Notdownnlocked From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 954 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 13254 times:
What is not mentioned is that the UK can give any airline the right to fly between the UK and the US any day of the week but what the US government has to say about this is another thing. The US just approved TG's flights from BKK to JFK approx. 2 weeks ago through any city in Europe while specifically excluding LHR from the routing. I read this on Aviation Daily or AWST online 2 weeks ago.
Chepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6296 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 13140 times:
Bermuda II only applies to airlines from the USA and the UK (2 from each country can fly between LHR and the USA).
Finally VS can start flying the kangaroo route, CX gets a sweet deal in return.
So this means we wont see Richard Branson working a Qantas airlines flights. What a pity I wanted to see this show.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 69
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 13102 times:
Does CX already have the permission from the US side? Is there an Open-Skies-Agreement between HK and the US - and would that be applicable in this case, with the aircraft not arriving from HK but Britain?
If they haven't received US permission yet, I'd say that this might just be celebrating a bit early...
ANstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5412 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 12914 times:
I bet, and the US carriers also.
What gets me, is that if the UK/US airlines need to be equal numbers ie 2 US & 2 UK why can't they increase it to 3 of each ie add DL, CO or NW and let BD fly????
But it means more competition, I bet they won;t be allowed to codeshare with AA or BA
Though, the press release does say
'The aviation deal allows for unlimited traffic on routes between Hong Kong and Britain, while giving carriers "fifth freedom" rights, which allow them to fly on to other points.'
So I presume that BD could also fly to Hong Kong, and perhaps allow UK airlines to fly say Hong Kong - USA if the US agreed?
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 12709 times:
BD won't be flying long haul from LHR until they get the necessary route approval/slots from the authorities. They'll want to start LHR-North America flights for feeder traffic before venturing into Asia.
Also, i wonder how SQ will be feeling that they're biggest rivals, CX, get approval for LON-NYC flights while they've been refused landing rights at JFK?
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 61
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 12594 times:
Does anyone think that CX will base a 772 or A333 at LHR to do the route (i know they are not the IGW versions, so cant do LHR-HKG) as it will be less of a drain on the finances than a 744 when trying to tap into a new market.
I'd base a 772 or A333 (i think a 773 will be too big - damn!) there permanantly, and then feed them with 744 and A343 from HKG.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8148 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 12523 times:
The big question right now is how long will CX fly the LHR-JFK route? Given the fact that CX has pretty much recovered from the SARS scare and with the US economy on the rebound, I think CX may eventually give up LHR-JFK as a continuation of the HKG-LHR route in favor of a direct flight from HKG to JFK using the A340-600HGW as they become available from circa late 2005.