The worst kept secret in the airline industry was officially announced yesterday when Qatar Airways said it would join the oneworld alliance. This may not be a surprise, but it is going to create some confusion in the Middle East. There are a lot of seemingly conflicting relationships with airlines in this alliance that might make it difficult for travelers to understand exactly who is a partner and how. I wonder if this is a trend that’s going to continue.

Up until now, none of the big three in the Middle East (Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar) had opted to join an alliance. Turkish was probably the closest fast-growing airline in that general region to join an alliance when it picked Star, but the Middle East was still overall an unaligned region with tremendous traffic and growth potential.

Emirates has long been the shining star of the region and it has wanted to remain independent of a global alliance so it could work with any strategic partner it felt would be beneficial. It makes sense for the airline since it had a ton of traffic and many different airlines wanting to tap into that base. That’s why you’ll find Emirates partnering either via frequent flier program or codeshare with South African and Thai in Star Alliance, JAL in oneworld, Korean in SkyTeam, and a bunch of unaligned airlines including JetBlue and Alaska here in the US.

Emirates took its biggest step forward recently, however, when it created a deep partnership with oneworld’s Qantas to connect Australia with Europe better. So Emirates wants strong partnerships but it doesn’t want the cost and handcuffs that come with global alliances. It will just pick and choose.

Europe Benefits
When the Qantas deal was announced, people worried that British Airways would lose its feed into Australia with Qantas and that the alliance was fracturing, but within minutes the rumors of Qatar joining oneworld came to light. That rumor picked up steam despite pointed, bizarre denials from the airline’s chief. Now we don’t have to speculate anymore.

What does Qatar bring to oneworld? Well, it depends on where you live. Qatar’s meager Australia service (just Melbourne) won’t bring anything to Qantas loyalists since they already have an Emirates partnership that will blow it away. And for Americans, there isn’t a ton to be gained either since American already partners with Etihad (for now) to fly beyond Abu Dhabi to that part of the world.

The greatest benefit is for Europeans, and that is why I’m sure IAG (parent of British Airways and Iberia) CEO Willie Walsh was there for the announcement yesterday. This gives British Airways passengers the ability to fly into Abu Dhabi Doha and connect all over Asia and Africa as part of the alliance. I’m curious to hear what longtime oneworld member Royal Jordanian thinks about all this. It may actually strengthen RJ’s position.

The Tangled Web
What is really confusing here is all the overlapping partnerships. We know that the partnership between Emirates and Qantas is strong and not going away, but what about Etihad? This one is very confusing.

As mentioned, American has a partnership with Etihad today. (Etihad also works with a bunch of other airlines around the globe, many in Star.) Etihad now owns nearly 30 percent of Air Berlin, a recent addition to the oneworld alliance. So you would have thought that Etihad might be the one on the fast track to join oneworld. Clearly not. And in what was quite obviously a well-timed release, Etihad announced just a few hours before the Qatar press conference that it had aligned itself with Air France/KLM in a small codeshare deal. That deal also includes Air Berlin. I imagine we’re going to see this grow further and maybe end up including Virgin Australia some day. After all, Etihad owns 10 percent of Virgin Australia.

But is this the end of Air Berlin in oneworld? That is where I’m having trouble seeing the future. The question now is whether we see airlines truly aligning themselves with one alliance or if we see this type of straddling move where airlines can operate outside the lines. After all, Etihad’s boss said that oneworld was “secondary” in the scheme of things for Air Berlin. Could it possibly try to keep that membership while strengthening ties with Air France/KLM and still maintaining partnerships with some Star Alliance airlines?

In that same vein, can Qatar join oneworld and keep its partnerships with Star Alliance members ANA, Asiana, Lufthansa, and US Airways? There has never been a requirement to only partner with airlines in your own alliance, but it seems like it’s been a growing trend to spread your wings beyond alliance boundaries even if alliance partners serve the same purpose. And the alliances want Middle Eastern carriers so badly that they probably wouldn’t be able to make demands to stop this type of partnering anyway.

It seems to me that the only thing that would really stop this type of growth is government concern about antitrust issues. We saw that in Latin America where authorities prohibited newly-combined LAN and TAM from being in separate alliances. I think we should be prepared for this blurring of alliance lines going forward. It’s going to get confusing.

There’s a big press conference scheduled for New York on Monday where oneworld will announce a “significant membership development.” This is such a big deal that I received an invitation to go out to New York and oneworld would even arrange for flights. (I’m not going since I can cover this just as well from home.) The favorite right now is Qatar Airways, but we’ve heard mixed signals from them. What’s your bet?

It’s been a busy year south of the US border with all three alliances trying to make big land grabs in Latin America. So far, it looks like Star Alliance and oneworld are doing the best with Skyteam coming in a sad third. But these alliance loyalties are not static, and we could see more changes soon.

Let’s start with a map showing in which countries each alliance has a presence. This assumes that all announced members actually become members and it doesn’t include non-alliance partnerships. (For example, Gol may work with American but it’s not part of oneworld.)

Now let’s think about some of the major changes that altered this map in recent months. The list is enormous.

