Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Continental: No EU Deal Without Heathrow  
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11604 posts, RR: 61
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6310 times:

Continental has issued a press release calling on the U.S. to negotiate for access to Heathrow by U.S. carriers in turn for Europe so badly wanting the U.S. Congress to relax foreign ownership rules.

Continental contends that, "While an open skies agreement theoretically permits flights to Heathrow, there are no commercially viable slots and facilities available at Heathrow that would allow an airline like Continental to begin service there." In my opinion, Continental's premise is somewhat misleading, as the new agreement would, indeed, theoretically allow any U.S. airline (including Continental) to have free and unlimited access to Heathrow assuming they want to pay for it by buying the slots on the open market, and Continental would likely have to buy existing slots from existing slot holding airlines, thus giving them access to those respective airlines' slot and facility capacity.

In addition, I recently read with interest an excellent Times article regarding the new government policy of transitioning Heathrow's airfield utilization plan to a "mixed mode" system soon, which the government estimates would result in a 15-20% increase in the capacity of Heathrow's runways, without even accounting for the proposed third runway the government wants to add in 2015, nor Terminal 5 (slated to open in March 2008) which is going to open up ample facility capacity. These two changes collectively would provide ample airfield and terminal capacity for Continental or any other U.S. carrier who wanted access to Heathrow, but, alas, they would have to pay for it.

Why should they get for free what American and United collectively spent more than $735M on (in 1990-1991 dollars)?

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21526 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6279 times:

Where in that release does it say Continental is expecting anything for free?

The only statement talks of having "commercially viable" access. Not the same thing.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11604 posts, RR: 61
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6247 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Where in that release does it say Continental is expecting anything for free?

Correct, it doesn't, and that was the presumption on my part, based on the history of Continental's lobbying regarding Heathrow, which basically amounts to them wanting access to the airport as part of a bilateral (i.e., between governments), not as part of a financial transaction (i.e., a deal with another airline, like what AA and UA did).


User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6049 times:

Continental is willing to pay for Heathrow, and it will very well have to, but in return we want guarantees that we will have slots available for competitive operations with established carriers in the market. It is not likely BA/AA/VS/UA will concede anything to a new entrant (even with CO/VS codeshares), so an EU injunction may be the only option.

Should the deal go through, look for IAH-LGW to be replaced by at least two IAH-LHR frequencies, EWR-LGW service dropped to 757s, CLE-LGW switched to CLE-LHR, and EWR-LHR getting 4-6 dailies with a mix of 757/767/777 equipment.

If only a limited number of slots become available, and are distributed evenly, EWR holds priority over other markets.

This is purely speculative, but such a plan has always been in the works, pending necessary approvals and obviously the scrapping of Bermuda II.

[Edited 2005-12-07 20:18:35]

User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11604 posts, RR: 61
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6002 times:

Quoting 777gk (Reply 3):
we want guarantees that we will have slots available for competitive operations with established carriers in the market

And why, exactly, should Continental (or any other airline) get "guarantees?" It's called a free market, and, if this deal goes through, the Heathrow slot situation will for the first time -- to my knowledge -- in history be a truly free and open environment. Surely, some airlines will have more slots than others -- BA, BD, etc., -- but anyone will be able to buy slots if they can find a seller and a mutually agreed upon price. So, I repeat, why should Continental get "guarantees" of open slots?

Quoting 777gk (Reply 3):
It is not likely BA/AA/VS/UA will concede anything to a new entrant (even with CO/VS codeshares)

And who says they should have to? I would be willing to guess that this new agreement, if signed, will probably double the value of slots at Heathrow between 0600-1000 overnight, and, in that pricing environment, I highly doubt that Continental would have a hard time finding slot holders willing to sell. I definitely think that a few European airlines will be more than happy to sell peak slots, at a peak profit, and just upgrade aircraft size to compensate for lost frequency.

Quoting 777gk (Reply 3):
EWR-LHR getting 4-6 dailies with a mix of 757/767/777 equipment.

4-6 daily CO flights EWR-LHR? That's overdoing it a bit, no?


