Gardermoen From Australia, joined Jul 1999, 1527 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (16 years 2 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
In terms of in-flight service, I prefer Star Alliance as I think overall they have a better level of service comapared to oneworld carriers. I have flown Air New Zealand, Ansett Australia, Thai, Lufthansa and Air Canada. They were all great. I will be flying SAS soon and it is supposed to be good. As for United, I have flown them too , but like oneworld's American, all airlines in the US have crap service. Just wait for Singapore Airlines to join Star!! The only good airline in oneworld is Cathay Pacific, although new entrant Finnair is rumoured to be good too. The service on board Qantas is crap, and BA is just okay.
Johans From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (15 years 12 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2178 times:
I think overall that oneworld is better. As of today Finnair and Spanish state airline Iberia have joined oneworld, and they both have very good service. While Star focuses mainly on passengers, oneworld focuses both on passengers and cargo... with more emphasis on passengers though, as most alliances do. We shall see what comes in the months to come, Emirates might go either way... and Emirates I've heard is a great airline. Also JAL looks to be joining oneworld since ANA joined Star. Also there are rumors that China Eastern might join oneworld too.
Hagi From Finland, joined Jun 1999, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (15 years 12 months 3 days ago) and read 2155 times:
I dislike alliances as an idea. It's a way for airlines to avoid competition. Alliances boost the giants and make them even more dominant and suffocate smaller airlines. I'm not saying that the concept of a flag-carrier airline that makes profit less often that not and flies to destinations they "have to" due to politics or what ever is a good one, but I think alliances will lead to air traffic being concentrated to mega hubs while smaller cities and countries will eventually be left with fewer direct connections and fewer airlines serving than before.
But this going towards larger and larger units is a general trend in every business today and unfortunately opinions like mine won't change the course of things.
I'm sorry but I don't have an opinion for your original question.
Superyoel2001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (15 years 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
I like Star much better. In my opinion, the have better global coverage with better flight schedules. I live in Winnipeg, so for me to go to Frankfurt all I have to do is Winnipeg-Toronto-Frankfurt. With Oneworld it's Winnipeg-Toronto-Chicago-London-Frankfurt. Plus Star has my favourite airline Air Canada. As Johans said earlier that oneworld concentrates more on cargo, they don't. For example, AC's 747's have cargo space, the rear 1/3 of the aircraft is cargo. And how could you say Lufthansa doesn't have cargo planes???
RA001 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (15 years 11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
I have just returned from the US/Canada/UK (second long haul trip this year) with oneworld. I must say that out of the bunch Qantas is the best, they might need to learn how to smile a little more but as far as service, aircraft quality and configuration, proceedure and safety goes, they have it all worked out.
I was less than impressed with BA, me thinks they need to take a leaf out of QF's book. I have not had the pleasure but I have heard Cathay is also very good.
There probably isn't much in it, from reading the other messages both oneworld and star have there good and bad.
AC183 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 1532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (15 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2131 times:
Some people talk about who has superior service. I would lean towards Star, but to me that's not the most important. The most important is destinations and connections. Getting there quickly and easily is the first priority. And from that perspective everyone has a different experience based on where they live. As a Canadian, the best alliances means the best international connections from Canada. And in this respect, I think it is unquestionably Star that is best. While another alliance may be better in another part of the world, the geographic positioning of Star hubs, and the network that feeds them, make it better. Basically Denver is a key hub that OneWorld doesn't have, Dallas is just too far south to work well for a hub from Canada into the US. And while there is enough traffic to sustain flights from Canada to the UK from many points, connections beyond that are very well served by Lufthansa in Frankfurt, by SAS in Copenhagen, or by AC's flights into Paris, and Zurich. And with Air Canada's growing Asian presence, and ANA joining Star, Asia is well reasonably well covered for passengers to and from Asia. Those are the most important areas to travel to from Canada. By contrast, OneWorld has the Canadi>n network over the pacific, but much poorer connections to the US, and basically only offers flights to LHR in Europe. So while someone in Finland might think a little different than I do, Star is better suited to Canada.
As an aside, I think this is partly why part of the Onex bid to merge AC and CP relies on the new airline being in OneWorld. AA is offering to finance the deal in exchange for the airline being in OneWorld, because on its own the merged airline would choose Star Alliance. But that's just what I think...
Airline2000 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (15 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2131 times:
I think oneworld alliance is the BEST and it is best held in the interest of one particular airline "Cathay Pacific". Other airlines such as Qantas and British Airways have also lead the way in service delivery and product development, where as Star falls behind in this aspect.
Watch out for new oneworld partners! It is growing with a large number of quality airlines. Unlike Star which recruits poorly run airlines like 'Mexicana'...I wonder WHY? Why Mexicana! This just proves it all.
For example when THAI Airways International crashed last year, many German tourists were onboard. This was due to travel agents booking these tourists on this particular airline because of its strong ties with Lufthansa (ie another Star Alliance partner). because of this fact, Star recruits any "rubbish" airline with poor safety record. Look at oneworld alliance safety record...very impressive and far better than Star's.
GO THE...... "ONEWORLD ALLIANCE" It really goes revolve around you! Think about it!
Hagi From Finland, joined Jun 1999, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (15 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2123 times:
The idea of an alliance is to have a bunch of individual airlines that complement each others' route networks. For an alliance to be truly global, it needs to have participants from all the corners of the world: those operating inside and between large, important market areas such as the US or SE Asia form the backbone of the alliance's network while the smaller, more regional partner companies feed traffic to this central network. This way, operations are streamlined and competition is eliminated (within the alliance). Choosing partners to alliances has virtually nil to do with safety, apart that the crappiest carriers can't obviously be invited to join (but then again, would those have anything to contribute with, anyway). But it's hard to find an airline with a spotless safety record; even the safest ones have incidents every now and then and practically every major airline has had hull losses where lives have been lost.
Overbooking is a standard procedure; I haven't heard of an airline that doesn't do it, especially with coach class. The fact that there were German tourists on board the misfortunate Thai plane doesn't have a thing to do with safety.
Thai747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 1999, 814 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (15 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2096 times:
Excuse me... Star recruits rubbish airlines with poor safety records??gimme a break... German tourists were onboard TG261 that crashed was because it was a domestic flight an TG was the only airlines that fly that route? if TG wasn't in an alliance with LH.. what airlines would you think the agency would book the german tourists on? Qantas? Japan Airlines? for BKK - Surat Thani its a domestic route for godssake
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (15 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2095 times:
Personally, I prefer oneworld. I have flown AA and BA, in oneworld, and UA and LH in Star. While I think AA is better (by far) to UA, I have to admit LH is better than BA, but only marginally. To conclude, oneword is better than star, and oneworld is just getting better.
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry