Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Star Alliance To Boycot  
User currently offlineMauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2487 posts, RR: 25
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4799 times:

according to luchtvaartnieuws , Star alliance is planning to boycot AMS, ORY, CDG because of the high fares that are being asked for tax, landing fees , and ground handling. they say they think that some governments still use the aviation industry as a milk cow...


why are they whining? Schiphol isnt that much profitable, but an expensive airport since they are always bussy with building, upgrading and there's a lot of security.




anyway , if they really going to boycot, AMS won't see the next airlines in the future anymore:

US airways
United
Austrian (fly;s quite much at AMS)
BMI ( big user )
Varig
Singapore airlines
SAS (lots of flights a day)
TAP (lots of flights a day)
LH ( After BA and KL , biggest user at AMS)
LOT
Air Canada (only summer flights)

this will mean a lots of slots for other airlines that are waiting to get them (the list is long) but it also means AMS will see lots and lots of income dissapear , same goes for ORY and CDG

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSK601 From Belgium, joined Jun 2005, 976 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4783 times:

Quoting MauriceB (Thread starter):
LH ( After BA and KL , biggest user at AMS)

1. KL
2. HV
3. EZY (?)
4. BA
5. LH


User currently offlineMauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2487 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4775 times:

Quoting SK601 (Reply 1):
Quoting MauriceB (Thread starter):
LH ( After BA and KL , biggest user at AMS)

1. KL
2. HV
3. EZY (?)
4. BA
5. LH

only normal airlines, without counting the low cost, and charter airlines


User currently offlineACDC8 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 7637 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4775 times:

Quoting MauriceB (Thread starter):
Star alliance is planning to boycot AMS, ORY, CDG

Interesting that those are all SkyTeam hubs and not Star Alliance. Do some airlines still get special rates at their home aiports?



A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4758 times:

AFAIK, many of the Star Alliance airlines are financially not very healthy (UA, US, RG, SK, AC). Without AMS and especially Paris, these airlines will definitely feel it. I guess they're only hurting themselves. I'm sure many other airlines will fill the gap if they leave.
Just threats, I don't see it happening. I wonder if AMS, ORY and CDG are even impressed with these threats.

E


User currently offlineMauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2487 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4663 times:

AFAIK, many of the Star Alliance airlines are financially not very healthy (UA, US, RG, SK, AC). Without AMS and especially Paris, these airlines will definitely feel it. I guess they're only hurting themselves. I'm sure many other airlines will fill the gap if they leave.


indeed, although im not sure if others are able to fill the gab left behind by these airlines... what about the scandinavian routes?

LHR isnt a problem since KL can send bigger Ac's..


User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4628 times:

I don't see LH implementing a boycott on CDG - there are far too many passengers transported to Paris to neglect that business.
Also France is a major revenue -provider for TAP -I think it's B.S. ....



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4879 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4468 times:

I don't see AC pulling out of the Paris market...ever.


Next Up: STL-TPA-BWI-PWM-BWI-STL
User currently offlineCHANGYOU From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 267 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4403 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Singapore Airlines for sure will never pull out from AMS and CDG. It's lucritive market for them. Guess only the financial struggling airlines are feeling the pinch here.

User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 3154 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4313 times:

The airlines will probably hurt themselves more than they will hurt Schiphol or Aeroports de Paris. What will SAS do, say to their customers who want to fly from OSL/ARN/CPH to AMS that they have to pick KLM or (from next spring) Stirling as they don't like the airport operator? Will SQ say to the Dutch who want to fly to Australia that they will have to call Malaysian?

Next to that, I do not see StarAlliance acting as one organisation. They may be threatening airport operators to act like on party, but in my opinion, when the situation is there, all member airlines will make their seperate decisions that fits their business model best: that is, continuing serving AMS, CDG and ORY and pay the price. StarAlliance can ask their members to paint a plane, not to cease lucrative markets.


