Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bye, Bye Ms. America - EU Open Skies  
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 14600 times:

See: http://www.dpm.ae/doc_cont.asp?id=93963

Quote:
Continental Airlines Welcomes Senate Appropriations Committee Vote Blocking Foreign Control of U.S. Airlines

WASHINGTON, -- Continental Airlines (NYSE:CAL) today released the following statement from Jeff Smisek, president of the company, in response to the Senate Appropriations Committee vote on the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for FY 2007:

"Continental welcomes the Senate Appropriations Committee's action to block the Department of Transportation from implementing its flawed rulemaking on foreign control of U.S. airlines.

"Today the Senate Appropriations Committee voted three to one to prohibit the Department of Transportation from using appropriated funds to finalize or implement its proposed rulemaking on foreign control, just as the House did, voting two to one, in June.

"Both the Senate and the House have expressed strong bipartisan opposition to DOT's rulemaking proposal, which would unlawfully give foreign investors the right to control U.S. airlines. The message has never been clearer that Congress will stop the Department of Transportation from implementing its foreign control rulemaking."

The next step IMHO will be for the EC to direct their 'offending' member states to tear up their open skies agreements with the US, as they are not in compliance with EU law. Should be an interesting decade before we get this sorted. Ironic that Bermuda II won't be one of these, because it was ratified before the EU had jurisdiction.

I still don't understand why the US simply cannot agree to reduce (or eliminate) their ownership and control rules. (and please don't flame me with 'National Security issues', the US moves so many troops around that any company - US or non-US would be happy with the business). This IS free enterprise, isn't it. P.S. this would actually mean more jobs, rather than fewer too.

[Edited 2006-07-23 18:59:12]

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePositiverate From United States of America, joined May 2005, 1590 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 14532 times:

Quoting ANother (Thread starter):
I still don't understand why the US simply cannot agree to reduce (or eliminate) their ownership and control rules. (and please don't flame me with 'National Security issues', the US moves so many troops around that any company - US or non-US would be happy with the business). This IS free enterprise, isn't it. P.S. this would actually mean more jobs, rather than fewer too.

CO has always marched to their own beat when it comes to things like this. Their objection to open skies was that they would be the only airline without access to Heathrow, as they do not have anyone who is willing to transfer slots. They also tied to Open Skies debate to foreign ownership, and convinced a fair number of Members of Congress that allowing EU Open Skies to go through would 1) be a vote in favor of Virgin America's operating certificate and 2) not be good for national security. There was a great National Journal article on this a few weeks ago. They played on the Dubai Ports fears, aeven though this debate has nothing to do with ownership percentage and instead relaxes the rules with regards to marketing, etc. CO's VP of government affairs is married to a former Congressman.

On the flip side, DL, NW, and UA all lobbied actively in favor of open skies. AA was silent on the issue.


User currently offlineAirways45 From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 14365 times:

Two comments.

Firstly, could Continental be so vocal in all of this because they would be the first target of a take-over? Could be a case of management fighting for their jobs.


Secondly, ironic how CO DOES have access to LHR via their Virgin Atlantic codeshare. So, interesting how they are so against Virgin America when they have a commercial arrangement with Virgin Atlantic.

Who needs enemies, when you have friends like CO!

Airways45


User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5527 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 14334 times:

Quoting Airways45 (Reply 2):
Firstly, could Continental be so vocal in all of this because they would be the first target of a take-over?

Hardly a first target. Only rumors are circulating. Just rumors.

Quoting Airways45 (Reply 2):
Secondly, ironic how CO DOES have access to LHR via their Virgin Atlantic codeshare.

That's just the point. It is only by code share. CO wants its own metal at LHR, as does, I am sure, DL, NW and US.



You can't cure stupid
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 14230 times:

Quoting ANother (Thread starter):
The next step IMHO will be for the EC to direct their 'offending' member states to tear up their open skies agreements with the US, as they are not in compliance with EU law. Should be an interesting decade before we get this sorted. Ironic that Bermuda II won't be one of these, because it was ratified before the EU had jurisdiction.

While it may be YHO, I think you are sorely mistaken about the ramifications. I predict that the current open skies agreements will continue in force as the EU and the USA continue negotiations. This is all much ado about nothing.

