Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Confirmed: EU Gives Go Ahead To EU-US Open Skies  
User currently offlineConcorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3
Posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 8170 times:

I think this warrants its own thread as the others are concerned with rumours from the media... (the earlier one was deleted).

It has now been CONFIRMED that the EU has unanimously backed EU-US Open Skies.

"European Union (EU) transport ministers have unanimously backed an "open skies" aviation deal with the US aimed at liberalising transatlantic air travel...EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot described the deal as one of "great political and economic importance."

"The fact that everyone in the Council (of transport ministers) has been able to welcome the outcome is to be commended," he said."


Source: BBC News

I'm not sure if Britain secured its two amendments of delaying LHR access till 2008 and further negotiations on ownership.

Well congratulations are in order to the EU and US...they finally got there, Let's hope this is the first step to FULL liberalisation.

[Edited 2007-03-22 13:27:52]

121 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNonRev From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 59 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 8131 times:

Why was the last post deleted?

User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12466 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 8123 times:

Wonderful news; I'm sure we'll hear more of the details in due course. In particular, I'm concerned that any changes made as a result of UK objections don't increase the possibility of its being rejected by the UK.

From an Irish perspective, it's wonderful news. The SNN stopover is now consigned to history. It is a monumental step forward.


User currently offlineConcorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 8113 times:

Quoting NonRev (Reply 1):
Why was the last post deleted?

Apparently it was a double thread with:

Britain To Agree To Open Skies...Strings Attached

But that thread was discussing the possibility of British approval if certain conditions were met.

This thread is different as EU-US Open Skies has now been confirmed and I think therefore it warrants its own thread.


User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3232 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 8085 times:

So is there anything preventing this from being signed immediately?


Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 8029 times:

Quoting Nimish (Reply 4):

So is there anything preventing this from being signed immediately?

Only change I see is the implementation date. From Oct07 until Mar08, the way I read it. Goodo! Finally Bermuda II is laid to rest!! R . I. P.


User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 8015 times:

Wonderful news, not before time, I cannot wait to see the main players now scrambling to get slots at LHR.

User currently offlineCurious From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 8005 times:

I wonder if this will mean the all business carriers will try to move into LHR? maybe a bit expensive for Silverjet or maxjet to try and get regular slot but perhaps Eos?

I would make the price of a regular slot at LHR more expensive?


User currently offlineWheelsatc From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 8005 times:

Not really 'open skies' for everyone though. EU airlines still cannot own more than 25% of a US carrier, US carriers can takeover EU carriers and EU airlines cannot fly US domestic services whereas US airlines can now fly whatever they like within the EU.

Of course the main loser is Britain (as always) with heathrow now being opened up to all and sundry meaning the likes of LH, AF, KL will spend the next couple of years trying to ruin it until BA and VS are dead and buried.

Over the top? maybe, but i can imagine it happening!


User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 8008 times:

QUOTE FROM BBC ARTICLE FROM 1ST POST
But while US airlines would gain free access to European airports, EU carriers would not be allowed the same rights on domestic routes within the US.
UNQUOTE

What is the advantage for European airlines?


User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2501 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 7987 times:

Quoting Wheelsatc (Reply 8):
Not really 'open skies' for everyone though. EU airlines still cannot own more than 25% of a US carrier, US carriers can takeover EU carriers and EU airlines cannot fly US domestic services whereas US airlines can now fly whatever they like within the EU.

You are right!!! Bring back the restrictions to US airlines. These rules are unfair. Why is the US always given favourable terms and conditions. After 9/11, all US airlines were injected money. EU airlines had to survive on their own or die.

It is really unfair!



Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 7958 times:

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 9):

What is the advantage for European airlines?

Well, for one example, AF/KLM would be allowed to fly anywhere in the EU to anyplace in the US. In fact, AF could do away with the AF/KLM dual structure and still have traffic rights x-Netherlands-US.

BA could takeover IB and have full traffic rights x-MAD etc.

