Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010  
User currently offlineJimyvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 days ago) and read 11799 times:

LONDON, March 22 (Reuters) - British Airways (BAY.L: Quote, Profile , Research) would look at operating flights across the United States from New York if the U.S. fully liberalises its aviation industry from 2010, Chief Executive Willie Walsh said on Thursday.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...1-58_WLB6932&type=comktNews&rpc=44

Looks like this will be a minimal domestic US operation if goes ahead.

84 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirlineFanatic From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11703 times:

minimal but it will impact US carriers where it hurts most - transcons! with BA service... sounds like 2010 and beyond will be a very interesting time in the industry if the plans go forward

User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11664 times:

Unless I've missed it, the issue of cabotage was not addressed in the agreement. The position remains the same, no cabotage is allowed.

User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11382 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 2):
Unless I've missed it, the issue of cabotage was not addressed in the agreement. The position remains the same, no cabotage is allowed.

I believe that what you have said is true, however, Willie Walsh didn't actually mention carrying passengers from the USA, but mearly to operate flights within America, most likely as add-ons to their normal USA east coast flights, therefore freeing up aircrafts for other routes and perhaps maximising aircraft use. Much like QF do with their LAX-JFK flight.

"There may be some of the U.S. domestic market that we find interesting," he said. "An opportunity to serve the West Coast from New York could be something BA would look at."
That quote is about as close as he gets to saying BA would like to operate flights carrying USA boarding and departing passengers. However, I doubt BA will be able to get passenger rights for flights within the USA for a while yet.

wrighbrothers



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11368 times:

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
Looks like this will be a minimal domestic US operation if goes ahead.

If by "minimal," they mean "none," then yes, it will be minimal.

There is less than no chance whatsoever that the U.S. will ever agree to this. Walsh and BA should just save their time and energy, because it's not ever going to happen.

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 3):
I believe that what you have said is true, however, Willie Walsh didn't actually mention carrying passengers from the USA, but mearly to operate flights within America, most likely as add-ons to their normal USA east coast flights

If he is talking about carrying passengers from JFK to the West Coast (see below), that is, indeed, domestic flights, and even if they are add-ons to inbound international flights, that would still involve carrying local domestic customers -- illegal under this new agreement and not soon to change ...

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 3):
"There may be some of the U.S. domestic market that we find interesting," he said. "An opportunity to serve the West Coast from New York could be something BA would look at."


User currently offlineConcorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11346 times:

Willie Walsh is referring to the right the British Government has secured from the EU to automatically terminate traffic rights into LHR if ownership and cabotage restrictions are not lifted by 2010.

User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11296 times:

Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 5):
Willie Walsh is referring to the right the British Government has secured from the EU to automatically terminate traffic rights into LHR if ownership and cabotage restrictions are not lifted by 2010.

I suppose I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that is what the E.U. agreed to -- because everyone (including Walsh and the U.K. government) no full-well it will never happen.

From the Times of London:

However, Britain did win a key concession that the deal would be scrapped unless the US began talks within two years to open its domestic air routes to foreign airliners, and to allow greater foreign investment in its domestic carriers, which were both key UK demands.

As I understand it, the E.U. just agreed to revoke the agreement if the U.S. doesn't start talking about cabotage and ownership within a few years. I'm sure the U.S. will have no problem talking until everyone is blue in the face, but they'll never actually agree to that -- not with the politics in the U.S. the way they are right now, and certainly not right before or right after a Presidential election.

In 2007 or 2008 or 2009, seriously discussing allowing foreign companies to compete with such a sacred and badly beaten domestic industry (i.e., airlines) is unthinkable. Americans are already so sensitive to outsourcing and offshoring, and remember how the protectionist-populists in the Congress stupidly reacted to the harmless DPW deal. That will be child's play compared to what would happen if this President, or any other, ever seriously entertained the idea of letting a French, or Italian, or British, or Polish, airline fly from Cincinnati to Des Moines.

