or nothing at all.
The implications of the alliance based on AA's new award chart also may give indication that the alliance is not any more important than other AA partners.
In the short-term, OneWorld carriers benefit from this unravelling in that they don't have to pay for members using their status on other carriers (principally lounge access), the carrier to whose program we belong can route us on the cheapest AA partner instead of letting us have a full range of choices within the OneWorld alliance; and AA has to buy fewer miles from other airlines on which AA members are flying. These changes (and especially an allowance to only accumulate full mileage and tier bonuses on your own airline) would actually drastically reduce the number of OneWorld elites and liabilities/costs associated with tier status members.
[This is in the short-term. Long-term, I predict they lose out as price becomes the primary currency for getting loyalty -- something that airlines should avoid if they don't want to be a mere commodity.]
[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited 07-10-2003).]
For mixed leisure-business travellers, BA and IB are to be avoided, if frequent flier mileage and tier status are sought. For AA members QF award flights from the US to Sydney are out of the question basically. Apparently, LA does not honor certain fare classes for the appropriate cabin.
Most oneworld carriers don't treat the elites of other carriers any differently than non-status members (except for check-in/lounge privileges).
As a personal example, I am now just as well (or better off) flying the AA-codeshares on Swiss to/from India/Middle East than I am flying on BA. US-UK BA flights give no credit to my AA account at all, and in my BA account they are only worth 25% of actual miles travelled except for my few (6) business trips on BA. Flying London-Europe on BA or IB is basically pointless as leisure trips give 25% credit at most, and business trips that are less than 2.5 hours are mandatory cheapest coach now which means 25% mileage too or nothing at all.
The implications of the alliance based on AA's new award chart also may give indication that the alliance is not any more important than other AA partners.
In the short-term, OneWorld carriers benefit from this unravelling in that they don't have to pay for members using their status on other carriers (principally lounge access), the carrier to whose program we belong can route us on the cheapest AA partner instead of letting us have a full range of choices within the OneWorld alliance; and AA has to buy fewer miles from other airlines on which AA members are flying. These changes (and especially an allowance to only accumulate full mileage and tier bonuses on your own airline) would actually drastically reduce the number of OneWorld elites and liabilities/costs associated with tier status members.
[This is in the short-term. Long-term, I predict they lose out as price becomes the primary currency for getting loyalty -- something that airlines should avoid if they don't want to be a mere commodity.]
[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited 07-10-2003).]
Jul 10, 2003 | 2:19 am
#2
Join Date: May 2003
Programs: QF WP; VA Gold
Posts: 1,014
Yes it seems that for discount Y travellers the OW links are becoming very weak.
Many of the changes announced in the past 6 months do not affect the pointy end people as much though (except redemption values.
The airlines seem to be targeting loyalty at the front of the plane and trying to loosen the strings to allow price to be the target for the back end.
With regards to the loosening of the alliance ties, the alliances generally (not just OW but *A and the others) are getting stronger and stronger behind the scenes in areas of ground handling, purchasing, marketing etc so I think they have a long way to run yet. They will have further to run as the trade barriers surrounding air travel are removed ever so slowly by governments around the world.
Many of the changes announced in the past 6 months do not affect the pointy end people as much though (except redemption values.
The airlines seem to be targeting loyalty at the front of the plane and trying to loosen the strings to allow price to be the target for the back end.
With regards to the loosening of the alliance ties, the alliances generally (not just OW but *A and the others) are getting stronger and stronger behind the scenes in areas of ground handling, purchasing, marketing etc so I think they have a long way to run yet. They will have further to run as the trade barriers surrounding air travel are removed ever so slowly by governments around the world.
Jul 10, 2003 | 4:59 am
#3
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BNE, Australia...not too far from the nearest Qantas Pub err Club
Posts: 3,636
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by GUWonder:
Most oneworld carriers don't treat the elites of other carriers any differently than non-status members (except for check-in/lounge privileges).</font>
Most oneworld carriers don't treat the elites of other carriers any differently than non-status members (except for check-in/lounge privileges).</font>
Apparently QF is very good with its OW elites...
Jul 10, 2003 | 12:45 pm
#4
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Francisco
Programs: UA 1k, SPG/Marriott Plat, IHG Plat
Posts: 1,078
Sadly, I will lose AA Plat Status this year because of the BA changes. I travel to South Asia often and BA is no longer a useful way to travel given the mileage accrual and that all my travel is in discount Y on long haul flights.
I am now on UA/TG/Lufthansa for these flights with Star Gold and although I may not get bonus miles with status when flying on non UA flights atleast I get 100% elite qualifying miles in discount Y.
This means that AA no longer gets my business domestically either....so they lose one customer on this atleast (albeit a discount Y customer)...
I am now on UA/TG/Lufthansa for these flights with Star Gold and although I may not get bonus miles with status when flying on non UA flights atleast I get 100% elite qualifying miles in discount Y.
This means that AA no longer gets my business domestically either....so they lose one customer on this atleast (albeit a discount Y customer)...
Jul 10, 2003 | 1:07 pm
#5
Join Date: Mar 2002
Programs: QF Platinum (OW Emerald); QF Lifestime Silver; BD Diamond Club Gold (*A Gold)
Posts: 4,786
Take a look around the OW-member airline boards and you'll find that the grumbles are less than few and far between; QF, BA, AA case in point.
While the OW alliance may, at a strategic level, have agreed to prioritise premium pax it is, at the end of the day, an alliance with associated schemes which exist for YOUR benefit.
If you don't agree with what each of the member airlines are doing, by all means blow off some steam on these boards, but also make sure you feed it back to the member airlines. And don't accept a response which begins by "... we realise it must have been immensely disappointing...", we all know how to cut and paste, after all!
While the OW alliance may, at a strategic level, have agreed to prioritise premium pax it is, at the end of the day, an alliance with associated schemes which exist for YOUR benefit.
If you don't agree with what each of the member airlines are doing, by all means blow off some steam on these boards, but also make sure you feed it back to the member airlines. And don't accept a response which begins by "... we realise it must have been immensely disappointing...", we all know how to cut and paste, after all!
Jul 11, 2003 | 2:38 am
#6
Join Date: May 2003
Programs: QF WP; VA Gold
Posts: 1,014
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by virtualtroy:
at the end of the day, an alliance with associated schemes which exist for YOUR benefit.
</font>
at the end of the day, an alliance with associated schemes which exist for YOUR benefit.
</font>
They may be able to market and differentiate their alliance product as a benefit to travellers - seamless transfers, shared lounges etc but that is simply to capture more of your spend and loyalty.
The airlines and any business will do what is in the best interests of themselves (and there shareholders) and we as a consumer must do what is in our best interests. If the two converge then both parties win.