Plus, the biggest advantage will be travellers as I am sure fares will become more competitive.


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 7942 times:

Quoting Wheelsatc (Reply 8):
Of course the main loser is Britain (as always) with heathrow now being opened up to all and sundry meaning the likes

Can you please explain why greater competition on UK-US routes will make Britain worse off.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12466 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 7920 times:

Are you sure about the delay; I thought this was only supposed to apply to LHR? Aer Lingus is planning to start services to SFO, IAD and MCO from this Autumn. Why should the rest of Europe have to wait until T5 is up and running.

User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 7903 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 11):
Well, for one example, AF/KLM would be allowed to fly anywhere in the EU to anyplace in the US. In fact, AF could do away with the AF/KLM dual structure and still have traffic rights x-Netherlands-US.

OK, but AF still cannot fly CDG-JFK-ORD but United can fly ORD-CDG-LHR.
Am I missing something?


User currently offlineConcorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 7877 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 13):
Are you sure about the delay; I thought this was only supposed to apply to LHR? Aer Lingus is planning to start services to SFO, IAD and MCO from this Autumn. Why should the rest of Europe have to wait until T5 is up and running.

I'm not sure if Britain got its concessions, but if it did, the delay will only apply to LHR.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12466 posts, RR: 37
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 7850 times:

Aer Lingus has just announced SFO, IAD and MCO, to start this Winter, so it appears that the LHR concession only applies to LHR.

User currently offlineAntonovman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 720 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 7821 times:

Once again the USA has got everything it wanted but what has the EU and especially the UK got ? NOTHING . Now we will have those great dinosaurs in LHR being propped up financially by bankrupcy protection. They will be demanding they are given slots taken away from BA next. SOLD OUT ONCE AGAIN

User currently offlineJoKeR From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2238 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 7798 times:

Does the deal affect the non-EU states (Serbia, Croatia etc) which are signatories to the EU Open Skies Treaty?


Kafa, čaj, šraf?
User currently offlineARGinLON From Vatican City, joined Jun 2005, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 7762 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 11):
Well, for one example, AF/KLM would be allowed to fly anywhere in the EU to anyplace in the US. In fact, AF could do away with the AF/KLM dual structure and still have traffic rights x-Netherlands-US.

AF/KL will be the big winner on the EU side. I imagine AF taking most of the KL North America operations... In addition, this will make their LHR a golden mine due to the "insane" number of slots they owe


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9376 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 7689 times:

A real gold mine can be the BMI investment of LH + SK. They have the slots and can easily use these for US services.

LH can make a better use of he LX investment. Will be interestimng to watch the market developments over the next couple of months.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4910 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 7689 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 10):
After 9/11, all US airlines were injected money. EU airlines had to survive on their own or die.

It is really unfair!

Many EU airlines over the course of their history have been injected with all sorts of subsidies and monies as well. Yes, even the currently mighty and profitable AF and BA have at various times in their histories been propped up by taxpayer dollars; without those they wouldn't be around today either.

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 14):
but AF still cannot fly CDG-JFK-ORD but United can fly ORD-CDG-LHR.
Am I missing something?

Frankly, why would AF want to serve JFK-ORD (and compete with B6's multiple daily flights) and why would UA want to fly CDG-LHR? Many US airlines already have rights between many European cities (e.g. UA can already fly LHR-FRA or LHR-MUC -carrying local traffic today even without Open Skies) but they have learnt for the most part that it is no longer profitable to have such far-flung local operations (DL giving up PA's FRA hub, UA dropping all of its LHR spokes inherited from PA, etc.)

Quoting Antonovman (Reply 17):
Now we will have those great dinosaurs in LHR being propped up financially by bankrupcy protection.

But apparently these are such attractive dinosaurs that you guys don't mind beating the drum ever so loudly to increase foreign ownership of US airlines...apparently you would like to throw your hard-earned profits into these dinosaurs!!

