Cure From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1375 times:
IF it could be decided by a single, supernational european authority, would anybody think it would be an equal exchange/agreement a hypothetical one proposing more slots (no big restrictions for gates and runways) @ FRA/LHR, versus a COMPLETE MUTUAL "open skyes" between the EU and the US, with full cabotage rights for both american airlines in Europe AND european within North America?
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1361 times:
Technically, it was not Cabotage then when TW and PA had basically unlimited rights between European countries, de-facto it was.
To answer your question - given the capacity is available at FRA & LHR, why not?
Unfortunately, the USA have no problems when UPS and FEDEX are running "domestic" services in Europe but have big problems with DHL doing the same in the USA. That will likely be the same with European carriers trying to establish domestic services in the US. On the other hand, any Euoprean airline trying to do that, will get itself into problems it really does not want to have. Life is a lot more easy when an alliance partner performs the domestic services nd that situation we do have already today.
The open skies will result in the final consolidation of the European Airlines into 2 or 3 groups. it will give any European Airline the right to operate from any point in Europe to any point in the USA which means, that names like Alitalia, Iberia SAS, KLM may have a chance to continue to exist as part of a group headed by AF/BA/LH. However, more likely, these companies will be incorporated into one of the three majors.
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
MarkATL From United States, joined Jul 2004, 524 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1273 times:
Quoting Cure (Thread starter): (no big restrictions for gates and runways) @ FRA/LHR
What about the reality of capacity problems at LHR. It wouldn't be right for US carriers to just carpet bomb LHR with capicity when the reality is that the airport is full.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 1): Technically, it was not Cabotage then when TW and PA had basically unlimited rights between European countries, de-facto it was.
True and when BA(BEA) and PA had domestic German services it was because they were established before Germany regained their soverignty after war. It continued after that because of the unique Berlin situation where Berlin was not soverign to Germany until 1990, and LH was IMHO wrongly banned from serving Berlin.
"...left my home in Georgia, 'n headed for the "Frisco" Bay...
Cure From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1241 times:
Quoting MarkATL (Reply 2): What about the reality of capacity problems at LHR
I think capacity of such an important airport as Heathrow (FRA, CDG...) depends on how much one want to increase it: those big entities move such a big amount of money, it is incoherent to keep saying they are restricted for environmental/neighborhood issues.
I agree LHR/FRA as they are now are full, but there can be a bunch of reasons and ways to resolve this problem. And there can be many not to change one single thing......
MarkATL From United States, joined Jul 2004, 524 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1203 times:
Quoting Cure (Reply 3): but there can be a bunch of reasons and ways to resolve this problem.
You can't change a door handle in Germany or the UK without the environmental nuts tying you up with protests and lawsuits for years. Multiply that by 100 if it involves an airport.
"...left my home in Georgia, 'n headed for the "Frisco" Bay...
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1185 times:
Quoting MarkATL (Reply 2):
True and when BA(BEA) and PA had domestic German services it was because they were established before Germany regained their soverignty after war. It continued after that because of the unique Berlin situation where Berlin was not soverign to Germany until 1990, and LH was IMHO wrongly banned from serving Berlin.
Yes,but the PA/TW traffic rights in Eruope went far beyond the Berlin traffic. I flew PA and TW many times between FRA and LHR as well as HAM-LHR, PA had virtually unlimited rights out of FRA.
LH was banned from serving Berlin because it did not have rights to fly over east Germany and they would not let them. The three Allied Powers, sovereigns in West Berlin until 1990, would have less problems. LH flew to Leipzig and later to the East German airport Berlin-Schoenefeld (SXF) on a bi-lateral West/East Germany in the 80s.
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18405 posts, RR: 60 Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1167 times:
I love how the modern EU projects itself as some sort of single nation when it sees fit and then expects an actual sovereign nation must change it's rules.
Cabotage in one nation should not be tied to landing rights in another. It's known as economic extortion and it's a dirty suggestion.
Why isn't the EU pushing for domestic Japanese rights, or domestic China rights, or domestic Mexico rights?
You want to fly to smaller cities in the US? Do it? Our carriers do the reverse. Buy the jets that can work for you, and fly the routes.
Please name me a nation where any USA based carrier currently flies a cabotage route? If there are still any, you can count them on one hand. Please tell me where any USA carrier has demanded that right within England or France, for example, as a quid pro quo for AF or BA flying to a USA destination? Both those carriers fly to many, many cities here. Why do they need domestic routes?
