Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
If UA Go Bust, Who Will Fill In Their LHR Slots  
User currently offlineLazyshaun From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 548 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7469 times:

Because of this deal with the US and the UK, there can only be 2 airlines operating to the US from LHR (BA & VS) , and 2 US airlines at LHR. BUT, if UA go bust, who will become the next US airline in LHR, or does it not work like that?
I'm not saying UA will go bust, but IF they do...  Wink
Although, it may take a while before they properly stop, and judging by the state of the 6 mains in the US, it could be any of them...

-lazyshaun-


I came. I saw. I conquered
77 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZkojh From China, joined Sep 2004, 1707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7458 times:

US AIRWAYS, NORTHWEST, Southwest Airlines lol  Wink


CZ 787 to AKL can't wait.
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12113 posts, RR: 49
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They most likely would be sold to the highest bidder and the funds will be used to pay UA's massive debts.


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineLazyshaun From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7448 times:

Northwest would probably jump at the chance actually...

-lazyshaun-



I came. I saw. I conquered
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11689 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7421 times:

Well, needless to say, I think it is very difficult to tell. No doubt, when or if (though I doubt it will happen) UA's slots and route authorities to LHR become available, an international diplomatic lobbying campaign and political pressure exertion will be at a level never before witnessed in the history of international civil aviation.

There are four US carriers that want at those slots: Continental, Delta, Northwest and USAirways. Of those, CO and DL have perhaps the best chances of getting meaningful, large access to LHR in the event of a UA collapse, as both are significantly larger at Gatwick than NW or US.

However, this is completely dependant on whether the US and UK governments can agree on the terms of another US carrier servicing Heathrow. Back in 1991, when AA assumed TW's former route authorities and UA assumed PA's, the UK government made it clear that it was a one-time, "special" arrangement not to be repeated.

That being said, I doubt that the UK would truly stick out and completely refuse to allow at least one other US carrier, in some form or another, to operate their own metal to LHR as the UK now has two carriers flying LHR-US, namely British Airways and Virgin Atlantic. In addition, the UK government may -- and I stress may -- be seen at a slight negotiation disadvantage relative to their bargaining position fourteen years ago because the US and the whole world knows that the EU is pressing harder and harder to abrogate all US bilaterals with European powers and that any agreement made today between the US and British governments could be null and void tomorrow.

Bottom line: in the very unlikely event of a UA shutdown and the subsequent availability of their LHR slots and authorities, the likelihood is that at least one American carrier, and perhaps more (although unlikely), would be given access to LHR using UA's slots after intense and incessant international diplomatic and legal wrangling from both sides of the pond.


User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7411 times:

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Continental has first rights on any vacated LHR slots, should either UA or AA leave the market. Needless to say, I'd prefer seeing Delta get these slots  Wink .

User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11689 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7388 times:

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 5):
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Continental has first rights on any vacated LHR slots, should either UA or AA leave the market.

Nope. Unlike with many other international aviation route authorities, LHR rights have no official backups, as technically there are no other carriers with the legal right to fly from the United States to Heathrow but AA, UA, BA and VS. Bermuda II, the arrangement under which current LHR rights exist, stipulates that only these four carriers or their "corporate successors" may service LHR-United States routes. And, as was seen in 1991, determining for the world exactly what constitutes a "corporate successor" is an extremely difficult and intensely political process.

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 5):
Needless to say, I'd prefer seeing Delta get these slots

Well, CO is significantly larger at LGW than DL, but no doubt these two carriers would be the immediate frontrunners in any bid to succeed at UA at LHR. But, as I said, I doubt this will ever come to pass as I don't think UA is going to collapse any time soon.


