Kabir,
I see the idea of connecting lower served markets as a very successful idea. Airports that cannot be served by the A320 will receive the EMB 190 allowing useful, more direct connections.

Then again you are operating a two aircraft fleet, extra maintenance plus different wages could lead to some problems. My actual *opinion* is that they are growing too fast and rapid expansion will not pay off because of an over estimation of the economy and market. Just look around the U.S and you will see airlines that did this.

Though they have competent managers and are well in profit so who am I to question them. Just a bit of scepticism though I have confidence in them.

Mongu,
I see your point. Conceivably from my viewpoint as an observer rather than a passenger, it does seem as if there is quite a bit of integration with all the different code shares and agreements taking place. However, from the passenger’s point it is very different and this is where unity is needed between the airlines to make the alliance more accessible and harmonious for the passenger.

I agree the alliance should no evolve intirely around the BA/AA relationship though as I have said time and time again, it is a joke that two alliance partners can not code share across the Atlantic (that is a matter for the UK and US authorities). BA and AA, however, should in effect turn their intentions away from this and focus more on the positive areas of the alliance with more exposure being given at other hubs. Frankfurt is the major hub for Star but so is Vienna, Stockholm etc, which should for Oneworld seperatley as well. Oneworld could utilise other airlines more on routes on especially such as the trans atlantic ones with airlines such as Iberia (who have anti-trust immunity with American) recieving more exposure with less time places on the AA and BA relationship. Allowing Swiss in would be a perfect example.

Greekdude,
I agree Star has some excellent carriers. Lufthansa, Singapore, SAS, all prime examples. However, where Oneworld is different in my opinion, is that is strives for quality of service rather than quality of network, which is still good because of huge dominance in economic centres rather than regional. Star on the other hand have good quality though do not exploit it as much as Oneworld with the quality of network being more important. I suppose in a sense is better because they are doing what an alliance was proposed for and helping out the passenger more. I would think connections would be higher on a priority list for a passenger rather than quality to a certain extent, this is where Oneworld needs better exposure and the only way to get it is through expansion.

Does it really matter though that they do not expand their operations at the moment? They are moving ahead with their bilateral agreements and significant integration is occurring with further code sharing between existing airlines. This is therefore quite a large step for the alliance.

Oneworld strives for quality over quantity, I do not think there is any denial, however, as I have said, does their lack of quantity matter? Fine, 16 airlines can do more to access regional gateways than 8 can and that is where Star is an excellent alliance with more key hubs, but with Oneworld they have dominance in many of the key areas of cultural and economic of the world, using Australia as an example. With this it has enabled them to go beyond Europe as a connector but to South America, for example, with LAN who is thriving (LAN Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Dominica) and most of the European airlines having ATI with AA.

I know a lot rests upon Heathrow, Oneworld’s progression in quantity of airlines is stalled because there is no access on the large Heathrow to the US routes that puts airlines off. What lacks is utilisation of other hubs for the transatlantic operations. While Frankfurt is huge for Star, they have divulged into Copenhagen, Vienna and Stockholm, which Oneworld has not with too much effort placed on operations at Heathrow rather than Madrid or Dublin etc.

I think what this article gives is the impression that expansion is what the future rests upon. All I am saying is that while in my opinion too much priority is placed on Heathrow with it being a fairly successful Oneworld hub though no access to the key US market, I think quality over quantity is the way in which Oneworld operates. Key market dominance in economic centres ahead of regional operations is Oneworld’s ethos though I think it should divulge into smaller regional operations in future expansion.