[Edited 2007-03-22 14:32:37]

User currently offlineARGinLON From Vatican City, joined Jun 2005, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 7629 times:

Quoting Panamair (Reply 21):
Frankly, why would AF want to serve JFK-ORD (and compete with B6's multiple daily flights) and why would UA want to fly CDG-LHR? Many US airlines already have rights between many European cities (e.g. UA can already fly LHR-FRA or LHR-MUC -carrying local traffic today even without Open Skies) but they have learnt for the most part that it is no longer profitable to have such far-flung local operations (DL giving up PA's FRA hub, UA dropping all of its LHR spokes inherited from PA, etc.)

100% true! People here are speculating will all sorts of strategies..... AA doing ORD-LHR-CDG, VS flying from all EU countries to feed its new venture (VA) and blah, blah, blah... Open Skies was all about LHR rights and AF/KL full integration..... That's all over... nothing will change apart from the gold mine BA/AA/UA/VS currently have at LHR.


User currently offlineAntonovman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 720 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 7559 times:

Quoting Panamair (Reply 21):
But apparently these are such attractive dinosaurs that you guys don't mind beating the drum ever so loudly to increase foreign ownership of US airlines...apparently you would like to throw your hard-earned profits into these dinosaurs!!

Well that is one subject we both seem to agree on, Talk about throwing money away on a dead horse. I'll never understand why they are so determined to get that law changed.


User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 7561 times:

Quoting Panamair (Reply 21):
Frankly, why would AF want to serve JFK-ORD (and compete with B6's multiple daily flights) and why would UA want to fly CDG-LHR?

OK, it might be useless for everyone so why do US airlines have the right to cabotage and not European airlines. I am asking out of curiosity, what drove the absence of reciprocity on this item?


