[Anonymous]

[Vertrek]

just a hypothesis in this lazy Saturday afternoon,

Looking at member airlines in 3 alliances throughout the world it seems like Star is dominating our sky with staggering 13 members in Europe, 5 in America, 6 in AsiaPacific, 3 in Africa and with another 3 to join the Americas’ pack and 1 in China/Asia

While Oneworld, actively, has 5 in Europe (including AB), 4 in AsiaPacific (including MH), 2 in Americas and 1 in Middle East..

SkyTeam has 7 EU carriers, 3 Americas (with AR), 7 members in AsiaPacific (include GA and Xiamen, however country wise it only has 4 bases including Indonesia), 1 in Africa and 2 to join the pack in ME.

With this statistical measurement, won’t it be more beneficial if ST and OW merge? DL/AA-IAG/AFKLM would bring a greater JV then 2 separate AA/IAG and DL/AFKLM, beside each memebrs in ST and OW across the world will compliment each others in term of geographical location and this would bring a fairer competition against SA.

The combination of ST/OW will also cuts competition on trans-atlantic JV and I would think it will be more beneficial considering the new CO2 tax system in EU and rising fuel cost?

This is what TransAtlantic JV will looks like if the merge of ST and OW ever take place and SA decides to recruit the virgin group while WestJet decides to join STOW.

IAG/AFKLM/AZ and DL/AA/AM/WestJet
vs
LHSwiss/SAS/VS/OS and CO/UA/AC/US/Virgin America

and the flexibility of choosing to book your seat in any of the member airlines with the same price for travel between and within EU and NA.
Imagine what it could bring to the costumers.

Safe travel and have a good weekend.

[LPPSKrisflyer]

Interesting Vertrek. I had never really looked at the alliances in these terms before. I knew *A was the biggest but I hadn’t realised that ST had grown in the way that it has.

The dominance of *A is also interesting because it’s the one I am most aware of when I travel. I do use them a lot mostly on SQ, LH and LX and the level of integration is better even with SQ’s maverick behaviour than I perceive with the other alliances.

I also use QF and CX often and BA sometimes, I am far less aware of the alliance when I travel with them and to me they are more individual airlines than part of something bigger. I think CX are probably as much of a loose cannon as SQ but notionally QF and BA are fairly joined up but there is little sense of similarity when travelling and on all fronts QF IMO offer a far better product in so far as I use them.

ST have only really come on my radar recently for shorthaul. I’ve been very pleased with the level of service I’ve had from both AZ and KL, both outstripping BA by quite a margin recently and offering me a competative product at a reasonable price. I have some experience of AF both long and short haul too but not enough to have a strong opinion one way or the other. My sense of cooperation between the ST members is that it is also stronger than OW.

A merger of ST and OW would indeed be interesting, and as an alliance it would compete with *A but I really can’t see it happening. The idea of AF-KL and IAG working together is interesting, I can’t see AF being at all keen, KL had prospects with BA at one time but BA were too greedy and KL walked away so I can’t see KL being too interested either. I suppose the also ran of IB would be willing to talk to anyone who would have them but I think overall in Europe it would be a non-starter and certainly the competition commission would have a view on AF, KL, AZ,IB and BA in the same alliance as I suspect they have access to far greater markets than *A where the predominant market is Germany and other countries have relatively low population density.

Just my thoughts, have a good weekend everyone.

[Prakton]

I think the way it is by having 3 alliance groups gives the passengers a choice to find out what is best suitable in their region. Depending in which country and city you are living gives us a choice to decide what is in the best interest of the customers. Many of the legal tangles and complicated offers of miles and other incentives including financial burdens would make it probably difficult to put OW & ST together.

[AMcWhirter]

Hello Vertrek – the problem with this idea is that member airlines would object because there are too many competing hubs in close proximity.

For example, there would be AMS and CDG just 200 miles from LHR. In Asia there would be HKG and CAN up against each other.

The big strength of Skyteam, which almost everyone in the London and SE Region ignores, is its UK regional coverage. No other alliance offers so many international scheduled flights from airports the length and breadth of the UK. Travellers living and working in cities like Aberdeen in the North, Southampton in the South, Cardiff in the West and Norwich in the East view the Skyteam hubs as their global gateway.