Not going to happen.


User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11143 times:

US airlines connecting LHR with CDG or FRA. European airlines connecting JFK with LAX or SFO. Who wins, who looses???

I must say the tought of a BA 777 flying from JFK to LAX will be a great sight.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11072 times:

BA and the UK government are playing their hand by making these public statements as the EU approves the open-skies WITHOUT such provisions. They want to scare the USA into not signing open skies.

BA is the most protected carrier in the western world. It's sad the lengths they will go to to keep it that way.

And if anyone doesn't understand WHY it's bad for BA to fly in the USA, just look at what they would want to do:

-pluck high revenue pax off lucrative routes.

This will have a severely negative impact on smaller USA markets. If foreign airlines are allowed to enter the domestic US market and syphon off pax on a limited number of routes without any obligation to feed smaller markets, it hurts the US consumer. There is not a shortage of options JFK-SFO or LAX-JFK. BA is attacking from the outside and VS is attacking from the inside, but both of their goals is to pillage routes in the USA and damage their USA based competition internationally.

I'm sending a letter to my Senator about this issue right now.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSpeedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 879 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10987 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
BA is the most protected carrier in the western world. It's sad the lengths they will go to to keep it that way.

And if anyone doesn't understand WHY it's bad for BA to fly in the USA, just look at what they would want to do:

-pluck high revenue pax off lucrative routes.

This will have a severely negative impact on smaller USA markets. If foreign airlines are allowed to enter the domestic US market and syphon off pax on a limited number of routes without any obligation to feed smaller markets, it hurts the US consumer. There is not a shortage of options JFK-SFO or LAX-JFK. BA is attacking from the outside and VS is attacking from the inside, but both of their goals is to pillage routes in the USA and damage their USA based competition internationally.

I'm sending a letter to my Senator about this issue right now.

Interesting, US carriers get open access to the EU, but the thought of EU carriers getting the same rights in the US is an issue. This is the basic reason why the EU should never have agreed to this plan. It does not treat all carriers equally and is very heavily in favour of US carriers. BA and VS are right to condemn it.

As for BA being the most protected carrier in the western world, you should look first at which carriers benefit from bankruptcy protection, before making such statements. BA has fought on its own to survive in recent years with no help from the UK government. The strong position BA is in today is all down to its management and staff who have done what was needed to ensure the carrier's survival. We've been through a lot and I am proud to work for a carrier that has staff with such a high level of team spirit and pride (even during the most difficult periods that we have seen).


User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4064 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10897 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
without any obligation to feed smaller markets

Do US airlines really have any obligation to serve smaller markets?
How is this regulated?
Do they get fined for pulling off money losing routes?


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10818 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
BA and the UK government are playing their hand by making these public statements as the EU approves the open-skies WITHOUT such provisions. They want to scare the USA into not signing open skies.

BA is the most protected carrier in the western world. It's sad the lengths they will go to to keep it that way.

And if anyone doesn't understand WHY it's bad for BA to fly in the USA, just look at what they would want to do:



Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
Interesting, US carriers get open access to the EU, but the thought of EU carriers getting the same rights in the US is an issue. This is the basic reason why the EU should never have agreed to this plan. It does not treat all carriers equally and is very heavily in favour of US carriers. BA and VS are right to condemn it.

 checkmark ...exactly...if U.S. carriers for all intents and purposes get cabotage rights, then European carriers should also.....and as mentioned above, flying transcon on BA would be quite interesting..especially if I can get AA miles.. yes ...

Fair is fair....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10821 times:

I dropped a letter to Clinton, McCain and Feinstein (2 presidential candidates and my state Senator). They're all involved in this fake scandal right now, but we'll see if they respond.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
Interesting, US carriers get open access to the EU, but the thought of EU carriers getting the same rights in the US is an issue.

No, we don't. We can't fly inter-france, inter-england etc. under this agreement.

