Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU-US Open Skies Talks Resume Today  
User currently onlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3591 posts, RR: 10
Posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4302 times:

The talks are set to resume today.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=8028

According to the article, if no preliminary agreement is reached in this round, it is unlikely for any agreement to happen before 2009.

I don't think any agreement can be reached, as the EU is demanding 49% foreign ownership of USA airlines. The US DOT cannot give on this issue since the US Congress will not agree to this concession that must be enacted by legislation.

Not a big deal, except for Irish interests.

101 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12435 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4291 times:

Here's an extract from today's ATW, which basically suggests things not looking too good. Some gentleman calling on the sides to give ground, but I don't see it happening.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=8028

Here's an edited response to a question in the Irish parliament, which sets out the Irish position: basically, if there's no deal by the end of this week (which now looks likely), we'll go it alone and stuff the Commission. The response is from the minister himself.


"I am following the negotiations between the EU and US closely and
my Department is in ongoing contact with the Office of the Attorney General
on the legal options. As I indicated previously, in the absence of
progress at EU level, I intend to seek to implement, in accordance with
Community law, measures to provide for liberalisation of transatlantic
services between Ireland and the US by way of an amendment to the
Ireland-US bilateral Air Services Agreement.


User currently onlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3591 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4275 times:

I think that would be a wise move by the Irish government.

I am not an expert on EU constitutional law, but I don't think the EU commission (or what ever it is) would press Ireland on the legalities of this since Ireland is presently at an economic dis-advantage to other EU countries WRT aviation to the USA.


User currently offlineIADLHR From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4273 times:

There are some people, mainly from the UK, who think the USA would not enter into an agreement with Ireland if the negotiations collapse. They feel that the USA would not want to upset the EU.

My feeling is that they absolutely, positively would agree to enter into an agreement with Ireland. It would, after help US carriers. Also it would put more pressure on the UK . By that time the UK might have to wait about 3 years for negotiations
to start up again. By that time the other alliances and airports have passed BA and LHR so that catching up might be next to impossible. In addition who knows what the political landscape might be in either the US or EU? The time is now.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12435 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4252 times:

The EU may tick Ireland off and may even take action to prevent a deal between the US and Ireland, but at the end of the day, the EU must see that if it took the action it has taken on competition grounds, that must apply to everyone. Ireland does not want to upset the EU; all it wants is to be treated fairly, but the EU has consistently shown that it is not willing to do so. So, we have to do things ourselves. And the EU should take note that its behaviour towards Ireland won't be soon forgotten. For one thing, we will seek to do an updated bilateral deal with Canada, to pre-empt the EU move on Open Skies with Canada; we don't want to be found in this position again.

Hopefully, some workable deal can still emerge at the end of this week; frankly, I was quite optimistic about the last round, because the fact that they reconvened after such a short delay and there were no acrimonious press releases blaming each other, suggested that they had found a way forward.

The EU needs to understand that the DOT's hands are tied; no matter how effectively it (the EU) may be able to persuade the DOT of the perceived rightness of its stance, it means nothing if Congress won't move and I just don't see them doing so. So, in effect, the "realpolitik" is that either they take a deal which is less than they want or the deal falls through and the EU goes home with nothing ...


User currently offlineDetroitflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4241 times:

Why exactly is Ireland and the EU demanding 49% foreign ownership of USA airlines?? What do they gain out of it ??
Plus which airlines are currently fit that ownership description anyway?



Boiler Up!!!
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12435 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

We (the Irish) have absolutely no interest in 49% - or any interest - in US carriers; it's an EU demand, collectively; all we want is fair and increased (from a very low base) access to US markets. The larger EU countries (led by the UK) want the right to what they perceive to be a quid quo pro for increased US access to Europe, particularly LHR.

However, there is a new idea on the table: franchising. It'll be interesting to see how this will play ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...o-make-franchise-offer-to-usa.html


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1274 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4201 times:

Quoting Detroitflyer (Reply 6):
Why exactly is Ireland and the EU demanding 49% foreign ownership of USA airlines?? What do they gain out of it ??
Plus which airlines are currently fit that ownership description anyway?

