Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU/US Open Skies: Why Is CO Against It?  
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8206 times:

Ft reports that today, the US government will end the implementation of an OpenSkies treaty because of opposition from somefolk in Congress, unions and some carriers, in particular CO.

They are objecting to a US plan to ease, albeit only modestly, the restrictions on the role that foreign investors can play in the management of US airlines.

The resolve of the US government and European Commission to drive through the open skies treaty could also face further difficult tests in the US courts with Continental Airlines warning that it would start legal proceedings to try to block any unilateral move by the DoT to change the foreign ownership and control rules for US airlines.

So instead of be ratified by EU transport ministers this June, the whold shebang will have to be put back until October, and the US government will still have to overcome any objections.

What are they afraid of?

94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVega From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8198 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (Thread starter):
What are they afraid of?

COMPETITION


User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8174 times:

Quoting Vega (Reply 1):
COMPETITION

Yes, Foreign Competition. Off-Shore Competition coming in from nations with significantly lower labour costs than the US. That kind of competition.



Delete this User
User currently onlineCOSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1651 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8168 times:

I Belive CO will accept in excange for full LHR access.....

User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5599 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8161 times:

CO's point of view is that any open-skies provision that does not include guaranteed slots at Heathrow is not open. They are opposed to any concessions, including a relaxation of foreign ownership limits, until Heathrow is opened.

Interestingly, CO's ex-CEO G Bethune proposed relaxing foreign ownership restrictions a few years ago when he thought CO couldn't get money any other way. Times change, don't they?



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8152 times:

Quoting Stirling (Reply 2):

Yes, Foreign Competition. Off-Shore Competition coming in from nations with significantly lower labour costs than the US. That kind of competition.

Maybe. But you would think they are shooting themselves in the foot by opposing this, no?

What I don't understand is that in almost any other industry, no one bats an eye over ownership (except of course DubaiPorts). Banks, utilities, auto, even defense companies. But when it comes to airlines....whoa...hold on a minute...can't go there!

Makes no sense whatsoever to me!


User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8147 times:

Quoting COSPN (Reply 3):

I Belive CO will accept in excange for full LHR access.....

Well that is the intent. Any EU/US OpenSkies would encompass the entire EU and do away with Bermuda II, so any US carrier could use LHR.


User currently offlineSaturn5 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8147 times:

Continental is an exception. Most other US airlines would welcome Open Skies (DELTA and United had no objections). Also lets not forget who is against this agreement most - labour unions, AFLCiO, etc. They dislike all such free market propositions, be it NAFTA or Open Skies.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8131 times:

Would Open Skies allow for airlines like AF, BA, LH to operate domestic US flights (and airlines like UA or CO to operate intra-European flights)?

Sorry if that's a stupid question, I haven't really been following this.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8123 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):

Would Open Skies allow for airlines like AF, BA, LH to operate domestic US flights (and airlines like UA or CO to operate intra-European flights)?

No, but it would lift the restrictions on EU airlines from having to operate only from their home country. The EU would be treated as one country, so any EU airline would be able to fly from any EU city to any US city, and vice-versa.


User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5599 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8101 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 6):
Any EU/US OpenSkies would encompass the entire EU and do away with Bermuda II, so any US carrier could use LHR.

CO says that access, i.e. open skies, without actual slots at usable times is no accesss at all; and CO would like 10 landing/departure slots immediately, please. (Something like 6 for EWR, 3 for IAH, and 1 for CLE.) BA, speaking for the UK, (or is it the other way round?) says CO should go about acquiring slots over time like other new entrants to Heathrow.

CO is asking for too much and might be happy with less. I wonder if all their 757 flights to Belfast, Bristol, etc. would survive if they got into Heathrow with, say, 4 dailies.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8094 times:

Quoting COSPN (Reply 3):
I Belive CO will accept in excange for full LHR access.....

