Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA Hopeful Of EU/US "Open Skies" Breakthrough  
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5543 times:

Martin Broughton, chairman of BA , today expressed hope fresh 'open skies' talks between the EU and the US could lead to fundamental reform of the aviation industry.

In a speech to the Royal Aeronautical Society, made just days after European transport ministers told the EU Commission to resume negotiations on a new transatlantic air treaty, Broughton said airlines needed to escape the 'regulatory wonderland' created for the industry 60 years ago. He described the Chicago Convention of 1944, which regulates the global aviation industry, as 'the Mad Hatters Tea Party'.

'Contrary to many peoples expectations, BA would welcome a true open aviation area. We are not protectionist,' said the chairman.

He said what BA did not like was the proposal that was ultimately rejected last year -- a partial opening up which gave the Americans 'everything they wanted', but kept foreign ownership limits for US carriers (of 25 pct), cabotage and the 'Fly America' policy, which dictates that US government officials must fly with a US based carrier, intact.

Broughton said BA has been encouraged by calls from US airlines and FedEx for a change in the rules on foreign ownership and by the EU Commission's recognition of the need for consolidation.

Under Bermuda II - only two British carriers, currently BA and VS, and two American, AA and UA, are allowed to fly non-stop transatlantic routes from and to London Heathrow.(AFX)

Will it happen? I think it's about time it did!

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11116 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5359 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (Thread starter):
Martin Broughton, chairman of BA , today expressed hope fresh 'open skies' talks between the EU and the US could lead to fundamental reform of the aviation industry.

I would give just about anything if the EU and US could agree on Open Skies, and AA and BA could get ATI, but I am not holding my breath. As long as Europe continues to insist on cabotage within the US, it will never happen.


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5263 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (Thread starter):
Will it happen? I think it's about time it did!

I disagree. In order to get domestic routes within the US, the EU needs to offer a package with a monetary value equal to the domestic market. I don't think unlimited access to Heathrow will cut it. Unlimited access to all EU markets might.

Besides, with many US carriers struggling right now, why should we bring in more carriers and divide the pie into even smaller slices? What benefit is that to the US?



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11116 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5232 times:

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 2):
I disagree. In order to get domestic routes within the US, the EU needs to offer a package with a monetary value equal to the domestic market. I don't think unlimited access to Heathrow will cut it. Unlimited access to all EU markets might.

No, it won't, and here's why: because it isn't a fair trade. The US giving European airlines free and open access to the U.S. domestic market is a much bigger package that the same being reciprocated for U.S. airlines in Europe.

The U.S. market is dramatically larger than the European market, and airports and capacity in the U.S. are much less constricted than in Europe. In the U.S., there are only a handful of airports with slots, while in Europe, virtually every major airport has them.

This is the fundamental difference between the U.S. and E.U. over this issue: the U.S. is not going to trade away unfettered competition from foreign rivals with lower-paid employees just so that United can fly on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from Paris to Frankfurt. (Obviously dramatizing!)

Here is my Modest Proposal on EU-US open skies:


  • The U.S. allows European carriers to acquire up to 49% of U.S. carriers, and the same is reciprocated for U.S. carriers
  • U.S. and E.U. airlines are given unlimited access to flights and frequencies from anywhere in the U.S. to anywhere in the E.U.
  • U.S. and E.U. airlines are given unlimited rights to Antitrust Immunity and alliances.
  • The U.S. renounces all former rights of its carriers to flights within Europe.
  • Other U.S. carriers are given at least limited access to LHR (believe it or not, I think that the U.S. would compromise on this issue if the E.U. gave up the cabotage demand)
  • The U.S. ends the requirement of mandatory U.S. carrier travel for government employees on foreign trips.


The E.U. gives up a little, the U.S. gives up a little.


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5197 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
The U.S. market is dramatically larger than the European market,

You might be right. I just don't have the numbers for total dollars spent in each market. Your proposal is interesting, but I think one more point is in order. A restriction or limit on the amount of government ownership or subsidies on participating airlines.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11116 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5176 times:

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4):
A restriction or limit on the amount of government ownership or subsidies on participating airlines.

I agree, this is important. The U.S. and E.U. must agree not to provide aid or financing for their carriers, except in situations of emergency (i.e., September 11).


User currently offlineIADLHR From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5110 times:

I do not see any way that the US will accept limited access to LHR and still grant ATI to AA/BA. Simply wont happen.Among other things, the other countiries and airlines that already have ATI and whose airports are fully opened to all US carriers will cry foul and rightfully so.