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25243 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5975 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm confused.  Smile

Why does Continental want LHR so much when it has all those provincial cities in the UK?

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11604 posts, RR: 61
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5942 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 5):
Why does Continental want LHR so much when it has all those provincial cities in the UK?

Because Heathrow is so profitable on its own. It has nothing to do with British provincial markets.


User currently offlineARGinLON From Vatican City, joined Jun 2005, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5909 times:

Quoting 777gk (Reply 3):
Should the deal go through, look for IAH-LGW to be replaced by at least two IAH-LHR frequencies, EWR-LGW service dropped to 757s, CLE-LGW switched to CLE-LHR, and EWR-LHR getting 4-6 dailies with a mix of 757/767/777 equipment.

I agree with you on CO having more dailies LHR-EWR but this will be on 777/764 (having a 752 here will be a joke compared to the competition) and IAH will depend on BA's decision (naturally, this will go to LHR considering BA's LGW policy)

LHR slots cost a fortune and CO would make sure it only uses such slots with high yield traffic. CLE will never go to LHR (only seasonal, poor yields...)

As for the money to buy the premium 9AM slots, CO will go to Wall Street to get it - not doubt about it. Should this happen, it will mean the end of LGW operations for CO


User currently offlineAcelanzarote From Spain, joined Nov 2005, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5879 times:

Hi
If Continental did get into LHR are they then not going to need more wide bodies? Seems they are using their fleet with little stack already. A few more 777's to order then??

cheers

KRH



from the Island with sun and great photo's.. Why not visit Lanzarote
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25243 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5871 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Commavia (Reply 6):
It has nothing to do with British provincial markets.

How not?

If Continental can make as much - or more - money from the provincial cities strategy, why stake an entire open skies agreement on LHR?

If they can't make as much - or more - money from the provincial cities strategy, that raises some quesions about ineternational point to point flying.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21624 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5860 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
4-6 daily CO flights EWR-LHR? That's overdoing it a bit, no?

Why not? BA flies plenty of 744s daily from JFK-LHR. If CO can provide more frequency with smaller planes, why shouldn't they?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5848 times:

Quoting Commavia (Thread starter):
Continental contends that, "While an open skies agreement theoretically permits flights to Heathrow, there are no commercially viable slots and facilities available at Heathrow that would allow an airline like Continental to begin service there."

Can't have one without the other, and slots are slots. They are not covered by bilaterals, but are valuable assets in their own right which nobody can demand be stripped from one carrier and given to another. Recent accounting changes mean airlines can now show slots as assets on balance sheets.

However purchasing slots (if available to buy) would not need a Wall street trip as they are not that expensive in relative terms. However it's obvious from QF's behaviour how valuable 8am to 10am slots are, with their 146 flights to MAN and back. They do change hands but are rare, and some can be traded for millions of pounds.

Another problem for a new entrant will be check-in and administration space. There just isn't that much free space about, not until BA make the T5 move.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11604 posts, RR: 61
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5825 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 9):
If Continental can make as much - or more - money from the provincial cities strategy, why stake an entire open skies agreement on LHR?

The "entire open skies strategy" is not staked on Heathrow, as if no agreement is signed, both parties just go back to the status quo, which essentially gives Continental unlimited access to the U.K. outside Heathrow.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 9):
If they can't make as much - or more - money from the provincial cities strategy, that raises some quesions about ineternational point to point flying.

I don't understand your point at all -- what does Heathrow have to do with smaller regional U.K. markets? Continental wants to fly to Heathrow to serve the London market from Heathrow. It has absolutely nothing to do with regional markets.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10):
Why not? BA flies plenty of 744s daily from JFK-LHR. If CO can provide more frequency with smaller planes, why shouldn't they?

Um, because it would be suicide. There is nowhere near a large enough market, in my opinion, for 10 daily BA flights New York-London, 6 daily AA flights New York-London, 5 daily VS flights New York-London, plus 4-6 daily CO flights New York-London and then another probably 3-4 daily DL flights New York-London if this deal goes through. That's around 30 daily flights in this market.