25 Revelation : You think you are comparing EU-US-US to US-EU-EU, but you are really comparing FR-US-US to US-FR-UK. The EU is not a sovereign nation, it's a group o
26 ManchesterMAN : Well United just got a good deal from Delta selling the London/New York route authority only to be able to operate it again come next Spring (not that
27 MasseyBrown : The delay in opening LHR until BA moves to T-5, assuming that happens on time, makes eminent sense. Transatlantic routes are generally opened in the s
28 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1174...945361.html?mod=home_whats_news_us Very few airlines took the government money because there were too many str
29 StarGoldLHR : Yes but any US carrier with it's 747 on a commute from say FRA-LHR-NYC will be eaten alive by Ryanair, Easyjet etc competition on air fares. If UA et
30 StarGoldLHR : AF Can fly FRA-JFK if they wanted, before they could not.
31 StarGoldLHR : Have you forgotten about BMI ? They can replace BA if they go out of business. But then again so can LH.
32 NYC777 : So I assume it is a done deal and wil now go into force on March 31, 2008? Does the US side have to get approvals from Congress before it goes into ef
33 Donder10 : I believe that the agreement made provisions for Open Skies occuring in that Delta would have to pay less if it came about within a certain time peri
34 Panamair : Precisely my earlier point that it's all hot air about cabotage within the US and EU...US carriers have long learnt since the Pan Am and TWA days (a
35 MasseyBrown : ALL US airlines took the government grant money, pretty hefty amounts intended to compensate for loss of business and security impositions. Few, howe
36 Vinniewinnie : I haven't seen any comments suggesting that due to this deal European integration will make a huge step forward! Airlines were up to now reluctant to
37 StarGoldLHR : I would imagine so, this is an European Aviation treaty, negotiatied by the EU, not an EU bound treaty. I would imagine this applies to Norway, Icela
38 Ikramerica : Sounds reasonable. That is not the definition of open skies anyway, and your analysis is wrong. A US airline can't fly within an EU country (LHR-MAN
39 Panamair : The service started Nov 15 2006; it has been running for 4 months. In 10 days (April 1), the second daily will start.
40 TropicBird : Doesn't the U.S. Congress have to buy into this first before it becomes a reality? Maybe that is why it was watered down, to get their blessing becaus
41 Burnsie28 : Are you serious, carriers in Europe and British carriers can fly to any US City from any city in Europe now. How is that not getting anything, the US
42 AeroWesty : Let's not leap ahead too far. The U.S. is not the only country where bilaterals govern air traffic. If the AF/KL dual structure was done away with, i
43 NYC2theworld : The UK is still its own sovereign nation. France is still its on sovereign nation. The Head of state of France and the Head of Government in each cou
44 Cainanuk : I am just worried about my job. If my employer (BD) moves all our longhaul services to LHR, and ends up abandoning MAN (ala BA) for just a bunch of LH
45 PanHAM : Interesting that we are discussing Hybrids these days. Yes and no to the above. The single member countries have delegated a lot of their sovereignty
46 Travelin man : PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE look up the definition of cabotage. You are very very confused if you think flying LHR-CDG = JFK-ORD. One is cabotage, the other
47 Cainanuk : It really is a matter of symantics. If you are an EU passport holder, lHR-CDG IS more or less the same as JFK-ORD. The entry requirements are the sam
48 Concorde001 : It is being reported that Britain has secured the right to terminate access to LHR if progress on ownership is not achieved by 2010 British Airways ha
49 Glom : Hang on! The US refused Europe eighth freedom rights. A European airline can't fly A-B-C, where both B and C are in the USA, eg LHR-JFK-LAX. But neith
50 NYC2theworld : Actually no, LHR-CDG is not more or less the same as JFK-ORD. the UK has not surrendered its own Border Control and Visa System. The UK has the right
51 Atmx2000 : The problem with intra-EU flights is that they are really short distance flights compared to US domestic transcontinentals. The EU flights wouldn't g
52 Searpqx : As has been pointed out, LHR-CDG is NOT cabotage, its 5th freedom. And EU carriers get (I believe) unlimited 5th freedom rights from the US in the ne
53 Panamair : No, not really...everyone has to go through immigration and customs when flying LHR-CDG but not when flying JFK-ORD.
54 Commavia : They might as well never even open Heathrow up then, because they're barking up the wrong tree if they thing the U.S. will allow British (or any fore
55 Travelin man : It is not semantics, and you are very wrong. In one instance you pass through passport control and customs. In the other, you do not.
56 SeeTheWorld : No, Congress ' approval is not required.
57 PanHAM : We should use the term "EU common aviation zone" which is more than the EU and includes countries like Iceland, Norway, Switzerland. Tag flights in t
