Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Star Could Be 4X Bigger Than OW Or ST?  
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3823 posts, RR: 12
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6736 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Is this normal?
I post this because with the recent threads that either AI or 9W will join Star, and Star targetting to get up to 50 members, One World and Sky Team will be each left with 10 or maybe maximum 12 members each. Do the math. Star will eventually be 4X bigger than One World or Sky Team, or twice as big as One World and Sky Team combined. I don't see this happening.
I like One World and Sky Team alliances.

Ben Soriano

[Edited 2009-03-20 07:53:21]

[Edited 2009-03-20 07:53:58]


Ben Soriano
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJAL From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 5085 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6739 times:

Being bigger doesn't necessarily means better.


Work Hard But Play Harder
User currently onlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2501 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6707 times:



Quoting JAL (Reply 1):
Being bigger doesn't necessarily means better.

But having a global coverage means a lot... When you think of One World especially, they have big gaps which makes them less attractive then the other 2 alliances. Star can take you from almost everywhere to anywhere.



Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11686 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6518 times:



Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 2):
But having a global coverage means a lot... When you think of One World especially, they have big gaps which makes them less attractive then the other 2 alliances.

And visa versa.

Star doesn't have a partner with domestic Australian feed, nor does it have a partner in Mexico, which oneworld is about to have, nor does it have a partner in South America, nor a partner in the Mid East.

The truth is that while Star likes to pride itself on have all these partners, thee vast majority of their customers are traveling between a small group of major global markets around the world (probably 50-75) and that while it is great that Star can get you from Zagreb to Christchurch or Des Moines to Amritsar all in-network, all of that connectivity is lost on most of the alliance's collective passenger base.

Sure, oneworld may be smaller, but they do have some of the largest airlines in the world, with some of the broadest and most expansive networks of any carriers on earth, and in some of the highest-yielding and most important hub markets of any cities on earth (London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Sydney, Madrid, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, etc.). The same is also true of SkyTeam.

As another poster alluded to: size isn't everything.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25511 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6463 times:

I look forward to an even larger Star.

Being able to accrue, redeem miles and make use of lounges by an ever growing list of airline makes global travel ever easier affording many routing choices to mix/match the best timings and fares. With others such as OW, I find I am, extremely constricted with carriers route (and cost) options.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6445 times:

Star members will start to overlap, maybe even compete, little room for growth.

What are the numer af passenger miles ?

AF+KLM+Delta+NWA seem pretty big. 4 x times as large, who?


User currently offlineFlyingcat From United States of America, joined May 2007, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6404 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Star doesn't have a partner with domestic Australian feed, nor does it have a partner in Mexico, which oneworld is about to have, nor does it have a partner in South America, nor a partner in the Mid East.

Star has TAM, Taca, and eventually Copa joining which are very strong and well run in Central and South America. The absence of a middle east partner is something all the alliances also must contend with.


User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11439 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6393 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Star doesn't have a partner with domestic Australian feed, nor does it have a partner in Mexico, which oneworld is about to have, nor does it have a partner in South America, nor a partner in the Mid East

But they are about to get TAM, Taca and probably Copa. They will be the king of South America, in pair with OW (LA Group). SkyTeam in fact is the one with major gap in South America and Australia/New Zealand.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineJetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3297 posts, RR: 35
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6347 times:



Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 7):

But they are about to get TAM, Taca and probably Copa. They will be the king of South America, in pair with OW (LA Group). SkyTeam in fact is the one with major gap in South America and Australia/New Zealand.

But eventually some of the Star carriers will become dissatisfied with being a small part of a big alliance. It is expensive and they end up competing with their own partners. At some point, the pendulum will swing back.

Keep in mind also, that smaller alliances have the ability to integrate on a far greater scale. Often, that is more valuable to the carriers...though maybe not the customers.

One last point, many of the Star carriers are actually quite small. So while the number of carriers is 4x larger, the total global capacity is nothing near that magnitude.


User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6285 times:



Quoting Flyingcat (Reply 6):
The absence of a middle east partner is something all the alliances also must contend with.

Well, OW has Royal Jordanian.


User currently offlineLipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11439 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6219 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 8):
But eventually some of the Star carriers will become dissatisfied with being a small part of a big alliance. It is expensive and they end up competing with their own partners. At some point, the pendulum will swing back.

Keep in mind also, that smaller alliances have the ability to integrate on a far greater scale. Often, that is more valuable to the carriers...though maybe not the customers.