User currently offlineBeany From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5103 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
The U.S. market is dramatically larger than the European market

How can you say that. Europe has a far greater population and a bigger combined wealth than the USA. I would agree with your argument if you said that the US market is larger than say the French market, but saying its larger than the European market is rubbish.

I love America and its people (I have to, half my family live there) but its hardly the 'land of the free' as its so referred to. You guys seem to be scared of a bit of foreign competition.

if European carriers had access to the US market then you might just see a few US carriers go under and thats what your government is trying to protect.

When Virgin announced they were looking into setting up a Virgin America, some members on here vowed never to fly them as they would be using non American assembled planes, a certain SRB would be a stockholder and that the American market could not handle another LCC and they didn't want to see the likes of US Airways and United be lost forever because of some 'foreign' Airline in the US.

Not the fact that parts for the Airbuses would be made in the USA, it would be American owned and employ thousands of American staff.

Until the US Government lowers its Patriotic shield, then these talks will go nowhere. Its just the same situation as what happened with the US steel embargo on Europe. Your Government thought it would be a good idea to heavily tax cheaper European steel imports so US firms would buy American steel that before import tax, was more expensive than European steel.


User currently offlinePixuk From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5074 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 5):
I agree, this is important. The U.S. and E.U. must agree not to provide aid or financing for their carriers, except in situations of emergency (i.e., September 11)

So it's ok if America decides it is, but not when anybody else does? Ok. Fair enough.


User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5063 times:

Quoting Beany (Reply 7):
Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
The U.S. market is dramatically larger than the European market

How can you say that. Europe has a far greater population and a bigger combined wealth than the USA. I would agree with your argument if you said that the US market is larger than say the French market, but saying its larger than the European market is rubbish.

Actually he is right. The US domestic air transport market alone is roughly the same size as the world's entire international market (and I'm including flights between EU countries as international).

US domestic and international combined is far far greater than anywhere else.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1595 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5035 times:

Remember also that Chapter 11 is also considered a subsidy by those outside of the US.

As this is a protection which saves the company from bancrupcy, and protects it from fiscal realities.

[Edited 2005-04-27 16:12:02]

User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4987 times:

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 10):
Remember also that Chapter 11 is also considered a subsidy by those outside of the US.

Why is it a subsidy? If creditors/lenders agree to reorganize their loans what does this have to do with any government? It's free enterprise here. Lenders at time feel that they can maintain some value by doing just this - even if its little... much better than nothing. The reason US and United are still is because thier creditors extend them loans and not because of Uncle Sam.

This is not a government handout as a subsidy would suggest. Following your much so wonderful UK model, are you proud to see Rover go under like it did???? Business must have protections from vile creditors/lenders who sometimes their intentions are for a corporate take overs and wipe competition.

If the EU doesnt have it... maybe they should? Just maybe the UK would still have an Auto industry. This is not about national pride its about people. Their is a human side to every company...



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 966 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4962 times:

Okay, the EU wants cabotage in the US in exchange for access to LHR. Do US carriers have cabotage in the EU?


"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6729 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4923 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Here is my Modest Proposal on EU-US open skies:


* The U.S. allows European carriers to acquire up to 49% of U.S. carriers, and the same is reciprocated for U.S. carriers
* U.S. and E.U. airlines are given unlimited access to flights and frequencies from anywhere in the U.S. to anywhere in the E.U.
* U.S. and E.U. airlines are given unlimited rights to Antitrust Immunity and alliances.
* The U.S. renounces all former rights of its carriers to flights within Europe.
* Other U.S. carriers are given at least limited access to LHR (believe it or not, I think that the U.S. would compromise on this issue if the E.U. gave up the cabotage demand)
* The U.S. ends the requirement of mandatory U.S. carrier travel for government employees on foreign trips.

#1.. I say let it go to 40%.. 49% just seems too high.. no foreign country should have that much control over what goes on in your countries airspace... the terrorist group could easily get 49% control of an airline then dive them wherever.. it would be their planes for the most part.. they can crash them if they want..
#2, 4.. I agree.. but no point-to-point in either area.. they have to only allow NS service.. with the introduction of the 787 and 380, this is now totally feasible..
#5.. US carriers should be given complete access to LHR... with an open skies, US carriers should be allowed to buy as many gates as they can afford.. its not the US fault that the airport is packed.. if EU carriers want to fly to the US and get access to any airport whenever they want, so should the US.. sorry... BA would just have to give up some of it's slots.. and share.
#6.. that would be dumb to me.. if the US is paying for it's people to fly on US carriers, why would it matter.. plus, it is sort of national security because the US holds its airlines to certain regulations that other airlines may/may not be held to.. I think they should maintain this requirement..