58 Cainanuk : True but it is simply a wavethrough. The EU has open borders for EU citizens. A British national has just as much right to go to France as a French N
59 NYC777 : I see airlines now ordering a wave of twin engine, twin airlse airplanes now (777/787/A330/A350) in order to take advantage of open skies. I think Boe
60 PanHAM : yes, but exactly that is in the works. Once done, we will see the small national carriers disappear once and for good. There will be 3 - AF, BA and L
61 VS11 : That is rather funny. The US agrees to the EU conditions to open up ownership only 2 years later. It is not standing firm, if anything it bows to the
62 EK156 : Okay need help in this question. With this agreement, do all International Airlines benefit? I mean can EK, EY, QR and others start flying from Europe
63 AeroWesty : That's the first I've heard of that. Worldwide open skies? I'd think that's a LONG way off.
64 PanHAM : No, that is for carriers registered in the US and the European common aviation zone only. Eventually,EK rights such as HAM-JFK mst be renegtiated (co
65 Post contains images Atmx2000 : No it isn't. If the EU revokes the rights of US carriers, the US has many options for retaliation. My favorite would be to restrict JFK to two EU car
66 VS11 : No EU carriers would have lost money to buy slots at JFK. Guess how much money CO, NW, DL would have lost to start services to LHR only to go back to
67 MasseyBrown : The agreement calls for "progress" not capitulation. What if the US offers 37.5%? The EU could call that progress, whether the UK did or not.
68 Atmx2000 : I bet you the loss of revenue from air service to the US will make them think twice about doing that.
69 VS11 : Sure. I am generally not inclined to see this agreement as some sort of a trade war involving capitulaiton. It is meant to make things better for bot
70 ANother : From the draft agreement I saw it is only 25 EU Member states (Romania and Bulgaria were not included). Switzerland, Norway, Iceland were not include
71 VS11 : That is not true. If the entire O/S deal breaks off after two years, the situation gets to where it is now, which is based on bi-lateral agreements s
72 Post contains links BoomBoom : Airlines' Reactions to Open Skies AER LINGUS: Ireland's state carrier plans to launch three new cross-Atlantic routes – to Orlando, Fla, Washington,
73 VS11 : In the case of Bulgaria, it may have to do with the fact that US FAA does not endorse the effectiveness of the Bulgarian aviation authorities in enfo
74 MasseyBrown : Without disputing your good argument, UA has also had difficulty making money in Latin America and domestically. Their inability to make money on LHR
75 Atmx2000 : It could restrict access now and it could have announced long ago it would renounce Bermuda II just as the UK announced it was going to renounce the
76 VS11 : The EU court ruling was NOT about the bilateral agreements per the Chicago convention but the individual bilateral O/S agreements. That means that th
77 Sllevin : The same way AA does -- base 767's in the US and fly then back and forth within the US. It would be an O&D route with some connecting traffic at both
78 VS11 : I agree with you re: UA pulling out of LHR. It was more than one reason but ultimately having access to the market is NOT the only prerequisite to be
79 Panamair : Of course BA could easily enter the market if it had the legal authority to do so, but this doesn't address how it is going to do this profitably. Ju
80 VS11 : Probably not 4-5 daily 767s but a flight arriving from LHR and going to LAX with a stop and picking pax in JFK is not a very outrageous idea. BA alre
81 Bongodog1964 : Is all this being over hyped from a UK perspective ? An "expert" stated on the BBC evening news that this deal would really expand the market for UK t
82 ManchesterMAN : Yes it is. There seems to be some belief that fares from LHR have been kept artificially high due to B2 but the truth is that fares to the US from LH
83 Steeler83 : I am interested to see what BMI does now that EU-US open skies looks to be a reality... Will they enter key US airports (JFK, BOS, PHL, IAD, LAX...)?
84 Post contains images Revelation : S'ok, they are used to it!
85 OA412 : While this info is some years old and therefore somewhat dated, BD had once expressed interest in serving 10 US markets from LHR when/if open skies b
86 Steeler83 : I posted this on another thread regarding BMI and US-EU open skies: if they are considering JFK still, BA will likely eat them alive. Don't they have
87 Gigneil : CLT-LHR will likely be a priority for either US or BD, since Star needs the Southeast hub. With 2x BA a day, obviously there is market from PHL which
88 OzGlobal : It's refreshing and quite impressive to see how this issue has for the Americans on this forum crystalized the differences between the US and the EU.
89 Steeler83 : I can see that as well, going into the fortress US hubs looks like a wise move. Again, 400+ flights out of PHL and 500+ out of CLT, BMI can only gain
90 VS11 : I am rather curious as to where the aircraft for all these potential new services will come from, for all the new entrants. It is not like they knew a
