Another *A vs. OW Thread - RTW Specific
 

With OneWorld gaining access to the different LANs, JAL, Malev, and Royal Jordanian along with their cheaper RTW prices with more flexible rules and better opportunities for earning miles on the RTWs, they seem like the obvious choice for any RTW trip where you are not flying just to compare airlines' C/F product as it would seem that *A still has the nicest choices in that regard with SQ and others.

I know I'm over thinking this but the reason I bring this up now is because I plan on taking a year long RTW with my wife in Sep 08 and right now I have 1P on UA (and Gold on AS) and was going to focus on getting 1K on UA this year. Part of me says I should drop everything on *A now and focus on AA status for my RTW. The other part of me says I should enjoy my benefits on *A/UA/AS this year and focus on status next year on AA before the RTW begins using something like the Plat challenge.

Thoughts? I want to double post this to the OW forum but dup posts ain't allowed, right?

Where to start?

Of the alliance round the worlds, *A is mileage based while OW has both mileage based and continent based versions. Different travel patterns and destinations suit different products. There is no universal cheapest, best that works for everyone.

If doing a rtw in business or first you should be able to earn enough to qualify top alliance status (maybe on more than one FFP if creative). In economy it is a little harder but again still should be possible to get top alliance status.

I'd start with where are you wanting to go.

That's where the continent based trip comes in handy. With no flights from SA to AU, I can never keep my miles below the 39k mark while keeping the itin I want because I always have to route through the US to get back to NZ. On top of that, the China connections are bad, which is a place I want to spend some time.

An example itin on *A, trying to hit every continent and limiting short trips (thinking that I can use other means to get to them) looks something like this:

SYD-AKL-KIX-ICN-PVG-SIN-CDG-JNB-CPT-GRU-IAD-SFO-SYD and comes out to 43k+ miles.

(starting in SYD to take advantage of a lower price, probably using AS miles to get there)

Whereas with OW it would seem that I could do a similar trip without any problems AND get some more flights in each region.

The only interesting caveat to *A is the 200k RTW award on UA that gives you 35k miles to use on your RTW (and lets us start in SEA, instead of AKL/SYD, which saves me miles elsewhere). I have about 160k miles on UA after blowing 160k this summer to see the WC in MUC. I could most likely get to 400k by Sep 08, based on current travels and CC spending. With that award, I can put together a trip like this:

SEA-NRT-ICN-SIN(side trip to AKL/SYD using AS award on CX)-BKK-xSIN-FRA-JNB-GRU-IAD-SEA. = 33.5k miles

Still not great (more SA travel would be nice, esp to EZE), but that let's me hit everything major without paying for anything with cash, though you get pretty chastised around here for buying RTWs using miles. Savings would be in the $10k range total. The downside is we have to find award seats everywhere, though we're taking a year to do this trip so times aren't that important.

Don't spend time going through the routings above...I'm only using them to prove a point. I've only spent a few hours working on them, but honestly don't see what my other options are.

A couple of tweaks and you are under 39k miles, and starting somewhere even cheaper than Australia.

I did notice that, but then I'm buying a ticket to AU from AKL. Those are only 200-300 bucks though, right? That's not so bad. I plan to spend a decent amount of time in NZ and AU...

Thanks for the tip.

If you are using miles to get to Australia, it is usually the same amount of miles to get to NZ ;)

???

Not sure what you're saying here, as neither of the customary meanings of caveat seems to fit in this sentence.

cheers,

Henry

Actually I've been toying with OW as well ( been Star Gold for ages, but
AC seems determined to chase away their best customers).

The problem I seem to run into is that when I do a RTW, I need upwards of
6-8 segments in Asia ( I usually want to visit ICN, TPE, PVG, HGH, HKG,
BKK, SIN, CGK, and sometimes DEL or KHI), plus any other stops needed to
make connections. It seems the One World RTW does not allow so many segments in one continent. So I seem stuck with Star - or are there any
other suggestions?

budget carriers in asia... there are plenty of them.

Yea, probably poor word choice... but

ca·ve·at Pronunciation (kv-t, kv-, käv-ät)
n.
1.
a. A warning or caution: "A final caveat: Most experts feel that clients get unsatisfactory results when they don't specify clearly what they want" Savvy.
b. A qualification or explanation.

Exactly right. So, let's see what we get:

> The only interesting qualification to *A is the 200k RTW award on
> UA that gives you 35k miles to use on your RTW (and lets us start in
> SEA, instead of AKL/SYD, which saves me miles elsewhere).

or

> The only interesting explanation to *A is the 200k RTW award on
> UA that gives you 35k miles to use on your RTW (and lets us start in
> SEA, instead of AKL/SYD, which saves me miles elsewhere).

OK? But I still have no idea just what a 'qualification to *A' or an 'explanation to *A' is supposed to mean, in your sentence. ???

cheers,

Henry

I guess I was stretching the definition of qualification. I started the msg going down the path that *A is generally a bad choice for RTWs and then was saying that the only thing that qualifies it as a good choice might be the 35k award option...

But I'll just admit now that it was a poor choice of words on my part. What can I say? I'm an American. Our grasp of the English language is rather poor... :D

There are millions of Americans whose grasp of English is impeccable, just as there are many Brits, Irish, Canajians, Ozzies and Kiwis who, shall we say?, fall short -- not to mention all of the non-native speakers : many of whom do very very well indeed. Not to worry. But, on the other hand, since it is your own language, in this modern global internet era you do have a sort of 'responsibility of care' to ensure that what you write online is clear and meaningful; wouldn't you agree?

cheers,

Henry

*sigh*

How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.

Hamlet, V, i


___

cheers,

Henry