As to your comparison of CO to BA, that is like comparing apples to lawn furniture. BA has so much larger of a presence in the New York-London market than CO, and so much larger of a presence in the New York-London premium market.


User currently offlineARGinLON From Vatican City, joined Jun 2005, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5818 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 9):
If Continental can make as much - or more - money from the provincial cities strategy, why stake an entire open skies agreement on LHR?

If they can't make as much - or more - money from the provincial cities strategy, that raises some quesions about ineternational point to point flying.

The reason for CO going to LHR is a matter of the huge business traffic that right now is unable to get due to the LHR issue. There is a LOT of high yield traffic that won't to LGW. As simply as that.


User currently offlineORDagent From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5779 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
"commercially viable" access

Commercially viable means that they can arrive eastbound mid morning and depart mid afternoon for best connections in both directions.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5756 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 6):
Because Heathrow is so profitable on its own.

USA-Heathrow is profitable now, but will it be when the floodgates open? I wonder. As Commarvia says

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
for 10 daily BA flights New York-London, 6 daily AA flights New York-London, 5 daily VS flights New York-London, plus 4-6 daily CO flights New York-London and then another probably 3-4 daily DL flights New York-London if this deal goes through. That's around 30 daily flights in this market.

Can anybody make money with this type of capacity around?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
and so much larger of a presence in the New York-London premium market.

And extensive feed both into JFK (AA) and into Europe - something that CO will not have (and VS doesn't have)


User currently offlineBigOrange From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2365 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5716 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 9):
If Continental can make as much - or more - money from the provincial cities strategy, why stake an entire open skies agreement on LHR?

Provincial cities are not part of the open skies agreement. CO can fly to any provincial city it wants in the UK already.

I think pretty soon LHR will just be a long haul airport, with no domestic connections and very few intra-European connections. A rapid transfer rail link will be set up between LHR, LGW, STN and LTN to serve connecting passengers, or the RAF will close Northolt and this will become the airport for domestic connections.

Either that or the government will give BAA carte blanche to expand at will and they will just flatten all the neighbouring houses!


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11604 posts, RR: 61
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5714 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 15):
USA-Heathrow is profitable now, but will it be when the floodgates open?

Yields will no doubt drop, and prices will definitely take a significant hit. However, it is also going to stimulate demand for U.S.-LHR traffic big time.

Quoting ANother (Reply 15):
Can anybody make money with this type of capacity around?

Today's capacity is a perfect fit for today's market, and AA, BA and VS all make money. In the long-run, the market would adjust to any capacity reallignment with lower fares and higher volume.

Quoting ANother (Reply 15):
And extensive feed both into JFK (AA) and into Europe - something that CO will not have (and VS doesn't have)

CO has more feed at its EWR hub than AA has at JFK, which is why I don't doubt that they could easily fill up multiple daily EWR-LHR flights. However, I don't think they could fill up 6. I could definitely see 3, maybe 4, but not 6, especially if they use 777s on some of the flights.

I could envision a CO schedule EWR-LHR looking like this:

EWR 0900 - LHR 2100 (762)
EWR 1830 - LHR 0625 (777)
EWR 2000 - LHR 0755 (762) *Maybe*
EWR 2130 - LHR 0925 (762/777)

LHR 0830 - EWR 1105 (762)
LHR 1100 - EWR 1325 (762) *Maybe*
LHR 1230 - EWR 1505 (777)
LHR 1700 - EWR 1930 (762/777)


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25243 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5667 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
The "entire open skies strategy" is not staked on Heathrow

Sorry - but then the headline of your thread is misleading: No EU Deal Without Heathrow.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
I don't understand your point at all -- what does Heathrow have to do with smaller regional U.K. markets?

The Continental "provincial cities" strategy is often used as validation of future point to point (or hub to point) flying and, the decreasing importance of hubs.

The ramification of Continental's position here is that point to point, or hub to point, is fine and dandy, but we'll go to the wall for the big hub. As in:

Quoting ARGinLON (Reply 13):
There is a LOT of high yield traffic that won't to LGW.