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7360 times:

I think that is correct, DAL767400ER. When I was at LHR in at on January 3rd, 2003, I remember seeing a sign for Continental Airlines...likely Continental would be able to pick up LHR slots first...DL is a bit iffy....I think NW might have a better chance because they are not so concentrated in one city like DL is. In addition, they have several aircraft to choose on those routes...DL is limited to 8 Boeing 777s and their 767-300ER fleet....I think the 763ER is too small for most of the LHR routes, and it lacks the range to fly to London from the west coast nonstop. DL has focused almost all of its flights exclusively out of Atlanta, with the exception of their SLC hub. CO is in a much better position to operate the routes than DL, especially considering DL's fleet is mostly 767s, and from what I'm seeing the LHR slots demand at least several Boeing 777s or A330s at the smallest possible plane size...CO could better serve the routes than DL at this point. I don't see why NW does not have a shot at LHR....they are more flexible than DL, and have the A330s to do the LHR routes. Simply put, DL isn't flexible enough to do the LHR slots in my opinion. They are too concentrated in ATL and are too limited in Boeing 777s to do the routes. (Besides, LAX-LHR, SAN-LHR, and SFO-LHR all demand the range of a 777....DL has only 8 Boeing 777s right now, and they are already working hard enough. The only way DL could actually begin operating these routes efficiently would be to configure their 764ERs, which I doubt they'll do. these routes demand airplanes bigger than the 767-300ER...currently DL has few aircraft able to do the routes from the west coast.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7318 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 6):
Bermuda II, the arrangement under which current LHR rights exist, stipulates that only these four carriers or their "corporate successors" may service LHR-United States routes. And, as was seen in 1991, determining for the world exactly what constitutes a "corporate successor" is an extremely difficult and intensely political process.

Yes I seem to recall....

...though I'm also pretty sure DAL767400ER is correct in that CO does have a litigatory advantage as per the same legislation that allowed it to codeshare with VS nonstop from the mainland also specifies it has 1st dibs should A) B-II be amended or C) another USA carrier default in entirity.

Mendis showed me something about this a few years back, let's see if he'll chime in.


User currently offlineLevg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7282 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 6):
the arrangement under which current LHR rights exist, stipulates that only these four carriers or their "corporate successors" may service LHR-United States routes

If that was true, only VS, BA, AA, and UA would be operating LHR-United States. Then how is the following possible?:

Kuwait 101,102 (LHR-JFK)
Air India 111,112 (LHR-JFK)
Air New Zealand 1,2 (LHR-LAX)

There might be more, this is just off the top of my head



A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11689 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7279 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 8):
though I'm also pretty sure DAL767400ER is correct in that CO does have a litigatory advantage as per the same legislation that allowed it to codeshare with VS nonstop from the mainland also specifies it has 1st dibs should A) B-II be amended or C) another USA carrier default in entirity.

I'm not aware of the stipulation you speak of, but I will take your word for it. However, I think CO would probably be the leading candidate for LHR access anyway, regardless of whether they have a preexisting legal right, as they are the largest US carrier at LGW.


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4059 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7280 times:

Quoting Thrust (Reply 7):
DL has focused almost all of its flights exclusively out of Atlanta, with the exception of their SLC hub

I thought CVG was their second hub?


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11689 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7269 times:

Quoting Levg79 (Reply 9):
If that was true, only VS, BA, AA, and UA would be operating LHR-United States. Then how is the following possible?

My apologies. I should have been more clear. This agreement only covers access to LHR by American and British carriers. The British government has throughout time granted access to several other countries' carriers for rights from Heathrow onward to the United States, like Kuwait Airways, Air India, Air New Zealand, etc. as you said.


User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7230 times:

Quoting Thrust (Reply 7):
DL is limited to 8 Boeing 777s and their 767-300ER fleet

The total of the 763ER stands at 59, out of which 51 are currently being used for international flights.

Quoting Thrust (Reply 7):
I think the 763ER is too small for most of the LHR routes,

204 seats is an appropriate number. AA's 777s don't have that many more seats, which is due to the fact that AA has significantly more First/Business seats.

Quoting Thrust (Reply 7):
and it lacks the range to fly to London from the west coast nonstop.

Delta has operated FRA-LAX with the 763ER before, so range is no issue.