Someday, the EU and the USA might reach an agreement on an open skies agreement. This is all just bureaucratic politics and of no major consequence.

The EU mamber states and airlines have as much (or more) at risk as the USA and airlines.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 14230 times:

Quoting Airways45 (Reply 2):
Firstly, could Continental be so vocal in all of this because they would be the first target of a take-over? Could be a case of management fighting for their jobs.

Its been rumored......if foreign carriers were to invest into US carriers, CO would certainly be a good choice due to its reasonable financial position, young fleet and good route network. CO has been very outspoken on this issue, I dont think its manangement protecting their jobs as much as CO would very much like to get into LHR.

Quoting Airways45 (Reply 2):
Secondly, ironic how CO DOES have access to LHR via their Virgin Atlantic codeshare. So, interesting how they are so against Virgin America when they have a commercial arrangement with Virgin Atlantic.

Thats nonsense, CO wants to fly CO airplanes into LHR. you know that! And being that we have been brainwashed that Virgin America has nothing to do with Virgin Atlantic......whats the point?  Smile

Quoting ANother (Thread starter):
The next step IMHO will be for the EC to direct their 'offending' member states to tear up their open skies agreements with the US, as they are not in compliance with EU law. Should be an interesting decade before we get this sorted. Ironic that Bermuda II won't be one of these, because it was ratified before the EU had jurisdiction.

You are making a HUGE jump....this is not happening.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 14185 times:

Quoting Positiverate (Reply 1):

CO has always marched to their own beat when it comes to things like this.

I didn't intend to bad-mouth CO, in the quoted article they were 'supporting' actions of Congress. While they may have attempted to influence them, the bottom line is Congress is saying NO NO NO to the DOT's very limited relaxation of the rules. While the DOT changes were cosmetic, at best, some thought it would be enough to move the European governments on this issue. That simply isn't going to happen now.

What will happen now, from an intra-EU perspective will be a move to force a relaxation from the US side. The fact that no EU airline gives a 'mickey' about changes here is irrelevant - this is now a political issue and the Eurocrats have to save 'face'. It's going to be an interesting few months ... years ...


User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5527 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 14157 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 6):
I didn't intend to bad-mouth CO, in the quoted article they were 'supporting' actions of Congress.

I know there was no intent to bad mouth CO. CO just wants their own metal to LHR. CO wants access. It's an argument that will not stop till it is over, which may be a while. One thing CO does is fly heavily into the UK. I believe we fly to more places in the UK than any other US carrier (I am sure there will be more to come soon).

LHR would be a gem in its UK crown.



You can't cure stupid
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 14109 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 6):
You are making a HUGE jump....this is not happening.

Absolutely correct - nothing has happened yet. But any action would not necessarily be in the best interests of the Member States, or of airlines based in the EU - this will be perceived as a slap in the face by the Eurocrats in Brussels. Hell hath no fury like an Eurocrat scorned!

This is of course a worst-case scenario, one that I certainly hope doesn't happen. But it may ... Don't forget that the ECJ has already determined that the open skies agreements contravene European law. The Member States has delegated their negotiation authority over to the EC to sort out the problem. The EC has few options here. If they do nothing, the MSs will say 'told you so', so they have to do something. What? Who knows.


User currently offlineCXA330300 From South Africa, joined May 2004, 1569 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 14064 times:

Isn't it rather hypocritical of CO to be pushing this considering it was an investment by SK that staved off collapse 16 years ago?

Considering their ownership of CM......hmm..........



The sky is the limit as long as you can stay there
User currently offlineArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 14042 times:

Quoting ANother (Thread starter):
I still don't understand why the US simply cannot agree to reduce (or eliminate) their ownership

Why is it so important or desirable for Europeans to own US airlines?


User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5527 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 14042 times:

Quoting CXA330300 (Reply 9):
Considering their ownership of CM......hmm..........

Apples and oranges. CO's investment in CM has nothing to do with wanting access to LHR.



You can't cure stupid
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 14042 times:

Quoting CXA330300 (Reply 9):
Isn't it rather hypocritical of CO to be pushing this considering it was an investment by SK that staved off collapse 16 years ago?

All done within the law.......nothing hypocritical, although SAS wasnt too happy as to how that deal worked out.

Quoting CXA330300 (Reply 9):
Considering their ownership of CM......hmm..........