All our carriers want is access to LHR. They all already have access to FRA. Sure FRA is slot restricted, but it isn't access restricted like LHR.
LHR is artificially restricted for USA based carriers and ONLY USA based carriers, and it is patently unfair. Every international airline in the world can serve LHR except CO, NW, DL, AS and US. And yet for that inequity to be resolved, the USA is supposed to allow BA, LH or AF to operate domestic flights in the USA? Give me a break.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1154 times:
@Ikramerica - relax. I don't see that happen even if the US and EU come to an open skies agreement. There may be the one or other extension of a trans atlantic flight which then can carry domestic passenges. like the BA ORD-IAH flight. LA can carry passengers from FRA to MAD vv., not much harm done to IB or LH. Why not let LH carry freight between ORD and HNL, making the RTW more viable and operational again?
I think we should get on even levels, the US usually demands all the rights and does not want to give anything back. I mentioned before, FX and UPS enjoy freedom to operate inside the EU DHL had to overcome big problems to do the same in the US. I understand AC cannot sell tickets form BOS to SEA via YYZ, why, its the consumers choice to do so, not the bureaucrat to forbid. We enjoy this kind of freedom in Europe, connecting through any given point.
When such a bilateral comes into existance, we will not see many domestic services by foreign carriers on either side of the pond. What we may see is more ownership. If a German car manufacturer can buy an American car manufacturer, why should an airline be prevented from the same thing?
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 82 Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1120 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): LHR is artificially restricted for USA based carriers and ONLY USA based carriers, and it is patently unfair.
Just as the US is artificially restricted for British carriers operating out of London - so it's not just US carriers being artificially restricted...
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): And yet for that inequity to be resolved, the USA is supposed to allow BA, LH or AF to operate domestic flights in the USA? Give me a break.
I fully agree with you there - landing rights and cabotage are simply two completely different agendas.
As long as the EU, unfortunately, cannot really get it's act together, we can have our common aviation market in all regards except regarding traffic that originates or terminates outside of the area. As soon as the common aviation area presents a single entity not only for EU carriers, but all other carriers as well, that's when intra-EU flights (such as LA's MAD-FRA flights) can be put on a similar level as intra-US flights (such as the aforementioned LH ORD-HNL flight).
Until then, the EU, unfortunately, just doesn't have a leg to stand on in this regard: flying FRA-MAD equates to flying ORD-MEX; ORD-HNL would be like flying FRA-MUC, CDG-MRS or LHR-MAN... claiming anything else is, for the time being, just hot air.
Nonetheless, I certainly hope that open skies, i.e. unrestricted access to airports within the US for EU carriers as well as unrestricted access to EU airports for US carriers (including LHR) will happen soon: but tying that agenda to cabotage simply won't work, as - for the time being - the US would simply not accept it.
ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1093 times:
I think we should focus on what the airlines actually want.
1. Do the European airlines want US cabotage? I don't think so - Although some entrapaneurs would like the ability to own & operate (using US citizen employees) their own 'US' airlines - but this isn't the same thing.
2. Do the US airlines want open access to LHR? Well two don't and the rest do. Let's face it, the value of LHR operations will be lost if they all had access. The market might grow a little, but I suspect everyone would lose.
3. Do the US airlines want unlimited 5ths throughout the EU? Well, they already have it with the EU nations where open skies agreements exist - and guess what there are no (that is none, nil, nada, zip, zilch) US 5ths operated. Paris - Frankfurt is open to any / all US airlines (as 5ths).
This whole arguement is a political one. The Eurocrats want to be seen as doing something (when they can't find their own rears even with a detailed map). They also want to push 'the European single market', but the convaluted rules they have serves more to impede a single market. They would be much more successful with giving EU airlines unlimited 5ths rather than the crackerjack 'right of establishment' that not one EU airline has shown any interest in.
How about a little courage on both sides. I propose a multilateral aviation agreement for Canada/Mexico/USA on the one side and EU, EEA +CH on the other. Any airline of any country can fly anywhere without restriction. AC between Mexico and Spain, AM between YVR and YYZ, US between LHR and MEX via YXU!!!! Whatever.
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 42 Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1079 times:
Quoting Leskova (Reply 8): Just as the US is artificially restricted for British carriers operating out of London - so it's not just US carriers being artificially restricted...
