CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6035 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3169 times:
I believe that it's due to the Bermuda 2 treaty between the US & UK, whereby only airlines from either country (AA & UA from the US and BA & VS from the UK) are allowed to fly to the US from LHR. There are also a restrictions on which new routes can be started and so on.
BD have been lobbying heavily to get rid of the Bermuda 2, so they can utilize their large number of slots for flights to the US.
NoelG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3094 times:
Thanks CPH! Sounds a bit pathetic to me as well - if its scrapped it would make the entire London airport system a lot easier to plan and a lot simpler!
At present, if you want to need to connect through the LHR/LGW, you'd have to catch a bus with all your baggage which would take about an hour - it wouldn't be so bad if they were located a bit closer together!! At least if some more of the American airlines flew into LHR it would only be across Heathrow Airport!
LHR340 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 877 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3041 times:
Well, DUH - GB wants to protect BA and who can blame them? no - LHR is a very crowded & slot restricted airport, but as LHR is BA's hub they probably get first pick at slots if they become available - but I doubt this because a few new airlines have started.
A340 LoVeR! EC-GQK - LHR The Bussiest International Airport & 3rd Bussiest In The World!
IndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3028 times:
no - LHR is a very crowded & slot restricted airport
That isn't the point. If DL, NW, CO and US had access to LHR, it would hurt AA, UA and BA's operations there. For example, if CO began flying EWR-LHR and DL JFK-LHR, UA would likely drop those routes and BA would likely drop some flights as well. AA/UA/BA's yields and profits would be hurt. Great Britain knows this, which is why they opposed DL and CO receiving just one daily flight to LHR.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2940 times:
Bermuda2's purpose was basically to prevent high-yield LON service from becoming what LAX-TYO service is like today.
The latter route would be immeasureably more profitable for the carriers which serve it were only NW/UA and JL/NH (plus three select other foreign carriers) were allowed to be those carriers.
Instead, we've seen JL, NW, UA, NH, DL, TG, MH, RG, SQ, KE, etc all fly the route more or less at the same time... and though the traffic between Los Angeles and Tokyo is plentiful and typically high yield, it was difficult for many of those carriers to actually make money on the route due to the swamp of competition... hence dropping it.
2cn From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2889 times:
Something that surprised me, according to the latest Delta Digest (Deltas employee magazine), in the Q&A section, someone had sent in a question regarding whether Delta would start service from JFK to LGW, and the answer was they could not due to Bermuda 2.. now, I thought they had served the route before??? so I'm confused. They said it was because LHR and LGW "markets, governed by the Bermuda 2 bilateral agreement between the United States and United Kingdom, Delta does not have the rights to serve Gatwick from New York-JFK." Is that actually true? Like I said, I thought they had been serving that market already.. maybe I just imagined a flight to LGW out of JFK or something.
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12148 posts, RR: 49
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2867 times:
All the carriers that serve NYC are the only ones who have the traffic rights at this time. In order for Delta to have rights they would have to get them from a carrier that presently serve LON, such as AA, UA or CO all who have service from the NYC area. Delta does offer a chance to earn mile with VS, and now the code share with CO and NW they effectively offer NYC.
MSPman From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 177 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2618 times:
Bermuda 2 is outdated but works currently because of the lack of slots situation. I have a question, if say one of the exclusive UK carrier service cities changes to a US carrier service then BA can fly LHR-MSP? Also, if they allow one more airline to operate LHR ex BMI and CO. Then under the current agreement CO could operated MSP-LHR. Would CO operate the route with their own plane or could they let NW use that slot and fly their own plane? I dream of ether a CO 777-200 to LHR at gate G5 ot a BA 777-200 to LHR at H5.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2581 times:
Though CO would indeed be the next airline into LHR should a revision allow a 3rd airline from either country (due to a previous agreement)... I doubt they could then switch that authority with a non-immunized competitor (i.e., NW)
TLHFLA From United States of America, joined May 2003, 593 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2556 times:
Another factor of this agreement is that AA must have operations at both LHR and LGW. Flights to London from DFW, RDU, and STL must use Gatwick instead of Heathrow. Only the flights to London from ORD, JFK, MIA and BOS may use Heathrow.