User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4265 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4291 times:

Taxes at Star hubs like FRA, VIE, CPH and LHR (BD) are also rediculously high, whenever I have a connecting flight via one of these, some 150 euro are easily added to the ticket price.


nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineAirCanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4118 times:

AC is in financial healthy.. load factors up , profits up.. AC won't pull the plug on CDG

User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

Quoting IL76 (Reply 4):
AFAIK, many of the Star Alliance airlines are financially not very healthy (UA, US, RG, SK, AC). Without AMS and especially Paris, these airlines will definitely feel it. I guess they're only hurting themselves

I can NOT be more agree with you. I think this news is stupid in itself. If it is true --which I don't think so-- it's would be a good news to SkyT and OW

Quoting Joost (Reply 9):
StarAlliance can ask their members to paint a plane, not to cease lucrative markets.

Of course, you're right as well. The partnership is not made to damage to their partners


User currently offlineRyGuy From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3579 times:

And then the next Boycotted Airport will be YYZ for the reason of their huge landing fee hike in early 2006...
I think the GTAA (Greater Toronto Airport Authority) is making a huge mistake by raising their fees so high...
YYZ is canada's busiest and biggest airport..... and soon to be the worlds most expensive airport to land in... hmmmm???

-RyGuy

[Edited 2005-12-13 03:02:43]


From somewhere out there...
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3512 times:

Quoting MauriceB (Thread starter):
according to luchtvaartnieuws , Star alliance is planning to boycot AMS, ORY, CDG because of the high fares that are being asked for tax, landing fees , and ground handling. they say they think that some governments still use the aviation industry as a milk cow...

I have never heard of that news source. How credible is this as it seems a little vague with no detailed descrition or link? Without a link to a real source, it is possible that someone just made it up on a slow newsday or that it is seriously being considered and a decision could be imminent. This type of thing would be a huge move that would anger a lot of passengers.

Sorry to be skeptical, but this would be a drastic move and I think we should double check it before jumping to conclusions.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10998 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

I'm pretty certain that such a boycott would be illegal. I know it would be here in the US under our antitrust laws, and EU antitrust laws are functionally similar.

Is this source normally reliable?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

Simply ludicrous. The airlines will simply pass on the extra fees to their passengers.

And what airline is going to say, "No thank you, Schipol, our passengers don't want to pay the extra $5"?



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
I'm pretty certain that such a boycott would be illegal. I know it would be here in the US under our antitrust laws, and EU antitrust laws are functionally similar.

Why? If an airline doesn't want to serve an airport, then it doesn't have to. What anti trust law requires airlines to serve an airport and not boycott it because it is too expensive?



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineRunway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2153 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

There's simply no way those airlines would pull out of those markets. They are simply too large and important and giving ground to competition would be quite foolish. Bear in mind that their current dissatisfaction is likely to be short-term and looking at a long-term perspective giving up valuable slots at those airports would likely prove more costly than extra fees.

My guess is that their boycott will simply be against adding extra services/flights/destinations.


User currently offlineSimpilicity From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3367 times:

SYD has just been reined it.

DJ has been bitching about their charges now for years.

See story below ... from


http://www.travelbiz.com.au/articles/e7/0c0399e7.asp


Airline victory as airport pricing controls returned to government

The Australian Competition Tribunal has upheld a Virgin Blue appeal to have the federal government retake control of pricing by domestic airports.


After a one-year wait, the Federal Court-administered tribunal vindicated Virgin Blue's claims that - in particular - Sydney Airport had abused the government's deregulation of airport pricing three years ago.

The tribunal’s decision stated that it was satisfied Sydney Airport had misused its monopoly power in the past and that unless government control was reintroduced, competition would continue to be affected.

The ruling means pricing negotiations between the airport and airlines were now required to be approved by an arbitrator such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

The tribunal also said the airport’s move to base landing charges on an aircraft's take-off weight, as opposed to the number of passengers, had adversely affected low-cost carriers such as Virgin Blue as against full-service airlines such as Qantas.

It said the evidence was that Sydney Airport chose a passenger-based charge because Qantas preferred it.