Exactly. Not free slots, but the right to fly there. Unless that is part of it, all open skies would do is make PERMANENT the advantage AA and UA have out of NY while hurting CO even more in IAH, where BA would be allowed to open up IAH-LHR service but CO would not be able to respond.

The whole idea that this is an "open skies" agreement is laughable. Call it Bermuda III or something like that, but not open skies.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5807 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8077 times:

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 10):
CO says that access, i.e. open skies, without actual slots at usable times is no accesss at all; and CO would like 10 landing/departure slots immediately, please. (Something like 6 for EWR, 3 for IAH, and 1 for CLE.) BA, speaking for the UK, (or is it the other way round?) says CO should go about acquiring slots over time like other new entrants to Heathrow.

CO wont get this because it is impossiable for the UK/EU/BAA to provide those slots. They simply do not exist. The only way to get them would be to take them off somebody else, obviously that would cause problems with who ever lost them AND it would cause problems with all other airlines at LHR who have had to buy/trade/lease at big dollars to get slots. They would be saying, well give them to us!

It would very quickly get to the point where the UK, in particular, will just walk away from the whole deal and the status quoe will remain.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8038 times:

Most other US airlines would welcome Open Skies (DELTA and United had no objections).
****

This is inaccurate, every single major US carrier objected except for AA/UA because they already have the benefits of LHR access. It is just that CO took a leading role on it.


User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7992 times:

Quoting Artsyman (Reply 13):
This is inaccurate, every single major US carrier objected except for AA/UA because they already have the benefits of LHR access. It is just that CO took a leading role on it.

I cannot comment for AA, but Glen Tilton, UA's CEO is on the record stating he wants opens skies out of LHR as soon as possible and welcomes competition. It will afford them the oppertunity of opening up new routes especially to DEN.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7989 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 9):
any EU airline would be able to fly from any EU city to any US city, and vice-versa.

Sounds a lot more beneficial for the EU airlines than the US airlines, who can fly from the US to any country in the EU as it stands today.  confused 

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7637 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7848 times:

Fundamental difference is the purpose airlines play in the US versus the EU.
EU nations used / use taxes on oil to establish and maintain road and train links, someone from the EU could give a percentage of the travelling public who use airlines versus other means, I'm certain the number is much larger than the US.
The result of that is that the US has airports all over the country and for the most part they are not closing down or consolidating them, the EU on the other hand is trying to minimize the number of airports. Under open skies, EU carries have numerous markets to open in the US, vice versa does not apply.
For US carries to believe that only LHR is the market is a mistake in my opinion,
concentrate on only one thing and miss the whole game.


User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7813 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
Sounds a lot more beneficial for the EU airlines than the US airlines, who can fly from the US to any country in the EU as it stands today

Just because the current situation is much in favor of the US airlines.

Every US airline can choose the most lucrative city in the US (say New York) and fly to any lucrative city in Europe (say Paris), while poor TAP for example has to stay in its niche with Lisbon.

The current situation also prevents Europe from consolidating it's airline industry. Mergers are very difficult because you have to fear to loose traffic rights. Europe's airline industry would be even healthier with an open sky. They could even further show their superiorty.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12877 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Exactly. Not free slots, but the right to fly there. Unless that is part of it, all open skies would do is make PERMANENT the advantage AA and UA have out of NY while hurting CO even more in IAH, where BA would be allowed to open up IAH-LHR service but CO would not be able to respond.

Welcome to a slot-constrained airport! yes 

There are slots available at LHR, just not at the times that CO would ideally want. With an open skies agreement in place CO would be free to spend millions of $s purchasing slots from other airlines. Why should CO get something for free that other airlines have had to spend time and money acquiring?

Unless there is some radical shake-up of how slots at LHR are allocated (which probably needs to be done at a Governmental level), I don't see how this gets resolved. From a US perspective I guess all AA and UA slots could be reallocated amongst all the airlines wanting LHR services, but that would seriously piss off AA and UA.

Given the situation at LHR, there's no way any EU/US agreement can allow all US airlines free access without those airlines having to acquire slots the hard way.

