I am struck by several major changes by *A partners which are undermining this marketing network in my opinion:

-inconsistent mileage earning policies which was a core benefit of the alliance.

-several are now giving much less or even no miles (and ultimately status mileage) for discounted fares, eg BMI at only 25% on virtually all discounted fares, LH at only 50% on some, ANZ is a whole other story, SQ too.

-greater competition among *A carriers on some routes. UAL and AC are competing on a growing number of transborder flights ex YOW, YVR, YYC, etc.

-total lack of *A service on some major routes, eg LHR-MAD, CDG-MAD, just to name one I have discovered.

-lack of integration and still duplication of services in some markets, even double lounges for little or no reason, eg LAX.

-failure to fully integrate FF programs which still operate with different rules and considerable differences in benefits, conditions, etc.

-unequal partnerships, some just do not cut the mustard. No consistency in product. Some are terrific whereas others are sorry excuses to be in the alliance in the first place. BMI is a case in point.

I am really starting to wonder if the *A is falling apart? It certainly never reached the level of integration that was promised or promoted IMO.

Would love to hear other's opinions.

Personally I'm happy with Star. To address some of the points you raise:

1. All the differences and deviations between FFPs only serve to offer more variety and choice depending on what your requirements and flying patterns are. Of course, some programs simply make no sense, but amongst the major ones you can pick and choose the one that works best to your advantage.

For example, obviously you'd avoid LH and BD's program if you mainly flew discounted Y, but OTOH they are great if you fly mostly F because you can get 3x miles. I personally use AC Aeroplan because of the 35k *G qualifying criteria and reasonable earning levels in discounted Y, but those who fly mainly domestic US would probably be best served by UA MP. Etc etc.

If all Star programs were very similar in their characteristics it would make the whole FFP game a lot less attractive, IMHO because you will have to conform to whatever target market the FFP has overall. I can't imagine SQ would be ecstatic about offering free SWU in its own FFP, just as I can't imagine UA flyers being particularly keen on lack of upgrades a la SQ - which do you follow?

2. In the case of subpar airlines, I find it much easier to consider them initially as though they do not actually participate in the alliance. You used BD as your example - if I was going LON-EDI, I would probably choose train over flight because the fact that BD flies the route doesn't represent any benefits whatsoever.

Where you have no choice but to fly the subpar airlines, at least consider the fact that you would be getting something in terms of miles and FFP benefits over what you would get otherwise, on a non-alliance carrier - nothing. For me, a marginal benefit is better than no benefit.

3. Market coverage (competition, no coverage etc) - it would be nice if they sat around a table and discussed which routes they should each fly and concentrate on, but realistically it's an alliance branching out of a marketing agreement, not joining them at the hips. Ultimately, they do not share the profits so they are on their own in terms of operating the most attractive markets and obtaining maximum revenue - this means some routes which are inherently unattractive will remain unserved, whereas obviously high-yield markets will attract competition even amongst member airlines. Unless Star becomes one huge carrier who shares all the profits, I don't think that route decisions will be swayed particularly by anything other than cold hard revenue.

4. Integration activities, the promise of seamless travel, etc - Agreed, more could be done. But already, I feel that activities such as moving all Star carriers to NRT T1 (except the traitor NZ ) (soon to be CDG and LHR too) all show a certain willingness to improve matters for passengers. Most of the inefficiencies originate from a time before Star was formed/enlarged, i.e. LAX TB whereas the most improvements are made in new airports and terminals, i.e. ICN SilverKris and the Star lounges at ZRH/NGO. Over time, I think it's safe to expect more improvements in the seamless travel promise, although (continuing from the previous point of all the airlines being independent of each other) integrating systems and procedures across different airlines is no easy task.

In addition, things like improved Electronic Ticketing capabilities across different carriers, as well as easy-to-access reward seat reservations (StarNet) are good examples of improving infrastructure to cover more airlines. I would personally say that although things aren't going at a rapid pace, overall things are improving, albeit slowly.

Perhaps I am sounding like a Star PR person (maybe they will give me a job?) but coupled with the fact that I had no particularly great expectations of Star anyway (other than cross-alliance *G benefits and reasonable ability to earn/redeem miles) I must say I am mostly happy with Star. Any comments?

Good summary.
I like the idea that all *A FFP are not the same.
If they were, I would not be SQ PPS & AC SE : Double dipping.
In fact with 300K of travelling this year, I am looking to join another *A FFP instead of going over to OneWorld.
Will wait and see what SAA FFP will offer, as I have a office in SA.

StarGold, Thanks for your thoughtful reply, but I am afraid I do not agree with much of what you say....and yes you would make a great pitch man for *A!!! but that aside.

We are seeing less integration of the alliance and greater fragmentation among the partners. In your own case, and that of yyzprincess seem to have the ability to fly F which gives you a distinct advantage and frankly less need to rely on many of the benefits (like u/gs) than the vast majority of others FFers. If I was in your position, I may have similar views, but I am not. I have a limited budget to achieve my business requirements and I often supplement this in order to top up to reach top elite status on my preferred carrier (not that I have much choice given my travel patterns!).

