Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA And AA Are Now Pissing Me Off! Big Time!  
User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3938 times:

Okay, so ATW reports that UA and AA are complaining to US authorities about BAA, the authority that runs London Airports, over the fact that it is only supplying them 70% of the fuel they need, while it provides its home carriers (BA, VS) up to 82% of their requirements.

What really fires me up is their request to the US Dept. of Transportation to withold Flyglobespan's application (Scotland based) to start services to the US. Can't they really fight their own battles, and take it up with the Brits themselves? Why use the mighty US muscle for everything? Boohoo, it's not like it is a shortage that came from mismanagement, but one caused by an accident! Obviously, with BA and VS operating far too many flights out of LHR, they do deserve to get the oil they need to operate with minimal disruptions out of their home base.

Oh, and here's the source: http://www.atwonline.com/news/other.html?issueDate=1/13/2006

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24360 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3922 times:

The BA and VS flights gotta come from some place. What's wrong with them having to tanker slightly additional fuel to ensure ALL airlines get the equivalent and fair allocation of available fuel.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3909 times:

Quoting ETStar (Thread starter):
What really fires me up is their request to the US Dept. of Transportation to withold Flyglobespan's application (Scotland based) to start services to the US. Can't they really fight their own battles, and take it up with the Brits themselves? Why use the mighty US muscle for everything? Boohoo, it's not like it is a shortage that came from mismanagement, but one caused by an accident! Obviously, with BA and VS operating far too many flights out of LHR, they do deserve to get the oil they need to operate with minimal disruptions out of their home base.

Hmmm, well, BA and VS have been protected by Bermuda II for years  Silly



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3902 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1):


The BA and VS flights gotta come from some place. What's wrong with them having to tanker slightly additional fuel to ensure ALL airlines get the equivalent and fair allocation of available fuel.

I am sure they already taker from elsewhere, but given operations at LHR, BA and VS are the most affected, and I am sure you will agree on this. So, say 6 combined AA/UA flights tankering a bit more, vs 100+ of BA/VS tankering more? Which one would be hurt most? Some of these airlines have to learn to coexist, and to be considerate to others when others are in dire need.


User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3897 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
Hmmm, well, BA and VS have been protected by Bermuda II for years Silly

... which is an agreement the US signed. Anyways, don't turn this thread to a Bermuda thread, cause there are enough of those.


User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3881 times:

Quoting ETStar (Reply 4):
Anyways, don't turn this thread to a Bermuda thread, cause there are enough of those.

Sorry, but you might have been smart to mention that this IS a Bermuda II issue by posting the entire paragraph rather than only what you felt like posting.

"American Airlines and United Airlines are objecting to BAA's handling of the ongoing fuel shortage situation at London Heathrow caused by the Buncefield oil depot fire last month (ATWOnline, Dec. 15). The carriers state that BAA's rationing policy is "blatantly discriminatory" because "so-called 'base' carriers at Heathrow, including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic," are provided with 82% of their fuel requirements for long-haul services, while "so-called 'visiting' carriers," including American and United, receive only 70% of their requirements. As a result, AA and UA have to tanker fuel, resulting in additional expenses of approximately $20,000 per day for American and $15,000 per day for United. Each gallon of fuel tankered across the Atlantic requires about one-third gal. in extra fuel burn. The policy violates the Bermuda 2 bilateral between the US and UK, the carriers allege, and they have asked the US Dept. of Transportation to withhold action on an application by Scotland-based Globespan Airways (dba Flyglobespan) to operate between the US and UK until BAA changes its policy."-ATW Online, 1/13/06



Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24360 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3875 times:

Actualy BA in particular should have the easiest time of tankering due to its significant shorthaul network at LHR. Near every domestic and European flight should be able tanker in enough for its next short haul return leg.
Its much easier(and cost effective) to tanker on shorthauls then on longhaul trips such as what AA, UA solely operate at LHR.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMotopolitico From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3854 times:

Quoting ETStar (Reply 3):
So, say 6 combined AA/UA flights tankering a bit more, vs 100+ of BA/VS tankering more? Which one would be hurt most? Some of these airlines have to learn to coexist, and to be considerate to others when others are in dire need.

It exploits an accident to give UK-based carriers a competitive advantage on one of the world's most competitive air travel markets, the Pond Jump. The best airports in the world are managed by BAA. I think they do an excellent job, but if they want to be able to continue managing foreign airports in the US and elsewhere, BAA needs to stop showing favoritism at its premier airport. Those who live in glass houses...



Garbage stinks; trash don't!
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3810 times:

I flew on UA 918 IAD - LHR about two weeks ago. The 747 was tankering fuel to LHR for the reasons stated above. Jesus, I swear we used every inch of tarmac on take off, that bird was heavy!!!