Now, where does CO sign up for some A380s for their 3.30pm arrival slot from IAHduck 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11972 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7789 times:

Continental doesn't want to have to pay for access to Heathrow like everybody else has had to. They want any prospective E.U.-U.S. deal to include provisions setting aside slots/gates at Heathrow just for new entrant U.S. carriers, presumably by taking them away from AA and BA. Both AA and BA, and the E.U. and U.S., have already pretty much said that any deal would not include such a provision, so Continental is unhappy. However, as has been said, just about everyone else in the U.S. wants the deal, with perhaps a few minor reservations here and there. Delta is willing to take Heathrow however they can get it, and would probably be happy to just buy the slots at Heathrow -- albeit at a skyrocketing price if the airport is opened up -- and be done with it. United wants ATI with bmi, and wants to be able to finally fly Denver-Heathrow. AA would probably welcome the flexiblity of not having to deal with any regulations, but would face more exposure at Heathrow, which would likely drive its yields on Heathrow flights down. However, on the upside, AA would be able to fly to Heathrow from all its U.S. gateways, including DFW and Raleigh, and it would finally be free to pursue ATI with BA, which in and of itself would probably more than compensate for the loss of revenue from falling yields on U.S.-Heathorw flights.

Sidenote: in general, I think it is pothetic that Congress, as usual, is pandering in an election year and putting on hold such an important piece of free-market legislation. I've already written my congressman and senators to tell them to support this, but alas, I doubt it will be much help.


User currently offlinePlaneGuy27 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7773 times:

Quoting Artsyman (Reply 13):
This is inaccurate, every single major US carrier objected except for AA/UA because they already have the benefits of LHR access. It is just that CO took a leading role on it.

Actually you are inaccurate. Remember this deal would open up the RIGHTS for everyone at LHR but what people don;t fully comprehend is the idea that RIGHTS doesn't couple with SLOT access.

Every single carrier is in favor of this deal except for Continental. Essentially, DL, NW and CO, all current LGW carriers are okay with the deal because through FF partnerships within Skyteam, Star, they know they would be able to negotiate new slots from partners. Continental, which isn't in a true major transatlantic parntership, feels like they would be screwed at the end. DL could get from AF, NW could get from KL and US could get from BMI or LH or SK....

Also, CO wants the status quo to remain in place. They are the only US LGW carrier that is currently able to code share in LHR via Virgin Atlantic. Think about how much money they would lose if everything is opened. Selling high yield high fare NY area passengers into LHR on a CO ticket is good for them and their corporate NY Area contracts.


User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7754 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 19):

Sidenote: in general, I think it is pothetic that Congress, as usual, is pandering in an election year and putting on hold such an important piece of free-market legislation. I've already written my congressman and senators to tell them to support this, but alas, I doubt it will be much help.


I like that, well done! It's about time this dilly-dallying ended and airlines be allowed to operate like any other industry.


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8655 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7744 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 6):
I Belive CO will accept in excange for full LHR access.....

Who wouldn't! Full LHR access is very different from Full LHR access RIGHTS. CO and other US carriers are highjacking the Open Skies negotiations to try and get slots at LHR without paying for them. Ain't gonna happen, ever. LHR access rights wouldn't serve them either because they probably can't afford them in the open market, at this time. So what they're doing is stall tactics until hopefully some day, when they have the money to compete in a true free market, they can buy those slots. For now, the US government protectionism serves them better. It's that simple.


User currently offlineNateDAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 417 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7662 times:

I understand CO's concerns.

They seem to be fine with open skies and even foreign ownership, but feel screwed because they have been denied LHR access by regulation for decades (Berm. II) and now have no reasonable opportunity to get it. They have a legitimate grievance. That said, other airlines have been shut out and there probably is not a workable solution other than just saying sorry.

