LAX772LR wrote:I also never realized just how far back OneWorld was in both of the above.
Though, they (OneWorld) have more or less kept pace with destinations served, which is guess is the most important overall thing to customers.
The
oneworld alliance has always seemed content with its overall smaller size. Executives from both the alliance and its member airlines have repeatedly spoken over the years about the alliance's approach being focused less on adding members - ostensibly to maintain the "quality" of the airlines (probably more marketing) and in practice so there isn't as much overlap and internal competition among the alliance's member carriers as compared with some other groupings.
All that said, it is notable that
oneworld has some notable and distinct gaps in economically and demographically important places like China, India and Central Europe, and also notable that
oneworld's members generally seem fine with it and are simply building their own relationships when and where necessary to get the access they need.
winginit wrote:These are interesting statistics, but as we're watching more complex and comprehensive joint ventures and equity partners replace the utility of the now dated alliance structure, do member carriers care outside of the select few who work for the alliance itself as opposed to a member carrier (which is very few, as most alliance employees are seconded from member carriers)?
The model just doesn't seem relevant anymore. Yes, you've got notable white spaces such as mainland China for oneworld, but so long as a dominant carrier is covered individually (ie Qantas with China Eastern or American with China Southern in the future) do they really care about that white space?
This. No question about it - the underlying, fundamental logic for global alliances is certainly diminished from what it was twenty years ago when these constructs were first created. The advent of deeper bilateral (or in some cases multilateral) alliances - including variously antitrust immunity, revenue-sharing joint ventures and equity investments - have undermined some of the need for global alliances.
I can definitely still understand the value of global alliances - for people making multi-stop and/or around-the-world trips, it is helpful to have a multitude of options across multiple carriers who all recognize reciprocal frequent flyer status and benefits, etc. But given that this represents, realistically, an incredible small portion of the passengers moving across any particular carrier's network at a given time, it's also equally easy to understand the value of deeper bilateral relationships.
To the points above - this is actually one area where I think
oneworld has long been fairly progressive and ahead of the curve. It has always been the most liberal, and least restrictive, with member airlines opportunistically forming individual bilateral relationships. AA just made an equity investment in SkyTeam's China Southern. QANTAS has a massive JV with Emirates. Cathay Pacific is forming a cargo alliance with Lufthansa. And on and on. It's arguable that, in that sense,
oneworld's approach may have actually been somewhat ahead of its time - and anticipating the changes that were to come in the global civil aviation landscape.