Wrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1815 posts, RR: 12 Posted (4 years 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 839 times:
Now, I for one would like to see the both of these abolished, therefore allowing the market to free up, however, I know the mian problem is that, at the same time as winning, both the UK and the US will lose out.
I.e- American airlines ( such as CO, DL, NW etc) will b e able to fly to LHR non-stop, however, UK carriers will be able to fly non-stop from LHR to anywhere in the US, which could affect passenger numbers on America airlines. And 5th freedom will do the same, so AA, DL or any American carrier, can sell tickets ( and fly) from the UK to anywhere, most likely to the middle east. However, this at the same time will allow non American carriers to fly and sell tickets within the US.
so , QF do SYD-LAX-JFK, and the LAX-JFK-LAX part, isn't usually above 50% load, but if 5th freedom rights was abolished, their passenger number would pick up, but at the same time, The American public is told to "fly American", so they would loose out on passenger numbers, and no doubt, with so many major US carriers in financial trouble, this wouldn't be good news.
No doubt more international carriers will take advantage of this, if it was to come true, but IMHO, I don't think we'll see this happening for a while yet
So, what's your view, do you believe it will be good or bad for your part, and do you think it will be good or bad news for carriers ?
Kiwiandrew From Mauritius, joined Jun 2005, 5548 posts, RR: 17 Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 822 times:
Quoting Wrighbrothers (Thread starter): However, this at the same time will allow non American carriers to fly and sell tickets within the US.
nope , that's cabotage , not 5th freedom . Fifth freedom is picking pax up in a country other than your home country and dropping them off in another country - flying within the US is cabotage and the US Govt will never allow that .
Quoting Wrighbrothers (Thread starter): QF do SYD-LAX-JFK, and the LAX-JFK-LAX part, isn't usually above 50% load, but if 5th freedom rights was abolished, their passenger number would pick up, but at the same time,
as above , this is cabotage , not 5th freedom . Also , as an Australian carrier QF is not part of Bermuda II or of the proposed EU-US open skies accord .
I do agree , however , that liberalisation is a good thing - there have been far too many restrictions in the past which have reduced competition and kept fares unnecessarily high .
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
Ozvirginuk From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 365 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 788 times:
I am in two minds about this liberalisation between US and EU. I think that the US has far more to gain out of this (from a UK perspective) as the UK has only 2 major players on transatlantic routes BA and VS, of course BD have their 10x weekly transatlantic from MAN. With UA, AA, DL, CO, NW all being allowed to fly out of LHR (although where the slots will come from is anyone's guess) this means that 3 US carriers stand to gain, and potentially 1 UK carrier does. (Assuming that BD decide what they intend to do about long-haul flying).
What's wrong with LGW anyways???? Better connections to London (City and West End) and a very healthy domestic and European network operated by a variety of carriers for onward connections.
I would like to understand a little bit more about 5th freedom gains for EU - does this mean that, for instance a UK carrier could fly LHR-LAX (let's say VS of course) and then onward to another country that the US has agreements with (ie Australia - open skies)?? If so, then maybe we do have something to gain.
Having said that, how likely is it that some of the US majors will last all that much longer??? With almost every other airline either bankrupt or in some type of bankruptcy protection, what does their future hold. Whereas here in old Blighty, both BA and VS are very profitable (obviously BA more so) and will likely survive whatever happens with the liberalisation. At the end of the day, people still want a quality onboard product and onboard service, something that US carriers seems to have stopped providing, a very long time ago.
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 43 Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 741 times:
5th freedom rights will potentially allow better fleet utilization, if airlines can send the aircraft on a relatively short international hop during the time the aircraft would be idle waiting for a return trip.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18472 posts, RR: 60 Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 734 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 5): 5th freedom rights will potentially allow better fleet utilization, if airlines can send the aircraft on a relatively short international hop during the time the aircraft would be idle waiting for a return trip.
so would 8th freedom rights, though I think they would benefit US carriers more than EU carriers.
I think 8th freedom cabotage would not be such a bad thing though, as it would allow for better utilization of aircraft and connecting smaller cities in a profitable manner while still not opening the door for BA to set up a domestic US hub at JFK or AA to do so at BRU for the EU, etc. which would require 9th freedom.
AA could fly ORD-BRU-PRAGUE for example, and BA could do LHR-JFK-IAH and both could pick up and drop off pax at any point, without requiring them to open up a non-stop route with a large aircraft. May be bad examples, but I'm sure the airlines would come up with better ones.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Nothing at all. I fly to London about 1-2 times per year, and I much prefer Gatawick as it is, IMO, easier to get in and out of, and far less chaotic and crowded. However, it is really only that way if you are flying to London, and not connecting on somewhere. For connection, Gatwick has very little in way of meaningful connecting opportunities, and actually hurts Heathrow.