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 13):
#1.. I say let it go to 40%.. 49% just seems too high.. no foreign country should have that much control over what goes on in your countries airspace... the terrorist group could easily get 49% control of an airline then dive them wherever.. it would be their planes for the most part.. they can crash them if they want..

Because Europe is full of airlines that are really terrorist fronts to target America. Ho Hum.....

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 13):
US carriers should be given complete access to LHR... with an open skies, US carriers should be allowed to buy as many gates as they can afford

Nobody - not even BA, BD or VS own any gates or terminals at LHR. They are all owned by the airport.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 13):
sorry... BA would just have to give up some of it's slots.. and share.

and perhaps AA and UA could give up some of their numerous slots too.....



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6729 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4867 times:

Quoting Cornish (Reply 14):
Because Europe is full of airlines that are really terrorist fronts to target America. Ho Hum.....

you never know.. same could be said about US airlines.. terrorist who are US citizens could do the same.. Ha Hum...

Quoting Cornish (Reply 14):
Nobody - not even BA, BD or VS own any gates or terminals at LHR. They are all owned by the airport.

Very well then.. common use gates.. is that better?

Quoting Cornish (Reply 14):
and perhaps AA and UA could give up some of their numerous slots too.....

With the open skies agreement, i don't think that would much matter as any US airline would now be able to fly their.. but to answer your question.. yes, all the slots should be revoked and redistributed amongst any airline that wishes to serve LHR..



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 13):
49% just seems too high.. no foreign country should have that much control over what goes on in your countries airspace... the terrorist group could easily get 49% control of an airline then dive them wherever.. it would be their planes for the most part.. they can crash them if they want..

Yeah - Al Queda went ahead and bought 51% of AA and UA before hijacking their aircraft ! Mmmmm, standard terrorist technique, definitely. HELLLOOO !!


User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4838 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 15):
Quoting Cornish (Reply 14):
Because Europe is full of airlines that are really terrorist fronts to target America. Ho Hum.....

you never know.. same could be said about US airlines.. terrorist who are US citizens could do the same.. Ha Hum...

What buy a large chunk of an airline rather than merely hijack a plane. Don't think so somehow.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 15):
Very well then.. common use gates.. is that better?

Absolutely - just pointing out that in Europe airlines don't tend to own their own terminals/gates like in the US.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 15):
yes, all the slots should be revoked and redistributed amongst any airline that wishes to serve LHR..

Fair enough - but that would be bad news for UA. They're one of the biggest assets it's got right now.

Actually the whole slot trading/dealing issue needs looking at anyway....



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3580 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Just to beat a dead horse.

Cabotage is a non-starter. There is no reason for it. There is plenty of competition on both continents, and to my knowledge there is presently no cabotage on either continent. Please correct me with specific flights if I am wrong.

There is no reason for increasing the ownership percentages, and there would be no way to get this approved through congress (due to MATS concerns). The only one begging for this is UA because on one in the USA is willing to throw good money after bad. We will loosing some carriers in the USA in the near future, and that is economically a good thing. The EU can restrict USA ownership to 25% if they feel it is in their own best interest.

Point to point between the EU and the USA for any carrier either USA or EU.

The ATI thing is iffy. Could go either way, but I think this will continue to be on an airline and route specific basis as approved by both the EU and the USA. The bureaucrats need something to do, and the competition factors in particular markets make a one size fits all rule very difficult here. This is where LHR slot allocation could be handled.

Chapter 11 (don't forget that the Canadian equivalent is very close to the USA's regulations) is not airline specific. The regulations are the same across all USA industry. While I do not like many aspects of the Chapter 11 regulations, they are not airline specific, and so they are not an airline subsidy. I suppose that the next demand would be for the USA to adopt a tax code that is identical to the EU's and also impose a VAT. And the USA should demand that the EU impose the same fees and charges in intra-EU flights that the USA charges their airlines. Different regulations and tax structures are a part of international business.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.


