Why isn't there a Oneworld FFP
 

I realise this isn't a purely BA topic, but this is the deepest pool of knowledge and opinions on FT so I'm sure you can enlighten me.

Oneworld have defined the minimum tiers levels as Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald. Along with setting out some expected levels of benefits for those tiers. Such as check in, boarding, luggage and lounge. I'd like to say statutory benefits but it probably isn't.

Oneworld are also operating airport lounges now and effectively defining the minimum standards for those.

Why then don't we have a Oneworld FFP. Which defines the minimum qualifying criteria be that in sectors, flights, miles, or dare I say currency and allow people to credit their flights to such a defacto Oneworld scheme. Airlines would still be able to offer their own scheme with different terms, but the baseline would be set by Oneworld.

This would be more appropriate for the Oneworld forum.

I’m not sure it would be. Sure it’s more oneworld related than BAC related, but the collective wisdom insight and humour here may reveal some turn up some information and interesting speculation on the subject.

This is not a serious rant thread nor a demand for change. Just a lighthearted banter thread on why no Onworld FFP and perhaps the pros and cons of such.

why should there be? each individual airline has it's own market - many vastly different. how could you address that with an alliance wide ffp? no alliance has an alliance wide ffp.

and the most important point - airlines do already or are trying to make money from their ffps - why would you agree to the alliance setting up an ffp which would subtract from that? you would have to be particularly stupid as an airline to agree to that.

The speculation being that FFP’s are credit card companies with airlines attached?

it's hardly speculation if it is already happening - what do you think is the reason for the changes implemented at IB and BA by IAG Loyalty? what do you think AA's business model is in terms of it's ffp?

Doesn’t that answer the why should they question. If there’s money in it for them?

They can't just create one and expect the airlines to sign up to it. They would need agreement from the member airlines, and they're not going to get that because, as KARFA says, they make far too much money from their own loyalty schemes.

Haven't they already signed up for it? Haven't BA, and all members, already signed up to crediting their flights to the Qantas scheme and allowing a Royal Jordanian emerald priority check in. What real difference would it be to credit to a Oneworld scheme and treat Oneworld scheme members the same.

I think your question implies a disparity that doesn’t exist. Oneworld does not sit separately from the member airlines which can independently propose and implement changes. Oneworld is the member airlines. They each already have their own FFP which is optimised for their own individual markets and customer bases, so there’s no incentive for them to change that.

What exactly are you trying to achieve by creating a common FFP? Airlines have their own programmes and are willing to give up a certain amount of control to belong to the alliance. I’m sure they are happy with the current situation. Why not take it one step further and just create one single Oneworld airline?

OW in the current form is akin to the EEC...and OP wants a federalised...

None of the 3 major alliances have adopted a one program for all approach. All allow the the airlines to determine qualiciation criteria.

better to allow the airlines to define the qualifying crieria based on local market conditions, just like they are allowed to define their cabin layout and service based on local market conditions

The disparity I see is on the qualification side. The benefits are fairly well defined and adhered to. Alliance members can have additional tiers but they all conform to the basic Oneworld standards, more or less. There may be a lounge for a particular schemes exclusive members, but there remains a lounge for the Oneworld levels.
On the qualification side there is a multitude of ways to the same level in the various schemes. The airlines use their programmes to incentive customers. Oneworld could be neutral and simplified. The airlines can still have their programmes and incentives, but Oneworld would be the benchmark and option for those who aren't loyal to one airline. This is possibly the impossible ask, but where my question sits. Where is the Oneworld standards for qualification.

Some of us just want to be part of it!!

I think you to be careful what you wish for. The steps taken by BA to exclude many from status going forward are being mitigated by the ability to run off to RJ IB or any other one world scheme. A single OW FFP would likely be along the lines of the BA scheme and that’s certainly not something I would welcome

The answer is "follow the money".

Oneworld although it is a legal entity is not really a commercial entity in the same way an airline is. Each FFP has it's quirks and benefits, and typically there is something to reward frequent flyers to focus their flying activity on a selection of airlines, that drives or influences spend.

With a common OneWorld FFP the member airlines of OW would loose that flexibility to drive or influence spend, and not directly control the money from the FFP scheme.

Yes it would, so I am just moving it over there.

aks120
Moderator: BAC Forum

this posts suggest there already is an OW 'commission' that members negotiate with....
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/36970087-post119.html

I think we're again here getting to the discussion of the differences between a loyalty program and a frequent flyer aka rewards program.

