m0hamed

This month's CNN Business Traveller focuses on the 3 Gulf airlines and their approach to alliances.

Interesting interview with the CEO of EK, including his hint at EK putting codeshares on QF flights to the US to provide "a truly transglobal A380 operation with Qantas and Emirates working together."

As Richard Quest says: "Did I just hear the glass cracking in the OneWorld alliance?"

It's on Foxtel in Latest Episodes, O Demand, or see http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/16/tr...ces/index.html

Also has a walk through of the A380, and profiles of the Gulf capitals.

og

I did speculate a couple (?) of months ago that QF was positioning to leave OW.

If a new alliance using the skeleton of OW does eventuate, I reckon it might be close to EK - AA - QF.

And for the very brave, why not add LA as well.

number_6

Except that AA has JVA with BA/IB and the US/AA merger terms seem crafted to keep that Joint Venture in place without affecting terms. EK is more likely to partner with Jetblue than AA Oh wait, they already do

Can a founding member leave Oneworld? Are there special terms that apply, such as automatically dissolving the alliance? I suppose it can be immediately reconstituted, but then it would be called TwoWorld.

Dave Noble

I can't imagine any of the airlines would have wanted a term of forming an alliance which precluded their ability to leave in the future

moa999

As it is Canadian Airlines (a founding member) left in 2001 when it merged with Air Canada, so I am sure the alliance would survive any member leaving.

SeriouslyLost

It certainly wouldn't miss QF.

More usefully, OW is in no real danger: it's too profitable for the members.

sxc

In what way?

Supersonic Swinger

As I understand it, OW is the only one of the three which doesn't impose a penalty payment on an airline which chooses to exit, which is one of the factors behind it being weakest (I understand Star's exit payment is the highest, being the most restrictive on it's members).

As for OW being "profitable" for it's members, the effect on member airline finances isn't the same as it might be for frequent flyer balances. The alliances have been around for over 15 years and haven't been the answer to the ills of the airline industry, which is why airlines are moving back to more bilateral arrangements.

This is another sobering article - http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....p24-502428.xml - especially as it refers to the "all-but-defection" of Qantas. Bruce Ashby is putting on a brave face but I suspect things have been panic mode for a few months now at OW HQ...

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

I dun think QF leaving oneworld would be any great loss. They hardly fly anywhere except domestic. For international - unless you live in sydney - there's hardly any advantage of QF over someone like CX... if I'm going MEL-PVG I have to transit SYD with QF rather than HKG with CX. pretty much same same. (and why would I fly angled when I can be full flat on CX?)

OW might lose QF, but it is gaining US. I think CX/BA/AA is a pretty formidable base for an alliance?

SeriouslyLost

QF leaving? With MH now onboard I don't see that QF offers anything to OW.

If QF left (or, remotely speaking, was asked to leave) the likes of BA and/or CX, AA and MH can more than make up for the global reach, such as QF has. As for flights within Oz, Virgin Aus has shown they'll sell themselves to anyone and everyone.

og

How about SYD/MEL - LAX/DFW ?

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

MEL/SYD to LAX/DFW - but that's about it. Not a huge contribution to an alliance...

SeriouslyLost

Mmm. OW will live & fall by that route.

ThomasBne

Deleted.

number_6

Yet Joyce has turned down acquiring 777s, fwiw. He's been there long enough to not be able to dodge responsiblity. Perhaps he has a great plan, but I don't see it and he does better on Masterchef than explaining QF business plan.