Quoting Thrust (Reply 7):
DL has focused almost all of its flights exclusively out of Atlanta, with the exception of their SLC hub.

If you mean European flights, replace SLC with JFK, and to a extent CVG. In total, ATL is the biggest hub for DL, followed by CVG and SLC.

Quoting Thrust (Reply 7):
CO is in a much better position to operate the routes than DL, especially considering DL's fleet is mostly 767s, and from what I'm seeing the LHR slots demand at least several Boeing 777s or A330s at the smallest possible plane size...CO could better serve the routes than DL at this point.

The A330 is basically in the same seating range as the 763. And CO is stretched with planes as well. They need all their 777s for the flights to Asia, and the largest planes CO could free up, thanks to more 757s across the pond, would be their 764ERs, which seat 40 seats less than their 777, iirc.
About DL being limited with their resources, let's do some speculation on what DL *could* do.
First, they could pull their 777s on ATL-CDG and CVG-CDG and replace them with 763ERs, freeing up the 777s for LHR. The capacity drop will be taken car of by AF plane upgrades (773s to ATL and CVG  Wink ). Of course, this requires 3 763ERs. Well,let's have AZ operate the 2nd daily FCO-ATL flight, and you have one. FRA needs the 777 capacity, so you can't pull that one. However, you can still pull the one off ATL-MXP, have a 763ER there, and a new AZ flight to ATL. With these changes DL would have 4 777s for LHR, as well as 5 763ERs, for a total of 9 flights. Not to mention, it would be very likely that DL would reduce their 4x daily ATL-LGW service, by 2 flights, so LHR could be served 11x daily, and that without even converting any 764ERs.
Of course, this is all still a fantasy of an armchair CEO, but in aviation, anything can happen Big grin .


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7213 times:

The Heathrow slots are highly coveted and the slaes of those rights by UA will be one of the two core pieces that UA, much like Pan Am, will sell off prior to a bankruptcy in order to raise capital to continue operations. (The other pieces being the Japan rights).

Expect a bidding war. Heathrow is so coveted that any of the other majors will certainly take mortgages on their mothers and grandmothers, if not sell them outright. In the FlyerTalk weekend in Houston, Larry Kellner of CO was clear that Heathrow the thing he really wannts -- that it commands a 30 percent premium over Gatwick.

That said, I'd look for NW, which is in the best financial shape, to really put down the big bucks and come away the winner, but it'll be a giant poker game.

Steve


User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3414 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7198 times:

I personally think that it will be tied up in negotiation for the imediate future. The EU has been trying to take control of all agreements between the US and Europe. I'm sure they will have last say as to who gets the rights. I wouldn't be surprised they try to screw the US airlines over and give them to BMI.

User currently offlinePlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 947 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7186 times:

If UA were to go bust, it would be managed in such a way that assets, including rights are retained under a UA or approved alternate banner, by ensuring 'trigger' events for relinquishing them, are not activated.

Do you not think that lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic haven't already looked at how this can be done, in such a way that it cannot be successfully challenged?

UA's ultimate marriage partners may well be one or more of the airlines that aspire to those slots anyway.


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2961 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7136 times:

If the availability of widebody aircraft is the issue, NW would be only one running, as they have more A330s on the way and the DC-10 retirement can be pushed back.

There's significant seat gap between the 763 & 333. NW has 298 seats compared to low 200s,

If UA were to go bust, BA would absolutely reap rewards with increased flying at least the core UA hubs like SFO, ORD & IAD. VS would upsize on those routes where it competes with UA but is limited on the number of slots.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11689 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7124 times:

This whole discussion about whether CO, DL, NW or any other airline has aircraft of appropriate size or the sufficient availability of such aircraft is pretty much a moot point. If any US carrier, and particularly CO and DL -- which have lobbied so long and so hard for access to LHR -- was given the right to land their metal at Heathrow, I am fairly certain that they would make the planes available even if they had to cut somewhere else. The opportunity to fly to LHR, arguably the most prestigous, high-yield and reliably profitable market on Earth, only comes along very seldomly. CO and DL would jump at the chance to fly their 767s, 777s or whatever else to LHR, no matter what it had to juggle around with its network to make it happen. LHR is just way too important!

