fly777ual From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 2 Posted (17 years 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 3157 times:
Okay. If BA, KLM, Qantas, etc. have to have a separate division to be able to fly into both Taiwan and the Mainland, then why doesn't UA, or NW?? I know that flights leave every day from SFO to TPE, and from SFO-NRT-BEJ, or SHA. Is it because the flights to Mainland China stop in Japan? Even if that, according to Airways magazine, NW flies direct from DTW or MSP to BEJ.
Klaus C.C.Liu From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (17 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 3155 times:
The Mainland Chinese gov't doesn't like those flag-carriers to fly the Taiwan route, thus those "...Asia" airlines exist. That's all because of political reasons. Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with where the stop-over is.
JPLenny From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (17 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 3154 times:
Along the same lines, China Airlines (Taiwan) lands at Tokyo-Haneda instead of Tokyo-Narita. I guess The Chinese govt won't let Air China land at the same place that China Airlines lands in Japan.
Of coarse, if you are coming from Hawaii and connecting to a domestic flight, taking China Airlines will save you the 75 minute bus ride between Narita (international) and Haneda (mostly domestic) airports.
DC-10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (17 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 3154 times:
Maybe it has to to with the fact that some are US carriers and the others are not. Since the Chinese restricts the number of airlines that enter both China and Taiwan, maybe there is some sort of exemption for US carriers, maybe if we allow x-amount of Chinese carriers and fligts in to the US. Like LAX gets Air China, China Southern, and China Eastern
PW4056 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (17 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 3155 times:
I think the difference is in the shareholders of an airline. Most of the airlines that need subsidaries are partially owned by the government. Like BA, Swiss, KLM, AF, etc. However, none of the US carriers are partially owned by the US government. I think that is the diffenrence in setting up the subsidaries. Remember, anything that the governments involved in like airline ownership also ties with international politics.