Maybe look at the bright side, they might free some 777s when they have to cancel one of their IAH-LGW flights and convert a EWR-LGW to a 752 when BA goes 4x day LHR-IAH.  scratchchin 



Set Love Free
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5599 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7629 times:

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 22):
CO and other US carriers are highjacking the Open Skies negotiations to try and get slots at LHR without paying for them. Ain't gonna happen, ever.

Didn't the British create a dozen or so no-cost LHR slots for Indian airlines to go with the new UK-India agreement? As at all slot-controlled airports, I suspect LHR can find or create slots when they want to.

[Edited 2006-05-03 16:18:41]


I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
25 Scotron11 : Didn't the British create a dozen or so no-cost LHR slots for Indian airlines to go with the new UK-India agreement? As at all slot-controlled airpor
26 IADLHR : Wasnt the UK government going to announce, around Easter time, which has come and gone, that they were going to do a study to see if LHR could go to m
27 Commavia : Sure they would. If a deal was reached between the E.U. and U.S., Heathrow would be open to any airline that wanted to fly there and was willing to b
28 Scotron11 : So, so sad. That says it all!
29 Post contains images Airbazar : They have lost to these other gateways but don't blame the NIMBY's alone. All of the bove airports you mentioned have as much nimby activism as LHR.
30 StarGoldLHR : UA only has 1 flight a day !! BMI - None VS - about 5 BA - About 9 AA - About 5 so net approx = 20 flights a day LHR-NYC With the Open Skies my bet i
31 Mir : I think that you'd find airline use much higher in the US for short trips, as our train system sucks. I was referring to how the changes would be mor
32 Airbazar : Lets look at it this way. The survival of the American legacy carriers lies in internationl service 'cause there is no way they can compete with LCC'
33 Post contains links ANother : There has been a radical shake-up of how slots at all EU airports are allocated. Its called EC Regulation 93/95 and amongst other things states that
34 Kaitak : CO, like so many other airlines, is anxious to get into LHR. I can understand their position; the Open Skies deal will theoretcially allow them to fly
35 Commavia : Now there isn't. However, early on, there was talk of Congress passing some sort of joint resolution, or perhaps a statute, to sanction what DoT was
36 ANother : Whooops. That would be illegal in the EU. Any new slots that come from changing to mixed mode would be distributed in accordance with EC Regulation 9
37 ScottB : That seems like the best solution of all; the U.S. Government ought to impose a reverse-Heathrow fee for any route added to the U.S. from LHR equival
38 Commavia : Every airline, to an extent, has paid for what it has. BA is sinking billions into infrastructure at Heathrow. VS has payed millions for slots at Hea
39 Atmx2000 : While US carriers have found shelter in international routes from domestic competition, they still face international competition using 6th freedom r
40 Scotron11 : Well folks it seems it is official. The US DOT has decided to delay any changes for a "couple of weeks" for cooler head to prevail in Congress. I don'
41 ANother : Shhh. They have a few agreements - Chile I think, a few in the ex-USSR Stans and guess what? Not one EU airline has exercised their rights. All sarca
42 MasseyBrown : That has been done before, at DCA and ORD as well as LGA.
43 Bmiexpat : Don't be so quick to dismiss that idea. If open skies comes about and Sir Michael exercises his put option with LH to buy bmi then I can see LH flyin
44 ScottB : Actually, I would not be opposed to the notion of taking away all of the slots of the various incumbent carriers at LGA and DCA and then auctioning t
45 Incitatus : Sorry but this makes no sense. No European airline in their right mind is going to put a wide-body on the ground at Heathrow to service it, deplane,
46 BlueSky1976 : No. I believe the proposed agreement states that EU carriers won't be able to do domestic US flights, but they would be able to get 5th freedom right
