Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BMI Start Petition Re: Open Skies  
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27316 posts, RR: 60
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

BMI want you to click this link below if you want the UK government to agree to the open sky treaty.

http://www.flybmi.com/bmi/en-gb/abou...e/industryissues.aspx?&LinkID=3334

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4927 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2190 times:

According to todays Sunday Times, bmi will sue if it isn't approved


Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12595 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

I wouldn't blame him; the UK economy stands to gain considerably if LHR is opened up. If Douglas Alexander were to use his veto, the likelihood is that the EU would probably demand that the UK revokes Bermuda 2, unless the US does it first.

It's ridiculous that BA should have such power over the British govt and frankly, if the UK govt takes a very narrow view and agrees to the veto, there will be very little gain from the UK. I hope bmi gets the chance to operate US routes, although they'll probably have to dump some domestic routes to do so - probably a few Manchester flights?

It really is anti-competitive to maintain the situation as it is.


User currently offlineIloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 803 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 2):

It really is anti-competitive to maintain the situation as it is.

Agreed. Heathrow (and the rest of Europe, for that matter) needs to be totally opened up, as does the USA. Free market competition will be beneficial for both the airlines and passengers.


User currently offlineEGNR From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2040 times:

"do you want the choice to fly with bmi from Heathrow to the USA on a great fare?"

As a Diamond Club member, I'd prefer the choice to fly from my local airport to the USA (Manchester) on bmi for a great fare. If bmi get approval to operate from Heathrow, they will drop Manchester like a hot potato to again become the small fish in a big pond, rather than try and be the big or only fish in the pond at Manchester.

The Chicago route is doing well from Manchester for bmi, even in competition with the long-established American Airlines service... Their venture into the highly competetive Heathrow - India market did not work out as well... maybe they should have given Manchester - India a go? Be the only choice on the route rather than a bit-part player?

The Las Vegas service appears to be doing wel, for them too, although a lot of the seats on this flight are taken up by Virgin Holidays.

I'd like to see them try a few new destinations in the US from Manchester... San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston - maybe these could work? Could they even take on Delta and operate an Atlanta service in the same way they operate Chicago alongside AA? Delta's Atlanta service is currently a 763, yet has been operated by the MD-11 and 772 in the past, before those aircraft were required for further longhaul routes.

I accept Manchester isn't Heathrow, but the success of foreign longhaul carriers into Manchester proves that there is a market to be served there. The age old arguments about yields, etc. will probably come up, and yes, the business class travellers may not be as numerous from Manchester, but they are there, and if offered the choice of flying from there rather than having to connect in Heathrow all of the time, the numbers will grow.

bmi, despite its confusing strategy, gets praise for its longhaul product (on the A330 fleet), so it does have the ability to attract passengers. Plus, it is a member of the largest airline alliance so it can offer excellent connection opportunities all over the world. They appear to be over-eager to serve longhaul from Heathrow and maybe that could be their ultimate downfall in the future?



7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27316 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1963 times:

Whilst I agree with regards Manchester having a longhaul market , BMI had very bad connections into Manchester from other regional airports. BMI should have have a BHD and DUB to MAN service that connected to their longhaul product as there are alot of business travellers in Belfast and Dublin that would love to by pass LHR. Manchester would be a better option if the infrastructure had have been there. You will not get LHR passengers taking another flight to MAN just to get to the USA and thats proberbly why BMI want LHR slots.

User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4927 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

Quoting EGNR (Reply 4):
Could they even take on Delta and operate an Atlanta service in the same way they operate Chicago alongside AA? Delta's Atlanta service is currently a 763, yet has been operated by the MD-11 and 772 in the past, before those aircraft were required for further longhaul routes.

ORD works for bmi against AA because of UA's hub at ORD. bmi can ofer conections all over America plus UA codeshare on the flight. Unlike at ORD, ATL only has one 'legacy'/traditional carrier with a hub there - Delta. As O&D wouldn't support a bmi MAN-ATL service, theres no way bmi could make such a service work



Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineRivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 818 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

Whilst it seems that BMI are in favour of Open Skies for the common good, it is very clear that their main competitor, BA, stands to lose most, which will serve BMI very well... Indeed, the whole Open Skies deal is way off a level playing field, not only in the matter of the closed US domestic market, but also in respect of the competition between European hub airports. E.g., everyone would seemingly like a bite of the London-US market, thus pressuring the ability of BA (and VS) to operate out of their home bases. At the same time, there is much less scope, in terms of the market, for UK operators to (want to) fly from other European hubs to US. This means that BA and VS are very much disadvantaged by the proposed deal, and specifically, in their key market, to/from US. Agreed, the existing limit on how many airlines can operate from each point in Europe to each point in the US is a nonsense, but until a genuinely fair Open Skies deal can be achieved that correctly recognises the unique situation at LHR and Gatwick, then we should not be too hasty to wave through this shabby proposal.