Though this is the price the UK paid for restricting access to LHR when they renounced the original Bermuda agreement and negotiated the current bilateral.
Anyway, how would cabotage work in the US? You would be mingling domestic and international passengers in the same aircraft. What alterations to customs and immigration would be necessary for this to function? Would domestic passengers need a passport (& visa for non-citizen residents or visitors) to board and deboard these flights? Or would all passengers from the international segment need to deboard the plane and go through customs, and those going further on the domestic segment reboard along with domestic passengers?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Anyway, how would cabotage work in the US? You would be mingling domestic and international passengers in the same aircraft. What alterations to customs and immigration would be necessary for this to function? Would domestic passengers need a passport (& visa for non-citizen residents or visitors) to board and deboard these flights? Or would all passengers from the international segment need to deboard the plane and go through customs, and those going further on the domestic segment reboard along with domestic passengers?
Not really. On the BA flight LHR-ORD-IAH Immigration + customs is cleared in Chicago, you can walk landside and re-board the flight, going through TSA security again. It is domestic, but cannot take domestic passengers.
IAH-ORD would be a problem, because passengers cannot leave the a/c in ORD, the have technically left the US at IAH. Since there is no customs inspection leaving the US. this could however be done at ORD as well. Passengers could not buy their "duty"frees in Houstons, they could do that in Chicago however, no big deal and no threat to National security.
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 3801 posts, RR: 20 Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 994 times:
Quoting MarkATL (Reply 2): True and when BA(BEA) and PA had domestic German services it was because they were established before Germany regained their sovereignty after war. It continued after that because of the unique Berlin situation where Berlin was not sovereign to Germany until 1990, and LH was IMHO wrongly banned from serving Berlin.
This is basically correct. But there was a lot more to it.
After World War 2 Germany and Berlin were occupied by the Allies. There was an American, British, French and Russian zone of Germany occupied by the armed forces of each country. Similarly Berlin was divide but I cannot remember whether or not there was a French zone of Berlin. Berlin was, however, located in the Russian (Soviet) occupied zone of Germany.
Land (rail and road) and air corridors were established to Berlin from cities in the Western Allies occupied zones of Germany to Berlin. On 24 June 1948 - three years after the end of the war - the Soviets blocked the land corridors. The US military's reaction was to propose to send an armoured column from west Germany to Berlin to relieve this blockade. However the politiciands prevailed and an airlift was started.
Over the next 324 days everything consumed in Berlin, including 1.5 million tons of coal, was flown in. The British blockade busting aircraft fleet comprised mainly C-47 Dakotas (about 150) and Avro Yorks (around 40). There were also about a dozen Short Flying Boats that operated to and from the River Elbe.
On one day in April 1949 1,398 flights operated carrying nearly 13,000 tons of goods.
These aircraft were civilian (mainly ex-military) to minimise any reaction from the Soviets. After the Blockade was lifted they formed the basis of a new, non-government airline industry that found it difficult to flourish in the restrictive post-war era.
The British and Americans refused the Soviets the reparations they demanded from the industralised Ruhr area in the British zone of West Germany. In retaliation the Soviets refused to consider German reunification and established the German Democratic Republic, a Soviet puppet. The GDR did not recognise the GFR so only aircraft of the former occupying powers - America, Britain and France - were permitted by them to over fly the GDR from West Germany to West Berlin.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 919 times:
@W701 -
a few corrections - the airlift was a Military operation. The Russians would likely have shot down any civilian airliner. The operations included DC4, DC3 , Avro Yorks, Lancaster etc and the Sandringhams.
The operations went through 3 air corridors to Tempelhof, Tegel and Gatow Airfields, plus the Lake Wannsee. It was the first massive cargo operation in history and even today, 13.000 is an impressvive load to handle on a single day in the same "circus", it would take more than 100 747 freighters to ghet this done.
Then - West Germany did not recognize East German citizenship. All residents of East Germany had a right to get a West German Passport the day they arrived here. East Germany would have gladly signed any treaty, including an air treaty if we had recognized them.
History proved us right. Not only us, without General Lucius D. Clay and many others backing this operation, the world might still look different today.
[Edited 2006-03-26 21:57:31]
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
WAH64D From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jan 2005, 926 posts, RR: 16 Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 877 times:
Quoting MarkATL (Reply 4): You can't change a door handle in Germany or the UK without the environmental nuts tying you up with protests and lawsuits for years. Multiply that by 100 if it involves an airport.