91 Atmx2000 : I am aware of that. I doubt EU countries would like to go back to those older agreements. And I'm sure VA won't like being shut out either. Though th
92 Gigneil : NW, DL can just discontinue their LGW services and replace them with LHR as they acquire slots. NW should have no time getting slots from KLM. If NW w
93 HighFlyer9790 : Well, this will make for a feeding frenzy at LHR! Very glad that Bermuda II is history...now begins a new chapter in trans atlantic history!
94 OzGlobal : And the US preaches 'Free Trade' to the world: "Do as I say, not as I do....."
95 Gigneil : That, I take issue with. It is the member states of the EU's individual choices not to be a single sovereign state, and it will never happen. European
96 VS11 : I doubt that too. But I also doubt that the investment EU carriers will forfeit will be the same as that of the US carriers. It will not like it for
97 OzGlobal : Exactly my point (above).
98 Atmx2000 : Unless airlines are comparatively minor investment in slots and facilities will pale in comparison to that in the idled fleets that airlines use for
99 NASOCEANA : The whole foreign ownership debate was made clear with the proposed Dubai Ports Deal. American citizens(Congress) made it quite clear that we have no
100 VS11 : Huh? idled fleets for transatlantic service? I suggest you read and think about what you wrote...we are talking a timeframe of 2 years - within that
101 Atmx2000 : Do you think that BA and other EU airlines could afford to see idling of their existing fleets that are used on transatlantic flights?
102 VS11 : "Do you think that BA and other EU airlines could afford to see idling of their existing fleets that are used on transatlantic flights? " If you mean
103 VV701 : There is a 'Red' customs channel if you are a non-EU citizen have something to declare. There is a 'Green' customs channel if you are a non-EU citize
104 Scotron11 : I am rather curious as to where the aircraft for all these potential new services will come from, for all the new entrants. It is not like they knew
105 Panamair : Huh? There is no Blue channel through Customs at TXL or FRA or CDG or most other EU airports.......LHR-CDG on BA - everyone goes through the same Cus
106 ViveLeYHZ : I believe this thread started on the topic of US-EU open skies, but has since degenerated to focus primarily on the future of LHR. I thought it was al
107 Beaucaire : Personally I don't believe there will be tons of new flights all of a sudden into European province-towns.. Even without the Opensky agreement ,most U
108 Bongodog1964 : Why can it be deemed that ownership of the ports through which the majority of the imports that the US depends upon is not a National Security questi
109 Panamair : There is so much focus on LHR simply because the end of Bermuda II is one of the biggest (if not biggest) change to result from this agreement; as yo
110 Steeler83 : Rain Man could have told us that! "Lacking... definitely lacking... lacking lacking... 3 A330s... lacking..." I think US would be more likely to part
111 Ned Kelly : I don't think this has anything to do with citizenship but rather where you arrived from, "Red" channel if you have arrived from outside of the EU an
112 Scotron11 : " I think US would be more likely to partner up w/ BD in addition to LH This O/S deal has thrown up all sort of possibilities. The Telegraph says tha
113 Steeler83 : So basically BMI will be broken up and sold in parts. VS wants a stake in it, as does LH. At least that's what I gather from that...
114 Revelation : I think it's an idle threat. The US has no intent to change the ownership laws. Then someone like BA who feels injury due to lack of ownership of a U
115 Bmiexpat : I think you'll finf that SMB has the option to force LH to purchase the remainder of bmi, LH has no say in it. SMB as the majority shareholder will n
116 Gigneil : It doesn't. Even if I arrive into the UK or anywhere else in the EU from within EU, if I am not an EU citizen I still go through the non-EU lines for
117 Kiwiandrew : not if you arrive into a Schengen country from another Schengen county - there is no passport control - and the EU non / EU customs lines refer to wh
118 Commavia : Not in my experience. Many times in the very recent past I have landed in airports within the E.U. and had to not only pass through passport control
119 Leskova : You're right in terms of passport control, but you're wrong with regards to the customs part: passport controls are divided into EU/CH/... and Non-EU
120 ANother : Then you are doing it wrong. Passport control (immigration) Yes - separate lines based on your nationality. Customs (after you get your bags) it depe
121 Leskova : Correct if one of the countries is non-Schengen. If, for example, you're flying FRA-VIE or CDG-MAD, LIS-AMS, you will certainly not be passing throug
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...
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
EU/US Open Skies Talks: 10/11 January 2007 posted Wed Jan 10 2007 19:40:53 by Kaitak
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
LH/LX: EU Commission Gives Go Ahead posted Tue Jul 5 2005 10:09:21 by Glidepath73
EU-US Open Skies Talks posted Fri Apr 2 2004 16:50:55 by FlyPIJets