CO has sold off most of its interest in CM (which was done within the limits of Panamian law, by the way) to pay some pension obligations.


User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5527 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 13992 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 12):
although SAS wasnt too happy as to how that deal worked out.

Not in the least. We refered to SAS as Sorry And Stupid for dealing with us. Who knew what was to become of CO now...

[Edited 2006-07-23 20:37:08]


You can't cure stupid
User currently offlineArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 13959 times:

Call me cynical.

If I was in charge of Country A, which had higher costs and is not so much concerned about low costs for consumers because they have other priorities such as jobs, and Country B was across the Atlantic, had much lower costs, and, didn't care about jobs, and let free markets reign.

How would I negotiate with them?

Would I admit to my own consumers we dont care about high ticket prices? No, I would just simply ask for something that I know Country B will not give up, ...ownership rules.

I don't really care about ownership rules other than I can use it as an excuse not to open up the markets.

And this is no knock on the EU by the way. I have no problem with putting limitations on free markets.

[Edited 2006-07-23 20:42:06]

User currently offlineExFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 13803 times:

I don't think that this Congressional action necessarialy means the end of the negotiations for Open Skies - the US and EU could reach an Open Skies agreement without changing the ownership restrictions. CO's position seems to be that they are going to oppose any change in the US-EU airline relationship until they get their metal into LHR, but CO seems to be the only US carrier openly taking this position, and linking...well, everything in the US-EU relationship...together.

Quoting CXA330300 (Reply 9):
Isn't it rather hypocritical of CO to be pushing this considering it was an investment by SK that staved off collapse 16 years ago?

Not really - US law allows a 25% financial stake, as long as effective day-to-day control over the airline does not pass to the foreign investor. The CO/SK deal was perfectly legal. CO doesn't oppose minority foreign ownership, but - as do other parties in the debate - worries that even though the Virgin America structure complies on paper with the current rules, SRB and his team will have marketing control, and Virgin America will be marketed as a part of the Virgin Group. I think it's a red herring, personally, as is the whole "foreign ownership could interfere with the air fleet use in wartime" argument - this whole problem could simply be solved by Congress making it clear that all airliners operated under a US certificate are subject to wartime use, and if an airline didn't cooperate, its planes would simply be operated by USAF/ANG/AF Reserve pilots in time of war.

Quoting ANother (Reply 8):
Don't forget that the ECJ has already determined that the open skies agreements contravene European law. The Member States has delegated their negotiation authority over to the EC to sort out the problem. The EC has few options here.

One option could be to just get out of the way and devolve this authority back to the member states. I know that goes against the EC philosophy, but in this case might be the best way to handle it. It could also keep the ownership and Open Skies issues separated - the convulutions of Bermuda II might delay US-UK Open Skies for a while, but the US could probably reach ownership agreements with countries we either have a very close military relationship with (the UK) or, conversely, have no military relationship with at all (e.g. Ireland), faster than countries that we seem to have trouble cooperating with sometimes even though we're allies (guess who.)

I do find myself wondering if this could eventually affect the relationship between CO and VS - if I were SRB, I'd be wondering if I might be able to find a better relationship with another US partner. It's probably not too late to change the gate designs for the new JFK T5 to allow for 747s...  Silly


User currently offlineAirways45 From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 13803 times:

So, how is CO's actions allowing it access into LHR? It is likely to have the opposite action.

I don't see how CO complaining about ownership restrictions is going to help its cause.

Someone explain how CO's actions will help it get LHR access?

If CO is successful in its lobbying, then I imaginewe can all kiss goodbye to open skies...


Airways45


User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4764 posts, RR: 44
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 13767 times:

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 3):
That's just the point. It is only by code share. CO wants its own metal at LHR, as does, I am sure, DL, NW and US.

If CO wants to fly into LHR then they should find a way to acquire slots in a similar fashion that other airlines would be required to.

I know AF has already indicated they would help DL secure the necessary slots to allow service to both JFK and ATL, perhaps CO should look for something similar?



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 13732 times:

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 10):
Why is it so important or desirable for Europeans to own US airlines?

It isn't. It's the Aeropolitical need for the EU to have done 'better' than any individual Member State in negotiating with the US. No EU airline wants it. US airlines have more to fear from their current stockholders asking why their return is so low.

