Do the new OW members really enhance OW?
 

Playing the devil’s advocate role here, but I believe that the addition of the new OW members JL, RJ, & MA to be a minor improvement at best. Let’s look at what each airline brings to the alliance.

MA-1 daily North American flight to BUD and 3 times per week BUD-BKK flight. If you don’t originate in either NYC or Toronto, one is better off going thru London or Madrid to European destinations. It is still 2 or more connections to get anywhere in Europe. The business class cabin appears to be equivalent to what Aer Lingus offered. I believe that it is priced accordingly.

RJ- 1 daily North American flight to AMM and the schedule is so bad that in most cases one must overnight in Jordan to go to any onward RJ destination in the Middle East, India, etc. Plus their improved Crown class is not even an angled flat-bed in business class. According to the RJ website, they are still using A-310 wide bodied aircraft. Definitely not up-to-date.

JL – Much better long-haul options from Europe and USA. Plus JL has destinations in China that are currently not reachable on OW (until Dragonair joins OW). Again, the schedule is not favorable to connections, as most flights from the USA arrive in the late afternoon, while the flights to Asia usually have departed for the day.
At least the business class cabin from the USA has the new flat beds, though within Asia it is more like CX’s regional business class. But JL is still suffering from OW integration problems. I wonder if that is not a harbinger of future problems.

I do like the addition of LAN affilates, LAN Argentina and LAN Ecuador to OW. Plus Dragonair once they can get their act together. Looks like end of 2007 though.

The addition of IB's IAD-MAD and EI's IAD-DUB flights make the MA and RJ options less then desirable. And, yes I know that EI is not OW, but for an AA based flyer, not a big deal.

I think that the addition of Eithopian Airlines and/or Gulf Airlines instead of RJ & MA would have better choices.

Flame away.

To me, the JAL routes from China to Japan are the biggest enchanchement as I do not have much interest to backtrack to Hongkong (CX) first. Amother plus is Malev offering an opportunity to get to Central & Eastern European and Mediterranean destinations without having to resort to London airports chaos.

Au contraire, I tend to agree, but then again, 'enhance OW' is really neither here nor there, what really matters is what it does for me. :) On a strictly personal and selfish basis this is my reaction to some of the additions:

JL: yawn
MA: yawn
RJ: yawn

As all the OW hubs are on the periphery of Europe, having a central European hub has some potential -- but isn't useful until there is more TATL service to BUD. AA adding ORD-BUD or DFW-BUD would change things quite a bit. MA seems intent to focus on short-haul, though it is increasing long-haul fleet by 50% (from 2 to 3 762s). But it will never be a significant percentage of OW.

Meanwhile JL increases the size of OW by almost 20%. The poor hub situation in Europe means that JL is more likely to offer service to cities in Europe than to route onto BA at LHR or IB at MAD. But as you've noticed the route maps and schedules have yet to be integrated into OW (partly deliberately, as some of the integration requires anti-trust immunity).

They provide increased access to Eastern Europe, which is experiencing substantial economic growth. They add new destinations not reached from London or Madrid.

Actually, the equivalent of 16 flights per week to North America (daily to Chicago, 5xwk to New York, 2xwk to Detroit and 2xwk to Montreal). All North America flights, the longest in RJ's network, are operated by Airbus 340 aircraft, that feature sleeper seats in Business/Crown Class with an 83-inch seat pitch. RJ are pressed for long-haul aircraft, though their long-haul fleet will consist of 12 Boeing 787 aircraft in the future, which will allow for further route expansion (possibly Hong Kong, Shanghai and Miami). Connections are being improved, particularly short-haul (3 a day to Beirut, 2 a day to Cairo, Aqaba, Tel Aviv for example). They are not CX, BA or QF, but they are a good addition to oneworld imo, and will be of even greater value in future years.

There will always be some teething issues, but these will be overcome. JAL is one of the biggest airlines in the world and they bring a lot to the alliance, including unparalleled access to Japan, one of the world's most important economies. USA flights connect well....JAL even operate domestic flights from Narita for the purpose of connecting to these USA flights (albeit only to Nagoya, Osaka, Sapporo and Fukuoka). It is possible to fly JFK-PEK, LAX-PVG via NRT with decent connections. AA recently has been marketing Narita as a hub for Asian connections together with JAL. JAL imo is a valuble addition to oneworld.



