Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Australia Seeks "Open Skies" Agreement With US  
User currently offlineBiddleonia007 From Australia, joined May 2006, 14 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3989 times:

Interesting article/link attached.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/busine...kies/2006/08/09/1154802961838.html

Geoff Dixon from Qantas is making noises re UA etc. Think he needs a reality check on this one. After all, is not Qanats forever threatening to relocate maintenace/operations etc away from Australia in exchange for regulatory protection ie SQ flying Australia to US. Cant have it both ways mate. Would be good to have other options apart from Qantas, AirNZ and UA on the busy MEL/SYD - LA/SFO routes.

[Edited 2006-08-10 08:23:27]


Biddleonia007
8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCOSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1602 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3972 times:

I Belive US Govt Policy is Open Skies with anyone, but its usally the otherside holding back...

User currently offline6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3314 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3854 times:

Quoting COSPN (Reply 1):
I Belive US Govt Policy is Open Skies with anyone, but its usally the otherside holding back...

Yes, the title of this thread is a little misleading.
it's actually the americans, led by UA, asking Australia for an open skies agreement.

in this case the australians are backing away from it?

why?
because singapore also has an open skies with the USA, and if Australia-USA becomes open skies, then the reasoning behind blocking SQ from entering the market is diminished.

Quoting Biddleonia007 (Thread starter):
Think he needs a reality check on this one. After all, is not Qanats forever threatening to relocate maintenace/operations etc away from Australia in exchange for regulatory protection ie SQ flying Australia to US. Cant have it both ways mate. Would be good to have other options apart from Qantas, AirNZ and UA on the busy MEL/SYD - LA/SFO routes.

couldn't agree more. I wonder how qantas will sell this one to canberra.


User currently offlineHKGKaiTak From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1050 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3841 times:

I wonder if an "Open Skies" with the US really will achieve a lot of benefit to the US-based airlines (or, looking further, US-based aircraft manufacturers). If it does I'm sure it would have been signed already, with all those free trade agreements that were signed away not too long ago. Maybe the Americans just didn't see the point in pushing this one and let the Howard Government have its way?

Would an Open Skies benefit airlines like DJ, SQ more rather than UA or any other American carrier? Would it actually be detrimental to American carriers?



4 Engines 4 LongHaul
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12322 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3719 times:

Singapore has given Qantas fifth freedom rights to Europe for years; perhaps it should show Qantas what life would be like without these rights ...

Quid quo pro. Take a little, give a little. Frankly, Singapore's patience is quite admirable, but that said, Qantas needs to fly through SIN (or other points) to get to Europe, whereas there's no real logic to SQ flying to the US from Australia. Maybe SQ should just buy a stake in DJ and let them do the job.


User currently offline6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3314 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

Quoting HKGKaiTak (Reply 3):
I wonder if an "Open Skies" with the US really will achieve a lot of benefit to the US-based airlines (or, looking further, US-based aircraft manufacturers). If it does I'm sure it would have been signed already, with all those free trade agreements that were signed away not too long ago. Maybe the Americans just didn't see the point in pushing this one and let the Howard Government have its way?

US carriers have a major presense in North America, especially Japan.

Years ago, up to the mid 1990s I believe, NW operated from USA to Australia via Japan, but the Australian Govt imposed a 50% uplift of Japan traffic to Australia.
Under an open skies, this would totally be lifted, and US carriers could operate from Australia to Japan with full rights.
QF currently enjoys a VERY cosy relationship with JAL between Australia and Japan..

Food for thought.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3621 times:

I would love to see QF flying their long proposed SYD-DFW in brand new B-747-8Is.

User currently offlineAntskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 910 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3593 times:

Quote:
Singapore yesterday claimed Australian aviation policy was in "complete confusion" after a policy review earlier this year that prevented it launching flights across the Pacific. "What sort of policy approach is it that sees a minister say he will reconsider SQ on the route if the Americans don't grant approvals to Jetstar?" Singapore spokesman Stephen Forshaw said. "Do we now argue to the Americans to keep JQ off the route until there's an open skies agreement, so that we get the opportunity? "This is another case of the Australian Government seeking to pick winners, and it's not the way to run aviation policy." Singapore yesterday claimed Australian aviation policy was in "complete confusion" after a policy review earlier this year that prevented it launching flights across the Pacific. "What sort of policy approach is it that sees a minister say he will reconsider SQ on the route if the Americans don't grant approvals to JQ?" SQ spokesman Stephen Forshaw said. "Do we now argue to the Americans to keep JQ off the route until there's an open skies agreement, so that we get the opportunity? "This is another case of the Australian Government seeking to pick winners, and it's not the way to run aviation policy."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...ory/0,20867,20085300-23349,00.html


User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8434 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3503 times:

The whole argument by Qantas that it's in the interests of Australia to not allow extra capacity to US carriers and bar SQ from flying AUS-US while Qantas itself has threated to move maintenace off shore, at the expense of Australian jobs. Qantas will use the national interests argument when it suits them and without fail, every time, the government will fall for it.

Qantas cries foul about other airlines which are government backed. Qantas are using government policy to be protected from competition. Kind of hypocritical. Qantas management needs to wake up and smell the cheese.


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...
Australia/Singapore "Open Skies Unlikely" posted Mon Sep 22 2003 07:54:46 by Bd1959
"Come Fly With Us!" posted Mon Aug 18 2003 17:15:28 by TodaReisinger
Singapore / Australia "open Skies" - I Hope Not posted Wed Feb 26 2003 01:27:11 by Qantaspower
Open Skies Between Europe And US...at Last! posted Mon Nov 21 2005 17:20:50 by SQ773
AFA Reaches Tentative Agreement With US Airways posted Thu Dec 16 2004 21:21:50 by KITH
US Seeks Open Skies Deal With Canada posted Sun Jan 25 2004 21:47:36 by CanadaEH
Open Skies Agreement With The US posted Sat Aug 16 2003 01:30:54 by AMS
India Signs Open Skies Agreement With New Zealand posted Tue May 2 2006 01:11:48 by Zkpilot
US UK Open Skies Agreement posted Sat Sep 17 2005 09:45:42 by Coa747
BA Hopeful Of EU/US "Open Skies" Breakthrough posted Wed Apr 27 2005 08:05:06 by Scotron11