Why is it so important or desireable for the US not to relax, or do away with their ownership and control rules? As a Canadian, living in Switzerland I am free to invest in just about any US business, but not the airlines. I can buy your ports, your airports, your biggest buildings, but not your airlines. Why? You too can buy just about anything you want in Switzerland (although land would be challenging) but an airline - again why?

Economic matters; ownership and control, route rights, etc. should be free for airlines to exploit in the free market.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12598 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 13708 times:

I think you're seeing a lot of positioning and grandstanding now, ahead of elections in November. I think that once that's out of the way, there will be a more logical and less emotional approach. It's unfortunate timing, but I think we will ultimately see Open Skies; ironically, it was the US's idea and it is a very good idea. It would be a shame to see it die. Of course, there are issues that need to be ironed out, but the irony is that the two "deal breakers" - ownership of US carriers and US access to LHR - are the ones which caused the last talks to founder and probably the next one(s) after this.

It's not just CO causing problems either; those UK and US carriers - particularly BA - which have access to LHR are seriously peeved at the prospect of so much competition, so they're angrily lobbying against it and no doubt revelling in the US Congress's blocking of moves towards liberalisation.

The problem is that these two small problems, which affect only a handful of airlines and one airport are holding everyone else up. We in Ireland have been putting up with the damned Shannon stopover issue for years; we gave the right to negotiate to the EU (not that we had much choice), only to find that they were bringing more problems to bear, so we're stuck. What happens now? Can individual EU countries liberalise outside the context of EU/US? If the EU does ask individual member states to scrap their bilaterals (and not just the Open Skies ones), what then? What will take their place? I appreciate that the current problem is largely an American domestic one, but the EU does pose its own problems.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 13708 times:

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 17):
If CO wants to fly into LHR then they should find a way to acquire slots in a similar fashion that other airlines would be required to.

You realize that the slots are not the issue......finding well timed slots will be a difficult and expensive proposition for CO even with the possible help of its SkyTeam partners but CO will overcome that issue by writing out a very big cheque.......the issue is that CO (nor any American carrier other than UA and AA) are premitted to operate in and out of LHR under the terms of Bermuda 2. First CO (and the others) must be allowed into LHR, then the search for slots.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 13690 times:

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 15):
the convulutions of Bermuda II might delay US-UK Open Skies for a while,

The Brits, over the years have proved to be very hard bargainers (why else would you have the restrictive covenants of Bermuda II).

So who would you rather bargain with - the wimps in Brussels who only are asking for a few token gestures, or with the Brits?

Open skies are on the table to be taken by the US side (including unlimited 5ths within the EU) all they have to do is to give a token gesture - which, at worst, will help US airlines.

Case studies will be studied in collages for the next century about how stupid both sides are. And for CO? Well having rights but crappy slots is better than having no rights at all (LHR). The slot exchange barter/buy procedure may not be inexpensive, but it's got to be better than having no rights at all.


User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4764 posts, RR: 44
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13662 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 20):
You realize that the slots are not the issue......finding well timed slots will be a difficult and expensive proposition for CO even with the possible help of its SkyTeam partners but CO will overcome that issue by writing out a very big cheque.......the issue is that CO (nor any American carrier other than UA and AA) are premitted to operate in and out of LHR under the terms of Bermuda 2. First CO (and the others) must be allowed into LHR, then the search for slots.

Yes I realize, but thanks again.

I'm saying if the bi-lateral (ie Bermuda II) is changed to allow additional carriers onto the route.

IF that happens, then CO should look to find slots in a similar way that other US carriers will, either by obtaining non-ideal time slots, or by obtaining them via purchase from another SkyTeam carrier willing to give part with them.

DL has already made arrangements with AF in the event B2 changes.



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13645 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 21):
QUOTE

I agree with your last post......one big issue has been taken off the table, the idea that foreign carriers could operate domestic segments in the US (cabotage)......I think that a compromise will be reached at some point, who knows when?

Do consider that:

The UK (read Virgin and BA) really do not want the additional US carriers at LHR.

The US (read the US airlines....CO is talking but they are effectively speaking for the industry) would rather not become "subsidiaries" of foreign carriers....the 25% is one thing since there is not a control issue. (I am too lazy to do the effective control legal analaysis, but 25% is one thing, 49% or more is another).

