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