I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the three major airline alliances as we've come to know them, how they've evolved, the impact of various JVs on them, where we think they're heading, etc? Unallied (or allied but unloved) carriers are also relevant to the conversation.

I have a lot of ideas myself, but I'll save those for subsequent posts (I want to keep the OP short and opinion/speculation free).

Not exactly to the heart of your question, but I am awaiting the nuclear bomb whereby United maps Premier Gold to Star Alliance Silver instead of Gold (maybe they'd have to change the name of their status(es) to avoid confusion). I say this as 1MM, i.e., lifetime Gold. Or perhaps the Lufthansa Group will merely deny Senator lounge access to non-LH Star Alliance Golds.

On a separate note also not exactly to the heart of your question, I'd like to see Air Astana join an alliance, perhaps Star as they have some ties to LH. The new airport in Almaty just opened, replacing the horrific old one, which may help its cause. I suppose its network isn't really geared toward connecting traffic, but I would be curious about the business model as it provides good regional coverage (granted TK serves many of the same international destinations) in addition to some long-haul destinations and provides a solid offering overall.

Well, my intent was to keep the question(s) as heartless as possible so as not to force the discussion along any specific paths, so your comments definitely hit the target.

Yes, this would be in line with the general benefits erosion we've been experiencing, though a bit more drastic than the death by 1000 cuts style (e.g. "Ahh, your lounge is over there in that corner, sir") that's been more typical. This is somewhat of a downer for us customers because elite benefits still constitute some form of tangible value, even in cases where airlines don't cooperate with each other. But, from the airlines' perspective, whittling down these fruits unfortunately seems to make sense; your ability to relax in a nice lounge in Singapore doesn't help United's bottom line.

Air Astana and MIAT are two airlines that seemingly could fill holes in any of the 3 alliances without stepping on toes of incumbents (i.e. previous threads on each). However, I increasingly wonder whether joining an alliance would make sense from an ROI standpoint (i.e. in addition to assuming new admin costs, they need to offer perks to more people, which harks back to your first point) unless they can somehow wedge their way into one of the alliances within alliances, of course.

Switching gears a tad, I've had several flights over the past year or so on alliance member airlines that seem to be barely hanging on. For example, I booked an EVA ticket from Boston to Taipei via San Francisco. On the SFO-BOS leg, I ended up flying Jetblue instead of United because the latter required a substantial upfare (using Alaska would have been the same price as B6 and Delta was only about $50 more, but B6 suited my schedule the best of those three). During my layover at SFO, I could have used the Polaris Lounge in theory, but that no longer makes logistical sense because EVA (along with SQ and maybe OZ, I think) has been relegated to the A Pier (the G-to-A connector wasn't open yet...still a long schlep even with it, though). And, of course, the other side of the coin has revealed itself in the United forum here, EVA doesn't exactly go to great lengths to comfort United passengers in TPE. Basically, now that United is tight shares revenue with ANA, EVA doesn't really bring much to the table. Similarly, EVA doesn't have much incentive to funnel customers to United, as long as United charges them more than the alternatives. This is somewhat related to your second point because any potential new entrants that overlap with existing members too much are likely to be second class citizens from the get go, IF they manage to secure admission.

I mean you have United and the Lufthansa Group and friends, Airlines owned by IAG/Flag carriers that are just not trying anymore, and Delta and the alliance of airlines no one else wants.

Indeed, although Air Astana is a premium airline, whereas my understanding is that MIAT (never flown them) isn't. Thus the latter might be a good fit for Skyteam.

I just flew J on ALA-SCO (Aktau), and had a great experience. A three-hour flight on an A321. It was standard recliner seats, but the plane seemed new. I had one of the better meals I've had in J (chicken Kiev with mashed potatoes and a mushroom cream sauce on the side), with acceptable alcohol selection, IFE with plenty of options, noise-cancelling headphones, a large pillow, and good service overall. It even has a cheeky safety video set in various locations around the country, which actually held my attention. Unfortunately they're still using the overcrowded old domestic terminal for domestic flights (which also has no lounge) so the boarding scrum to the common entry point to several of the gates, with no announcements, remains the norm.

Its route network is interesting. According to the in-flight magazine (yeah, it still has them), three of the four western European routes are not from the ALA or NQZ hubs. LHR is to SCO. I wonder why -- maybe a range issue (2,400 miles vs. 3,500 to ALA) if it wants to use a narrowbody plane, maybe the B787s are dedicated elsewhere? Also AMS-GUW (Atyrau), an oil route I suppose. And from FRA to a different small city in the west of the country, I forget which, as well as to NQZ (which LH also flies). To east Asia and the GCC, it flies exclusively from ALA and/or NQZ.

I'd be happy to earn on KC to and from Dubai, instead of having to rely on flydubai, which is not such a bad experience except for the worse-every-day Skywards program. They just reduced the earnings to Central Asia from 825 miles to 700 on a Y Flex fare. How petty.