Who will blink first? Time will tell.....there must be a compromise somewhere.


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13600 times:

The EU has missed their opportunity to gain advantage from Open Skies.

The EU wants Open Skies for 2 reasons:

1. To allow weaker European carriers to be bought by stronger carriers from other EU countries while still retaining the failing carrier's rights to fly to the US. Under current US law, rights to fly between the US and European countries are held in the name of a specific country, not the EU.

2. The EU wanted to gain a larger piece of the large US market at a time when US carriers were failing.

Although there are still a couple weak Euro airlines, it is now just as possible for US airlines to buy into Euro airlines as it is for one Euro airline to buy another. US airlines are lower cost and more efficient meaning that investors would be more likely to favor an investment or partnership between a Euro and US airline over 2 average Euro airlines because the partnership involving a US airline would probably yield a higher return on the investment than one involving 2 average network Euro airlines.

US airlines have largely turned the corner and are likely to restructure without foreign help. The EU lost its opportunity to buy into the US industry inexpensively and at a time when US airlines were down for the count.

In addition to the reasons above, CO also has an interest in protecting its route system which does include service to many relatively small European cities which could be jeopardized if someone like BA had the ability to deploy 757s on flights nonstop from continental Europe to the US. CO also has some of the choicest routes to LGW and would likely lose some of its market power if other carriers were given greater access to London since the Europeans have linked greater foreign ownership in US airlines to increased London access.

Air transportation will probably be one industry in which US airlines will gain a substantially stronger position in the coming decade than they have in the past. US airlines now have much lower costs and the ability to fly anywhere from the US to the EU regardless of the strength of the airline in each EU country.

It is doubtful that the EU will follow through with trying to abrogate Open Skies agreements because it will cause the US to disapprove some of the alliances and antitrust immunities that the US approved only on the condition of Open Skies. Without alliances, European airlines would be more harmed that would US airlines because the US airlines can access more of the EU than can EU airlines access the US.