As KARFA pointed out, these programs have developed from being ways of garnering brand loyalty to supplementary profit centres for airlines. One of the dangers I see is that this trend IMHO contradicts the alliance-like thinking of a group of airlines in that they are all chasing the same revenue, which would indeed favour a loyalty model. The loyalty model however means spending or incentivising passengers to your airline or alliance by investing in them or rewarding them. The current models merely feed back a fraction of what you spend in a more or less predictable way. This removes all aspirational elements of sticking with any particular airline or alliance, inserts the modern transactional nature in the business, removes any possibility of gaming the system for additional elements and consequently makes the schemes (again IMHO) downright boring.

The end result is that the modern schemes do not result in any incentive to fly any particular airline above the transactional cost of each flight booked. Coupling credit card or hotel spend into the same (airline) scheme encroaches on other well-established programs. Other interested parties like American Express, who with their Membership Rewards scheme have been offering the same thing for much longer, and IMHO much better, are far better placed.

I see no place for an alliance-wide FFP within OneWorld or for that matter any of the alliances. Indeed on the contrary, I see the existence of the alliances endangered by current developments, which are also a reflection of more separatist thinking on many levels globally at the moment. My approach has become to now join the FFP of the specific airline you fly the most rather than the alliance as I see further separation, or at least divergence, coming very soon as some airlines object to funding benefits for other competing airlines. Perhaps then we will see loyalty schemes reemerging.

Not sure how you get from A to B to C.

On B.. oneworld operates a single lounge at ICN.. and from the thread on this forum, it's not setting many standards.

There's also the AMS OW lounge.

why shouldn’t there be a multitude of ways to reach the same ow level? You write as if that’s a bad thing but fail to explain why?

what do you mean by benchmark? Easier? There are already airlines ffps which are easier within ow compared to some others. Could you describe what you mean?

Around maybe 2007 the AA CEO actually said they were planning a oneworld points currency. There's probably some old post in the oneworld forum about it.

For status only I actually think it'd be a good idea as it might make it easier for the ordinary man in the street to understand how the process of earning/maintaining status works. Especially for those who fly on more than one OW airline over the course of a year..However outwith the status side of it the airlines would want to keep their own reward programme.
All easier said than done right enough or I suspect it would already be happening.

Kinda related with the OneWorld ecosystem.

Let’s say I’m an AA OW E accessing the AY OW E lounge in HEL — does AA compensate AY for my admission in any way? Or is it just in good faith/reciprocity? 99.9% certain it’s the latter…

No I don’t mean easier, I mean standard or more accurately baseline.

Perhaps an example could illustrate. Imagine the Oneworld baseline was 60 sectors for status. An airline might offer status for 40 sectors on its metal. If a client ran only 30 with the airline and another 30 with other alliance members.they would miss the airlines status but be able to qualify through the Alliance baseline safety net.

As I write that, and given the variety of currencies, earning tables and boosters. I’m probably answering my own question by saying the process is complex, the beneficiaries are few and it’s ultimately not necessary. Market forces alone are enough to keep the alliances in check with no neee for an arbitrary scheme.

Besides, who'd want to join an FFP of an entity that can't even run a booking tool.

What's the business case for having one?

The differences in the economics of reward programs makes an alliance-wide points scheme untenable. In the United States, we have high interchange/merchant fees that fund credit card rewards that essentially drive airline profitability. Other countries have stricter limits on these fees and therefore far less lucrative credit card rewards. An alliance-wide FFP could shift this revenue in ways that I can't see the US3 agreeing to.

As we move forward, I think we're going to continue to see the erosion of brand standards and allow airlines to opt-out of more benefits. Star Alliance allows carriers to restrict access to contract lounges and designate inferior lounges between business class customers and status holders, Skyteam also allows airlines to pick and choose whose members/customers get access to even ordinary lounges. The major players of each alliance control things and if they want a change, they generally get it. Heck IAG has a wholly-owned subsidiary that isn't even a OW member with no plans to join.

Even if there were brand standards on earning status, this would almost certainly be revenue-based or at minimum give leeway to revenue-based programs and would be worse than the BAEC or AA LP schemes. It wouldn't be a backdoor to roll-back changes that these programs have undertaken.