Well, a 49% stockholder would easily be able to place several members on any board it wished, and thus have great influence over the company's strategy. Furthermore, through the cooperation of a fairly small number of friendly investors, a 49% rule would allow a European carrier to effectively gain control of an American one; this would give European airlines the access to the large US domestic market without having to negotiate for 5th, 6th freedom rights, etc.

At the extreme end of the spectrum it would allow European airlines to quasi-merge with their US counterparts; this obviously would be most noticeable in the case of VS and Virgin America (if it ever does actually fly), but might extend as far as even more extensive UA/LH cooperation, for example.


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4142 times:

Quoting IADCA (Reply 8):

At the extreme end of the spectrum it would allow European airlines to quasi-merge with their US counterparts;

Actually, the extreme end would be significantly more than that. A carrier such as LH could acquire 49% of a small US carrier, then lease that carrier aircraft, provide loans, etc., and essentially build their own US-based airline as long as they have 2% ownership which is US-based and sympathetic to their cause.

So for practical purposes, 49% ownership can be used to create a European-controlled airline in the United States. Admittedly, not all the money can be funneled out of the US, but such an airline could easily displace US jobs, which would be highly unpopular.

Steve


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1274 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4128 times:

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 9):
So for practical purposes, 49% ownership can be used to create a European-controlled airline in the United States. Admittedly, not all the money can be funneled out of the US, but such an airline could easily displace US jobs, which would be highly unpopular.

Well, that's what I was getting at in the first paragraph. However, I'm new here, so I didn't really want to post it and get absolutely flamed by some people.

The other factors to consider are first, that US regulators would likely be looking extra-closely at who those 2% of investors were to determine who really controlled them (again, as they've done with a much larger amount of Virgin America); so it would have to be squeaky-squeaky clean in terms of ethics, etc, which is kinda antithetical to a scheme in which an airline buys another and then leases its planes back to it. Second, if that 49% rule did come to pass, you'd likely see some poison pills enacted that would put YX's to shame.

This is all pretty much academic discussion, however, as I doubt these negotiations will go anywhere.


User currently offlineMagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4093 times:

I loved the following quote in the article:

>
"The US cannot surrender its role of leadership in the international aviation community," attorney Allan Mendelsohn, former assistant secretary for transportation affairs at the US State Dept., said last week in Washington at ATW's Winning Airline Strategies conference.
<

It speaks volumes about the idea US officials have about "level playground"!


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9196 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4053 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 7):
However, there is a new idea on the table: franchising. It'll be interesting to see how this will play ...

That idea does look rather intriguing. I don't get the last statement though... "if this proposal looks vaguely attractive to the EU, the US won't allow it..." er something of the sort. So the US apparently keeps backing out of this proposal or keeps shooting it down?

I admit I know little if anything about this whole thing. I really want to know about this. In an active PIT thread, someone posted that if PIT is to see any kind of chance at getting transatlantic service back, the US-EU open skies agreement would have to go through... I know this is not just restricted to PIT and that pretty much every market is involved with this, particularly those that do not have AA, UA, or BA or VA service to LHR from an American market...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4043 times:

Quoting Magyar (Reply 11):
It speaks volumes about the idea US officials have about "level playground"!

What in the world are you talking about? This guy was advocating acquiescing to the EU's demands.

On second thought, maybe you are right but only in that he is advocating something that might leave US airlines disadvantaged.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineMagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3994 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Quoting Magyar (Reply 11):
It speaks volumes about the idea US officials have about "level playground"!

What in the world are you talking about? This guy was advocating acquiescing to the EU's demands.

What am I talking about? Well, first it would have been great if you had quoted the sentence I was
refering to, which is

Quoting Magyar (Reply 11):
"The US cannot surrender its role of leadership in the international aviation community," attorney Allan Mendelsohn,

Excuse me, but according my limited understanding of English language "role of leadership" means
something of being "in charge" or being "the prominent player" OF the "international aviation community"
which I believe is NOT the same as the "US aviation community". If you believe that my understanding
of the above sentence was wrong please enlighten me, otherwise I hope I answered your question.
Also, please remember that the above sentence by Mr. Mendelsohn was in the article linked
by the starter of this topic and was not my creation!!


