Perhaps it's Friday afternoon but I don't follow this. For example, when I took JL SIN-KUL recently, I went into the much better QF/BA lounge (rather than the third party lounge I received an invite for) and this was down to OW.

... but regardless of whether it's the main reason or not, it's still a benefit for the pax which derives from the alliance so IMO, a bit harsh to call OW just a marketing gimmick.

Moving this to the Oneworld board

Put me down as a firm OW cynic.

When you buy a OW ticket you are told any OW desk can effect the changes you are entitled to make in terms of the rules. But just try to get one of them to make any changes. I have just asked my TA to change the date/time of the last flight on an AONE ticket. Since the flight is on BA I gave her the BA reference number. BA told her that since the ticket was issued on CX paper she must ask them to make the change! It just beggars belief.

The only benefit of alliances that I can discern is the ability to earn status while using a number of airlines. But since I travel in F or J mostly, even status perks are confined to a few extra miles and occasional lounge access.

Sitting here in the Sakura lounge at NRT having just gotten off the last segment of a DONE4 that morphed to a DONE5 (and awaiting my JL award flight across the Pacific to home) my reflection on the alliance and its members is that it's variable, and it's all about the people. Good service from IB and clapped out 743s from QF; polite but obstinate CX ground people and bang-bang efficient AA ticketing people.

Some random observations...

Amadeus and Sabre are not married, not even dating. Ridiculous last-century technology that infects the partnership with ticketing sclerosis.

Hub-itis near the point of collapse. All roads lead to Dallas or Heathrow. Yuck.

Slouching toward the mediocre middle. Had some lousy meals in CX J and some great ones in IB J. Huh?

OW REALLY needs to improve its Africa coverage. Its lunch is being eaten by LH and especially SAA.

Every lounge should have cool beer machines like this one and the AC down the hall here. AA should farm out the domestic AC operations to somebody that knows something about the catering business.

Time for another. TTFN.

Consistency in an alliance is a chimera. Is Hertz, Hilton, McDonald's, Citibank etc. the same accross the world? In some places, apart from the logo, they are not even close. And that's within the same company; imagine an alliance involving McDonald's and Burger King.

BA isn't the best example, though. It is correct that any of the carriers can make or change the reservation. Unfortunately, BA acts in Oneworld like Air France acts in Skyteam and Singapore acts in the Star Alliance: like they are the one and only carrier holding the whole thing together and can therefore do whatever they please. It's like the 1000 pound gorilla in the joke. BA eats where it wants. Although I was (and remain) against Swiss joining Oneworld, BA essentially killed the deal because it wouldn't allow Swiss to maintain its own frequent flyer program. Look at the recent announcement that BA wouldn't give elite miles on American starting next year.

Most of the problems with the Oneworld airlines that I have encountered were primarily caused by someone not knowing what they were doing (and occasionally me not knowing what they were doing) and misinterpreting rules. BA knows what they do and they really don't care.

I actually think that the Oneworld alliance is pretty good as far as consistency is concerned. I have a good friend that flies the Star Alliance, and she says that it's as dysfunctional as the Manson family in many respects. Oneworld is as close to a cooperative function system that you have in this industry at the moment. The Star Alliance appears to be nothing more than a cooperative marketing system with a few benefits to justify its existence.

I think that it also must be noted that the airlines in Oneworld and any other alliance are like a band of thieves. They are together to advance the interest of a common goal, but in the end, they are competitors. Take LON-BKK for example. It's served by BA, QF, RJ, AY, CX, JL and MA with one connection or less. Each of those airlines will do what they can to keep you from flying on the other airlines, irrespective of whether they are in a cooperative alliance or not.

AA has solved this problem by partnering with SN, while BA has actively reduced its Africa services -- so that probably means Africa is way down on the OW priority list for future improvements. Years ago OW was much more cohesive, and Star was fragmented; now they seem to have switched roles. All of the airline alliances claimed to offer common purchasing of supplies and services and this would lead to cost savings and uniformity of product. But the airlines have generally decided that differentiation is a good thing, and look at how difficult getting a joint lounge is these days (usually only when forced by the airport, as at LAX -- NRT got 3 new OW lounges when CX/QF/AA switched to the JL terminal, and they all refused to use the JL lounges; while BA decided that using the NW lounge was better!!!). The strange world of OW.

And, where the hell did you run off to, number_6?

Welcome back.

AA does farm out their domestic AC operations in many locations.

BA is the lead airline of OW and AF the main carrier of Skyteam. SQ on the other hand is not the main carrier of the Star Alliance (I would say this is LH and UA) but they certainly act as if they can do whatever they want.

I don't think your friend is right here. I fly all three alliances very regularly and I think *A offers the best product of all of them. You basically get all the OW benefits plus your extra 20kg luggage allowance as a frequent flyer.
Calling it a Cooperative Marketing System doesn't do *A justice.