You are redefining the EU to be equal to the USA. Fine, believe that. But you are sovereign nations in a trading pact. The USA is ONE nation of non-sovereign states.

Open Skies doesn't grant us the right to fly LHR-MAN, for example. The few "domestic" routes in the EU we have are legacy routes, like the Berlin Airlift route, the inter-Ireland route that was mandated by Ireland, etc.

BA's red herring cabotage argument is just that. Not relevant. But they know it will play well with anti-USA minded EU citizens who want to believe we are being unfair because it is in their mindset to think of the USA as a big bully.

And yet, the same outrage isn't leveled against France for making it nearly impossible for other EU airlines to operate flights solely within France. Go figure...

Nor do some people seem to care that this change is being made to the agreement AFTER it was already negotiated. That is a bad faith negotiating tactic, and basically means the USA can't trust any treaty they work out with the EU because they'll just change it later. Does that sit well with you?

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 10):
Do US airlines really have any obligation to serve smaller markets?
How is this regulated?

Not anymore. But they have built a "system" model that comes from the days of regulation. AA, DL, CO, UA and US all still have a strong commitment to serving the whole country, but they can do so because they can count on certain revenue streams.

If you destroy high revenue yields on key markets though, you damage these airlines. BA has no intention of flying these routes. They want F traffic from JFK-LAX. They don't want to serve Y passengers from CLE-STL.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10800 times:

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
Interesting, US carriers get open access to the EU, but the thought of EU carriers getting the same rights in the US is an issue.

U.S. carriers will get open access to fly to points within the E.U. from the U.S., and E.U. carriers will get open access to fly to points in the U.S. from the E.U. In addition, U.S. carriers will retain the right to fly between sovereign nations that exist within the E.U., even though the odds of any U.S. carrier actually using any of those rights anytime soon is slim.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
It does not treat all carriers equally and is very heavily in favour of US carriers.

How so?

What do U.S. carriers get that E.U. carriers don't? The E.U. is not a sovereign nation, and as such, a hypothetical U.S. flag carrier flying between two different E.U. countries (again, quite far-fetched for 2007) is not cabotage. On the other hand, BA contemplating flying from JFK to LAX is absolutely, unequivically, undeniably the definition of cabotage -- transporting local passengers on a domestic internal sector within a foreign country. That is not what U.S. carriers have, as no U.S. carrier could, before or after this agreement comes into effect, start flying from London to Manchester or Frankfurt to Munich. Either the E.U. is a sovereign nation or it's not. You can't pick and choose which one you want depending on which is more convenient at the time.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10757 times:

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
As for BA being the most protected carrier in the western world, you should look first at which carriers benefit from bankruptcy protection, before making such statements. BA has fought on its own to survive in recent years with no help from the UK government. The strong position BA is in today is all down to its management and staff who have done what was needed to ensure the carrier's survival. We've been through a lot and I am proud to work for a carrier that has staff with such a high level of team spirit and pride (even during the most difficult periods that we have seen).

Bankruptcy laws in the US aren't specifically for airlines. On the other hand Bermuda 2 provisisions specifically protect UK airlines from competition.

Anyway, I wonder if BA could have filed for bankruptcy in the US if it wanted to. Avianca did so.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
Interesting, US carriers get open access to the EU, but the thought of EU carriers getting the same rights in the US is an issue

Has it occurred to you that there is no route equivalent to a US transcontinental in the EU in terms of revenue passenger miles? These high RPM routes are the only ones that would be worthwhile for EU carriers to try and fly using the big long haul birds they use to fly to the US.

