Why isn't OpenSkies part of OneWorld?
 

Whilst playing around with itineraries, I thought it would be a good idea to verify that the new OpenSkies BA subsidiary would be valid for xONEx fares. To my horror, I came across this on the OneWorld site:

"British Airways has announced the launch of a new airline OpenSkies which will start flying between the USA and points in continental Europe from 2008. OpenSkies will not be part of oneworld."

This doesn't strike me as the correct behaviour of a founding member of the alliance. BA ExecClub members can earn miles & TPs on OpenSkies, so why not members from QF, CX, JL etc? IMO, unless something has changed since this was put on the OW site, this is a cheapskate move that reflects very badly on BA. It also seems to make no commercial sense.

QF own 100% of Jetstar who are all not in Oneworld. Jetrats fly domestic Au & internationial routes.
As QF, CX, JL etc its up to them to purchase miles for their the own freq flyer members. Its all very commerical.

Jetstar is tantamount to a LCC and is primarily a leisure-based airline. OpenSkies, OTOH, is very much aimed at premium pax, who are the life-blood of worldwide airline alliances. Sure, BA wants the continental-based customers of OpenSkies to join BA ExecClub, but doesn't it want to attract premium pax from the Americas & Asia-Pacific onto these flights? It's hardly an incentive to tell a Chilean businessman who has meetings in the US and in Paris that he won't earn any miles if he flies OpenSkies from JFK to CDG.

As to QF et al. where's the difference between their members flying BA JFK-LHR-CDG and direct JFK-CDG? In fact, the latter probably costs less and the pax are happier into the bargain. I just don't get it.

I suspect it is down to cost. OW integration costs a fair chunk of money, especially around IT (as proven by EI's departure when JL joined). So it would have been a pragmatic commercial decision to avoid the known integration costs v the benefits of attracting OW business. Bare in mind OpenSkies is about point to point traffic, not being a network carrier.

They've probably got the internal business case commercially justifying the decision to stay out of OW - more of the point to point business than there is of other OW customers who'll instead fly AF and work on their ST status. I'd fit into the latter category.

Anyone know why they didn't just make it a BA flight, like AF did when they started to fly LHR-LAX?

I'd suppose that OpenSkies shares the system with BA, so IT shouldn't be that big an issue. However, I don't see any reason why OpenSkies is not a part of oneworld, either.

I believe it was to take advantage of a lower cost structure by using a different staff pool.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3986070.ece

Correct, and I believe some of the IT is different too (hence the problems experienced by FTers in crediting miles to BAEC)

AA flies nonstop from JFK to CDG, and I think that the Chilean businessman can earn miles on that flight.

iirc, AA was none too happy about a potential OW competitor on the JFK - PAR route, and AA may be a nay vote when/if OpenSkies comes up for OW membership.

[btw, OpenSkies flies from JFK to ORY, not CDG.]

Exactly, so if BA OpenSkies want his (or her) business, they aren't, IMHO, going about it the right way. The consensus, however, appears to be that they don't want that traffic enough to compromise other aspects of the vision they have for OpenSkies. Time will tell if that decision is right or not.

Thanks, I had forgotten that point. (Probably trying to erase ORY's fading glory (& paintwork) from my mind.)

Can you not just book the BA7002 & BA7001 codeshares or are these ineligble for RTW fares as they are not OW metal?