Very helpful because if you have one destination that is on the network you have multiple Airlines able to reach it within the same airline alliance for example MNL get your UA/NH JV ticket EWR-MNL via LAX/HND first reroute would be all the way United Airlines. the other remaining options in Star Alliance network are EWR-LAX-TPE-MNL on BR/UA alternatives are EWR-MNL via SIN on SQ EWR-LAX-NRT(成田国際空港)-MNL NH. They are actually much flexible than an airline without an alliance because you have multiple options to make it from the origin to the Final Destination

United only wants people to fly across oceans on its planes or its JV partners' planes.

thanks and does it also apply to AA and Oneworld Alliance and DL on Skyteam Alliance over the Pacific ocean. If not then DL in Skyteam Alliance will then send you to KE if it doesn't work try the following MU/MF/FM/CI from the US to East Asia like MNL. Same for AA and Oneworld Alliance first try CX if not working then QF/JL for MNL simplified spelling 马尼拉尼诺阿基诺国际机场

Sure, during IRROPS situations, alliance partners are often prioritized for reroutes, but there honestly isn't much of a difference between AA, UA, BR, CI, CX, SQ, JL, NH, PR, et al from Delta's point of view (i.e. just ask for whichever routing/carrier suits you best, and they'll usually oblige, as long as there is space available). Things were a little different before the JVs took root; back then, the alliances functioned more in the manner that you seem to envision (but, customer preferences still mattered).

Is it weird that OneWorld has two US carriers in it?

I see that when you joined FT there were ~8 network carriers, most of which belonged to one of the same three alliances --> ~2.7/alliance.

Now，it's 1.3/alliance.

If you think that's weird, you can blame consolidation.

I don't have any issues with either of these ratios, and am not really that put off by consolidation in general (the LCCs, which I make an effort to support, have done a decent job keeping the big guys in check), but the JVs are a different story; I'm increasingly convinced that they will prove to be the death knell to the alliances in their current form. Basically, the outsiders have to pay the same dues as the insiders, offer up their lounges to folks who would never contemplate being customers, and the insiders only throw them bones when they have no other JV-pal options. That's not a durable industry arrangement.

ETA: This is a separate subtopic, but I'm keeping it in this post because I know consecutive posts (by the same poster) are frowned upon. But, look what became of China Southern after they left Skyteam for Oneworld, only to be rejected by the latter. They ended up: preserving most of their pull within ST (e.g. they remain Delta's preferred mainland China carrier), solidifying their relationships with the insiders in OW (e.g. AA, BA, QF, JL), stopped paying dues, and own a current ST airline (if you really want MQM, you can purchase most CZ flights under the MF code). This is a much stronger position than being in an alliance, but ignored.

Ok then and that might explain the picture that started my reply.

The reroute for EWR-MNL via LAX/TPE instead of original EWR-LAX-HND-MNL

And you can see this clearly from their booking engine. If UA cannot route on UA only, UA + NH or NH only, they will offer connections on nearly every airline you have ever heard of. Non-alliance connections are often cheaper than staying with Star Alliance. This year I was offered a connection from HKG-BKK on HX or CX at a far lower price than TG.

Alliances served a purpose when they were created. For the US airlines, the JVs have trumped the alliances in a major way and really replaced the alliance members at a much higher level of business partnership. The only thing where is some consistency in ticketing partnership that I can think of today is RTW tickets and mileage redemptions (award tickets).

So I'd say alliances still serve a purpose, but in a much more limited way. The focus for any airline is on its JV partners.

DL does not rebook AA in my experience, citing policy, and it is mutual. They do rebook on UA. Don't the reason for this. UA will rebook on either DL or AA if you ask.

DL also seems to have more clout rebooking award tickets on their partners than UA or AA. Neither of these last two seem to be able to open up award inventory when a flight is canceled.

Curious what others' experiences have been.

There is currently a (baseless) rumor thread in the United forum about the possibility of United attempting to buy JetBlue. While that idea is nuts a number of levels, someone suggested that maybe JetBlue just wants to join *A. That also struck me as ridiculous (from a "that's not going to happen" standpoint), but as I thought more, it occurred to me that maybe such a move could be beneficial to the alliances, or at least to the consumers that support them.

Basically, that idea memory-triggered my EVA tickets that used JetBlue flights to get me to/from EVA's US Gateway cities. The disconnect between B6 and BR can't be overstated enough (i.e. it's completely on YOU to pull off those connections).

But, if they were in the same alliance, things would work out much more smoothly. Furthermore, anyone filtering by "Star Alliance" on GF would be able to view BR/B6 in direct comparison with UA (incl UA/NH)...so that (intra-*A) market would become more transparent.

Having gotten that preamble out of the way, I'm curious to hear you thoughts about the notion of new linkages (B6 is just an example) shaking things up (i.e do you see that happening? do you think current members would raise a stink? would consumers become more loyal?).