The question is self-explanatory? Why has OW stayed static, in terms of the number of airlines, over all these years, while the other 2 global alliances are increasing.

In the other thread, it is suggested that the proposed 9th airline, may not be joining after all:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=436190

One World should get more Asian airlines - for transpacific routing between Asia and North America, it seems that one's options are somewhat limited between Cathay Pacific and AA. In contrast, Star Alliance has Air Canada, UA, ANA, Asiana, Singapore Airlines, Thai.

Short answer: BA.
Long answer: OW prefers quality over quantity, and has a mostly adequate route structure (better than Star and Skyteam which have huge holes). But OW was always counting on JL joining to fill the Asia void, and that hasn't happened (yet), also CX has been slowed in getting routes into china. Both Star and Skyteam have actively worked at filling the voids in their networks, leading to considerable improvement (though for my routings both are worse than OW today).

Can you elaborate on your answers?

Why is BA so resistant to other airlines being added? Why did it prevent Swiss Air from joining OW? By the way, does BA have domestic French or German subsidiaries, which are considered by virtue of affiliation with BA, to be members of OW?

I thought that the other 2 global alliances had an adequate route structure - where do they have the holes, that OW does not? From my perspective, with or without Malev - Star Alliance is beating OW hands down, in terms of central/western Europe - esp in terms of the German speaking part of the continent. In terms of Africa, perhaps BA is equivalent to LH/Swiss Air and AF/KLM (although this statement could be debatable) - but Star Alliance will have SAA joining sooner or later. For now, none of the 3 global alliances have a Middle East carrier. None yet have a Chinese or Indian carrier - although you could say that CX is a Chinese carrier - but as you say, it does not have a full "domestic" Chinese route network.

In terms of the Asian carrier, why is JAL so resistant to joining OW - esp with ANA (and other major Asian carriers) in the Star Alliance - do not most airlines make money joining a global alliance - if one uses that argument that some people travel on a given carrier because of the convenience/increased flexibility in using other carriers of the same alliance. If JAL continues to procrastinate - what about other Asian airlines joining OW - perhaps Malaysian Airlines - some people say that it is of fairly good quality.


In terms of the US presence, the other 2 global alliances have 2 and 3 members respectively - I believe they cover the US domestic market more extensively than AA - even if AA is the largest airline in USA. I wonder whether Alaska Airlines would be ever considered for OW membership.

Last, but not least, since Canadian Airlines was absorbed by Air Canada - there is no OW presence in Canada - although there is no alternate full carrier in Canada which could potentially join OW (Although Westjet is a LCC/discount carrier - it does have some features of a full service legacy airline - I wonder if OW would ever consider Westjet for (at least associate)membership). Sure, one can use AA or CX or BA to go from a few (but limited number of Canadian) cities to their hubs and beyond - but the average Canadian would like to go to foreign countries directly from any city that they live in, to a foreign destination. Personally, I would prefer to fly on a OW airline, than on a Star Alliance airline- but with the amount of domestic travelling I do - and earning FF status/qualifying elite miles is important to me - my practical option is to fly on AC, and its Star Alliance partners.

Is this meant to be tongue-in-cheek?
*A beats both of the others hands down in terms of network coverage and routes, and, with the exception of the SWP area, Skyteam is a bit better, than OW, too (more Africa, Middle East and N. America flights, more Eastern Europe destinations, 5 hubs that are convenient for intra-Europe travel). And that's before the next round of additions to ST (KQ, RO, UX and CM pretty much confirmed for 2006, SU and CZ wanting to get in as soon as they meet some criteria) and *A (SA and LX a matter of time).
Obviously one person's routes will be different from anyone else's (especially if you are fortunate enough to be using hubs as O/D points often!), but that doesn't mean that OW isn't being rapidly left behind.
I also think that it's not only BA that doesn't let OW expand. It may have been culpable in the LX case, but I'm sure AA would like to remain the only N. Am. airline in OW as well as that CX doesn't have a problem with being the only Asian OW member. To me it seems like a completely different mentality from the *A ("let's get everyone in here and we 'll eventually figure out how to make it work") or ST ("we don't mind a bit of overlap if we're getting decent coverage in return") ones.

FG, I think youre making some unfair assumptions.

1. Airlines will necessarily benefit from an alliance. This isn't correct. They think they might benefit when they join, or they wouldn't have joined, but getting out of alliance can be very difficult when the alliance doesn't work for them any more. Look at Mexicana for an example. There is not only a cost of entry but one of exit and many airlines that derive no benefit from an alliance are hesitant to leave because of this. See Thai as an example.