One last point, many of the Star carriers are actually quite small. So while the number of carriers is 4x larger, the total global capacity is nothing near that magnitude

Good points. First Star has more small members than any alliance, and this as you mentioned could lead to dissatisfaction or even to situations like in South America. Tam drop a partnership with Taca in favor of LA and LP, and if both join Star, probably Tam would need to leave LA/LP partnership to cooperate again with TA.



New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6058 times:



Quoting American 767 (Thread starter):
I post this because with the recent threads that either AI or 9W will join Star, and Star targetting to get up to 50 members, One World and Sky Team will be each left with 10 or maybe maximum 12 members each. Do the math

It seems in reality the Alliance are quiet close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_alliance#Alliances

And this overview is number of passengers only.

1 passenger flying from indiapolis to JFK is counted even as a passenger from SIN to JFK


User currently offlineFFlyerWorld From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6028 times:

All this speculation without factual information is just that!
Wait a few months and it may very well change - who knows what the horizon has in store for SkyTeam????


User currently onlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1496 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5953 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Sure, oneworld may be smaller, but they do have some of the largest airlines in the world, with some of the broadest and most expansive networks of any carriers on earth, and in some of the highest-yielding and most important hub markets of any cities on earth (London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Sydney, Madrid, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, etc.). The same is also true of SkyTeam.

As another poster alluded to: size isn't everything.

One notable gap in the Star network is London-New York. This has to be one of the world's most important business routes and, yet, ever since UA pulled out a few years ago, this route has not been served direct by any Star member.

But, thankfully for Star, CO will plug the gap from end October.

And Australia remains a serious omission on the Star network. Yes, you can fly there with SQ or ANZ but once in Australia there's no Star carrier to take you around.

UK-based travellers are big users of RTW tickets that cover Australia (because of family ties and so on) so that is why Oneworld tickets (with QF/BA/CX etc) are a popular choice when circling the globe via Australia.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5924 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Star doesn't have a partner with domestic Australian feed, nor does it have a partner in Mexico

But they're about to get the largest U.S. carrier to Mexico in CO. That will fill a huge gap for Star.


User currently offlineTayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5873 times:



Quoting LondonCity (Reply 13):
UK-based travellers are big users of RTW tickets that cover Australia (because of family ties and so on) so that is why Oneworld tickets (with QF/BA/CX etc) are a popular choice when circling the globe via Australia.

And vice-versa.


User currently onlineMillwallSean From Singapore, joined Apr 2008, 1256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5833 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Star doesn't have a partner with domestic Australian feed, nor does it have a partner in Mexico, which oneworld is about to have, nor does it have a partner in South America, nor a partner in the Mid East.

I just wonder why its so important to have feed within Australia?
Star flies to all major cities in Aussie with several daily nonstops. Thats all they need.

The rest of the alliances doesn't have feed within Canada or Scandinavia. Thats markets of the same size but its not mentioned as a huge problem so why would Australia be such an issue. Doesn't make sense to me. Star has gaps but Australia isn't one of these gaps.

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 8):

But eventually some of the Star carriers will become dissatisfied with being a small part of a big alliance. It is expensive and they end up competing with their own partners. At some point, the pendulum will swing back.

As long as most smaller airlines are owned by or in close cooperation with other Star Alliance carriers I doubt that will be much of an issue.

In Europe you have what LH, SK, TP and TK thats independent.
The rest are in one way or another dependent on LH.

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 13):
And Australia remains a serious omission on the Star network. Yes, you can fly there with SQ or ANZ but once in Australia there's no Star carrier to take you around.

This is another A.net myth.

As I said in my first reply, we don't speak about lack of Scandinavian coverage, lack of Canadian coverage or even worse lack of Brazilian coverage so why is this said Australia gap even mentioned.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When we talk about size people always assumes that BA is very big and on par with AF or LH but this couldn't be further from the truth.
In terms of passengers BA is number 6.
In general BA and oneworld is lagging in Europe and has major gaps.
Here are some numbers from 2008 to have a look at. All numbers incl 100% owned subsidiaries. Swiss is however counted both in LH and as a separate entity.