User currently onlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3591 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3985 times:

This just reaffirms my opnion that these talks are going nowhere. A bunch of blathering idiot lawyers and bureaucrats on both sides.

The EU negotiators are insistant that EU companies be able to gain effective control over USA airlines. DOT cannot legally submit to these requests. These continued suggestions for DOT to change the "rules" and "definitions" will never make it past congressional review.

"Franchising" is just another "definitions" ploy doomed to failure.


User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5420 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3932 times:

Quoting Magyar (Reply 11):
I loved the following quote in the article:

>
"The US cannot surrender its role of leadership in the international aviation community," attorney Allan Mendelsohn, former assistant secretary for transportation affairs at the US State Dept.,

Mendelsohn is an old Washington hanger-on trying to relive his months of being almost a somebody. He was appointed to the State Dept position in the dying days of the Clinton administration and I don't believe he served a complete year. About 70 years old, he is "of counsel" at a Washington law firm, meaning he never made partner, and an adjunct professor of law, meaning he teaches one specialty and never got tenure.

He is not remotely a spokesman for the US government - just the handy source of a quote that suited the article.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Thread starter):
as the EU is demanding 49% foreign ownership of USA airlines



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 15):
The EU negotiators are insistant that EU companies be able to gain effective control over USA airlines

Would you substantiate these claims please? While the EC would be happy with NO ownership and control rules they are prepared to accept something a lot less. The DOT NPRM, for example, would likely have been enough although it would have been only symbolic and would have had little, if any, practical effect. The EC has never 'demanded' 49% ownership or 'effective control' over US airlines.

Suffice it to say that todays rules are not balanced. Foreign interests (airlines or others) can own up to 49% of an EU airline's voting shares, while only 25% of a US airline's voting shares.I've seen suggestions that US interests own up to 40% of BA. There are no nationality restrictions of EU airlines CEO or member of the Board - For US airlines the CEO must be a US citizen and a large percentage of the Board must be US citizens. Non-US citizen employees of US airlines are prohibited from involvement in fleet planning, route planning, safety and security. None of these restrictions apply in Europe.

But how about a compromise. US negotiators agree to take proposal to US Congress that % limitation be relaxed by 5% a year for five years (to 50% + 1 share) for EU citizens (and others if they want, but that's their business). Also begin phase out of silly citizen rules. Open skies comes into effect the day the law is signed by the President. At any time US government able to revoke the agreement - and EU-US agreement would revert to status-quo ante. Takes the EU five years to get to where they want, but gives both sides open skies (end of Bermuda II) as quickly as the Congress takes to act. Gives US side an escape valve - if they see that the skies are falling, they can cancel the deal.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

I thought it might be an idea to detail what the EC is looking for and why. This is from a Speech by Jacques Barrot, Commissioner for Transport at the International Aviation Club 5 February 2007. The entire speech is here: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/07/65

Quote:
The negotiators from the two sides had finalised the text of a historic, comprehensive first-stage agreement. And I say "historic" because this agreement is not a traditional "open skies" agreement - it is much more. Let me give you six key advances …
1. It would replace all of the existing bilateral agreements with one, single EU-US agreement, and would extend open skies to all 27 Member States of the EU - for the first time, there would be free competition on every single transatlantic route.
2. It would enable, for the first time, new co-operation arrangements between competition authorities, to ensure compatible approaches for this global industry.
3. It would establish, for the first time, strong co-operation and consultation between the EU and the US in aviation security. I cannot stress enough that this is an area where good co-operation is essential to governments and passengers. This agreement would allow it.
4. The agreement would also, for the first time, give structure to our co-operation in other essential fields, including air safety and environment.
5. And it would create, for the first time, a Joint Committee that would enable both Parties to raise and resolve any issues that may arise in relation to the application of the agreement.
6. Finally, and very importantly, this agreement would remove the legal uncertainty surrounding the existing bilateral agreements - so that airlines - and alliances - could have a long term future on a legally secure basis.
In economic terms, the agreement would be a step change:
The latest estimates are that an agreement would generate more than 25 million additional passengers over the next 5 years. It would produce up to 15 billion Euros - 18 billion dollars - in benefits for consumers. It would create 80,000 new jobs in the EU and US combined.
For this reason - we should not be calling this an "open skies" agreement - this is at least "open skies PLUS".
BUT! WE ARE NOT THERE YET. We need to push forward towards what we might call a "superskies" agreement.
Already in November 2005, Europe made clear that it would be essential to consider the reform of American policy on the control of airlines that had been announced by the D.O.T. The US Administration told us that it was fully committed to changing its policy.
So in Europe we waited…..and waited.….and waited….!
The Ministers of Transport from all 25 Member States of the EU met no less than five times between December 2005 and December 2006.
And on each occasion the Ministers repeated that a change in US policy towards control was an essential element for moving forward with the agreement.
Imagine, then, our disappointment when the D.O.T. decided to withdraw its proposal in December. This leaves us with an agreement that does not provide the level playing field that we seek.
And why is it not a level playing field?