In any case, surely Open Skies cannot really come into effect whilst one side of the deal has Chapter 11 protection, and the other doesn't?

And before anyone cries out "What's unique about LHR/LGW?!", well, London is (still) the financial capital of Europe, and as such has by far the highest premium yield potential for any European market to/from US. Everyone wants a piece of that, and that's fine, but we have every right to want to protect our own airline industry from suffocation. After all, that's what the US government does very well, and I don't see many Americans being too upset about that.



I travel, therefore I am.
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1846 times:

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 7):
Agreed, the existing limit on how many airlines can operate from each point in Europe to each point in the US is a nonsense, but until a genuinely fair Open Skies deal can be achieved that correctly recognises the unique situation at LHR and Gatwick, then we should not be too hasty to wave through this shabby proposal.

In any case, surely Open Skies cannot really come into effect whilst one side of the deal has Chapter 11 protection, and the other doesn't?

There is no limit on flights between many European countries and the US. Individual EU countries signed open skies agreements with the US during the 90s prior to the EU saying that was illegal. These agreements are in operation however. And obviously chapter 11 protection has little impact on all those airlines of those countries, like LH and AF, so your bogeyman is not relevent. By the way, I'm not sure anything would prevent a UK company from filing for protection under chapter 11. The management of Columbia's airline Avianca chose to file for bankruptcy in US courts under Chapter 11.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 7):
And before anyone cries out "What's unique about LHR/LGW?!", well, London is (still) the financial capital of Europe, and as such has by far the highest premium yield potential for any European market to/from US. Everyone wants a piece of that, and that's fine, but we have every right to want to protect our own airline industry from suffocation. After all, that's what the US government does very well, and I don't see many Americans being too upset about that.

On the contrary, the US has done a terrible job of protecting itself in relation to the UK. It acquiesced to the UK's demands for a more restrictive bilateral that artificially restricted the US to two airlines operating to the principle UK gateway despite the fact that the US necessarily needs more than two airlines to provide coverage of the entire country.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 7):
Whilst it seems that BMI are in favour of Open Skies for the common good, it is very clear that their main competitor, BA, stands to lose most, which will serve BMI very well... Indeed, the whole Open Skies deal is way off a level playing field, not only in the matter of the closed US domestic market, but also in respect of the competition between European hub airports. E.g., everyone would seemingly like a bite of the London-US market, thus pressuring the ability of BA (and VS) to operate out of their home bases. At the same time, there is much less scope, in terms of the market, for UK operators to (want to) fly from other European hubs to US.

This isn't an issue for the US, this is an issue for the UK and the rest of the EU to decide. The UK could always exit the EU, and negotiate separately with the US.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
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...
U.S., Canada To Start New Open Skies Talks posted Wed Oct 19 2005 00:51:36 by Searpqx
BMI Pushes For Open Skies posted Mon Oct 17 2005 09:36:03 by ZSOFN
Petition To Re-open FLL Aircraft View Park posted Tue Dec 10 2002 07:54:02 by Db777
New Tentative EU-US Open-Skies posted Fri Mar 2 2007 17:27:52 by FlyHoss
EU-US Open Skies Talks Resume Today posted Mon Feb 26 2007 19:15:46 by DLPMMM
When Is LAX Runway Scheduled To Re-open? posted Fri Feb 16 2007 00:59:47 by 727LOVER
SIN / KUL Open Skies... A Reality Soon? posted Fri Feb 9 2007 03:41:56 by Ryanair!!!
Open Skies: EU Still Not Taking "no" For An Answer posted Mon Jan 29 2007 19:29:40 by Kaitak
EU/US Open Skies Talks: 10/11 January 2007 posted Wed Jan 10 2007 19:40:53 by Kaitak
Next Steps Towards Open Skies posted Thu Jan 4 2007 07:49:48 by Kaitak