47 Commavia : And you can't counter my point that if we "periodically" went around taking things away from companies just because they've had them for a while, thi
48 ANother : Sorry, to clarify EU airlines would get unlimited 5ths allowing LH to fly FRA - JFK - NRT or MUC - ORD - GRU. US airlines would get unlimited 5ths to
49 Gemuser : Artifical??? My understanding is that it ia an actual physical constraint, they cant actually fit more aircraft on to the runways (safely), at least
50 PSA727 : Could it also be that if Eurpoean carriers started flying from outside their home country to the U.S., one of the main destinations would be to EWR or
51 TristarSteve : Slots at LHR are not legally for sale. BA aquired its slots before slots were invented, i.e. in the 50s and 60s there were no slots, if you got route
52 ANother : True, but slots can be exchanged and the British courts have ruled there is nothing 'illegal' in the trade including a financial top-up. No - they bo
53 Airbazar : Think again. LH already serves LHR with wide bodies. In addition to the main carriers like LH or AF there are other airlines from smaller EU countrie
54 StarGoldLHR : They would just stop flying there, and so reduce the competition and increase the prices to the passenger. Lose-Lose. Not so much with the current le
55 IADLHR : I think this whole mess could be a once in a lifetime opportunity for the EU, UK,BA.VS etc. etc. etc. to divide and conquer the US opposition, If they
56 ScottB : And the point is that by being given those slots in the past, the playing field is not level and there is no hope of the playing field ever being lev
57 TristarSteve : Many years ago when Pan Am and TWA were the carriers at LHR, they had fleets of B727s based in Europe that connected with the B747s across the Atlant
58 ANother : OK, explain why LH isn't flying FRA - CDG - JFK? They have the rights. How about AZ MIL - MAD - ORD? How about LX ZRH - AMS - LAX? 13 of the 25 EU Me
59 Ken777 : I'm quite happy to see an open sky agreement reached and would be just as happy to see CO (and any other US airline) go out and buy the slots they nee
60 Airbazar : You can't possibly compare the amount of traffic between the US and London, with any other city in Europe. Nothing even comes close. Just ask SQ what
61 VV701 : Yes, this was reported. Currently there are around 472,000 LHR slots in use each year. Mixed mode would theoretically increase this number by between
62 Atmx2000 : You won't see more than 6 US airlines flying to LHR. I predict you will see less as I see consolidation coming at some point. Are you saying there is
63 VV701 : No. I did not say and do not think 'that there is no advantage in serving LHR aside from connections'. No. The biggest investor in LHR is clearly BAA
64 Post contains links Atmx2000 : What you said was: When you say "the answer" you are implying that it is the only reason for these airlines to want to fly to LHR. I argue that there
65 VV701 : Immediately after World War 2 several things happened at the same time. Heathrow was opened as a public airport. BEA and BOAC were founded as governm
66 AirNZ : Hmmm! think back as how US carriers aquired their slots/rights at NRT??? Would they also just give them up or, as is well known, does 'free trade' on
67 Abrelosojos : = I dont think EU countries have "significantly lower labour costs than the US." -A.
68 Sllevin : I've had the opportunity to chat with Larry Kellner about LHR. Believe me, he *wants* access to Heathrow. He believes that moving his Gatwick flights
69 Bmiexpat : If the yields would increase by that much, then pay the money for the slots and stop complaining!
70 Lutfi : LOL, so open skies is being held up over a measly 500m USD? Why doesn't US congress just give CO the money - hey, they gave US airlines more than that
71 ScottB : Well, it doesn't appear that the Japanese government has been trying to restrict NRT access to two American carriers, now does it? And while expansio
72 VV701 : Neither are the British government or the EU authorities trying to restrict flights to the US from LHR access to two American and two British airline
73 JoFMO : I think the EU should link the introduction of mixed-mode operation at Heathrow with the open-sky topic. I think mixed-mode operations will sooner or