NYC (40°43'N 74°01'W) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 273° (W) 2139 nm
NYC (40°43'N 74°01'W) SFO (37°37'08"N 122°22'30"W) 281° (W) 2236 nm
NYC (40°43'N 74°01'W) SEA (47°26'56"N 122°18'34"W) 297° (NW) 2092 nm
IAD (38°56'40"N 77°27'21"W) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 274° (W) 1988 nm
IAD (38°56'40"N 77°27'21"W) SFO (37°37'08"N 122°22'30"W) 282° (W) 2102 nm
IAD (38°56'40"N 77°27'21"W) SEA (47°26'56"N 122°18'34"W) 299° (NW) 2004 nm
LHR (51°28'39"N 00°27'41"W) FRA (50°01'35"N 08°32'35"E) 100° (E) 354 nm
LHR (51°28'39"N 00°27'41"W) CDG (49°00'35"N 02°32'52"E) 140° (SE) 188 nm
CDG (49°00'35"N 02°32'52"E) FRA (50°01'35"N 08°32'35"E) 73° (E) 242 nm
DUB (53°25'17"N 06°16'12"W) ATH (37°56'11"N 23°56'40"E) 114° (SE) 1555 nm
LHR (51°28'39"N 00°27'41"W) ATH (37°56'11"N 23°56'40"E) 118° (SE) 1312 nm
LIS (38°46'53"N 09°08'09"W) HEL (60°19'02"N 24°57'48"E) 33° (NE) 1819 nm
MAD (40°29'37"N 03°34'00"W) HEL (60°19'02"N 24°57'48"E) 32° (NE) 1593 nm



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10714 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):

Open Skies doesn't grant us the right to fly LHR-MAN, for example. The few "domestic" routes in the EU we have are legacy routes, like the Berlin Airlift route, the inter-Ireland route that was mandated by Ireland, etc.

...its a moot point as U.S. carriers wouldn't have a chance against the incumbents (especially the LCC's)

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 14):
Bankruptcy laws in the US aren't specifically for airlines. On the other hand Bermuda 2 provisisions specifically protect UK airlines from competition.

...which is now basically ending...

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 14):
Has it occurred to you that there is no route equivalent to a US transcontinental in the EU in terms of revenue passenger miles? These high RPM routes are the only ones that would be worthwhile for EU carriers to try and fly using the big long haul birds they use to fly to the US.

Its the long-haul flights for the European carriers such as BD and BA which are profitable for them too..this is something which US carriers can take advantage of..

For example, I would prefer to fly on AA SJC-ORD-LHR-DXB..rather than either flying BA SFO-LHR-DXB or switching terminals, etc.......with Open Skies, it is now possible...

[Edited 2007-03-22 19:57:25]


"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10705 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
illegal under this new agreement

Have you read the agreement? If you have could you please point out this clause, I must have misread it.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10677 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 16):
Have you read the agreement?

Have you?

While I don't have it in front of me, I invite you to show me a single statement, article, release, or -- if possible -- the text itself, stating that this agreement permits cabotage within the U.S. by E.U. carriers. Until then, I feel quite confident that it is, indeed, illegal -- as it has been for decades -- for a European (or any foreign) carrier to carry local passengers within the United States.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10655 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
That is a bad faith negotiating tactic, and basically means the USA can't trust any treaty they work out with the EU because they'll just change it later. Does that sit well with you?

Gee I wonder where the EU learned that tactic from? But I will stay on topic here.

This isn't a EU vs US matter - this is a matter that the ownership and control provisions and restrictions on where an airline (US, EU or any other nation) can operate is bad for our industry. Regulation should be limited to one thing - safety.


User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4927 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10548 times:

Would BA really fly on US domestic routes when its an aliance with AA? And especially on routes like JFK-West Coast, which are served by AA

I just can't see this ever happenning unless BA/AA merged and became one



Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10473 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 15):

..and your point is Atmx2000? Its the long-haul flights for the European carriers such as BD and BA which are profitable for them too..this is something which US carriers can take advantage of..

My point is there is a reason why BA is particularly interested in flying NYC-LAX or other transcontinental routes instead of say NYC-ORD. The EU doesn't offer any routes of similar revenue generation potential.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10364 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 20):
My point is there is a reason why BA is particularly interested in flying NYC-LAX or other transcontinental routes instead of say NYC-ORD. The EU doesn't offer any routes of similar revenue generation potential.