1 Air France-KLM 74.8 Mil SkyTeam
2 Lufthansa 70.5 Mil Star Alliance
3 Ryanair 57.7 Mil
4 easyJet 44.6 Mil
5 SAS Group 37.9 Mil Star Alliance
6 British Airways 33.1 Mil oneworld
7 Air Berlin 28.5 Mil
8 Iberia 26.9 Mil oneworld
9 Alitalia 26.6 Mil SkyTeam
10 Turkish Airlines 22.5 Mil Star Alliance
11 Swiss 13.4 Mil Star Alliance
12 Aeroflot 11.6 Mil SkyTeam
13 Austrian 10.7 Mil Star Alliance
14 bmi 10.6 Mil Star Alliance
15 Aer Lingus 10.4 Mil

These numbers show the position in Europe. Oneworld is far behind.

BA is great on transatlantic flights and to the commonwealth but apart from that?
Its European network isn't close to its rivals either.
SK is often not mentioned, but they are bigger than many realises. Huge domestic market and good coverage all over Northern Europe.
Turkish is the fastest grower in Europe, they will overtake several airlines within the coming few years.
Iberias numbers will rise if Vuelings 5.9 Mil gets included in the count. Click is included in those numbers though.



No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17537 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5818 times:



Quoting LondonCity (Reply 13):
One notable gap in the Star network is London-New York.

They'll shortly have BD on the LON end and CO on the NYC end. It'll obviously never match OW but it's about as good as you can get otherwise.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
As another poster alluded to: size isn't everything.

I'm not sure. The number one determinant for anyone to participate in an airline alliance, or fly any particular carrier in the first place, is whether they fly to where you want to go, and with a bigger and broader schedule, you'll increase the chance that a particular alliance will fit your needs. I think the passenger's ability to earn and redeem miles is pretty much the be-all-end-all after whether the alliance can take the passenger where they want to go.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12188 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5748 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 2):
But having a global coverage means a lot... When you think of One World especially, they have big gaps which makes them less attractive then the other 2 alliances.

And visa versa.

Star doesn't have a partner with domestic Australian feed, nor does it have a partner in Mexico, which oneworld is about to have, nor does it have a partner in South America, nor a partner in the Mid East.

NZ partners with QF in Australia, so yes Star does has domestic coverage


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25323 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting American 767 (Thread starter):
I post this because with the recent threads that either AI or 9W will join Star, and Star targetting to get up to 50 members,

As a passenger, I don't understand this affection for alliances.

Airlines spend fortunes advertising how special and unique they are, and often you end up flying on someone else.  confused 

In the days before alliances I used to fly regularly around the world. I got to fly on airlines of my choice with fairly seamless connections.

Now the airline chooses who else I fly with. How much fun is that?

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7636 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5441 times:



Quoting FFlyerWorld (Reply 12):

All this speculation without factual information is just that!
Wait a few months and it may very well change - who knows what the horizon has in store for SkyTeam????

Ummm.....Its not really speculation that Star Alliance is the largest. Its a fact.

Quoting JAL (Reply 1):
Being bigger doesn't necessarily means better.

Its all about who flies what routes on an individual level.

Anyway, the Star Alliance is starting seem like a community college. Anyone can get in.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Sure, oneworld may be smaller, but they do have some of the largest airlines in the world, with some of the broadest and most expansive networks of any carriers on earth, and in some of the highest-yielding and most important hub markets of any cities on earth (London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Sydney, Madrid, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, etc.).

I think this makes OneWorld very attractive. They arent as big, but they have a major presence in alot of major markets in the world.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12188 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5411 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
Now the airline chooses who else I fly with. How much fun is that?

Well the airlines arn't stopping you from choosing who you fly with, cause you can either book seperate flights yourself or cask a travel agent to book the seperate flights for you


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25440 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5379 times:



Quoting LondonCity (Reply 13):
And Australia remains a serious omission on the Star network. Yes, you can fly there with SQ or ANZ but once in Australia there's no Star carrier to take you around.

Five other Star members also serve Australia - AC, UA, TG, OZ, CA.

I expect all Star carriers have interline agreements with QF and can issue a single ticket including QF connecting flights. And what percentage of total traffic to/rom Australia is not originating at one of the major gateway cities? It must be very small.


