Flanor From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 789 times:
I think KLM-Alitalia is courageous. It's practically a merger. KLM and Alitalia will eventually be just two commercial brands of one company. It will take some time but they'll get there. They are currently planning a joint buy of either the 777 or the A330/340 next year to replace MD11s and old 747s.
I hope the KLM-Continental argument will soon be over so Northwest/Continental and KLM/Alitalia can intensify the Wings alliance.
I do think the name 'Wings' sucks though. e.g. One World sounds much better.
Macair SAAB From Australia, joined May 1999, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 777 times:
Well, many people would argue that it would be either oneworld or Star, the alliances with the most publicity.
Although this is not true, I saw oneworld as THE alliance to be in. I thought oneworld was the cream of the airlines. I came to this conclusion because it had the big names like Qantas, British Airways and American in it. This lead me to believe that Star was for the airlines that could not quite make it into oneworld, but wanted to stick it to the oneworld members.
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 768 times:
oneworld is probably the best, not because of how publicised it is, but because of their service, and, for me, better connections to London. I find the fact that Aer Lingus is joining surprising, as LHR and DUB are so close, but I suppose that they wouldn't be doing it if it didn't make sense. I think a far-reaching alliance between AA, SR, and SN would be good, but won't happen, because if Swissair couldn't be in an alliance with Air France (Europe's 3rd largest airline), than how could they ever be in an alliance with BA (Europe's largest airline). I thknk Icelandair has been neglected. I think an intermediate stop in Keflavík, is ideal for some of the smaller airlines of Europe and North America, such as Icelandair. The future of the Worldwide alliances is still wide open, so I think that we should look towards the future.
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Frozensun From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 765 times:
i think the question of which is better lies unltimately in where you fly from. living in asia, i'd fly sia, thai and ana regularly, so i'd fly star even though oneworld has catpac. on the other hand, i think oneworld has a much larger presence in europe, while the two are basically quite even in the us. however, i do take offence to the suggestion that star i for "rejected" airlines. i think sia, air nz, ana and thai are all proof that this isn't true.
Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 760 times:
Frozensun is correct. The best alliance is the one that serves you best. I'm in Star because Dulles (IAD), where United dominates, is one of the two home airports from which I fly. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Frankfurt, Toronto and Tokyo are cities I have business in at least once a year. Each of these cities is best served by a STAR airline. I've had absolutely no problem with seemless travel on STAR members and enjoy the reciprocal use of lounges and facilities.