From all my flying over 25 years, I see less collaboration among the partners. True it is a marketing agreement and only some 8 or 9 yrs old, but it has failed to reach its promise IMO. And I sense more and more fractures in it esp as many are downgrading their FF programs.

I think that the value of an alliance is greatly dependent on where you fly to most. Most of my business is between Asia and Central Europe and I find that Star is the only alliance that really works for me. I thought about trying to make Diamond with CX this year by using OW but it just does not work for me. However, if most of your business was in the UK or France/Benelux then I guess you might consider OW or Skyteam to be better.

Looking at the list of member airlines I would say that Star is quite a bit stronger than the two other main alliances and is certainly not falling apart.

I dont think consistent mileage earning policies was a core benefit of the alliance, rather the alliance benefit is that all members are partners of each other allowing earning and burning without the need for lots of bilateral arrangements. As stated by others, having some variation in earn and burn rates is an advantage to savvy consumers who can pick the program that best suits them.

Lower mileage on discount fares is nothing to do with an alliance IMHO. Rather it is the respective airlines responses to competitive pressure. At least there is a choice - cheap fare with little or no miles (but at least get status benefits), cheap fare with the competition (no status benefits and maybe no useful miles), or more expensive fare with full miles.

I like competition on some routes. It is good to not be limited to one airline, for example trans-atlantic I can take NZ instead of UA.

Similarly with ground services. Using LAX as your example, I'd be mightily annoyed if the only *A lounge was UA's RCC, which isnt even in the same terminals that the other *A airlines use.

An alliance is not about getting full coverage of every routing possible. Until SA joins, for example there is limited African presence. There is no airline flying directly between South America and Australia/NZ. No intra-Australia flights (except SYD-MEL). Etc. But other alliances also have gaps. One World has limited routes within South-east Asia. Sky Team has no routes within Australia/NZ and limited routes to Australia/NZ. Etc.

Why would you cut out airlines from *A? No airline is perfect - they all have pluses and minuses. I'm far from impressed with my experiences with UA and AC for instance, but I'm still glad they're in *A for their north american networks.

The OP comes across as wishing *A would become one seamless integrated airline with the best bits of all its members retained and losing the worse bits. That just isnt going to happen - not only are there major ownership issues but many competition authorities would be against it.

I'm with snoopy in that the value you (as pax) get from an alliance depends on your circumstances and flying patterns. Naturally some (global uber flyers) benefit much more than others (infrequent domestic flyers).

It is not falling apart but only getting stronger - with the addition of Swiss and SAA.

at LAX, Air New Zealand and Air Canada both have SA Gold lounges.... right next to each other, i would have gone into the NZ lounge, but i was flying on AC and figured it couldn't be very different

Hi 100,000miler,
as I expect to see an airline based in China and India joining *A in the near future, I don't fear that *A is falling apart.

However, I agree with you that the level of integration will never reach the level what was intended as *A was founded. But was this a realstic approach? Most of the airlines are owned and operated independently, therefore it makes a difference if you board an AC or UA flight.

When it comes to FFP, most airlines run their own; in fact you have the option to choose between 15 different FFPs. Each programme provides unique and valuable benefits, BUT everyone offers designated *G and *S benefits. IMO to join the FFP of the airline you are most likely to travel with most often might be a wise idea.

Welcome to FT CorSter

NZ's lounge is much, much nicer. However, if you are flying AC at peak hour (evening) then you may get turned away as the lounge can get overcrowded.

*A is far better than the alternatives OW and Skyteam.

United and LH always 'competed' on the same routes altough they have revenue sharing. Try AA/BA and you will know the difference: no miles on all cheap fares, no miles on AA flight number with BAEC etc etc.

SQ always refused miles when any segment of the trip is on a certain fareclass.

Double or triple lounges in a certain location have evolved out of history or terminal locations.
Different checkins/ground handling have to do with level of service. Some airlines would like to offer a better deal for their customers. Just imagine if all intercont handling of*A was done by UA and everyone would have to head to an RCC

These does not necessarily indicate a weakness of an alliance

Memberships in the alliance are linked to ownership: KF,JK,BD,LX,OS

FFPs differ to offer the best for their markets. Some are restricted by local laws. LH in germany, SK in scandic, etc.

Remember one thing: it is an ALLIANCE partnership, not 18 airlines mergering into one company. They corporate well, but not runing one single company.

Each company has to identify the best routes to make money for its own business, not really for the sake of making up the missing routes (unless these missing routes are also money making opportunities).

As a result, I think your disappointment might have been related to the difference between the perceived picture of yours and the reality. This is quite normal. We all have our own perceptions.

Overall, I think Star Alliance has brought SO MANY good things for my travel, compared with 6-7 years ago.