Cure From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 843 times:
Thanks for the posts and let's go on...
I just wanted to re-focus the hypothesis according to which this thread came to my mind: I was imagining a supranational european authority and this means of course considering the EU as one single national entity for what concerns flight: right this maybe being the point where to start building a currently still embryonic idea of the EU as a single nation. It would be very interesting...
And let's not forget I was speaking of a COMPLETE MUTUAL "open skies" agreement between two equal entities (for what concerns flight): EU and US.
Given this explanation what follows is clearly no point:
1):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): I love how the modern EU projects itself as some sort of single nation when it sees fit and then expects an actual sovereign nation must change it's rules.
2):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): Cabotage in one nation should not be tied to landing rights in another. It's known as economic extortion and it's a dirty suggestion.
3):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): You want to fly to smaller cities in the US? Do it? Our carriers do the reverse. Buy the jets that can work for you, and fly the routes.
4):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): Please name me a nation where any USA based carrier currently flies a cabotage route? If there are still any, you can count them on one hand. Please tell me where any USA carrier has demanded that right within England or France, for example, as a quid pro quo for AF or BA flying to a USA destination? Both those carriers fly to many, many cities here. Why do they need domestic routes?
...and I'd suggest not to light fires, because this was not my intention.
Cure From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 824 times:
Quoting ANother (Reply 9): 1. Do the European airlines want US cabotage? I don't think so
Why do you think so? They are already better established in more north american airports than american ones are in the EU, where targets are getting more just in the last years. If you consider the situation two years ago, flights from North America to Europe were basically concentrated to LHR, LGW, MAN, FRA, MUC, FCO, MAD, CDG, BRU and AMS, while some european airline was flying to even 20-25 airports in North America: this means less expenses to open new bases for crews/technicians.
Plus one thing: are there more "european", or "american" F class seats across the Pond? I didn't check exactly, but I guess "european" is the answer, and this could mean:
1) more Europeans fly F
2) (useful supporting my opinion) european airlines are perceived as "better" from the american market....
ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 771 times:
Quoting Cure (Reply 17): Quoting ANother (Reply 9):
1. Do the European airlines want US cabotage? I don't think so
Why do you think so?
Well a few reasons;
1. I haven't heard/seen any EU airlines actually complaining that they can't operate US domestic (either cabotage or tag-end flights)
2. EU airlines are authorised to operate cabotage flights in any other EU Member States - they haven't done that.
3. Can they make money in the US? US airlines find that to be a bit of a challenge, well for most of them.
4. I think EU carriers see bigger / better opportunities elsewhere.
Cure From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 742 times:
Quoting ANother (Reply 18): US airlines find that to be a bit of a challenge
If they see it as a challenge there has to be a reason: it probably means it IS a challenge
Distances separating the core business cities in the EU are usually shorter than in North America and the infrastructural network (mainly railways) can be considered competitive with flight in Europe, while in the US is virtually non-existing, or at least non-competitive at all...
Example: if you have to go to London and you don't find a flight, it's no big problem to fly to CDG, walk down the stairways, catch a TGV and get to London in a much comfortable, convenient and fast way than -say- Los Angeles-San Francisco (350-400 miles for 12-14 hrs of train!!).
Reciprocated cabotage rights could be more favorable for EU airlines there than the opposite.
Quoting ANother (Reply 18): EU airlines are authorised to operate cabotage flights in any other EU Member States - they haven't done that.
Are we sure? I believe I remember LH flying italian routes (such as BLQ-NAP, and one other northern-central italian city linked with CTA) WITH Italians on board, but correct me if I'm wrong.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 721 times:
Cabotage in Europe is daily business. Air Berlin has a hub in PMI operating from there to many large cities in Spain, with local passengers. Air Berlin is establishing a hub in STN with flights to GLA MAN BHB. AY HEL-STO-OSL is technically cabotage in SK territory. I am sure there are more examples.
Years ago, LH had a GOA-NAP flight with full local traffic rights. Airlines prefer point to point services these days.
Cabotage rights in the US and EU resp would not result in big style operatons but rather open new routings such as FRA/DEN/PHX, full up traffic paying at least for the additonal costs.
Kole Feut un' 'nen steiffen Wind gifft 'nen krusen Buedel un' 'nen luetten Pint
a few corrections - the airlift was a Military operation. The Russians would likely have shot down any civilian airliner.