I personally would like to see Jet Airways and a mainland Chinese carrier added to oneworld. This will allow for convenient access into the world's two largest growing economies, which must be a focus for oneworld, being the premium alliance afterall.

...and for the rest of us?! ;)

I am surprised you are all looking at this very much from a North American perspective. Don't forget OW is (like the 2 others) a global alliance. I think MA does enhance the alliance in Europe, adding connections (and good fares) to/from places either BA or IB) don't fly to, or where it is not convenient to use them (FCO-MOW, anyone?).

Same for RJ, which adds Europe-Middle East/Gulf/Asia routes and v.v.

fairly sure that Dragonair (KA) now owned by CX will come on board

Already announced as happening this year.

Someone explained to me that Qualiflyer went burst because they offered no really exciting and appealing destination where to redeem FFP miles.

For me, the addition of the 3 carriers is not so exicitng and the LAN part is just a fix of one of the many funny rules of OW. I do not like the big adv'nt move OW+3 when EI just left. For me EI was better, more useful than RJ.

Why do I fly OW ? Because I had/have to and try to maximize on this fact.

My complaint with Malev is that it just too many connections to get to BUD from North America in order to get to those underserved Eastern European cities. Plus, Malev is not in the same terminal at JFK as AA. Similar connection issues re: change of terminals as would happen in LHR.

I think MA's strength for oneworld will be in the European market more than the North American -- they offer some pretty decent opportunities for flights within Europe (especially to Eastern Europe).

That said, right now MA has some fantastically inexpensive flexible business fares ex-JFK right now -- often $2,200 with no advance purchase and no minimum stay. If they'd just let you add on an AA leg in North America for a little more...I'd like them a lot :)

Steve

Totally agree with you here and it seems that many members suggesting MA's introduction has little value are generally those members based outside of the Americas. If you read the BA board, it seems many BA boarders are happy with the introduction of MA just for the mileage and tier point opportunities. Having said that, several BA boarders have certainly sung MA's praises.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=682739

I certainly hope to be giving them a try later on this year!

I just hope IB don't disappear as that would put a huge hole in the OW network that will be near impossible to recreate with another carrier.

Other people have touched on it, but the problem, imo, is that AMM and BUD are underserved except for the newly added airlines. For example, look at the difference between AMM/BUD and NRT. NRT is served with non-JL longhauls from SYD, PER, CNS, HKG, TPE, LAX, DFW, ORD, NYC, LON, and HEL. Think I got them all. AMM is served with non-RJ longhauls from LON. BUD is served by non-MA longhauls by HEL and LON. Even then, I would hardly call LON-BUD and HEL-BUD longhaul flights.

My point is that, utilizing the existing carriers, one could connect onto JAL from Australia, Europe, North America and Asia. Connecting onto RJ and MA is only from Europe, and then only two cities in Europe. As others have said, AMM and MA need more feeder service to be truly useful. While I am happy to see them as part of the alliance, I hope that the members discussed either RJ and MA's expansion plans or expansion from existing airlines to their respective hubs. Otherwise, it seems that existing MA and RJ flyers benefit most (for instance a BUD based flyer going to LAX or an AMM flyer going to NRT), while the existing flyers of the other OW airlines will see a marginal benefit.

Just my two cents.

If frequency is increased and through-fares competitive with Elal are published, it might actually be very beneficial for OW customers in Israel. Currently, there is no AA-codeshare (after the demise of the Swiss flights via ZRH) and BA credits only 25% miles to AA in discount coach.

RJ might be the solution for TLV-AMM-xxx, especially if xxx is east of Israel and Jordan.

They are all improvements, though for me KA is the most exciting both in terms of enhanced earning/burning and because of their quality shorthaul product. MA gives access to some of the more esoteric bits of Europe, RJ will fill the gap left by the loss of BMed. JL is a bit less exciting, but does offer a good product to NRT and some extra connections to China/Korea.

Being utterly selfish, had AS been joining then I truly would have been unmoved.