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7102 times:

Does the Bermuda 2 restrict the total no. of seats or the restriction strictly for no. of flights between USA/UK? If restriction is strictly on no. of flights, then why isn't every carrier using 747-400?

User currently offlineFA4B6 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7004 times:

Well since Airbus is so hot to give B6 330's ... I say B6 should enter the bidding war ... get a few 330's, and give it a run ...

 duck   duck   duck   duck 


User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1621 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6999 times:

Quoting Levg79 (Reply 9):
If that was true, only VS, BA, AA, and UA would be operating LHR-United States. Then how is the following possible?:

Kuwait 101,102 (LHR-JFK)
Air India 111,112 (LHR-JFK)
Air New Zealand 1,2 (LHR-LAX)

There is a clause within Bermuda II which allows the UK to allow rights for foreign airlines to fly from LHR to the States - but no more than 2 British airlines.

In addition to the flights you quoted CX are getting LHR-JFK rights soon (this was agreed at the same time VS was granted HKG-SYD operations).

Rich.


User currently offlineRipcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6928 times:

If UA would go out of business they first would start selling off the LHR slots which will goto the highest bidding even if that means no other US carrier is allowed to fly into LHR. You would see Virgin/BA/AA probably buy most of the slots to keep out the competion. And just like LHR you have the NRT slots which are like gold also. And in the NRT case you would prob see JL/NW/ANA buy most of those slots to keep out competition there as well. The slots are almost priceless

User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6881 times:

Quoting Thrust (Reply 7):
DL is a bit iffy....I think NW might have a better chance because they are not so concentrated in one city like DL is.

What are you talking about? If DL got LHR access expect to see at least ATL-LHR, CVG-LHR, JFK-LHR, BOS-LHR, FLL-LHR, and more if they could. CO would simply do the usual IAH-LHR and EWR-LHR. Since when has DL been too dependant on ATL? They have three European gateways, ATL, CVG, and JFK. BOS also was for a short time in 2001.

Jeremy


User currently offlineExFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6850 times:

Quoting FA4B6 (Reply 20):
Well since Airbus is so hot to give B6 330's ... I say B6 should enter the bidding war ... get a few 330's, and give it a run ...

I love it...boarding one of these to London:


Seriously, I don't think HMG or the US Antitrust Division would look kindly on having the number of US/UK airlines serving LHR drop from four to three. And I'd guess that if AA ever wants a shot at getting immunity from antitrust for the BA hook-up, they'd pass on bidding.

Most likely outcome? Either CO or NW, and since either one would represent SkyTeam, I suspect they'd work out in advance who would bid. (Wouldn't be surprised if they've already informally decided this between them.)

Of course, you could have some wild card...if they've got their financing in line, perhaps Primaris might change their business plan around to take advantage of the opportunity? (Their website claims that they intend to start flying to London in 2Q/2007. This, of course, presumes they ever start at all...)

Actually, if the US airlines believe that Bermuda II will be superceded by a EU-wide agreement with the US, the bidding war might not amount to that much anyway.