Virgin Blue ceo Brett Godfrey has been campaigning against the airport for three years.

He claimed it had raised its fees 97 per cent prior to its 2001 privatisation and a further 52 per cent since.

Godfrey claimed the airline had “asked for nothing more than to have fair and equitable commercial pricing negotiations with airports, with the safety net of being able to refer the matter to an independent arbitrator, should it be necessary”.

“When monopoly suppliers dramatically increase the operating costs of companies, eventually those costs must be passed on to the consumer and we have pursued this outcome for over three years always believing that ever increasing fees at some airports set a worrying precedent as to just what is acceptable behaviour by monopolists,” Godfrey said.

The decision comes as Star Alliance airlines were reported to be discussing the possibility of boycotting airports in countries that the carriers believe are imposing unreasonable airport and air traffic control fees.

Robert Milton, president and ceo of Air Canada parent ACE Aviation Holdings, who is also IATA chairman said there were a lot of airports on the hit-list around the world.

Destinations that have drawn the anger of IATA and its member airlines are Paris, Venezuela and, above all, Toronto – but Milton concedes that a boycott of Toronto is not feasible.




12 December 2005


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10998 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 17):
Why? If an airline doesn't want to serve an airport, then it doesn't have to. What anti trust law requires airlines to serve an airport and not boycott it because it is too expensive?

An airline can decide for itself to enter or leave a market, that's alright. The antitrust problem is making an agreement with other airlines not to serve a market. That is an illegal restraint on trade that is forbidden by the Sherman and Clayton Acts here in the US.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3197 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
That is an illegal restraint on trade that is forbidden by the Sherman and Clayton Acts here in the US.

Yes but you're forgetting something. All of the star alliance airlines are flying in from different destinations, and from different jurisdictions. I don't think it would be considered an illegal restraint on trade because those airlines are removing their capacity from the market, rather than restricting entry or total market capacity. In effect, they would be leaving those markets for the time in question. There is nothing to prevent other companies increasing their capacity in many instances. For instance, Air France would be free to switch A332 flights to 744 flights in many instances. Lufthansa may pull out of Paris but increase services to other french airports. And if Singapore Airlines ceases flying to CDG, how are you going to prosecute them? Any such action would need to be brought forward in the juristiction where the airport in question lies, simply because of the collusion eliment. In the current environment, all Star alliance carriers would be justified in claiming that the alliance is trying to reduce unprofitable flying, and cutting destinations with high expenses/low yield. The fact that ALL airlines haven't boycotted this airport would may any such action problematic, also given that the airports in question are very strong skyteam hubs. I think AF would be overjoyed at the prospect!

I don't see it happening for economic reasons, but i see, given the nature of Star, any legal challenge being too problematic to obtain a successful prosecution. In the real world, board directors make tacid agreements all the time, and there is really only so much that can be done. Look no further than OPEC and oil producing nations if you want proof. And there is absolutely nothing any US or EU antitrust legislation can do about it.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10998 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 21):
I don't think it would be considered an illegal restraint on trade because those airlines are removing their capacity from the market, rather than restricting entry or total market capacity.

Actually, a boycott such as this would most definitely be restricting entry and decreasing the total market.

Again, it's not that the airlines decided not to fly the routes. That is their perogative. The illegal act (in the US) is forming an agreement amongst each other, a Horizontal Agreement because technically they're competitors, where none of the members of the group is allowed to participate in a particular area of commerce. In this case, that area would be these three airports. That without a doubt is an illegal restraint on trade. Here's why:

What if UA, LH, QF, and AC all decided they had had enough of AMS, but US still likes flying there. If Star boycotted as a unit, US would not be allowed to fly there by Star. That's an illegal restraint on trade.
Another example: let's say that all of the above have had enough of AMS, but 2 months later, US wants to fly it again. The mere fact that they'd have to ask the other airlines' permission to break the boycott is an illegal restraint on trade. In the US, that not only would be against the law, but the people that signed that illegal agreement could go to jail! The Sherman Act is a criminal statute.

