will not be joining Star period. Lets just think about this for a minute.
The posters above tout an alliance between QF
as the major reason for this change in Alliances. I have one question for you. Since SQ
is the 2nd largest International Carrier after QF
in Australia do you really think such an arrangement would ever get ACCC approval??? The simple answer is hell NO!!!! Have a look at whats happening over the QF
/NZ Alliance. Any proposal with SQ
has more significance to long haul competition out of Australia than the QF
/NZ deal has. It would be almost impossible to get it through
's largest shareholder has also been touted as a reason for an alliance to go ahead. All of the financial commentators believe that the QF
shareholding is seen as a pure investment play in SQ
's largest competitor NOT as a precurser to anything more. Their involvement with QF
's Asian LCC is also seen as hedging their bets against SQ
being damaged in some way by the extra competition. Also there is an American company called the Capital Group which now owns almost 8% of QF
judging by their Substantial Shareholder Notice. So its not as if SQ
's parent is even close to having the sort of % that would be needed to force an alliance.
will want to join Star (for the NZ
Absolute rubbish. QF
will be the bigger partner in any deal with ANZ so if anything Air New Zealand will join Oneworld not the other way around.
If we want to examine QF
's major markets then lets do so;
Asia - The most important partner here is JAL who sits outside all the Alliances. QF
's arrangements with JAL on the major Japanese routes from Sydney & Brisbane are the key feature of its North Asian flying. Also JAL is as good as a member of Oneworld in all but name. It's codeshare with Asiana stems from Ansett International being awarded the flying rights to Korea way back when it was flying. I can't see ANA or Thai being of any Alliance Interest for QF
esp since they downgraded Bangkok in favour of Singapore. If your talking Southeast or Central Asia then you talk of SQ
or MAS. (Excluding mainland China Airlines)
Europe - I suppose Oneworld was hoping that Swiss would offer the central Europe hub that they all wanted. However Oneworld does have the advantage at LHR
in that ALL
their major carriers fly large numbers of services there. It is the logical Eurpoean Alliance airport for them and QF
has always had a large presence there. The only reason BA
would have been annoyed at QF
buying slots at LHR
is because they are usually the ones who grab every single slot in site!!!! But any QF
move to open services to LHR
from China or India will be a Joint Servce with BA
anyway so I wouldn't have thought BA
would have anything against this happening. This is particularly the case with Virgin beating BA
to the punch on developing long haul services esp in China. QF
have dropped a number of services to Europe the same as the European carriers have dropped their services beyond Asia. What QF
/Oneworld needs is an Alliance partner at one of the Gulf Airports aka Emirates or Gulf Air. This would alleviate the European connection even better than an Asian Alliance partner would.
North America - I dont think UAL & QF
would be happy bed partners to say the least. Not to mention the lack of competition across the Pacific. The main connection QF
needs at LAX
are East Coast ones and thats why AA
flights to New York, Washington, Chicago, Miami and Dallas form the backbone of thier strategy. Besides which if you want to fly on the West Coast QF
connects with America West and Alaska so they dont need UAL.
So, in short, I dont think a QF
move to Star makes any sense. Nor do I think the Star Alliance members would welcome it.