I agree.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5666 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 17):
Yields will no doubt drop, and prices will definitely take a significant hit. However, it is also going to stimulate demand for U.S.-LHR traffic big time.

I'm not so certain. New York - London is a pretty mature market and well accustomed to $199++ pricing. Dropping another 6-9 flights into Heathrow is going to have an effect. With fuel still at $60 bbl (and the crack-spread still over $20) all of these guys are going to have to push 85-90% loads just to cover costs.

Agree that CO has great feed into EWR, but they will have little feed to/from LHR. And with a schedule such as you see, the inbound flight arriving at 2100 will not be for connecting pax. The same goes for the 0830 departure ex London.

If I were CO, I'd let DL go for LHR - pay a few million per slot pair - wait six months and buy them from DL's Chapter 7 receiver for a dime on the dollar ...

I agree with other posters that CO should stick to their strategy of serving the provincial airports. People will pay a premium to avoid Heathrow (I love clearing customs at Bristol - just me, and two other guys in the 'other passport' queues. Not like Terminal 3 at 0700 - 45m to 1 hour!)((or at least it was last time I went through T3)


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11604 posts, RR: 61
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5643 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 18):
but then the headline of your thread is misleading: No EU Deal Without Heathrow.

Respectfully, It's not misleading at all.

The thread is about exactly what I said. Continental says they don't want any new U.S.-E.U. deal without Heathrow access. The reason why many believe they want this is because they know that even if they don't get Heathrow access and no new deal is signed, the status quo is maintained and they still get unlimited flying to the U.K. outside Heathrow. Again -- the two things have nothing at all to do with each other.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 18):
The Continental "provincial cities" strategy is often used as validation of future point to point (or hub to point) flying and, the decreasing importance of hubs.

Agreed. Exactly right. But that, I think, is where your thinking is flawed -- Continental does not view Heathrow as a hub, and never has, and has absolutely no intention of enjoying market access to Heathrow in that way. They see Heathrow as just a spoke, not a hub, but a very high-yielding spoke at that.


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25243 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5546 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
Respectfully, It's not misleading at all.

Sorry, but it misled me. And I have a reasonable IQ.  Smile

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
Continental does not view Heathrow as a hub

I don't see that it matters what Continental thinks it is.

LHR is a hub. You can connect at LHR to almost anywhere. It is one of the reasons it is a high yielding airport.

So - Continental, sensibly, wants in. They want in for its high yields which are, at least in part, due it's connections, even if those connections are with other airlines.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5543 times:

Heathrow is a massive market, make no mistake.

4-6 daily Continental flights from Newark to Heathrow is realistic and undoubtedly will become a reality should the deal be approved. Existing LHR operations from EWR are token at best, the other carriers see no need to fragment their core competency at JFK by growing EWR service to match demand, but rest assured the market is viable, and there should be no question once the dominant carrier (CO) enters, considering how effectively we presently compete with our Gatwick service. Continental has more online feed at EWR than anyone else in the metropolitan area, but this is more or less irrelevant. The O/D is what makes NYC-LON tick. Everything else is just gravy.

LHR would become the crown jewel of our transatlantic network, but we make a lot of money elsewhere and need widebody capacity to several markets to sustain them. That's why the 757/767/777 will be seen at LHR if we get access, think of it as "giving it all we've got".

It has been reported that Gatwick should remain a CO station with EWR 757 service. However, the bulk of the assets and staff (i.e. Presidents Club) will be transferred to LHR.

If anything, LHR would make a CLE-London service work. It is tough to make a secondary market to secondary airport service profitable under any conditions, access to one of the foremost markets in the world would at least give it a fighting chance, especially if most transatlantic operators desert LGW.

Continental wants guarantees on slots to allow for fair access to an anticompetitive environment, especially if the EU is demanding revision to US foreign ownership statutes, which would increase competition in an environment not nearly so restricted.

Commavia, I think your problem is that, with a deal like this going through, established carriers like AA, BA, UA, VS may (perhaps unfairly) have nothing to gain and everything to lose.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11604 posts, RR: 61
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5533 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 21):
So - Continental, sensibly, wants in. They want in for its high yields which are, at least in part, due it's connections, even if those connections are with other airlines.