BTW, my final for antitrust is on wednesday, or I probably wouldn't know this stuff.  Smile



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3124 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 22):
Again, it's not that the airlines decided not to fly the routes. That is their perogative. The illegal act (in the US) is forming an agreement amongst each other, a Horizontal Agreement because technically they're competitors, where none of the members of the group is allowed to participate in a particular area of commerce. In this case, that area would be these three airports. That without a doubt is an illegal restraint on trade. Here's why:

What if UA, LH, QF, and AC all decided they had had enough of AMS, but US still likes flying there. If Star boycotted as a unit, US would not be allowed to fly there by Star. That's an illegal restraint on trade.
Another example: let's say that all of the above have had enough of AMS, but 2 months later, US wants to fly it again. The mere fact that they'd have to ask the other airlines' permission to break the boycott is an illegal restraint on trade. In the US, that not only would be against the law, but the people that signed that illegal agreement could go to jail! The Sherman Act is a criminal statute.

While I certainly don't think they'll go through with the boycott, and they couldn't do it with *all* of Star, I'd note that a good portion of Star (UA/LH/SK/OS) has antitrust immunity, and those four carriers certainly could coordinate their service plans.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineKlyk1980 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3090 times:

What an impossible threat.

I don't think any airlines will give up CDG even the airport itself is truly disguesting. I can see a big smile from Air France and British Airways if Air Canada give up its YYZ-CDG and also the twice daily YUL-CDG.

AMS is....well....less important for Star Alliance but I don't think airlines such as TG and SQ wants to lost a big piece of profits from AMS


25 Post contains images Lufthansa : BTW i graduated from law years ago..... And my degree is recognised in Britian, as far as finance and business is concerned, the most important europ
26 Post contains images D L X : Not bad for someone who's only 25. (You should update your profile.) Anyways, I wasn't trying to hold myself as higher than anyone else. I was trying
27 LO231 : I agree, BRU-VIE-BOM return: 214 EUR in taxes... FRA is around the same... Regards, LO231
28 Lufthansa : But is a french government prosecuter, where they have that lovely little thing called code law really going to launch a challenge in the USA? I doub
29 FlyAUA : What about Martinair?[Edited 2005-12-13 13:44:09]
30 Post contains links 747400F : Danish tax of 75kr will be halfed by new year and be gone in a years time. Any way this is not a Star boycot but a proposed IATA boycot. following is
31 MauriceB : martinair doesnt operate that much pax flights a day, the 4 convertable MD-11's are flying only cargo at the moment (together with the 3 full freight
32 Commavia : I generally agree with the premise that this move, if true, will hurt the Star airlines more than it hurts the airport authorities in AMS or CDG. This
33 D L X : I'm sure this subconversation is boring all the people that don't care about the legal issues, so I'll keep this brief. Of course a French solicitor i
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...
Star Alliance To Pick 787 Or A350? posted Tue Dec 20 2005 03:29:12 by Gkpetery
Star Alliance To Boycot posted Sat Dec 10 2005 09:28:33 by MauriceB
Star Alliance To Study Joint Purchase Of A350,7E7 posted Mon Dec 13 2004 17:58:11 by Hoya
Star Alliance To Nairobi (NBO)? posted Tue Feb 24 2004 22:18:10 by Tallguy14
Star Alliance To Buy 7E7. posted Tue Feb 24 2004 12:30:18 by Motorhussy
What Benefit Is The Star Alliance To AC? posted Tue May 13 2003 18:06:21 by JU101
Star Alliance To Seek A New U.S Based Partner? posted Mon Dec 9 2002 13:47:57 by BestWestern
Star Alliance To Intervene In United? posted Fri Nov 22 2002 01:27:15 by Businessflyer
Star Alliance To Fill Australia Gap posted Mon Jun 3 2002 00:03:59 by Aussie_
Star Alliance To Nairob? posted Fri Mar 8 2002 14:11:29 by Nflippa