User currently offlineShawnnyc From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4818 times:

Why should the US give up rights to fly between European countries in the EU? Those are international routes. The US domestic market is a "domestic" market and is protected as such. There is a difference between flying routes internally in France to say Paris to Madrid. Let's compare apples to apples. If the EU wants to be treated as "one country," then they should be prepared to have one voice and representative on international bodies like the UN security council.

User currently offlineConcorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4812 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 13):
US carriers should be given complete access to LHR... with an open skies, US carriers should be allowed to buy as many gates as they can afford.. its not the US fault that the airport is packed.. if EU carriers want to fly to the US and get access to any airport whenever they want, so should the US.. sorry... BA would just have to give up some of it's slots.. and share

Why? That is simply not fair to BA. BA has LHR as its main hub, and compared to LH and AF, still has far less number of slots...about 45-50%, compare that with LH which has 60 odd % at FRA and AF with a similar figure. The problem is that BAA and the Government need to get a new runway open (I know that will take time). Until that happens, LHR is always going to be packed, and therefore suggesting that BA should therefore give up her valuable slots at LHR, slots which without BA would not be a viable profitable busines is frankly stupid! Politicians at Westminster need to realise that while there may certainly be a case to answer regarding NIMBY's, London is one of the World's most important cities, and probably the most important in Europe. With that being the case, and LHR already bursting at the seams with more passengers than any other airport at Europe, they need to act CDG, AMS and FRA already have several runways, and LHR only has two! Come on....thats just silly. Sort it out people!


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2809 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4800 times:

Does this help LHR get a third runway?

User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4800 times:

Quoting Shawnnyc (Reply 19):
Let's compare apples to apples.

So whay are you comparing the EU in civil aviation to the EU in the UN security council then ?  Wink



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4770 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (Thread starter):
'Contrary to many peoples expectations, BA would welcome a true open aviation area. We are not protectionist,' said the chairman.

Bullsh!t - this is just propaganda for mindless masses. BA is *highly* protectionist - heck, it defends LHR so well that it's a prime mover for the construction of the A380, as its LHR longhaul competitors can only compete by flying in bigger planes, not by adding frequencies.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
The U.S. ends the requirement of mandatory U.S. carrier travel for government employees on foreign trips.

This requirement is neither unusual nor unique to the USA, and is based on solid public policy and fiscal grounds. It should also be noted that the Fly America Act only a requires a US flag-carrier code on the flight, so one can, for instance, buy NW and fly KLM.  Wink



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6729 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 20):
Why? That is simply not fair to BA. BA has LHR as its main hub, and compared to LH and AF, still has far less number of slots...about 45-50%, compare that with LH which has 60 odd % at FRA and AF with a similar figure. The problem is that BAA and the Government need to get a new runway open (I know that will take time). Until that happens, LHR is always going to be packed, and therefore suggesting that BA should therefore give up her valuable slots at LHR, slots which without BA would not be a viable profitable busines is frankly stupid!

Very well, with the open skies agreement, tell me what airport that BA would not be allowed access to? LGA? DCA? LGB? All of those are otherwise available by alternative airport within 15 miles of those airports... Would BA want to go to LGA/DCA/LGB.. I don't think so.. (perhaps DCA but the perimenter rule and national security issue takes precedent).. So if BA gets free rule to ORD, LAX, MIA, JFK, DEN, PHX, LAS, SAV, ATL, GRR, MSP, BOI, SEA.. wherever.. then why should US airlines have to bow down about getting to go where they want to? THAT is what is not fair.. seems like a very onesided pact to me.. and seems like the deciding factor about whether this agreement is agreed upon or not..

Here's a suggestion.. if LHR is too small/crowded.. do what Japan did and build something in the Channel.. BAA too heavily concentrated at LHR.. spread themselves out some... I'm sorry, but I think that unless that issue is solved, this is a dead horse.



