Back in the 1990s, when I first started flying with them, the experience was awful, even to a young kid. Check-in was a nightmare, service sucked and flying was a nightmare. People at the time tended to regard the airline was an unprofitable, unsafe carrier and until now, the airline has been notorious for its awful service and delays that it's the butt of so many jokes.
I remember my first non-MS flight in 1999, when I flew BA. I was amazed that an aircraft could be so shiny and clean, and that IFAs didn't have to be nasty.
A few years ago, a new company head was appointed who began turning around the aircraft and improving services. Services became more punctual, airplanes became cleaner, service became cleaner. They became less 'stingy' (for example, if you didn't eat on the plane they could wrap it up for you) etc. These small things suggested that there had been an improvement.
On top of that, a new Terminal 3 was being built at CAI that would be A380-compatible while the current Terminal 1 underwent extensive renovations.
Simultaneously, the airline began code-sharing with A* founding airline LH. Then, in October 2007, MS was invited to join the *A.
OK, the airline has improved. It's no longer an obsolete African airline but a profitable, well-run airline. But does this merit them joining the Alliance?
They'll be in the same league as Singapore Airlines, Thai and Lufthansa. But isn't this a little premature? The airline isn't in the league of the other Arab carriers (Etihad, Qatar, Emirates and even Gulf Air). The airline still needs a lot of work. Terminal facilities leave a lot to be desired. The current logo sux.
IFAs need to improve their skills (and remove that horrendous make-up).
So what's the rush? Why doesn't MS wait another few years until it meets all its goals?

When I was working in the Gulf in the '90s, EgyptAir had a very attractive fare to London involving an overnight stop in Cairo. Many of my colleagues were tempted to try it -- once. They all came back with stories like yours. I never flew with them. My own two horror-airlines from those years, which I can't imagine are even now ready to join *A, are Turk Hava Yollari and Air India.

cheers,

Henry

I don't think that you can compare Turkish to Air India and Egypt Air. Granted, I have never flown the latter two, so I base this on reputation. Nearly everyone on this board reports the same horrid experiences with AI and MS.

TK, however, is certainly in the same class as the average *A carrier. It's probably better than JK or LO and no worse than LX or OS. It's hard to compare to a U.S. airline, but their mid-haul flights are in the same class as, say, UA. This has been discussed extensively on this board.

Discussed, and disputed.

cheers,

Henry

See what I mean? Loads of people here know what I'm talking about. Flights to London and Paris-Orly (they just recently moved to CDG) were and are considered flagship routes, while routes to and from the Gulf are the cashcow routes and at the same time very important. For example, Egypt Air flies a daily Boeing 777 to Jeddah, which is a short-haul flight. This is a high-density market for them, yet they fly their biggest aircraft there.
Yet, when I was living in the Gulf, there were times when there was severe undercapacity. I remember the time when you couldn't find a normal-priced ticket for weeks in advance, due to ridiculously low frequencies and small aircraft (I think they were usually Boeing 737s).
This was probably due to Saudi-Egyptian aviation politics, but still, it wasn't like SV was deliberately hogging all the flights (I never flew SV).
On top of Egypt Air joining, well, Air India and Turkish Airlines aren't exactly the best examples of a world-class airline. Based on what I hear, Air India was a very competitive airline in the 1980s but went downhill from there and Turkish Airlines service is bad full stop.
My experience is no longer horrible with MS. Dull, inconsistent etc. but no luggage problems or rip-offs. And certain people do try hard. But check-in at CAI is apalling (I know that ground handling and the airline itself are seperate entities, but in this case they're both government-owned; you do the math). MS needs to reorganise itself, do more code-shares, order more aircraft and actually serve the right markets with the needed balance of frequencies and seats. Improve services, rebrand image, stop all this fake publicity and cut the corny attitude.

Have you considered that maybe as part of the application process to join *A, MS will have to improve some aspects to meet *A minimum standards? Further, even after joining, they will be under pressure to continue to improve.

Of course. I am just offering my opinion.

What seems to not be in dispute, however, is how poor Egypt Air is!

I suspect *A is more concerned with filling in as many regional black holes in their coverage and signing up major players in those regions before OW or ST can sign them up than they are with the absolute quality of those airlines.

It's a shame that Star Alliance is more concerned about gaining a major regional player (whatever the standards, they're pretty big). I think they're the largest airline in Africa in terms of passengers, and if they're behind South African, then it's by a slim margin. Certainly they have a large Middle East and European network (not too long ago they had more destinations than Saudi, Emirates and Gulf).
Once MS joins Star Alliance, and the Egyptians get over the media blaze and all that self-congratulating, then they can begin by:
-Ordering more aircraft and phasing out the older A320s
-Rebrand their image
-Improve ground handling

Just flew AUH-CAI-IST on MS in C, then IST-AUH on Turkish.

Difference is like night and day. MS metal was 737-800 on 1st leg, then a very tired A320 on 2nd leg. Staff were not at al happy on 1st leg, entertainment didnt work, and of course no gin and tonic available

Cairo airport check in was ok, glad to be doing it in C though as the Y check in was a zoo. The lounge was open and...functional. As there were a LOT of smokers, smoke drifted right into the lounge

The Turkish experience was great. Easy check in, great lounge^, and a very good flight, with excellent staff and meal.

IMHO, MS have a long way to go to get remotely close to any other Star carrier.

AI may be improving ^ ... amazing TR from a well-travelled and well-respected contributor over on a.net here.

I hate to chime in on such a negative note -- and I'm happy to hear dissenting views on the matter -- but as far as I'm concerned, unless and until MS comes clean about 990, I'm not flying them transatlantic. After definding MS for a long time, I finally took the time to read the NTSB report. Pretty eye-opening stuff.

Put in mind that the management of MS in 1999 (when MS 990 took place) might be different. Also, I doubt that they'd repeat whatever they did that day again. Today, people are more alert and in the post-9/11 world, an Arab airline that crashes after takeoff from the US will be seen in a harsher light. So bottom line, don't be too hard on MS transatlantic.
The report's quite long, so I'll have to read it over and over to get the jargon. Thnx anyway.

MS's decision to deny the findings of the NTSB report (i.e., that there was nothing wrong with the plane and that the relief first office crashed the plane deliberately) was not a business decision. MS is Egypt's flag carrier and wholly owned by the Egyptian government...it was a government decision. To the extent the Egyptian government has never admitted what happened, they haven't done anything so far as I can tell to make sure what happened will not be repeated.

About the report, go all the way to the bottom then scroll up until you hit the "Summary" -- it's all basically there.

Agree 100% ^