The answer is because Europe is ready to open its market to US airlines. We are happy to allow US airlines to operate within the EU's internal market - But only if there are equivalent opportunities in the American market for European airlines. To put it very simply, this is what we are missing at the moment!


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12435 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

Even if "franchising" is acceptable, I'm just trying to understand how it could be attractive to any EU carrier; i.e. they set up a US operation, totally owned and managed by Americans; do they just get paid for using their name. What would be in it for anyone operating the franchise for a US carrier? Presumably, it would have to offer the same level of service as the European carrier does on short haul routes and would just open the new carrier up to attack from WN, F9, NK etc etc, even the legacy carriers. All that effort, when they could just codeshare.

I think that's academic only, because I don't see the US having any interest in it.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

Kaitak,
It isn't a question of how much of a US airline that an EU airline is allowed to own - It's the prohibition of any investment beyond 25% voting shares by any EU citizen. Level playing field - that's what the EC is looking for. No US airline, to my knowledge, has a financial interest in a EU carrier - but US investors do, up to 40% in the case of BA. So why shouldn't EU investors have the same rights?


User currently onlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3591 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3920 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 20):
Kaitak,
It isn't a question of how much of a US airline that an EU airline is allowed to own - It's the prohibition of any investment beyond 25% voting shares by any EU citizen. Level playing field - that's what the EC is looking for. No US airline, to my knowledge, has a financial interest in a EU carrier - but US investors do, up to 40% in the case of BA. So why shouldn't EU investors have the same rights?

The EU made their restriction of 49% foreign ownership on a unilateral basis. If the EU wants a "level playing field", why don't they decrease their allowed foreign ownership percentage to match the USA's.

It is all blather about nothing because the ownership restrriction of 25% will not be raised by congress in the forseeable future, and any future side-steps attempts of the laws via "revised rulemaking" will be DOA.

As far as rights go, the EU has the right to determine their own laws, as does the USA. Your strawman of "EU investor rights" just doesn't fly.


User currently offlineIADLHR From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3904 times:

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 16):
Mendelsohn is an old Washington hanger-on trying to relive his months of being almost a somebody. He was appointed to the State Dept position in the dying days of the Clinton administration and I don't believe he served a complete year. About 70 years old, he is "of counsel" at a Washington law firm, meaning he never made partner, and an adjunct professor of law, meaning he teaches one specialty and never got tenure.

He is not remotely a spokesman for the US government - just the handy source of a quote that suited the article.

I have a neighbor who is an aviation lawyer. He thinks that possibly Mendelshon is also making his presence known and will continue to do so in hopes of a possible job in a democratic administration elected in 2008.

On the subject of franchising, didnt BA try that and fail miserably? i cant rememreb if they did that or not. if so what would be different this time around regarding the success of it.?

All in all it might be just a play to stall the eventual openskies.


User currently offlineUAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3880 times:

Does anyone have access to total RPM's US vs EU carriers? Total A/C US vs EU carriers? What other numbers would be useful in comparing US vs EU markets?

UAL747-600


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3870 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 21):
The EU made their restriction of 49% foreign ownership on a unilateral basis. If the EU wants a "level playing field", why don't they decrease their allowed foreign ownership percentage to match the USA's.

That is likely one possible result. But isn't it better to work toward consensus than to go to war?

How about my proposed compromise? Your administration could take it to congress. If fast tracked it could be law in six months. And then we could lose all of the Bermuda II threads on a.net.