74 TristarSteve : So would BA! Remember that BA is also slot restricted at its main base. BA presently has around 40% of the LHR slots and is forced to cut back on sho
75 JoFMO : All airlines except most US ones would celebrate an introduction of mixed mode in LHR. I just think that the US should have a new agreement in place o
76 VV701 : I think you are right. But I do not think it will help much. As I pointed out earlier: The one relevant thing that mixed mode would achieve is a 15 t
77 Par13del : Ok, this thread has been going for a few days, and I keep coming back to it to get updated info, and based on what I have read my understanding of the
78 Scotron11 : EU want access to US airports - all over the country plus 5th Freedom rights. US wants access to LHR. That is one part of it. The big part is draggin
79 IADLHR : On the subject of LHR going to mixed mode operations, if the UK gave the go ahead today, lets say, for mixed mode operations, how long would it take t
80 Post contains links and images Atmx2000 : And NRT isn't the only large gateway to Japan. I see no need to punish non-UK carriers since their countries allow most if not all US carriers to fly
81 Gemuser : You have just answered your own question! From the Pommies point of view US airlines have a large and unfair advantage, to wit: "including those that
82 ANother : A reality check please ... The Brits are prepared to enter into an 'open-skies' agreement with the US, but they have handed authority to the EU to neg
83 VV701 : Because they are trying to negotiate an 'Open Skies' and not a 'Partly Closed Skies' agreement. 'Open Skies' means . . . Well, Open Skies. Such an ag
84 ANother : That agreement doesn't limit British 5ths to/from the USA, it's the US-UK agreement that doesn't give British carriers unlimited 5ths USA-Canada. How
85 Atmx2000 : Which is neutralized by the UK carriers ability to carry 6th freedom (or anterior fifth freedom traffic) between the US and Europe, and probably abou
86 Gemuser : No it is NOT, from the UKs point of view. US carriers have the ability to carry fifth freedom traffic between the UK and Europe, and probably all of
87 MasseyBrown : No doubt. Somewhere, however, I read that SE England, centered on Cambridge University and its associated academic-industrial-military research nexus
88 Atmx2000 : Cambridge is north and slightly east of London. Physically it is closer to LHR, but by roads it is only a little bit further to LGW. Of course Stanst
89 Gemuser : Sorry, under BI/BII US airlines had/have fifth freedom right to just about anywhere just as UK airlines have fifth freedom rights to just about anywh
90 Post contains links ANother : I found aninteresting document at http://www.publications.parliament.u...00/cmselect/cmenvtra/532/53206.htm that gives a good (and mostly balanced) o
91 Atmx2000 : No they don't. If they did, don't you think AA would fly from LHR to beyond destinations in Asia, such as India? The European rights still exist but
92 Commavia : No. AA doesn't want to fly beyond LHR to places like India, and certainly not Asia. They'd prefer to fly nonstop to India from ORD, and nonstop to As
93 MasseyBrown : Ah, he said, looking at a map; thanks for the geography lesson. Still, I'm quite sure the report claimed Gatwick was more convenient for the Cambridg
94 EA CO AS : Um, 'scuse me? Did CO suddenly stop being part of SkyTeam? Ridiculous post. The US government gave US carriers cash in an attempt to reimburse them f
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...
EU-US Open Skies Delayed Again posted Tue May 16 2006 23:28:59 by Concorde001
EU/US Open Skies Speech In New York By BA Chairman posted Thu Jan 19 2006 21:03:09 by Concorde001
EU-US Open Skies - Timescales posted Sun Jan 8 2006 11:28:07 by Humberside
Article On EU-US Open Skies, 11/26/2005 posted Thu Dec 1 2005 19:56:45 by EWROwznj00
EU-US Open Skies Talks posted Fri Apr 2 2004 16:50:55 by FlyPIJets
Will EU/US Open Skies Replace Bermuda II? posted Wed Dec 17 2003 10:12:01 by Mozart
EU/US Open Skies Agreement posted Tue Dec 16 2003 05:36:43 by UAL777
US And UK Open Skies. What Is It? posted Wed Jun 28 2000 13:06:53 by Dellatorre
EU To Negotiate Single US Open Skies Deal posted Thu Jun 12 2003 18:00:42 by United01
EU-USA Open Skies Deal LHR Question posted Mon Dec 19 2005 23:15:37 by MarkATL