Aiming High and going far..
25 IADLHR : Also keep in mind for a US/EU openskies to happen that the SNN stopover in ireland will also have to be removed. Something, that, so far, the Irish go
26 Oftwftwoab : The EU is unique in international law. It is not a sovereign state, but the member states have pooled their sovereignty in limited areas. For those a
27 Concorde001 : I think you either misunderstood me, or I didn't explain myself very well. IF the US and EU signen an open skies agreement today, in theory any US ai
28 USAF336TFS : Absolutely true. As much as the Europeans would love to have a controlling intrest in US airlines, Congress will never allow more then 49% and that i
29 ERJ170 : I wouldn't mind cause i don't particularily like UA.. I can understand that is BA's hub.. .they want all the slots if they can get them.. but when yo
30 ERJ170 : I wouldn't mind cause i don't particularily like UA.. Also, that did happen to UA and AA at ORD.. when the FAA decided it was too busy, they forced U
31 Concorde001 : You have some vaild point ERJ170. I am suggesting that penalising BA for a problem which is not of their creation is simply wrong. I think it needs to
32 Commavia : Check again. The United States, by itself, accounts for about the same amount of air traffic as the entire rest of the world combined. The U.S. comme
33 Commavia : No, I wouldn't, and that is exactly the point. The British public has to wake up and recognize that while they are sitting around, talking, discussin
34 Vs25 : From the flying public's perspective it would be great if one could fly from any US airport to any EU airport. This is what we all want... its just ho
35 Glom : Give LHR the runway.
36 Concorde001 : You must be joking. State aid is being provided to keep airlines afloat. This aid is helping US airlines to have an advantage over, for example, Euro
37 Concorde001 : Amen to that! I couldn't agree more. I was simply saying that penalising BA for a problem not of their creation is wrong!
38 Glom : It's okay Concorde001, because since the European carriers have to do proper business in order to survive, it means that they will provide a better se
39 Ouboy79 : You may not remember, but prior to slots being abolished at ORD - UA and AA were indeed stripped of slots to make room for other carriers.
40 Atmx2000 : Should the EU countries be able to pick and choose where they are considered a single country and where they can be considered multiple countries? Ot
41 Commavia : The only aid U.S. carriers got from the U.S. government was after 9/11, when they were reimbursed for the losses resulting from four days of governme
42 Post contains images Concorde001 : No worries mate!
43 Copenhagenboy : "In a true capitalist, free trade world, any airline should be able to fly from any city to any other city" And that is in fact what is happening in t
44 WAH64D : Couldn't agree more! Sorry but this is just a perfect illustration of the insular attitude and total lack of understanding of events outwith the US t
45 Commavia : And, believe me, as an American without an "insular attitude and total lack of understanding," there is nothing that pains my heart more than the Bri
46 Travelin man : So BA is set to announce record profits with "NO" money from the government, huh? But having the lion's share of slots at one of the most government-
47 Concorde001 : I think you misunderstand the point. A) The government owns no part of BA, It was privatised in the 1980s. b) Heathrow is not restricted by the Gover
48 Commavia : No, it doesn't, not in the slightest. The British government does not own, have control over, nor have any oversight of, British Airways, and hasn't
49 IADLHR : FRA, AMS,CDG have more than 2 runways and are extremely formidable competition for LHR. The UK government has refused to build a 3rd or 4th runway at
50 Commavia : I just did: Bridge loans for AZ: state aid. Bridge loans for OA: state aid. The government of France still owning a stake in AF: state aid. LHR (not
51 BHMNONREV : This alone will prevent a true "open skies" between the US and Europe. LHR is the worlds' most lucrative market, with trans-atlantic being one of the
52 Commavia : No, but it would go a really long way, as it would take away the biggest single issue the U.S. has with liberalizing the EU-US air market (i.e., DL/C
53 LH423 : No, no joke. Please don't spout off on something before you know it. There is no money changing hands between the governments and the airlines. All t
54 Commavia : LH423 -- very well said.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US UK Open Skies Agreement posted Sat Sep 17 2005 09:45:42 by Coa747
Canada-US Transborder Open Skies posted Sun May 29 2005 15:55:44 by Aseem
Future Of Am And MX, Open Skies? posted Thu Jan 6 2005 21:29:48 by AR385
Lebanon And EU To Finalize Open Skies Policy posted Mon Nov 8 2004 23:44:57 by BA
US Seeks Open Skies Deal With Canada posted Sun Jan 25 2004 21:47:36 by CanadaEH
US/UK Open Skies Deal On The Table? posted Fri Aug 16 2002 21:04:22 by Qantas744
Just An Thought On US/UK Open Skies.... posted Mon Jul 1 2002 20:28:23 by Srbmod
Still No Green Light For US/HK Open Skies posted Sat Mar 2 2002 19:22:08 by Jiml1126
US-UK Open Skies-now Or Never! posted Sun Jan 20 2002 16:37:07 by Capt.Picard
US-UK Open Skies Deal Troubling For United posted Sun Dec 9 2001 18:34:02 by SFOintern