Again, though, Mariner -- for the third time -- that has nothing to do with Continental's U.K. regional market strategy, and still -- even now -- I have absolutely no idea why you continue to link the two.

Continental wants to fly to Heathrow as a stand-alone market, not for connections, not for codeshares, not as a hub, but as a stand-alone market that they can serve from their U.S. hubs. It would have no impact whatsoever on their regional market strategy.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11604 posts, RR: 61
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5517 times:

Quoting 777gk (Reply 22):
Continental wants guarantees on slots to allow for fair access to an anticompetitive environment, especially if the EU is demanding revision to US foreign ownership statutes, which would increase competition in an environment not nearly so restricted.

In a free market, there are no such things as "guarantees." And, furthermore, Continental's (and/or your) characterization of Heathrow as an "anticompetitive environment," in the context of global air transport hubs, is highly mistaken, IMO. The single largest airline at Heathrow, BA, has less than 50% of the slots there -- I believe it is now at about 42%.

In a free market, if Continental want slots at "commercially viable" times, then they are going to have to pay "commercially viable" prices. They don't like it, then live without Heathrow.

Quoting 777gk (Reply 22):
Commavia, I think your problem is that, with a deal like this going through, established carriers like AA, BA, UA, VS may (perhaps unfairly) have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

First, it's not my problem, its these airlines'. Secondly, AA and BA have a great deal to gain from this deal going through, as they would get ATI and unlimited commercial cooperation. The primarily losers in this E.U.-U.S. deal, in the context of the Heathrow debate, will be UA and VS. UA continues to lose more and more of its presence at Heathrow to competition from AA and BA, and VS -- left without strong feed at either end of its Heathrow-U.S. network, is going to have a challenge making these flights work with more competition and lower yields.