1)Apologies for being rude (hence I edited my comment)
2)Of course BA will be interested in NYC-LAX (even though with the probability of Virgin America coming online, the route will start suffering from over-exposure)....but as I stated before, the EU certainly does offer routes of similar revenue generation....

Cheers.. Smile



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineMutu From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10328 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
BA is the most protected carrier in the western world. It's sad the lengths they will go to to keep it that way.

And here you go again with more factless trash. DO you kiss your momma with that mouth? BA is NOT protected. It faces more competition at its home market than most carriers. We do not have to fly BA from LHR when we can fly EOS, SIlverjet or MAxjet from alternate London airports where the whole experience (airport and in the air) is pretty close to BA but for about half the fare. THats why those carriers are doing so well.

Dont make wild statements without any knowledge or factual basis.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10222 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
There is less than no chance whatsoever that the U.S. will ever agree to this. Walsh and BA should just save their time and energy, because it's not ever going to happen.

Is there any argument at all that can support the continued operation of flights like UA934 (HNL-LAX-LHR) but prevents any EU airline operating in direct competition with them.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 14):
Bankruptcy laws in the US aren't specifically for airlines. On the other hand Bermuda 2 provisisions specifically protect UK airlines from competition.

Bermuda 2 does not specifically protect UK airlines from competition. While it limits the competition that AA, BA, UA and VS experience on LHR-USA routes it prevents other airlines like BD and CO from operating to the USA out of LHR and be assured that BD is a UK airline just as much as CO is an American airline.

The most important of these LHR-USA routes is LHR-JFK which last summer was operated by no less than six airlines. While this is a high density route that can certainly cater for more than six competitors it is worth pointing out that in world wide commercial aviation there were relatively few routes where there was more competition than on this route (measured by the number of alternative carriers).


User currently offlineBAStew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1030 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10150 times:

Did the US government not make several financial contributions to the US legacy carriers after 9/11 to assist them in increased costs for security/insurance etc?