Or if you don't think (or want) that to work - what do you suggest?


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7475 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

Quoting Detroitflyer (Reply 6):
Plus which airlines are currently fit that ownership description anyway?

A significant number of the non-American world's leading airlines fit this ownership description. Consider the UK. We have three airlines operating out of LHR. BA declare the level of foreign (mainly US) ownership in their annual report. In the 2006 report ny best recollection is that it was 44 per cent. This is mainly ownership by US private and institutional investors. So if

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 21):
The EU made their restriction of 49% foreign ownership on a unilateral basis. If the EU wants a "level playing field", why don't they decrease their allowed foreign ownership percentage to match the USA's.

Then the UK government would need to order US citizens and institutions to sell their BA shares which would not be acceptable to the USA. (Historically when BA was privatised a limit on foreign ownership of 40 per cent was part of their articles of association. However foreign - mainly US - investment in BA soon exceeded 40 per cent. Faced with the need to either dilute all stockholders holdings (by the issue of new shares) or the need to order all non-Brtitish investors to sell a proportion of their holding - difficult to enforce the British government took the logical step of changing the articles and eliminating the clause.

Turning back to the other two British airlines operating out LHR, VS is 49 per cent owned by SV. BD is 50 per cent less one share owned by LH (30 per cent) and SK (20 per cent).

The 49 per cent 'rule' is currently necessary so that airlines can operate under bilateral agreements negotiated by their governments.

Outside of LHR the situation other than North America is similar. For example LH has (according to their annual report) a foreign ownership level - again predominantly US - even higher than that of BA.


