Cathay Pacific From Australia, joined May 2000, 1864 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3795 times:
An interesting article from the Hong Kong Standard:
Cathay puts its trans-Atlantic plans on hold
Cathay Pacific has put plans to launch trans-Atlantic flights on the backburner amid rising concern that the European Commission (EC) will object to the terms of last autumn's air pact between Hong Kong and Britain.
An airline insider said: ``The trans-Atlantic flights have become a low priority.''
He was speaking following initial feedback from officials and other sources about the deal that would allow the airline to operate round-the-world flights.
Cathay Pacific will still lobby in Brussels in support of the pact, but it is concentrating on increasing flight frequencies and launching services to other destinations.
By comparison, Virgin Atlantic remains optimistic the deal, which will also enable it to fly from Hong Kong to Australia, will win the green light from the commission.
Virgin Asia regional manager Mackenzie Grant said it still hopes to launch flights between Hong Kong and Australia by the end of the year. He said Virgin founder Richard Branson has written to the commission expressing support.
British Airways and British Midland have also contacted the commission, but they are believed to have expressed reservations.
British Airways is against Virgin being allowed to fly to Sydney, and British Midland has questioned whether allowing Cathay Pacific to fly across the Atlantic is in the best interests of the British travelling public.
Under the terms of the deal, the entire agreement has to pass EC scrutiny. ``It passes or falls as a package. People can't start taking bits out of it,'' the insider said.
Consequently, it only needs the EC to object to Cathay's trans-Atlantic rights and the pact will be in shreds.
Hong Kong negotiators insist the EC should be given the opportunity not to object to the agreement before it is formally ratified.
This is to stop the commission, which believes air services agreed by one member state should be open to other members, challenging the legality of the deal once it has been signed.
The agreement also ends all restrictions on passenger and cargo services between Hong Kong and Britain. This means existing carriers may operate as many flights as they think are financially viable.
TURBOJETMAN From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3790 times:
SIA = Singapore Airlines.
And highly doubtful any other career aside from the BIG four will be granted authority in this market. Unless there is some renegotiations of landing rights the doors seem to be bolted shut on this route.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13748 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3461 times:
"SQ even got the go-ahead for LHR-JFK flights from UK authorities, but the US denied SQ landing rights at JFK for reasons i'm not sure."
Other way round.
The United States of American and the Republic of Singapore have an Open Skies agreement - showing the way to other countries around the world - so embattled in their own strife of trying to hold all the cards that the way forward is Open Skies. Even before this, the former had already given Singapore Airlines Limited the green light to operate flights between LHR and JFK - one single daily flight.
The UK Labour Government's White Paper of 1999 (or 1998) called for a promotional of freer bilateral air agreements. From my tone, it is quite obvious that Labour has forgotten this - losing a member in the process.
Hence, it is therefore correct that the European Union strike down this absurd air services agreement between the United Kingdom and the territory that is home to the particular air transportation company being discussed in the starter post. EC has made it quite clear that such agreements are illegal. However, having said that, I see little movement on the EC's side to counter-act with their own European-wide neogtiations.
Klyk1980 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3221 times:
Recently CX is going to create a Crew base in LHR. Currently Cathay with 3 daily non-stops betwen HKG and LHR daily. The set up of a Crew Base can be considered as the starting point that CX is going to use LHR as a transfer point in its network. Just like the function of BKK and YVR.
Definitely concerns from the Big 4 and also SQ. It will going to be very interesting because BA/AA/CX are in the same alliance(OneWorld) and VS support as well because VS wants the HKG-SYD. If CX finally award the right, SQ will become the major loser. Honestly I don't foresee the participation of CX in LHR-JFK will harm the Big 4 because the maximum frequency of CX can afford on this route maybe just a daily flight. But stretgically, CX can create the only round-the-world itinerary by one single airline (HKG-LHR-JFK-YVR-HKG) if they are allowed to fly transatlantic.
Richard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1664 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3158 times:
Whilst I can understand BMI's objections (I cannot understand BA's), I hope that VS get to go to Oz, I'm due to fly later this year, and would love to be able to get the VS product and also some more flying club miles by going VS.
CX would also increase competition on the LHR-JFK route - this can only be good news.
By the way, it is interesting that BA is objecting to CX - this cant play well in Oneworld meetings??!!
PVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3441 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3105 times:
Why aren't any of the US carriers making a stink about this? I would assume that the US Gov't wouldn't just allow this unless another domestic carrier gets a chance to serve the route again. This little bone given to CX probably hasn't been agreed upon the feds. If it has, and I was DL, NW, CO, US, etc. i'd be pissed.
B-HOP From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2000, 694 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2156 times:
CX flyboy: -
No, in their website, they said they are taking new cabin crew with UK resident status (I assume British passport and NI), I am interested, do you know how do the roster for YVR based cabin crew look like? Is it YVR to HKG and JFK only? Or YVR-HK-somewhere else? Many thanks?
I beleive they have bases in NZ, Aus, UK, Canada, Us and maybe S. Africa