25 Commavia : I still, honestly, don't get why this is so difficult to understand. UA934 operates HNL-LAX-LHR, and can carrying local passengers on either or both
26 Travelin man : Absolutely agree. Hell, if the EU is one country now, let's combine the UK and France's seat on the UN Security Council. I'm not sure why others are
27 Mush : Exactly! It would be just plain stupid for the US to allow a foreign airline cabotage rights. No US airline is able to, or wants to, fly NCE to CDG,
28 JRDC930 : I think it would be great if this happened, let airlines who are competently run have the opportunity to compete in the US. The US consumer will final
29 Mush : One last thing...for those that are holding out hope that cabotage will one day be granted in the US...don't hold your breath. Any treaty that the US
30 Post contains links ANother : Of course I have. Follow this link and you will find the council regulation that was voted. The text of the agreement is at the end. I invite you to
31 Commavia : First off, thank you for finding the text and providing us all with it. But after reading the text, there is absolutely nowhere where cabotage is exp
32 ANother : I'm not going to argue the point. My original post was intended to point out that you were making rash statements, without having read the text. I am
33 Jfk777 : BA only wants the "Prime Cuts", JFK to California. I wonder why, aren't these the only routres in the USA with 3 class international type service ? BA
34 Post contains links Sydscott : I think all of you have missed the positioning behind British Airways Statement. With the conclusion of an Open Skies Agreement and the ability of US
35 BAStew : Of course! We are a business not a charity.
36 Aisak : It's not a big deal..... They haven't said they will fly people with origin New York and destination LA.... They have said "flights across the United
37 Post contains images Multimark : I must have missed where unions and politicians lobbied so effectively to prevent manufacturing jobs going to China, or Big 3 automaker jobs going to
38 Travelin man : Why would BA want to fly LHR-JFK-LAX without picking up local passengers? They already have 3x non-stops per day LHR-LAX in the Summer. Don't they al
39 Gkirk : Whilst not being a BA fan, that is bollocks. Lufthansa and Air France are more protected than BA.
40 Gigneil : Not letting foreign carriers invest in US airlines, or fly within the US, is stupid and irrational on our part. It also flies in the face of the found
41 Aisak : I didn't say that was sensible. Nor the US domestic venture.... I also don't understand why would they want to fly JFK-LAX even if they could carry l
42 Post contains images MaverickM11 : I don't think BA has any desire whatsoever to fly domestically in the US; it's just a ruse to support the 2010 expiration of the deal if US cabotage i
43 Jacobin777 : ...while I completely agree with your points 100%, our congress believes that there should be some sort of protection from the aviation sector in ter
44 VV701 : Let me try to explain. 'Open Skies' means, well, 'Open Skies'. It requires equal opportunities for the airlines of both the EU and the USA. But if US
45 Gigneil : The point I think continues to be missed that US airlines aren't allowed to operate services that EU airlines cannot. A US airline, under this accord
46 VV701 : To borrow much of what you have said 'The point I think continues to be missed that US airlines ARE and DO operate services that EU airlines cannot.'
47 N328KF : You say it like some members of the Big Six don't have something to gain from Open Skies.
48 Commavia : First off, nobody signed an "Open Skies" agreement. The United States of America and the European Union (or, more precisely, 27 independent and sover
49 Jetdeltamsy : Transcons are operated more for pretige than for anything else. With the exception of business class fares paid, economy class is a fairly low yield
50 Mah584jr : U.S. airlines wouldn't react much. The European carriers will be the one's dying. First off, US carriers would lower all their fares on the competing
51 BN727 : Let's have at it. Let's look foreward to Southwest, United, Delta, American, JetBlue, Airtran, Alaska, NWA, Frontier, Midwest, Spirit all having a bas
52 Scbriml : So which is it? Did the US sign one agreement with one entity (the EU) or sign 27 separate agreements with 27 separate countries? It seems you want t
53 AeroWesty : Okay, let's clarify a few things. The agreement actually establishes an OAA, or "Open Aviation Area", it's right there in the link provided. The only
54 MaverickM11 : I can all but guarantee that all legacy carriers in the US have zero interest in flying anything intra Europe. Tags simply do not work for the most p
55 AeroWesty : For a few years now (I'd have to do a search in the archives here to nail down the date), US carriers have had the right to fly to a number of countr
56 Vanguard : I agree. Was the US team at the negotiating representing all the separate states in the US, or the Federal Govt? I think the latter. So, it would mak
57 ANother : Obviously? Are you kidding? US airlines just got, on a platter, unlimited 5ths from London (and every other EU city) to any point in Middle East, Afr