• oneworld member Mexicana went under, leaving Aeromexico’s Skyteam presence as the only one in Mexico
• Avianca and TACA merged and then decided to join Star Alliance
• Copa decided to join Star Alliance
• Aerolineas Argentinas decided to join Skyteam
• LAN acquired AIRES to give it a presence in Colombia

And that’s all pretty recent. Crazy stuff, right? So now we see Star Alliance having a stranglehold on Central America now that TACA and Copa will be in the same alliance. LAN rules the southwest of the continent with Avianca-TACA making strides in the northwest. And then there’s Brazil.

All eyes are on the most important market in Latin America these days. The big player in the country, TAM, is currently part of Star Alliance, but there is plenty of speculation about what will happen after its merger with LAN is completed. Will LAN come to Star? Will TAM go to oneworld? Or will the airlines both keep their respective alliances? My money is on the latter, if they can figure out a way to walk that tightrope.

Then again, Star has given itself a little cushion here. If TAM goes to oneworld, then Star will have the option of trying to help Avianca grow its Brazilian subsidiary, if it thinks it’s necessary. And LAN might want to bring TAM into oneworld to try to push off American’s growing relationship with Gol, right? This is better than a Mexican soap opera.

The one thing we can all agree on now is that Skyteam is mostly left out of this game. Sure, Aeromexico is a part of Skyteam but that’s far from where this fight is taking place. It’s a different market entirely. And Aerolineas Argentinas? Yeah, that’s one mess of an airline. As a government-owned entity, it’s not going anywhere, but it’s not exactly the alliance prize of Latin America.

Latin America is booming and there are a handful of very well run airlines down there (most prominently, LAN). This is going to be a fascinating area to watch as alliances look to cement relationships to give the best coverage in the region.

oneworld Alliance Surging, Adding Airlines — and Finally Offering Customers Some Perks – BNET Headwinds
oneworld is finally surging after years of being lame and boring. Finally.

Southwest Wages a Battle for Milwaukee in… Oshkosh? – BNET Headwinds
Southwest flew into Oshkosh last weekend. Why? It’s a battle for the hearts and minds of cheeseheads.

Air Berlin’s Alliance Move Signals Big Strategy Ambitions – BNET Headwinds
As a follow up to the oneworld piece, I thought it would be interesting to look at it from the Air Berlin side.

Alaska Airlines Competes For Bellingham via Honolulu – BNET Headwinds
Alaska is trying to beat Allegiant to the punch by starting flights from Bellingham to Hawai’i.

About 10 minutes after the Wright Brothers put their first airplane into the air, American and British Airways applied for blanket codesharing and antitrust immunity. More than 100 years later, their wish has finally been granted, at least by the US authorities. Yes, they have to give up some slots, but it’s a very minor number. I would be very happy if I were them.

Assuming this ruling becomes final and the EU goes along with it, American and British Airways frequent fliers should be able to burn their own miles on the other airlines’ airplanes between the US and Europe. You will also start to see American Airlines codes popping up on British Airways transatlantic flights and vice versa. Oh yeah, and it’s not just these two. BA’s darling Iberia, Royal Jordanian, and Finnair are a part of this as well, but they were never the hold-up. It was always all about access to Heathrow.

So what made it go through this time when it’s failed so many times in the past? Well, the open skies agreement between the US and the EU played a big part. Without it, the DOT said the outcome would likely have been different. With a new round of talks on opening the skies even further about to begin, I imagine the EU will be very conscious about the connection here when they decide to rule.

The order itself was 44 pages long, but it really could have been said in one page. The DOT decided that the harm to competition wasn’t enough to overcome the consumer benefits . . . for the most part. (Gee, strange that the exact same body felt differently about the US Airways/Delta slot swap ruling earlier this week.)

The one market that was singled out by the DOT was Boston to London/Heathrow. (The DOT stated that Heathrow is, in its eyes, a separate market from the other airports in London. That was one of the only things that they and Virgin Atlantic agreed on.) The Boston to London market is large and will effectively go down from 3 competitors to 2 when BA and AA are considered one. So what will the DOT do about it? They’re requiring BA and AA to give up some Heathrow slots.

The ruling actually will require 4 slot pairs to be divested. That’s it. Yes, Delta has to give up 14 in Washington, but these two only have to give up 4. (I know they’re different issues completely, but still, the juxtaposition is there.) Of those 4 pairs, two must be dedicated to Boston – Heathrow flights. The other two can be used from any US city to Heathrow.

Keep in mind, BA and AA don’t have to give up slots they currently use for transatlantic flights. They can take any slots as long as they are at times that are appropriate for transatlantic flying. And they don’t even have to sell the slots. They can just lease them for a reasonable amount and actually earn money on them. This would require leasing them for only 10 years and then BA and AA could use them again if they wanted.

Now, who the heck is going to want these slots? In Boston, I can only think Delta would be interested. But will Delta want to fly that twice a day? I don’t think the market is big enough for them. And who will want the other two? It seems to me that the US carriers who want to fly to Heathrow already fly there with the frequency they want. Maybe since these will be cheap enough, some other options will pop up on the radar screen, but I’m just a little skeptical. If nobody wants them, then that’s ok. BA/AA just have to make sure they’re available if anyone wants them during the next ten years.

As you might imagine, Virgin’s Richard Branson is just pissed off about this. He has by far been the most vocal opponent since his Virgin Atlantic subsidiary stands to lose the most, in his eyes. Now he has just 45 days to somehow convince the DOT that it’s wrong. I don’t think it’s going to happen. Maybe he’ll have better luck with the EU.