25 MasseyBrown : If the law is still what I learned a century ago, the owner of 28% or more (I believe that is the right amount) has the right to compel the company t
26 BA787 : Probably due to the OW links it has into LHR, why operate a flight out of LHR when BA passengers fly into JFK and quite often travel AA to their fina
27 JGPH1A : Um yes - they operate rather a lot, multiple dailies to JFK, BOS, LAX, ORD, MIA
28 BA787 : I didnt think they were allowed to operate to JFK under the Bermuda 2 agreement
29 Atmx2000 : The Brits were hard bargainers, but their airlines had less marketshare at the time, and the US didn't want to upset things (business for US airlines
30 OH-LGA : The Bermuda II agreement dictates the two airlines each from the US and the UK that are allowed to fly between London/Heathrow and the US, and it als
31 F14ATomcat : Mr. Moderator this has every appearance of a flame bait thread. Please fix or let us respond in kind. Savy?
32 FlyDreamliner : Ok, you let those EU nations cancel those open skies agreements. Sure would be an expensive point for them to make. From CO's point of view, if they
33 Halls120 : You also can't buy a majority stake in a company operating US flag vessels that are documented under US law. Not that there are many, but...... You c
34 Post contains images Positiverate : Just so we're all clear on what the NPRM DOT released was: The new rules are intended to preserve statutory requirements that a foreign investor's vot
35 EWRCabincrew : Correct me if I am wrong here, CO cannot just "pay" to get a slot into LHR. Only two US carriers (UA and AA) are allowed to fly to LHR from the US. N
36 Jacobin777 : As far as CO is concerned, I see this more of a problem with Bermuda-II rather than Open Skies agreement....if Open SKies and Bermuda-II fall under ju
37 MasseyBrown : If open skies came along, CO could buy effective control of Malev cheaper than they could buy 2 slots at Heathrow ... and Malev controls 2 slots at H
38 AutoThrust : This kind of protectionism is just an embarrassment for every country practicing it. In a true democracy there isn't place for that. I mean every cou
39 BA787 : Sorry, I wasn't awake properly Tom
40 WorldTraveler : European airlines benefit by alliances with US carriers that carry traffic on their system to interior points in the United States, not to points bey
41 Positiverate : You have missed the point entirely. CO blocked Open Skies because they, admittedly, did not have an arrangement in place whereby which once Open Skie
42 UAL747-600 : I wonder how BA/Virgin would like flying into ISP instead of JFK, LGB instead of LAX, MDW instead of ORD, FLL instead of MIA and OAK instead of SFO???
43 AA717driver : Question: Are the 5th Freedom rights AA gained from TWA still valid in the event that Open Skies is suspended? Maybe that's why AA was silent. If so,
44 Sllevin : CO is basically against the entire agreement for any number of reasons; but the two big ones are Virgin America and Heathrow. They are arguing the Vir
45 Positiverate : That's what CO wants you to believe, but the VirginAmerica application and the Foreign Ownership NPRM/Open Skies are in NO WAY related. VirginAmerica
46 SJCRRPAX : Civil Airlines are in effect part of the Reserve Fleet of the U.S. Airforce. If a carrier is U.S. Owned it can be nationalized in case of emergency a
47 MasseyBrown : There is a more or less disappointing article about the US-EU negotiations in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. (I think the author faced a deadline
48 Post contains links and images VV701 : Thanks for the compliment! Just wish it was totally true. But just as now both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate is busy protecting j
49 Post contains images Positiverate : 2 good examplea from over 20 years ago! Explain, please, which US airlines have CVG, CLE, ANC, etc flights to LHR? The security issue is NOT the prob
50 OzGlobal : A typical example of the US preaching 'free trade' and 'open markets' to the world to its own advantage and then slamming the door to its local marke
51 MasseyBrown : It is at least some of the problem. In the last two Iraq mobilizations, air lift was available in huge amounts on almost no notice. Sea lift was not;
52 Scbriml : Except the US is somewhat hypocritical in preaching "free market" while at the same time applying protectionist subsidies and tariffs. I'm not claimi
53 Atmx2000 : Is the US demanding the right for ownership of foreign airlines in trade negotiations? If not, where is the hypocrisy?
54 Positiverate : Did you even read my post? I clearly stated that, within the NPRM DOT had issued, the foreign entity would be allowed to take control of virtually an
55 VV701 : I am not quoting who operates on what routes but what is clearly written in Bermuda 2. It says, for example, that either of the two nominated US airl
56 SJCRRPAX : The UK is about the best Ally the U.S. has. Right now if you checked the news the UK is upset about the U.S. using a refuel stop in the UK while tran
57 MalpensaSFO : Yet again Continental will further screw its chances if additional China frequencies. In the end Continental will be the one out in the cold when the
58 MasseyBrown : I read your post; I just don't agree with it. CRAF is a voluntary program. Airlines are not required to participate. A foreign-owned airline could si
59 WorldTraveler : In a nutshell, no. Air service rights for US airlines belong to the US government who awards them to carriers. They can be sold between airlines but
60 DLPMMM : You are ALMOST completely correct in this statement. The one point that you are missing is that BAE (or any other foreign owner of a defense company
61 Positiverate : Don't agree with the fact that security was not the driving factor in the vote?
62 MasseyBrown : Don't agree with the your view (reply 49) that the NPRM is so airtight as to remove the security issue from consideration.
63 Dallasnewark : Extremely unlikely. AA puts more planes in UK than Continental does
64 VV701 : This is just a left wing member of the UK government (who is admittedly the UK's Foreign Secretary) pandering to her supporters. You can be sure that
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...
US-EU Open Skies Delayed Again posted Wed Aug 16 2006 06:56:27 by MasseyBrown
New US-EU Open Skies Treaty Possible? posted Sun Dec 4 2005 20:32:56 by Targowski
US-EU Open Skies News! posted Fri Nov 18 2005 22:46:33 by Panaman
US-EU Open Skies - What's New? posted Thu Sep 22 2005 22:46:08 by Elagabal
US Offers EU Open-Skies Concessions posted Thu Jan 23 2003 19:01:28 by N79969
Open Skies In Central America? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 09:56:30 by Chiguire
Open Skies, North America posted Wed Aug 30 2006 00:00:39 by YYCowboy
EU-US Open Skies Delayed Again posted Tue May 16 2006 23:28:59 by Concorde001
EU/US Open Skies: Why Is CO Against It? posted Wed May 3 2006 07:19:06 by Scotron11
EU/US Open Skies Speech In New York By BA Chairman posted Thu Jan 19 2006 21:03:09 by Concorde001