58 MaverickM11 : Right but the agreement does not speak for those countries in the Middle East/Africa/South Asia. AA may be able to now fly LHR/LAD for instance, but
59 AeroWesty : No they didn't. Bilaterals or open sky agreements with the beyond territories would also have to be considered. If the US-South Africa bilateral didn
60 Post contains images NYC2theworld : From what I've read on various different posts...the Open Skies treaty does not allow US Airlines to fly LHR-MAN, or any other domestic (as defined b
61 Drgmobile : The article should perhaps have been better entitled "British Airways envisions pigs in self-initiated flight from 2010 onwards." I do not believe cab
62 Commavia : Yes, the U.S. signed one agreement with one entity -- the European Union -- which is acting as a collective bargaining agent for all of its member st
63 Panamair : Exactly. And even if cabotage was granted on both sides, I doubt any US carrier would be interested in flying LHR-MAN or FRA-MUC. The same probably h
64 AeroWesty : The U.S. does have a number of "Open Skies" agreements with other nations, I believe somewhere around 60 in number at the moment, but none of them al
65 CoolGuy : I doubt a foreign airline could go transcon in the U.S. Just like Britain would never allow an American airline to go LHR-MAN for example. Although, I
66 MaverickM11 : That's a good idea...oh well hindsight 20/20. I think the US carriers should force BA to operate some of the sh!tty low yield crap it "wants" to oper
67 AeroWesty : Intra-Asia flights on UA and NW are quite often some of the cheapest in their markets, and the planes still don't always fly full (if trip reports ar
68 Gigneil : Except that, no matter how often you repeat it, that isn't true. The agreement doesn't change the definitions of freedoms for the air travel industry
69 CoolGuy : I've always wondered what it would be like if Ryanair or EasyJet operated in the U.S. I haven't figured out an answer to that yet but it would certain
70 Post contains images JRDC930 : Good Point, never saw it that way. Though i disagree with you about paying for the cheapest regardless of comfort. I think the european airlines woul
71 Post contains links Airbazar : They are not as sovereign as you make it sound. The EU nations are as sovereign as the US states are. From http://europa.eu: "Its member states have
72 CoolGuy : U2 LGA-CAK FR HVN-MDW
73 Travelin man : As I said in another thread, I guess that means the UK and France will be giving up their individual UN Security Council seats if that is the case.
74 Gigneil : I don't know how I missed this before, but you've got to be out of your mind. The EU does not allow any US airline to fly JFK-LHR-MAN, or IAD-FRA-MUC
75 AeroWesty : They will under the new OAA, just not with cabotage rights. 2. Each airline may on any or all flights and at its option: a. operate flights in either
76 Cjpark : Fly on Southwest, that should give you an idea of what it would be like. Although you will probabaly find Southwest to be a better airline.
77 Gigneil : And the same is true in the reverse. BA can fly all day JFK-LAX, just not with US-originating passengers aboard. The rights are the same for both sid
78 Flipdewaf : I think airbazar makes a good point. england, scotland,northern ireland and wales have been considered to be part of the same nation for many years i.
79 AeroWesty : Very true. This is an extremely level playing field now. EU airlines can even setup a hub in the U.S. and do change of gauges even, as long as they d
80 Post contains links Atmx2000 : Do US states have independent foreign policies and militaries? Do US states have ambassdors in foreign countries and representation in the UN and oth
81 SW733 : I, personally, would rather fly a BA 777 across the country than a UA 777 or AA 777 any day...Come On BA!
82 Jmc1975 : That sounds very much like what IB had at MIA,
83 Kellmark : Something that has not been brought up yet in this discussion is the fact that the US and EU, although they have advanced aiviation systems, still hav
84 Hotelmode : Continued flight on 3 engines is not illegal under the FARS hence the FAA's climbdown. I personally would rather coninut to destination on 3 than exce
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...
BA To Operate Some Routes As New Leisure Airline? posted Thu Jan 31 2002 21:27:08 by Englandair
US Domestic Routes Need Some Real Competition posted Tue Jul 4 2006 09:01:05 by Gasman
Most Popular US Domestic Routes posted Tue Nov 11 2003 18:20:07 by 762er
YYZ As US Domestic Connecting Point? posted Wed Jun 15 2005 02:10:08 by Cubsrule
US/HP Intl. Future Routes As LCC posted Sat May 21 2005 23:10:43 by Hjulicher
BA Domestic Routes Summer 2007 posted Thu Feb 22 2007 12:04:10 by Sam1987
Is BA Looking To Drop Domestic Routes? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 10:14:28 by Drinkstrolley
Why BA Needs Sun Air Denmark As Franchise? posted Mon Aug 29 2005 14:38:25 by KEno
US Domestic 747 Routes posted Mon Dec 13 2004 20:49:45 by Ssides
Any International Flights By US From FLL As Well? posted Mon Aug 30 2004 16:12:10 by Mozart