Oneworld – does it mean anything?

Back to Forum

This topic contains 16 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Vertrek 13 Sep 2012
at 08:36

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)

  • Anonymous


    So Kingfisher is to join ONEWORLD in February. This all to the good if Kingfisher is still flying. We read about its liquidity problems and wonder. It hands back planes to the owners and reduces flights dramatically and wonder. Sponsor for entry – BA.

    Now we have the news that Air Berlin – another candidate to enter ONEWORLD – has as a major shareholder ETIHAD (29.21%). Sponsor BA. The price means that the cost is to use Abu Dhabi as the distribution point for Air Berlin group´s passengers to Asia/Australasia. There is no mention of Bombay. Delhi, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur or Hong Kong where present and future members of ONEWORLD have hubs.

    If we continue we can see that things are not right in ONEWORLD.

    Already comments have been made on a different topic about the benefits and dangers to ONEWORLD of the LATAM merger going ahead.

    But that is not all. American Airlines goes into bankrupcy protection (maybe not a bad thing in itself – but bad for the image). Malev is accused of receiving illegal government aid and if forced to hand it back could go bankrupt. Add to that strikes at Iberia and Qantas (from which they will most likely survive) which increases uncertainty for the passenger.

    Last but not least MEXICANA still appears to be a member despite not having flown a plane in 18 months.

    What does it all mean? Malaysia is to join ONEWORLD but has as a major shareholder Air Asia. Air Berlin now has Etihad. Are the members going to be half in and half out of the alliance with divided loyalties/pressures? Is ONEWORLD opening up to Low Cost Carriers, Gulf carriers and anybody else?

    Or is ONEWORLD breaking up because it is meaningless except for the joint agreements?

    Do you have any knowledge of the matter?


    It’s Oneworld, not ONEWORLD.


    I thought it was oneworld?


    I know that but I have used capitals for clarity only. By the way it is also not 1w as I have seen.


    Great post transtraxman. I also would love some insight in this regard. shame to see that contributions so far have been from pedantic twits


    Some new entrants may be in financial difficulty and others going through financial restructuring but the backbone of the alliance (BA, Iberia, Cathay Pacific etc) is very strong and the alliance has strong presence in many of the world’s premium traffic centres (London, New York, Los Angeles, Hong Kong etc).

    Citing industrial action at a carrier as evidence of weakness of an alliance is rather ludicrous as is the claim the alliance is on the verge of collapse.

    If you actually look at the activities of the major members, co-operation between major members is deepening through joint ventures and joint operation at transfer hubs etc.

    There is also nothing unusual about alliance members having business relationships with carriers outside their alliance, see Delta and Virgin Australia.

    Also, if you look at Star, it could shortly take a hit at LHR if IAG acquires bmi. It will lose a significant presence at the airport and Star carriers there will lose feed. In Latin America, Star is also likely to lose TAP.



    I am sorry to say that most of what you say means you do not understand the questions.

    I do not suggest that ONEWORLD is the only alliance in which the members have problems. I do not suggest that labour problems at Qantas and Iberia are going to break the alliance – quite the contrary (if you read the post).

    The real point is what is the point of an alliance if the participating partners do not fly there, to the hubs.

    If Air Berlin flies to Abu Dhabi, why does it not fly to any other hub at which ONEWORLD has bases, as I said?

    If BA and Iberia want to intergrate LAN (and subsequently LATAM) why does not the alliance have more connexions through LIMA (distributing passengers to the the rest of South America)?

    And I could go on with other examples of the disfunction of the alliance.

    On other threads I have said that I doubt the intentions of WW, BA and now IAG of wanting to even understand the meaning of what an alliance means outside their own narrow vision of the world. If it be so then ONEWORLD has a limited and dour future.


    There is a lot more hub-to-hub co-operation in Oneworld. Witness the following recent route launches:

    Qantas – SYD-DFW (now followed by anti-trust immunity with American)

    American ORD-HEL (think this may be seasonal)

    BA LHR-HND (likely to be followed by anti-trust immunity with JAL)

    Iberia BCN-MIA

    BA has also increased frequencies to MIAand JFK next Summer.

    As I said earlier Oneworld transfer centres have been set-up at AA’s hubs in the US to faciliate better connections for passengers connecting between Oneworld carriers in the US.

    Also, BA has been very clear that it’s strategy for Asia is for deeper co-operation with Oneworld partners, in the same way it has co-operated with Qantas under the Joint Services Agreement.

    As for Air Berlin, it does fly to New York and Miami. I doubt it has the demand or finances to launch many more long haul routes. And it is early days in terms of their alliance membership.

    It is also worth remembering that alliance membership is only one small part of any airline. Ultimately all members are separately owned and controlled businesses each operating in different markets and they have to focus on their own markets and commercial priorities, not just alliance membership.


    Aa now has Jv’ s with IAG, JAL and I think Qantas. Are these the next logical step in Alliances or is the interownership route more likely?


    I found no cooperation on sharing lounge at Totonto between Oneworld partners. I was travelling CX (Oneworld partner) and given a pass to go to KLM lounge. I asked what about BA lounge, the reply from CX desk was ‘we do not have any partnership with BA lounge here’.
    When I went up, found both lounges are side by side. I approched BA lounge as I had Silver card – but the reception indicated I shall go to KLM.


    I know lounges are really important to many here. One trend I have seen is BA putting up materials at other lounges where they have closed their’s to save money. Where the lounge is not run by BA or 1W then 1W is not relevant. I think it would be more honest not to try to make them look like BA run lounges.


    Kingfisher Airlines forced to ground aircraft as costs mount

    Will this airline still be flying in February when it is supposed to join “oneworld”?


    One of the most divisive discrepancies in OneWorld is the difference in bagage allowance policies between airlines and codeshare trips. With Qantas and BA splitting their Kangaroo route flights next year; if you fly from SYD-LHR, you will fly on QF1 to Bangkok and transfer to BA10 from BKK to LHR. If you check in with 2 bags in SYD, are you going to be charged for the seconfDbag on the BA leg?

    More importantly if you transit in BKK (or any split brand routing), and you have a 2-3 bag allowance on QF, and your next leg is a BA plane, you will be charged for the extra bag irrespective of your status in BA, QF or OneWorld.

    At Heathrow in October flying QF2 to BKK, on checking in QF informed me that they were transferring me to the QF7312 (the BA9) flight with an upgrade. This was due to overbooking on the QF flight. When i got to the BA check in desk, BA asked for £75.00 for my second bag. Irrespective of the fact that it was a QF flight number and flying business class, BA said the original ticket was premium economy and the plane was the decisive factor – nothing else. QF singed a waiver when i told them of this. the BA check in person was furious with the QF supervisor.

    Has anyone else experienced this problem. It will only get worse when they split the planes next year


    Like Donkeyasia I would have hoped that within an alliance one could travel from say Bangkok to Osaka without changing the conditions of transport. I flew Thai first class to Tokyo and had to change to an ANA flight also first class but on a domestic route to Osaka.
    On arrival at Osaka I found that my carry on luggage one piece had to to be checked it no longer qualified as “carry on”. This is a critical issue for me as I travel with a lot of medication. ANA are constantly doing this and I think it is unfair. Lufthansa is of course far worse they don’t even ensure that the carry on luggage, that has to be checked in, makes it on to the same flight.So although Donkeyasia’s grievance relates to Oneworld it is a grievance shared by a lot of travellers.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below