25 USAir330 : Any chance that US Airways would have a better chance of getting these slots since they are part of the Star Alliance, or no?
26 MAH4546 : If they put in the highest bid. UA isn't going to accept a lower bid because they are "friends".
27 Thrust : US Airways already flies to LHR, correct? I thought they do PHL-LHR with an A330?
28 Commavia : Unfortunately for them, no they don't. They have a daily A330 PHL-LGW and a daily A330 PHL-CLT. US does, however, desperately want to fly to LHR, jus
29 Post contains images Lazyshaun : Wouldn't it be great if Pan Am bought UA, and Pan Am aircraft would once again be at LHR.... Anyway, back to reality, AA is bigger at LHR than UA, but
30 Cubsrule : It's interesting that all or nearly all US-LHR flying now is done with a 3-class product. That would surely change under any of the scenarios being di
31 IADLHR : Lets not forget that whatever US carrier ended up with the LHR slots, they would have some available aircraft as they would be dropping LGW in favor o
32 AKelley728 : The reason you saw signs for Continental at LHR is because CO code-shares with VS from LHR.
33 AKelley728 : Currently CO flies 777s 2x daily to LGW. If CO were to get LHR I could see them immediately moving the 777s over to LHR, and LGW going all 752.
34 Commavia : I doubt if CO would even still fly to LGW if they had the chance to fly to LHR. Nobody high-yielding business traveler worth their wallet in F ticket
35 Zone1 : It would be nice to see DL bring back European flights from BOS, but with the MassPort not letting terminal A have customs, I doubt we will see DL fl
36 Commavia : I agree. I don't know where DL could fly in Europe from BOS. LGW is out for the obvious reasons -- the same reasons it failed the first time -- no hi
37 Mcdu : Who is going to take AA's slots at LHR when they go under?
38 Commavia : You're kidding, right?
39 AS739X : JetBlue to LHR with A330....LMAO B6 is going to get themselves in hot water if they brought on the A330. They have a great domestic product, but passe
40 WhiteHatter : Some speculation... CO might not be too interested. They are currently padding their regional services, and benefitting from interception of UK passen
41 G-CIVP : You would get crushed in the stampede! This is easy to answer, Continental, Delta, US Airways, Northwest as they would all want a cut of the cake. Any
42 Galapagapop : I see US going for these depite their low cash reserves. As their European routes are the best but sadly they only have so many planes. LHR would be g
43 WhiteHatter : US might be an interesting bet as they have a relationship with BD via Star.
44 AeroWesty : Yes, what ARE you talking about? You should do a bit of research. Bermuda II restricts which cities service is allowed to/from between LHR and the U.
45 Post contains links AeroWesty : For those so inclined to educate themselves before moving forward in this thread: Bermuda II Synopsis (by B747-437B Jun 12 2002 in Civil Aviation)
46 Mcdu : NOPE. Since we are speculating about demise, why not include AA? Anyone read the article in AWST about the pension issue looming at AA? The future of
47 Commavia : As compared to UA? Well, for starters: UA is in bankruptcy, AA is not UA's costs are relatively high, AA's are not UA has eliminated their employee's
48 Mcdu : Glad to see you are the ranking member and keeper of this list, tic. According to AWST AA's pensions are 2,687 billion under funded, they also have p
49 Post contains images AeroWesty : :: nudge :: You two want to take your "AA/UA who will die first?" chat to a thread on that topic, so this one doesn't get shut down for moving off-top
50 Commavia : It's just my opinion, and I respect your right to obviously hold a different one! AA's pension plans are currently the best funded of any airline in
51 Commavia : Sorry, my apologies. I won't post on it again here in this thread.
52 AADC10 : Can these flights be book from either end, or can they only be purchased as part of a continuing flight? I believe there are some restrictions on tho
53 WingnutMN : Where is DTT? Is this DTW or is this somewhere else?...IF NW could get the routes, they could stand to fly from DTW, MSP, BOS, LAX, PDX and maybe ORD
54 ConcordeBoy : ...perhaps he's talking about the fact that ATL, CVG, and IAH are not among the 12 specified permanent LHR gateways as per Berumuda II; and there's n
55 PHX Flyer : This entire discussion is moot, because a liquidation of United is highly unlikely. Even if they did have to file chapter 7, their assets - including