25 Post contains images ANother : (PS Singapore Airlines code is SQ. Saudia's is SV)
26 DLPMMM : Your "proposed compromise" will not work because the US congress has already made it clear that they will not change the law and increase the foreign
27 Post contains images MasseyBrown : Wouldn't Virgin America, as constituted, be a franchise operation? (Assuming it is 75% US owned.... ) The Virgin Group stands to make some nice fees
28 IADLHR : Thats what I thought too. I am not educated on all the nuances of the legislative process. However, is it possible to put the issue of an increase in
29 MasseyBrown : I was maybe a little hard on old, I say O-L-D, Mr. Mendelsohn. He would have to be owed quite a bit to get an AsstSec spot in a 2009 administration.
30 DLPMMM : Not a chance on this issue. There is just no strong constituancy for passage of this type of legislation, and a strong opposition (an even stronger o
31 Post contains images Lumberton : It plays well in the press back home, though. Unfair, obstructionist, non-environmentally-conscious-enough Americans always resonates well in an op-e
32 Kaitak : I was on another forum (PPRUNE, I think), where one of the posters said he had a friend on the inside who suggested that things aren't as pessimistic
33 Lumberton : I don't know much about the workings of the EU, Kaitak, but as DLPMMM noted earlier, I'd rate the new Congress approving any increase in foreign owne
34 ANother : Summer 2007 schedules are set. Next Schedules Conference, for winter 07/08 begins 1 June. The new argreement COULD come into effect the last weekend
35 ANother : So why would Congress find it difficult to change the law? From what I understand Congress hasn't actually been asked to change the law. What has hap
36 Lumberton : What is so difficult in having to explain during an election that you voted to "surrender" control of a vital and strategic asset --an airline for ex
37 DLPMMM : Not quite, congress said "If you pass that revised interpretation of "control" administratively, we will pass our own new law which will not need to
38 ANother : Actually nobody is proposing to increase the limitations, just the opposite. Can you substantiate your claim? I certainly see your point of view, but
39 Detroitflyer : welll if the negiotations fall through (which it looks like it probably will), cant the EU change its rule to match the U.S's ?? If US citizens are fo
40 DLPMMM : It is not my view, I could care less about the foreign ownership levels. I am just stating the political facts, as evidenced by the Bush administrati
41 VV701 : Please do not put words into my mouth. This is certainly not what I was saying. What I actually said was that an arbitrary limit was raised because U
42 Donder10 : What is the situation with rights for cargo operators?Both FX and UPS have large operations in Europe.Do cargo operators need 5th freedom rights like
43 Kaitak : I think, DLPMMM, this is likely to be the way it'll go. The Americans aren't going to give way; Representatives, who are only in office for 2 years, a
44 VV701 : Your presumption that BA does not want Open Skies is mistaken. Currently their situation in many ways is very similar to that of that pertaining to I
45 Post contains links Macilree : Mendelsohn was the lead US negotiator at the negotiation of the Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation or M
46 DLPMMM : So he was the idiot that opened this can of worms! Since the Democrats in Congress tend to be much more protectionist and union influenced than the R
47 Atmx2000 : His view of leadership appears to be being at the forefront of aviation liberalization. That's why he said this: He suggested that the US should ease
48 Scotron11 : He suggested that the US should ease its foreign ownership restrictions, a move that would increase the likelihood of reaching a deal with the EU. He
49 Post contains images VV701 : They use locally based and operated franchise partners like Air Contractors and Swiftair:
50 Steeler83 : Amen to that! Bermuda 2 I kinda understand... It only allows two US airlines (AA and UA) to fly into LHR and two British airlines (BA and VA) to fly
51 Sllevin : The Bermuda agreements were really established as protection of the UK airlines -- the British givernment was afraid that the American airlines would
52 VV701 : Bermuda 2 is complex but restricts US airlines to serving the cities of Anchorage, Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas
53 Post contains links Atmx2000 : I would suggest US airlines were harmed by the strong dollar in the late 90s to early 00s. It made them uncompetitive on international markets, and p
54 Gemuser : Flat wrong. Bermuda 2 was (partly) a reponse to PA taking over National. Under B1(& the US governments designations there under) PA was the biggest a
55 Atmx2000 : Of course the idea of making US carriers fly to LGW came about to protect BCal, who was starting a hub in LGW and given rights to fly to Houston, Atl
56 Kaitak : Anyone got any info on developments so far? Are they throwing cream pies at each other or tripping each other up in corridors yet?
57 IADLHR : Hopefully no news is good news.
58 DLPMMM : To the contrary, I would expect that they are passing the time by eating some very nice 3 hour lunches on their respective governments and reading a
59 VV701 : On north Atlantic flights between the UK and USA and vice-versa the composition of the passenger load on British operated aircraft is primarilly Euro
60 ANother : I'm actually very disappointed at the direction this thread has taken. Rather that debate what is best for the airline industry i.e. that thing that w
61 Kaitak : This would be the ideal position, subject to some caveats. Furthermore, I would suggest that the US DOT would like to move to that position, but was p
62 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...you're forgetting another. Those were effects, not causes. The agreement stipulated any USA city which did not have scheduled service prior to 197
63 DLPMMM : I am not in favor of such a proposal. The last thing I would want is a corrupt supranational body such as the UN in charge of airline safety. Planes
64 Sllevin : The problem is that much more than ownership and control is involved. Again, take Heathrow. The current status quo is that NW, CO, DL, and US (to sta