User currently offlineCO7e7 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2848 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3800 times:

So, why are they (UA and AA) complaining about fuel if they're getting enough to reach their destination ??
I really don't know anything about fuel when it comes to aviation.. so somebody please explain to me what's the big deal about ?

Thanks in advance


User currently offlineAnandt From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3759 times:

Quoting CO7e7 (Reply 9):
So, why are they (UA and AA) complaining about fuel if they're getting enough to reach their destination ??
I really don't know anything about fuel when it comes to aviation.. so somebody please explain to me what's the big deal about ?

Both carriers are having to carry extra fuel on flights from the US to UK as they are not being provided enough fuel to complete trips back to the US. Carrying extra fuel on flights have a penalty in terms of extra fuel consumption of fuel due to the aircraft being heavier not to mention possibly reduced cargo on these flights which also costs in terms of revenue loss.


User currently offlineCO7e7 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2848 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3753 times:

Quoting Anandt (Reply 10):
Carrying extra fuel on flights have a penalty in terms of extra fuel consumption of fuel due to the aircraft being heavier not to mention possibly reduced cargo on these flights which also costs in terms of revenue loss.

WOW.. i never knew that... thanks for the valuable info!


User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4627 posts, RR: 37
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3727 times:

Does this apply to all foreign carriers? I'm curious to know how AC is affected.

Kris
YYC



Word
User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3690 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1):
The BA and VS flights gotta come from some place. What's wrong with them having to tanker slightly additional fuel to ensure ALL airlines get the equivalent and fair allocation of available fuel.

Yeah but if AA und UA wouldn't get more percentages of fuel on their hombases you would defenitely cry. So would a lot of others.
It's a normal practice. Before complaining they better should run as efficient as VS or BA.

Regds
jush



There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3654 times:

What would be done if there was a similar fuel shortage problem at a USA airport? For example, if there had been a major problem at a fuel production facility in New Jersey that supplies EWR or JFK? Would the USA based carriers (UA, AA) be given a similar preference for fuel over BA, VS?
Perhaps what should be done until the UK facility is back to 100% is to suspend one round-trip flight a day or 2 per week among all four of the majors on a rotating basis to reduce fuel demand so that all get enough so don't have to tanker additional fuel. Perhaps VS has to cut 1 flight on Monday and Wednesday, BA on Tuesday and Thursday, AA on Saturday and Monday, UA on Friday and Sunday, something like that.


User currently offlineKevinDCA From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3645 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 14):
Perhaps what should be done until the UK facility is back to 100% is to suspend one round-trip flight a day or 2 per week among all four of the majors on a rotating basis to reduce fuel demand so that all get enough so don't have to tanker additional fuel. Perhaps VS has to cut 1 flight on Monday and Wednesday, BA on Tuesday and Thursday, AA on Saturday and Monday, UA on Friday and Sunday, something like that.

That's far too logical and sensible. No doubt if any carrier were to do this, another would ADD a frequency and continue to complain!


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3511 times:

Quoting ETStar (Reply 3):
Some of these airlines have to learn to coexist, and to be considerate to others when others are in dire need.

Horsecrap. If there is a fuel shortage, every airline should be treated equally. BAA is engaging in blatantly discriminatory practices which cannot be rationalized, no matter how hard you try.

If a US airport did the same thing over here, favoring US carriers over BA, the brits would be screaming bloody murder and you know it.


User currently offlineVs25 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3468 times:

I don't notice any of the other international carriers complaining. I just saw another thread about SQ flights making fuel stops because of the LHR shortage.

User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3913 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3306 times:

What's BAA's involvement in this ? One does not buy fuel form the airport operator or the government, but from one of the fuel suppliers available at an airport. Isn't that a simple contractual problem AA und UA have with their fuel supplier ? Or has jet fuel been nationalized recently ? If not, this all can only happen on the basis of some sort of agreement between the carriers and whomever.

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...
UA And AA To Start ZED Fares For Employees posted Mon Jul 11 2005 23:10:42 by FA4UA
9/11-- UA And AA Symbolic? posted Sat Apr 30 2005 14:36:23 by Corey07850
UA And AA At EWR posted Wed Jun 9 2004 01:50:10 by N62NA
WAY To Go UA And Aa! posted Wed Mar 13 2002 05:19:54 by Alexinwa
UA And AA 777 Questions posted Thu Aug 16 2001 16:57:21 by US A333 PIT
UA/U And AA/TWA Merger posted Mon Jan 8 2001 16:57:52 by UA752
Now, AA And CO Are The Only Ones.......... posted Tue Oct 4 2005 15:27:52 by CV990
Indy Air Staff: UA, AA And US Are Hiring posted Wed Aug 10 2005 17:43:04 by Bicoastal
It's Time For UA And CO posted Sat Nov 18 2006 07:24:56 by Lufthansa
AA/UA And The WTC 9/11 Memorial posted Fri Oct 6 2006 20:50:07 by Nycfly75