56 Gemuser : Most posters (with some notable exceptions, who seem to be ignored!) seem confused by the fact that there are two separate issue here. The first is ro
57 Commavia : Not true. If you were talking about China, or Japan, or Brazil, you would be correct. The route authorities would go into an unallocated pool and cou
58 Apodino : Thats too bad in my opinion. I personally prefer LGW over LHR as its an easier airport to navigate, its a nicer airport, and I think easier to get to
59 MAH4546 : They would still fly to Gatwick. Maybe not from Newark, but Cleveland and, more importantly, Houston, can only be served from Gatwick. FLL can have H
60 Commavia : My apologies for not being more clear -- I was making my comments on the premise that for CO to get access to LHR, B2 would have to be repealed, thus
61 PlaneSmart : Which is a good reason why temporary or permanent changes to foreign ownership and anti-trust laws are required to complete the US-based airline rest
62 PlaneSmart : In a bidding war for UA, where slots are the prize, who would pay more? An airline that could fill every one of them with an A380, or an airline that
63 L1011Lover : I totally agree with Commavia, that both DL and CO would make planes available in favour for the LHR rights! Also, it´s simply not true that the 767-
64 Commavia : Absolutely. The 767-300ER can fly from LHR to anywhere in the continental United States with no problem. AA and UA did indeed used to fly 767s on LHR
65 Post contains images B4real : Likely b/c of VS codeshare. Not really, considering if B2 is in place, they can't go ATL or CVG to LHR. They'd make 777 available if it would work. T
66 Post contains images L1011Lover : Thanx, Commavia for the info! I´m not that much familiar with Bermuda II... it´s confusing! Now I got some additions to my basic knowledge of Bermud
67 Avek00 : Bermuda II explicitly limits transfers of LHR rights to "corporate succesors" of the designated carriers. The UK allowed the USA to transfer the LHR
68 VS11 : As has been explained several times, having the right to fly out of/into LHR does not entitle you to slots at LHR, or at least most of the time. When
69 Gemuser : Commavia Reply 57 Good point I was unaware that airlines were specifically named, but it is probably not really relevant in the real world. Consider w
70 NYCAAer : At American, we've been told that revenue on the LHR routes has eroded in recent years, and that some of the flights operated to LHR with 777s may be
71 FlyCaledonian : I'm amazed at how long into this thread it took for the issue of LHR rights and LHR slots to be separated. UA already sold some slots at LHR last year
72 B747-437B : May I suggest that people familiarize themselves with policy documents EU 93/95 as modified by EU 04/793. Those documents specifically enumerate the p
73 Commavia : I heard this right after 9/11, and going through about 2003, that premium yields were down strongly over pre-9/11 on LHR routes. However, I have hear
74 Lazyshaun : I haven't seen an AA 763 at LHR for a very long time, not for a year or so at least. -lazyshaun-
75 NYCAAer : I'm just going by what I'm hearing from local management at JFK. The fact is, the cargo holds of all those 777s are going empty, and it's a waste of r
76 MAH4546 : Northwest cannot fly MSP-LHR. Only a British airline can fly MSP-LHR.
77 NYCAAer : That's because AA changed all LHR flights to 777s, and most continental European and regional UK routes were switched to 2-class 763s in April 2003,
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...
If UA Go Bust...what About The Regional Carriers? posted Wed May 25 2005 23:06:20 by RootsAir
Who Will Win In DL Vs. North American On JFK-ACC? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 01:50:28 by Atrude777
Who Will Be In AMS On August 18th? posted Thu Apr 27 2006 09:44:40 by RootsAir
US Express Ops - Who Will Focus In On This Area posted Mon Mar 6 2006 16:52:48 by ATWZW170
What Happens If UA Go Out Of Business? posted Fri May 13 2005 12:30:05 by Paul
Who Will Fill The IND-LGA Void? posted Tue Mar 1 2005 03:32:36 by LGAtoIND
Who Will Be In ATL? posted Mon Jul 5 2004 06:19:56 by BR715-A1-30
If UA Goes Under, Who Gets Gate Space Where? posted Tue Feb 10 2004 18:16:21 by BCAInfoSys
Who Will Be In The New A Terminal At SEA? posted Wed Jun 4 2003 08:19:00 by SJCguy
If UA Goes Under It Will Hurt AA posted Mon Dec 9 2002 03:12:01 by AA 777