Also people generally forget Skyteam’s other strength: it is number one in mainland China, recognised as the fastest growing aviation market.

[RichHI1]

My view is that people tend to have a favourite carrier, often based where they are based. The alliances provide an alternative when flying neither to or from base.
As such whilst a lot of the post is based on fact, I beleive the premise that allainces have a brand loyalty anywhere approaching airlines is untrue. Very frequent flyers travel often enough to have elite status in mutiple schemes and less frequent flyers tend not to think in allaince terms.
I do not believe there is any likelihood of alliances merging as the political lobbying skills of major carriers in EUrope and North America would prevent it.
Before thinking in terms of accesing mutiple alliances I would like an imporvement in common treatement across carriers in an alliance. IF you are star say with UA you get very different treatment on Lufthansa, similarly AA and BA reserve special treatment for their elites only on their services. And when it comes to SQ, NH or JL you may as well come from Mars.

[ivornomates]

I fly about 120-130 flights a year, a lot of them long haul. I am a member of all 3 and can easy say OW is far superior in everyway than the other two. I would say *A slightly better than ST but ST really does seem to have the dregs of the industry as members and when things go wrong they will go out of their way not to rebook you on a fellow members planes

[RichHI1]

Agreed, I have been elite with all three over the years though no longer on Sky Team. OW is by far the best at redemption and switching carriers.

[Senator]

I would agree that the top tier status is OW is superior to the Star level in terms of benefits. I have both and travel with both.

I have yet to try to redeem travel from the BA EC, but from what I read here it seem to be difficult. I have yet to fail, to get a reasonable itinerary on Star even in peak season with some patience and research calling the M&M team.

SkyTeam; I had AF/KLM Platinum which was comped, but due to the Air France safety track record (not only fatalities) we elected to remove them from our fly list in my last employment. I redeemed my last FB miles last summer as Web Awards, and had a surprisingly pleasant run with KLM ARN-AMS-CUR and AF IAD-CDG-ARN in business class.

[Vertrek]

I would think that the future of Airlines in EU will consist of European JVs, in which all carrier within the same alliance will share revenue on all European flights. This JV would prevent Malev and Spanair to happen in the future. Hence with the current numbers of the 3 alliances in EU, it would be logical for ST and OW to merge, but of course, LH and Germany would opposed it as the combined ST/OW hubs include all Europe’s top holiday and business destinations (UK, FR, NL, DE, ES, IT). But I do still think it might happen (perhaps through ST and OW rearranging their members), especially if DL marry AA (which are unlikely to happen), there is no way that DL will leave ST, as DL is a founding members of ST.

The way I choose an alliance is through their hubs and their networks coverage as well as their value and consistency. From my experienced, I’ve found that ST is getting better and better in term of standardising FFP tiers’ benefits, such as the introduction of SKYPRIORITY and standardised baggage allowance. I also were able to change my Alitalia flight through KLM in Schipol as well as switching form CityJet to KLM through call centre, I don’t know how it is now, but in 2010 when I tried to change my IB flight at BA ‘oneworld’ desk in Schipol, they directed me to IB desk.

Also, I love KLM Twitter/Facebook service! They are quick and very efficient!

Furthermore, redeeming miles has never been a problem for me with FB and the promotional discount is a big bonus! However I’d like to see FB relaxing it’s rules when it comes earning eligibility. Perhaps standardised it with DLSM.

Beside FB i hold BAEC and they are as good and I do agree, OW tier benefits are better in term of quality, especially the lounges, BA and CX lounge at their home base are unbeatable!

Hope you all have a good sunny weekend (if you are in London)!

Safe travel!

[IanFromHKG]

LondonCity, HKG and CAN really don’t compete. Not even HKG and MFM really compete, and they are closer and easier to transfer between. For HKG passengers (inbound or outbound) there is really no point in going via CAN, entailing probably a 2-hour-plus journey and, because most people would transfer by road or rail, the need to go through immigration at the border, for no appreciable benefit. However, London and AMS do compete for long-haul services and their feeders, particularly given KLM’s excellent links throughout the UK and the rest of Europe.

[Author]

Posts