User currently offlineSeemyseems From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 967 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5346 times:

Well SkyTeam is lobbying loads of members, TAROM and MEA should be in this year, and perhaps Vietnam Airlines, China Airlines and/or Avianca.


seemyseems
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25323 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5302 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 777ER (Reply 21):
Well the airlines arn't stopping you from choosing who you fly with, cause you can either book seperate flights yourself or cask a travel agent to book the seperate flights for you

Which I do. I still don't see the value of the alliances.   

mariner

[Edited 2009-03-20 18:13:09]


aeternum nauta
25 Post contains links and images VV701 : What is more if you look at the top six cities in Mastercard's Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index Ranking List you will find that it is: 1. London 2
26 Huaiwei : Fully agreed. A market which traditionally cannot support more than two domestic players appears to be getting alot more attention then it is due. An
27 MillwallSean : And Finland is situated where? Hint its not Scandinavia... Thats a great tool if you are after banking centres. They have channelled so much money th
28 Falcon84 : It isn't a matter of fun, it's a matter of economics. It's much more economically feasable for a carrier to get into an alliance, so they don't have
29 Mariner : Yes, I understand the rationale - for the airlines (although I still don't understand why they spend do much money building their own brand image). I
30 777ER : Only times I ever book on the NZ web-site is for Australian and NZ domestic flights. When I go long haul I only book via a travel agent and she knows
31 Mariner : I don't even do that. I just go to a travel agent. But I'm confused. I'm not sure why you would only want to fly Star Alliance - but doesn't the webs
32 Boeinglover24 : Well I don't know about everyone else. But as a loyal CO flyer right now I always try to find a skyteam member to get where i want to go if CO doesn'
33 Directorguy : Correction: Egyptair is Star Alliance's Middle East member, and within a few years CAI is expected to become a *A hub.
34 Post contains links VV701 : I am sorry but you misread my post. It mentions nothing about "banking" or even "finance". The Mastercard ranking list is a list of cities ranked by
35 Post contains links VV701 : Oh! Yes it is a Nordic and not a Scandinavian country. But do not tell the Scandinavian Tourism Board in North America that. At http://www.goscandina
36 SpeedyGonzales : Depends on how you look at it. Travelling from TRD I prefer Skyteam (KLM) to Star (SAS/LH), since I can go a lot of places with one stop in AMS in st
37 Mandala499 : Yes, how you look at it and where you are... Where I am, OW looks to have a huge gaping hole... but does it? The largest markets are Jakarta, Surabay
38 Mortyman : Air New Zealand also has codeshare with Air Pacific Brisbane Melbourne Sydney Gold Coast
39 ZKOJH : Air New Zealand also has codeshare with Air Pacific Brisbane Melbourne Sydney Gold Coast since when has this been the case, thought they only codeshar
40 Glareskin : FWIW (this list I mean) here we go for Star Alliance: 1. London (BMI) 2. New York (CO, soon to be *A) 3. Tokyo (NH) 4. Singapore (SQ) 5. Chicago (UA)
41 Avek00 : For most passengers, the global alliances are indeed irrelevant, and even those who derive benefit from them seldom think in terms of the alliances a
42 American 767 : I don't agree. JFK/LGA combined I would consider this as a hub. Look at how many flights American including its regional affiliate American Eagle has
43 Viscount724 : Even AA doesn't consider New York as one of their hubs. Following excerpt from their 2007 Annual Report: American operates five hubs: Dallas/Fort Wor
44 Glareskin : I don't underestimate NY. But it is no AA hub. Simple as that.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will Ryanair Be Bigger Than British Airways? posted Fri Jan 25 2002 07:18:21 by United Airline
Will There Ever Be An Engine Bigger Than The 777s? posted Tue Oct 23 2001 07:15:00 by Lax
Can CX Be As Big As Sia? Or Even Bigger? posted Mon May 14 2001 14:34:36 by United Airline
Will A3XX Be Bigger Than AN225? posted Sat Sep 23 2000 03:22:06 by Delta777-XXX
Routes That Have/could Be Reinstated? posted Sun Feb 15 2009 10:29:50 by BTVB6Flyer
WN Could Start LGA In June With 1 Or 2 Routes posted Wed Dec 17 2008 13:24:33 by Enilria
Could DL Order The 737-900ER Or A321? posted Sat Nov 29 2008 12:51:13 by 1337Delta764
Sterling Could Be Flying Again By Next Week! posted Mon Nov 3 2008 04:33:56 by SKAirbus
What Could Be A Dc-9 Replacement For NWA? posted Sun Sep 14 2008 16:28:30 by AndyDTWnwa7
A330 NG Could Be Posible? posted Mon Jul 21 2008 07:57:21 by Carls