65 Kaitak : Still no word from Brussels, but I was just wondering about the procedure after talks have ended. If they succeed (no, please, don't laugh), it's rela
66 ANother : Kaitak, The most likely scenario is as follows should the EC decide that an EU-US open skies agreement isn't possible. 1. The EC will direct those (no
67 DLPMMM : Why do you think the USA would remove the ATI for the alliances? Seems like a non-related issue to me, and I doubt that the USA would want to "roil t
68 Post contains links VV701 : If you would like to go to: http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist-graph.htm you will see a graph of the US$ v £ exchange rate from 1945 onwards. Yo
69 ANother : Just a guess, but Tigers (and then FedEx when they bought Tigers), I believe had rights. I believe they sold their slots as it was too expensive for
70 DLPMMM : You are right in that the relative strength/weakness of the dollar has little to do with the woes of the USA's legacy airline industry, but it also h
71 Post contains links ANother : The US is on record open skies is a condition for ATI. No open skies, no ATI. See Jeff Shane's speach here
72 Kaitak : Thanks very much ANOther; very informative. Hopefully common sense will prevail. What am I saying? When has that ever happened in Open Skies talks! B
73 DLPMMM : Interesting speech. I don't know that DOT would necessarily follow through, as it seemed more of a bureaucratic threat to allow the NPRM to become ef
74 Kaitak : Sorry, it's late at night and I know I'm being Mr. Thicky, but what's ATI again? I received some correspondence from a number of Irish MEPs, which did
75 ANother : Well it's your government, so you must know better. But you might want to do a little checking first. One of the reasons why AA/BA was denied - no op
76 DLPMMM : ATI is Anti-Trust Immunity (or Indemnity) allowing the airlines in an alliance to co-ordinate prices and schedules.
77 Gemuser : OK, OK bad memory! Wait untill you get to be my age, me lad! It was US deregulation in 1974 (right?) which allowed PA at least the potential to estab
78 Post contains images Atmx2000 : As I said in my earlier response, deregulation started in 1979, a year after B2 was signed and 3 years after the UK announced they were going to reno
79 DLPMMM : I think the AA/BA denial of ATI was more the result of LHR access than open skies per se, although it could be assumed that an open skies agreement r
80 Kaitak : Good news! Commissioner Barrot is quoted by several news agencies as saying that significant progress has been made on O/S talks, so that he can put a
81 DLPMMM : That is good news. I will be very interested to hear about how they are planning to address the ownership issue. If the EU backed off on their demand
82 VV701 : They were not allowed to carry passengers. Airlines in Europe also had defined benefit pension plans when life expectancy also rose. But they had to
83 Post contains links DLPMMM : Where the pension underfunding at UA was USD$10.2 Billion, and the pension underfunding at DL was USD$10.6 Billion. Here is a link from 2006 to back
84 DLPMMM : From the reports, It looks like the agreement has no provision for changing the USA's ownership/control laws, but the EU has the right to restrict USA
85 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...if by "secret", you mean something that a 30second search would turn up, then: NA was the third USA airline opping to LHR; and as they'd done so p
86 Kaitak : Great news and very welcome. However, I just had a few questions: 1. What is the timescale for Congressional approval? 2. What if Congress rejects it?
87 Post contains links Kaitak : Here's an updated report from Reuters, which answers some of my questions (although not the timescale of US Congressional approval). - The deal will c
88 IADLHR : I cant really speak for the other things but will try and speak about the US Congress.I think I can cautiosuly say that if somehow, someway concerns
89 ANother : If there is no change to US law - congressional approval of these type of agreements is not required. Status quo, and then follow the path I outline
90 IADLHR : So does that mean the airlines have to wait until Oct. 28, assuming there are no other problems, for the non icumbent airlines to apply for slots at
91 MasseyBrown : ANother is right. This is an executive agreement, not a treaty. Congress only ratifies treaties.
92 ANother : I would imagine that they could apply for slots after 28 October. The Winter Schedules Conference is in early June. Depends on what's in the agreemen
93 MasseyBrown : Hmmm ... an update to the AP article says that Congressional approval IS required. There must be some issues that affect sovereignty.
94 DLPMMM : I'm not sure. ANother might be correct on this. An internet search proved to be inconclusive. There is definately no need for approval from the House
95 Post contains links IADLHR : http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2323467.ece Here we go yet again.
96 DLPMMM : No suprise there. I don't think anyone expected BA or VS to like any opening up of LHR. I don't lend much weight to the "sources" cited in the articl
97 MasseyBrown : There does seem to be confusion. The Wash Post article is totally different from other reports on the subject of ownership percentages; but neither t
98 Kaitak : So, Britain can actually veto this, because it is not covered under the majority voting system? What happens, then, if 26 countries want it and one do
99 IADLHR : iI think it is probably safe to say that the US renouncing Bermuda 2 has been given serious consideration in times past. I think it would be given ev
100 Kaitak : I wonder how much the close relationship between TB and GB will come into play here. I'm thinking of a few scenarios here, which basically revolve aro
101 IADLHR : A number of people have and still do wonder the same thing. The consensus was that that kind of political arm twisting would only be used as a last r
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 Talks posted Fri Apr 2 2004 16:50:55 by FlyPIJets
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
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
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
EU And US To Begin Open Skies Talks posted Sun Sep 28 2003 22:52:51 by Kl911
EU To Negotiate Single US Open Skies Deal posted Thu Jun 12 2003 18:00:42 by United01