It’s never been my understanding that “global quality” has been the goal of the alliances, outside of some basic understandings as the writer has eluded to. The goal, in my opinion, has been increased efficiency, proft and access to ports of call.
China is obviously a major achievement for whomever secures an entrance into the market place.
While not having access up-to-date numbers, I disagree that Oneworld is floundering so far behind Star, as seems to be implied in this article. You have two major carriers, AA and BA, together giving enormous route networks, plus several European, most noteably EI and Iberia (can’t think of code at the moment), and QF is quite strong in Oceana/Asia.
I think that the Skyteam Alliance is not given enough credit either. The scope of AF’s route network is fantastic, and when coupled with DL and Korean, they manage, in my observation, to use fewer airlines, reach a vast number of destinations, and I would think, have a lower cost base. Mexicana gives them access to Latin America, AF, gives them Africa and the far east (not to mention the obvious European network) and DL gives them the Atlantic and North America. Now with DL’s marketing agreements with CO and NW this alliance becomes even more powerful. Is there any chance that KL will join, or does this compete with AF? I know that they have been seeking their own alliance. Plus with AF, DL and Korean, you have access to some of the biggest hubs in the world, namely Atlanta, Paris and Seoul.
Perhaps in the future Paris will become increasingly more attractive than it already is with the operation of no-frills directly from CDG (easyjet). I may be wrong, but I think in Europe it must be the biggest hub airport with no-frills flying out of it. Good news potentially for AF, even if it competes with its own product, perhaps they will have to introduce a no frills product to compete. Getting off on a tangent there.
Just my thoughts.
Sign In