25 ScottB : Well, except that it still won't be a "truly free and open environment." How much exactly did BA or BD or VS pay for the vast majority of their slot
26 Atmx2000 : It would be a free market, but on the other hand the current privileged position that the incumbents are in the LHR market is a creation of governmen
27 Post contains images ANother : If that was true, they would stick with LGW, which has much better connections (and much cheaper too) into the city.I cannot understand why any pax,
28 Jacobin777 : BA, BD, and VS got there first, so they will probably get the best prices/rates..etc. By your reasoning, someone who emigrated to the United States i
29 Mariner : But I did not even mention the provincial cities in the post to which you reply - #21. So I don't know what "the third time" has to do with it. The p
30 RichardPrice : Im pretty sure that the veto powers held by certain countries in the EU are absolute and cannot be overruled, as otherwise they wouldnt be worth anyt
31 Indy : I have never been to the UK so I have no idea how LHR and LGW compare. How close are they and how different are the facilities? Is LHR really that muc
32 Commavia : Well, obviously millions of travellers disagree with you, as they prefer flying to Heathrow over Gatwick. No disputes here, but then -- again -- what
33 RichardPrice : Doesnt LHR have more international connections than LGW? Ive only ever flown into LGW, but it seems more orientated at the leisure traveller rather th
34 WhiteHatter : won't happen. Nobody has the right to take an asset away from a third party. Too bad. Slots at LHR are not an asset to be allocated by anyone in Gove
35 Commavia : I'm not so sure of that. I definitely think that some of the European carriers with many daily flights to Heathrow from their respective home countri
36 ANother : You are correct, but my comment was related to whether the Brits can withstand the pressure from Brussels, particularly in a UK Presidency. Not every
37 Mariner : I suggest the issues raised are deeply intertwined in the debate about hubs and hub to point and/or point to point flying. cheers mariner
38 Post contains links AeroWesty : No one forced AA or UA to buy their way in to Heathrow. They both could have waited until a new agreement was signed. A couple of months ago an inter
39 ScottB : Actually...No. The current situation is more like saying that the current occupant of a rent-controlled house in the San Francisco Marina District is
40 ScottB : The existence of slots at LHR is a situation that was created by the U.K. Government. If they don't want to address the ramifications of this policy,
41 Commavia : Because it will benefit consumers and the industry, which brings us back to my original post and Continental's press release. Continental is doing wh
42 Atmx2000 : I'm no London expert so I don't know why people going to and leaving London prefer LHR over LGW. I'm sure the network effects arising from the number
43 Post contains images Elagabal : The agreement is not "staked" on anything the private company named Continental Airlines says or does. Continental can lobby Washington all they want
44 Sllevin : A free market would be one without bias. Clearly, a market in which pre-existing conditions exist is not free. Compare it to civil liberties and mino
45 Mariner : I am not ignoring it, that is exactly my point. There are many airlines from other parts of the world which do not have connections at LHR. For all s
46 Bobnwa : Yes LHR is a hub for BA but not for any other carrier. Are BOS,MIA,ATL,DTW,ORD etc hubs for BA just because they are hubs for another carrier? I thin
47 Mariner : Um - Virgin? They may not be hubs for BA, but at least some of them are hub cities. I have not claimed that it will. mariner
48 Post contains images Commavia : I never thought I'd live to see the day that Continental Airlines getting landing rights at London's Heathrow Airport would be compared to the civil
49 Post contains images ARGinLON : Well... VS is a big operator at LHR but this doesn't make it a hub for them if we agree that an airline hub is an airport that an airline uses as a t
50 ScottB : The funny thing is, the comparison isn't inapt. Under the law, CO, DL, NW, US, BD, etc. have been treated as second-class citizens, without the same
51 Mariner : Sorry, I thought I meant exactly the reverse. I do not expect Continental to give up the profitable provincial cities (assuming those cities are prof
52 Chgoflyer : If any in congress vote in favor of foreign ownership that "silent majority" will hand them their heads during the next election.
53 Sllevin : That's because, quite honestly, the only thing that Europe has to offer is Heathrow access. What else really makes much of a difference over the stat
54 Db373 : You do understand how big of a risk this would be for CO to do, correct? No offense, but you're not CO, and CO has stated that they DO want LHR in th
55 Post contains links MasseyBrown : There is an awful lot of hogwash in many of the above posts mostly based on ignorance of available data. Every time this LHR slot topic comes up peopl
56 ANother : Sorry that my sarcasm wasn't more obvious. This would NOT be the way for CO to secure slots at Heathrow. One thing that is becoming clear in this deb
57 UAL777UK : Just to add something else here, it was reported last night on ITN news that BAA is considering changing the take off and landing preocedures at LHR s
58 Speedbird2155 : While you are largely correct, Gatwick is only 1-2 hrs from the city if you are driving and there is traffic. But by train it actually has much bette
59 Atmx2000 : I'm sure they would be happy to get them for whatever the incumbents got them for. Perhaps its because they are concerned about the effects of LHR in
60 MasseyBrown : Ah....this confirms my theory, based on observation, that LHR isn't overcrowded, it's merely inefficient and they (BA et al.) like it that way.
61 Elagabal : Good point. I've been on that train m'self. If you're waiting door-to-door, though (the way a businessman would), car from Heathrow is the best optio
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...
Why No LH Service Between Heathrow & Berlin? posted Thu Sep 7 2006 12:05:18 by 8herveg
No Big Deal But.... posted Wed Aug 23 2006 19:29:25 by Zippyjet
Continental No Power Ports posted Sat Dec 24 2005 04:43:02 by Andahuailas
NO EU Compensation For BA PAX posted Thu Aug 25 2005 09:38:38 by Trekster
Why No EU LCC Connection Insurance? posted Sat Apr 9 2005 19:23:47 by Ahlfors
Continental: No Rolling Hub For Houston posted Fri Oct 22 2004 22:38:17 by ConcordeBoy
No EU Sky Marshals posted Tue Apr 27 2004 23:35:54 by Skymonster
Why No CO, DL, US @ Heathrow posted Sat Apr 17 2004 21:54:25 by M&m
Air NZ Earnings Fly But No Qantas Deal Yet posted Wed Oct 30 2002 03:40:29 by United Airline
NW's FA's Say No Merger Without A Contact For Them posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:32:59 by MSPGUY