2. Oneworld makes all the decisions. There is no "Oneworld" per se, there are seven airlines that make up Oneworld. It's not a federalist system and there is no overriding authority that makes rules that bind the members when a majority of members disagree. The rules are made when the member airlines want to act as a union, an alliance as it were, in order to promote the best interests of the alliance. In addition, the airlines being asked to join have a say in the matter as well.

3. Oneworld hasn't asked AS to join. No one knows for sure, but chances are above average, if no absolute, that Alaska Air has been asked to join Oneworld. See number 1 for reasons why they havent.

4. Oneworld would take anyone who asked. As Number 6 said, Oneworld tends to be particular and not interested in adding every airline under the sun. During the downturn of the past three or four years, not one Oneworld airline declared bankruptcy (maybe Aer Lingus but I think they avoided it), not one went out of business completely, none are in bankruptcy now, and with certain exceptions the airlines were some of the most profitable in the industry. Certainly as a whole the alliance was by far the most profitable out of the big three.

You answered your question about Canada. The geniuses north of the 48 didn't think that creating a virtually monopolistic airline environment would be a bad idea, so if you want more service then start asking questions of the Canadian lawmakers. CP was happy in Oneworld and Oneworld was happy having them. But there is really no viable Canadian airline that Oneworld would be interested in besides Westjet, and frankly, American serves most of the main Canadian gateways so I am not sure how important the market is.

BA didn't want Swiss because Swiss was (and still is) losing money like crazy but was too arrogant to admit that they needed to give up certain things to survive. The most publicized was the frequent flyer program. BA wanted to replace the Swiss program with BAEC and Swiss balked so BA told them to stuff it. Although this might not have been the best for some individual consumers, can one blame BA for its actions? It has a market that it needs to protect and will do what it can to achieve that. I have no problem with ditching Swiss. In the end, it has been proven that Swiss was not viable on its own and jumped on a buyout for pennies on the franc.

As far as the Germanic countries, what airlines are there? Air Berlin? Besides, Oneworld can focus on a market like India with a billion people, one like China with almost a billion and a half, and a market like Africa with probably near a billion compared to Germany with 75 million. With Malev appearing to join (and I don't buy into the hype about the LOT coalition) most of Eastern Europe is covered. Unfortunately, Lufthansa has such a lock on Germany that it's an impregnable market except for LCCs and Oneworld isn't really a LCC kind of alliance. Its one LCC became an LCC after being part of the alliance for several years.

JAL seems to want to remain outside any alliance at this point, though it is made some recent moves to want to consider it again. If you do some websearches, there are many articles from the late 90s when Oneworld was created stating that JAL was a sure thing for OW. Didn't pan out that way, unfortunately. I have read a lot about Asians being skeptical of alliances in general but I don't know the reasons. No doubt, though, that if JAL felt it was in their best interests to join that they would.

BA did have airlines in Germany and France. Deutsch BA was sold off and is now DBA. The same for the TAT which BA did own.

In response to your points - most, but not all, airlines will benefit from being members of an alliance. Sure, you are giving examples ( I would define them as exceptions) of airlines who will not find any benefits in joining (perhaps JAL, Alaska) or staying (perhaps Thai, Mexicana) with an alliance - but most airlines are eager to join an alliance - why are *A and ST expanding by leaps and bounds - but not OW? Talking about Mexicana or Thai - have they been approached by/or approached OW in terms of joining them?


I have no issues with your statement about OW being selective (perhaps more selective) in the airlines it invites for membership - compared to the other 2 alliances - but notwithstanding that - why are the remaining quality airlines in the world not joining OW (including Thai, including one of the Gulf airlines - if not Emirates itself)? In terms of Asians being skeptical of any perceived advantages in joining an alliance - that does not seem to be the case with OW or ST - in particular, I can not understand why JAL would want to stay out of an alliance, while its director competitor ANA is happy enough with being a member of Star Alliance.

In terms of the German speaking countries - all 3 countries - which are quite wealthy and provide a lot of passengers for business and leisure travel - are covered by Lufthansa, Austrian, and now Swiss Air (irrespective of the latter's financial status - with the addition of Swiss Air - the Star Alliance has a lock on the 3 major European national airlines with a predominant to exclusive German-speaking clientele). If I wanted to fly to/from/between/within a German-speaking country (countries) - I have a lot more options with the Star Alliance, than with OW.

In terms of China or India - is OW in discussion with any of these countries' carriers about joining?