Quoting Ozvirginuk (Reply 3): I would like to understand a little bit more about 5th freedom gains for EU - does this mean that, for instance a UK carrier could fly LHR-LAX (let's say VS of course) and then onward to another country that the US has agreements with (ie Australia - open skies)?
The U.S. would not need to have an Open Skies agreement with the third country. For example, if AZ wanted to fly its 777 MXP-MIA, and then continue the flight on from MIA to CUN, carrying local American customers, they would be able to. Another example, if BA wanted to fly its 777 LHR-BOS, and then continue the flight on from BOS to YOW, carrying local American customers, they would be able to.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): so would 8th freedom rights, though I think they would benefit US carriers more than EU carriers.
Cabotage would benefit E.U. carriers much more than U.S. carriers, which is why the U.S. will never allow it. In theory, it should work the way you said -- that because U.S. airlines are generally larger, with more flights, they could add tags on from current European markets to new ones. However, the reality in practice is that just about every airport in Europe worth its weight in gold is slot-restricted, with all the best slots already taken, whereas in the U.S., there are virtually no restrictions on any operations from any airport, in comparison, and further, it is a far larger market. In other words, U.S. carriers would have next to no opportunity to make anything successful come of cabotage within the E.U., whereas E.U. carriers would have a great time of it in the U.S.
Centrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 640 times:
When I first saw this thread I didn't think of the UK or EU at all. Over on the other side of the planet 5th freedom usually deals with Japan.
Only two U.S. airlines can operate US-NRT-Asia, UA and NW. Everyone else has to try for direct. Even airlines like SQ, CX and TG have 5th freedom on the North American market, but since it is slightly flooded they are going to direct and overflying Japan.
Flights between Europe and North America are plentiful and cheap. And if you don't have 5th freedom through the UK, you get it someplace else. NW via AMS, AA via Belgium. That is not so much an option on the trans-pac. Its Japan or nothing. If this wasn't the case, I would bet U.S. Carriers would try to get 5th freedom via ICN or HKG. But that won't happen.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
PanAm had 5th freedom HKG-SIN, did they not? I flew JFK-SFO-HKG-SIN and I am pretty sure that they were allowed to pick up pax in HKG on the way. Could be fuzzy on the memory as I was only 10 years old, but that's why I asked.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
SQ, TG, CI have 5th freedom from the days when aircraft had to stop somewhere to get to the US. Naturally, Japan is a good stopover point.
Same can be applied to North American carriers going to Southeast Asia.
I still find it intriguing that two countries that laud worldwide for freedom of trade have the most restrictive aviation agreement.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18472 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 617 times:
Quoting Carpethead (Reply 11): I still find it intriguing that two countries that laud worldwide for freedom of trade have the most restrictive aviation agreement.
Yeah, well, it's all well and good to blame all sides equally, but one side wanted far more liberal policies and the other side wanted more conservative policies, and this was the compromise that everyone had to live with. If it were up to one side, Bermuda 2 would not exist at all and there would be open skies.
Isn't blaming both sides for being anti-free trade like blaming both sides in a war treaty, even if one side attacked the other and the treaty just stops the fighting?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 578 times:
Quoting Carpethead (Reply 11): I still find it intriguing that two countries that laud worldwide for freedom of trade have the most restrictive aviation agreement.
At Chicago 1944 (Chicago Convention) governments could agree on just about everything, except the economic issues - traffic rights, airline designation, tariffs, etc. These were left to the individual nations to sort out between themselves - Bilateral agreements. Bermuda 1946 was the first of these, but there are literally thousands of them now - and initially almost all follow what happened in Bermuda.
The EU is not a country, it is not even a federation of soverign states (like Switzerland is) The US has bilateral agreements with each of the 25 Member States, some of which are old - traditional restricted agreements, but many are 'open skies' where there is little, if any regulation of economic issues. What we see now is the EU trying to combine the 25 agreements into a single liberal agreement.
Bermuda 2 effectivly only restricts access (for both the US and British) to Heathrow. Any other UK - US market is 'effectively' free of regulation.
Scotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1124 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 540 times:
It is all good. It is the old analogy of the auto companies, banks, advertising agencies, insurance, stock brokerage, etc. Being that there is absolutely no restriction on ownership or trading. And airlines, especially airlines, which enabled these industries to grow and prosper in the first place, should be no different.
For example, the UK has no domestic auto manufacturing. Once MG Rover closed up, that was it, finished, finito. Sure there is auto manufacturing in the UK, just not UK owned. And that, my friends, goes to the heart of the matter.
The only ones that want the status quo to remain the same is the government owned entities that are going to be most effected by increased competition and the innovation that would bring.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1815 posts, 
From Mauritius, joined Jun 2005, 5548 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 365 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 13748 posts, 
From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, 
From Bermuda, joined Nov 2005, 121 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3356 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