This 'military' contribution from the UK included three Dakotas of BOAC (G-AGIZ, G-AGNG, G-AGNK), three Dakotas of Air Contractors (G-AIWC, 'WD and 'WE). two Tudors and a Lincoln of Airflight (G-AGRY, G-AKBY and G-ALPF), two Bristol Freighters of Airwork (G-AHJD and G-AICS), seven Tudors of British South American Airways, three Yorks and five Lancastrians of Skyways (G-ALBX, G-AHFI, G-AHLV, G-AHBT, G-AKFH, G-AKMW, G-AKSN AND G-AKSO) amongst many other civilian aircraft supplied and flown by civilian operators. Casualties - not from enemy fire - included a Skyways York, a Lancashire Airways Lancastrian and a World Air Halton with the loss of 22 personnel out of a total loss of 39 British and 31 American personnel and 9 German groundcrew.
Travelin man From United States, joined Mar 2000, 2989 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 658 times:
The EU is NOT a single nation, therefore flying "intra-EU" is not "cabotage". Flying between CDG and FRA is not cabotage, but flying between ORD and LAX is cabotage.
It's a red herring to suggest the two examples are somehow "equal".
And I fully agree with those that say European carriers want NO part of the domestic US market. Why do you think all the US legacies are expanding internationally? It is NOT because domestic US is so lucrative....
ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 623 times:
Quoting Travelin man (Reply 22): The EU is NOT a single nation, therefore flying "intra-EU" is not "cabotage". Flying between CDG and FRA is not cabotage, but flying between ORD and LAX is cabotage.
Does this actually matter? No US carrier has expressed a desire to operate 5ths / cabotage in Europe for years (and years and years).
And sorry - after thinking about it the LCCs have shown some interest in operating intra-EU Cabotage routes. Squeezy Jet in France, Ryanair in Italy etc. On the other hand not of the majors have more than a token number of cabotage routes in other EU countries.
Cure From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 605 times:
Quoting Travelin man (Reply 22): The EU is NOT a single nation, therefore flying "intra-EU" is not "cabotage". Flying between CDG and FRA is not cabotage, but flying between ORD and LAX is cabotage.
Who said EU is a single nation?
Thank you very much for explaining this to someone being born, raised and having lived for 30 years in Europe and knowing it (perhaps??) better than you. .
Before posting anything (especially something aggressive and/or patronizing), never forget to read carefully if not EVERY post, at least title and thread starter, avoiding to spray poison here and there with no logical reason.
Travelin man From United States, joined Mar 2000, 2989 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 595 times:
Quoting Cure (Reply 24): Who said EU is a single nation?
Thank you very much for explaining this to someone being born, raised and having lived for 30 years in Europe and knowing it (perhaps??) better than you. .
Before posting anything (especially something aggressive and/or patronizing), never forget to read carefully if not EVERY post, at least title and thread starter, avoiding to spray poison here and there with no logical reason.
Thank you,
V
When was I agressive or patronizing? Open Skies and the slots issue will be resolved long before any sort of "European single nation" becomes even an issue.
And, of course, you still have not addressed the fact that European airlines are NOT pining away for the right to carry paying passengers from DEN to ORD.
Get the chip off of your shoulder.
26 StarGoldLHR: wow. Sorry to burst your bubble but the patent you requested has been denied. BMI has been complaining for LHR-US access for many many years so it's
27 StarGoldLHR: There are a number of "landing and take off" flights through Europe. SQ to New York is one example, Pakistan Airlines to Chicago via Manchester being
28 Cure: Quoting you (first): Quoting myself (second): Your "answer": An actual ANSWER, please...? Sorry, but re-quoting you: I don't get the sense of this, be
29 Atmx2000: BMI can serve LHR. Just not to the US. In contrast US carriers can't serve LHR other than AA and UA. That's the difference. This is not cabotage. Thi
30 VV701: You should put this question to the US negotiating team. While I agree that 'No US carrier has expressed a desire . . .' it is nevertheless on the US
31 Leskova: But the difference is, in this context, rather irrelevant: neither can fly LHR-US. One can fly LHR-"Everywhere but the US", the others can fly US-"Ev
32 ANother: Actually my point was a little different. Regardless of what the 'negotiating teams' have (or don't have) on the table, the airlines (on both sides o
Sponsor Message: 
From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 221 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 3771 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2004, 524 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 3801 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jan 2005, 926 posts, 
. 
Printer friendly format 