In terms of AA - several issues with your statements - AA goes to 6 airports in Canada - Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. There are several other (by Canadian standards) large cities not being served by AA, let alone medium and smaller cities. The second issue - for me included - why would I want the trouble (immigration and security issues - even though I am a Canadian citizen) of transiting via USA to another international destination - partly because of this problem, Air Canada is adding flights to non-US destinations so people (eg from Europe, Asia) can bypass USA when going to Latin America, Caribbean etc? Canada (or before that Australia) are not large enough to support 2 full-service carriers serving domestic and international destionations - without AC taking over CP - CP would have declared bankruptcy and folded (and it did (without success) ask OW for help, before going to AC). (PS-If OW only accepts financially solvent airlines, why did it accept CP in the first place - it was common knowledge that CP, even at the time it joined OW - was in a very precarious financial state).

PS-I thought that there were 8 airlines in the OW alliance? - or did OW lose an airline, recentlY?

Presumably, these 2 airlines are no longer affiliated with OW?

You missed my point. You mention Germany and Canada but do not give options. Why doesn't Oneworld expand? Because there is nowhere to expand to. What airlines should Oneworld add in order to expand service within Germany or Canada? There are none. Without an airline to add, none will be added. That's exactly what happened. I am not saying these are bad markets, I am saying that the reality is that these are closed markets. There is no entry right now until another viable airline is available. It is the equivilant of asking why Star doesn't have a bigger presence in Australia. It's obviously a popular destination, there is a good domestic market, and salaries are relatively high. The reason is that it's a closed market. Other than Virgin Blue, there is no one to add. And without an airline to add...you're not going to add one.

Yes, of course. All the alliances are in talks with one airline or another in these markets.

Finally, I disagree again with the assertion that all airlines want to join alliances. Most of the majors out there right now just plainly don't. The airlines that are being added, with one or two exceptions, are small and local. The bigger players out there are waiting out the game at the moment. JAL, Emirates, Qatar, Gulf, Dragon, MAS, Air India, Jet, Iceland Air, Garuda, Eva, China Southern, China Eastern, Alaska Air, Air China, and TAM are all just playing the waiting game.

I am not defending Oneworld's expansion practices, but I am saying that there are real obstacles to expansion for Oneworld right now lest they turn into Skyteam and start adding Aeroflot and Tarom or into Star Alliance and start adding any airline with an airplane and an accent.

I can see it already...Welcome the newest Star Alliance member!!! Hooters Air!!! Now you can have chicken wings, T&A, *and* miles!!!

RO is a bit more marginal (that said, I've got the impression they're better than EI or AZ because that's not hard to do), but what exactly is the problem with SU? They're as good as anyone else now (SVO could do with a bit of upgrading, tho), and they go to places that no-one else does!

Of course so much of the issue depends upon where one is based (and where one has to/wants to fly), but I have to say that I'm happy being solely within ow:

For me, it's the status that counts, not the miles (I've got more miles than I'll spend in a decade). I want lounges that aren't packed, a good chance of an op-up and smaller queues at premium check-in. Whilst a larger alliance will offer more mileage earning ability, the thought of standing in line behind elites from another 20 airlines (OK I exaggerate!) at check-in only to not be able to fit in the lounge fills me with dread!

As far as I'm concerned (and again, it largely depends upon one's base/schedule), I'll take exclusivity over an overly-inclusive "big club".

Funny thing...I got op-upped on AZ a few months ago FCO-AGP. Was my first ST flight for well over a decade! Inspite of that, I'll not fly them again unless it's absolutely necessary...

I agree with Meerkat. In my particular case (very narrow and selfish, I admit), AA, QF, BA, IB, CX and LA are all I ever want to fly, so, for me, OW is too big as it is.

I do understand your worries, but it works both ways. Due to *A's mad expansion, its elites have lounge access in the most unheard of Central European cities and loads of tertiary Asian destinations.
Lounge access at well-appointed, connection-friendly airports like HKG or even smaller ones like VIE and PRG isn't a big advantage because, frankly, the public terminal's good enough as it is.
OTOH a lounge that enables its users to escape chaotic or poorly-equipped facilities is priceless. I'd choose access to a mediocre lounge at TIA or ULN over the uber-luxurious facilities of Asian hubs anyday!

Interesting thread here. I've read that Aer Lingus might be leaving OW because of its shift to lower-cost status. How's that coming along? I think it's interesting that there are so many strong airlines, that it shouldn't matter how many airlines are there, to a point. Isn't OW talking with Air China and Air India?

Well put, but I as a said before, it comes down to a personal style of travel. Aside from the occasional MR on AA (where's that "Sideshow Bob" shudder-smiley when you need it? ), my travel is to major hubs. If I were travelling "domestic" Europe, my view might change.