Oneworld and Bankruptcy?

[harvyk]

I would envisage that maybe being part of either *alliance and OWE maybe they get better buying power on fuel maybe they get lower fees at certain airports and the list could go on and on with that speculation.

To the best of my knowledge the real advantage in being part of an alliance is the agreement that airlines will utilise the services of other airlines within the alliance where they themselves don't provide the service directly. For example QF don't operate LAX-MIA, but they still offer that as a route for QF customers by directing pax to AA services.

I don't think there is any sort of group buying advantage in terms of being part of an alliance.

 

[harvyk]

Other than that, you can consider it what you will as I don't really see how or whom it is intended to "wind up", other than staunch QF/OW lovers who couldn't possibly tolerate a bad word being said about "their" airline and alliance.

Considering OW is the only alliance which directly serves the AU Dom market it does make a large number of members on this site in the pro QF/OW camp by default...

 

[Mal]

I don't think there is any sort of group buying advantage in terms of being part of an alliance.

There are huge advantages. OneWorld does do group purchasing/negotiating for certain things. I believe fuel, space at airports and some in flight items are included. More detail on the ow site under press releases I think.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using AustFreqFly

 

[wilco]

Considering OW is the only alliance which directly serves the AU Dom market it does make a large number of members on this site in the pro QF/OW camp by default...

This post was not about anyone at all and has nothing to do with pro or anti QF/OW, it was a simple (incorrectly worded) observation that IMO, more airlines leave OW and I was curious to know why.
I don't understand why people take things so personally when its completely unnecessary. The way some people react, you'd think I swore at their grandmother.......

 

[drron]

It was a simple question as to why OW has lost a disproportionate number of airlines since its inception and why so many of those remaining are in financial trouble. JL and AA are in trouble, MA it seems is in even worse financial health, CP is gone and MX is on life support with little to no hope of surviving.

I know that every alliance has its problems and even airlines outside of alliances, but it just seems to me that OW has more than its fair share of drama.

Other than that, you can consider it what you will as I don't really see how or whom it is intended to "wind up", other than staunch QF/OW lovers who couldn't possibly tolerate a bad word being said about "their" airline and alliance.



I think you could be onto something here.......

Well you are being selective.JAL went through a chapter 11 type bankruptcy and is now making a profit.*A airlines doing the same are US airways,United,Air Canada and Continental which joined *A before its merger with UA.You brought up Kingfisher-well has *A done any better in India?Air India was refused entry and Jet is in as much trouble as Kingfisher.
It really has nothing to do with alliances but the fact that Aviation is a very difficult industry.

 

[Timba-Jet]

I'm a OW loyalist an before reading this thread did think boy they are having a bad run of member airlines in financial strain.

But now reading about *A member problems in this thread gives it a bit more perspective.

Big or small, aligned or unaligned, it is bloody hard business this airline industry.

 

[stomplad]

I was having this conversation last night about AA. If it does go down it leaves a big hole in the OW alliance with nobody to fill it unless they jump fr another alliance. Thoughts?

 

[serfty]

I was having this conversation last night about AA. If it does go down it leaves a big hole in the OW alliance with nobody to fill it unless they jump fr another alliance. Thoughts?

Won't go down - it's a restructure and AA actually holds the "cards" (read $$$).

 

[elbarto]

To the best of my knowledge the real advantage in being part of an alliance is the agreement that airlines will utilise the services of other airlines within the alliance where they themselves don't provide the service directly. For example QF don't operate LAX-MIA, but they still offer that as a route for QF customers by directing pax to AA services.

I don't think there is any sort of group buying advantage in terms of being part of an alliance.

I think you're right. Alliances are more about marketing then joint procurement of goods and services. At LHR for example, Qantas don't use the services of British Airways to do their ground handling despite both being in One World.

In the past, I have heard of Star Alliance members looking at doing a joint order for regional aircraft, but it never went through. Probably because the airlines could never agree on terms and specs.

As for whether OneWorld has a bad bunch, probably not. Certainly some of their members have encountered financial difficulties, but probably no more than any other alliance. However the performance of their current list of member-elects is certainly questionable, with AB cutting routes, IT doing a good job of turning Vijay Mallyas large fortune into a small fortune and MH having been perennially mismanaged.

 

[harvyk]

I think you're right. Alliances are more about marketing then joint procurement of goods and services. At LHR for example, Qantas don't use the services of British Airways to do their ground handling despite both being in One World.

Agreed, I personally believe that due to the size of most airlines within an alliance joint procurement of goods and services would have little real savings but any such thing could serious impede an airlines ability to operate effectively. That's not to say that specific airlines within an alliance don't joint negotiate for goods and services when goals align with other alliance members. But that would be outside the official scope of the alliance.

All that said, alliances are a funny thing. Once when asked about alliance membership EK simply responded that alliances are good for the alliances major carriers flying to major destinations for example LH and UA within *A, and IMHO they are probably right. I'm thinking to my own travel, and yes I've traveled on OW carriers, but they have always been the majors (QF \ AA \ CX) I have yet to travel on any of the smaller airlines within OW and I am unlikely to do so (even less likely now LAN is rumored to be pulling out of the SYD-AKL route). Sure the minors would get some pax from OW, but for the most part they would be feeding their own pax into the OW network.

 

[drron]

That would be because I thought Canadian was Bankrupt, when it now appears that it merged (to stave off bankruptcy), Mexicana is bankrupt and Malev seems to be next. That would have made 3 from 10 vs 2 from 20. I stand corrected on Canadian and we will see what happens with MA, JL and AA.

I have just counted up the OW carriers I have used-AA,QF,CX,BA,IB,LAN,MA,AY,JAL and next year will travel on RJ.So that is 10.but there is still S7 and if you count Mexicana and Canadian that is thirteen.
Also researching Canadian it didn't enter bankruptcy-it announced it could not survive more than a year and was taken over by Air canada which itself went into bankruptcy 5 years later.

 

[elbarto]

I have just counted up the OW carriers I have used-AA,QF,CX,BA,IB,LAN,MA,AY,JAL and next year will travel on RJ.So that is 10.but there is still S7 and if you count Mexicana and Canadian that is thirteen.

Don't forget EI.

Also researching Canadian it didn't enter bankruptcy-it announced it could not survive more than a year and was taken over by Air canada which itself went into bankruptcy 5 years later.

And trying to avoid going there again.