Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mexico Not Ready For Open Skies With U.S  
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4935 times:

They fear big brother to the north.

Quote:
Mexico Lacks Fleet, Market For Open Skies With U.S.
07/09/2007

Opening Mexico's skies to the U.S. would mean burying the country's commercial aviation industry, notwithstanding its new, well-heeled low-cost carriers, according to Jesus Ramirez Stabros, former airline pilot and now federal legislator.

Mexico's lack of strong carriers able to compete with those of the U.S. has led aviation entrepreneurs, sector labor unions and lawmakers to firmly oppose an open-skies agreement with their neighbor to the north.

This is happening at a time when Mexico's legacy airlines are trying to cut costs by restructuring, a move they initiated before the recent entry into the market of half a dozen aggressive LCCs.

Mexicana's CEO Emilio Romano says that, before negotiating open skies with the U.S., this concept should be clearly spelled out because it is implemented differently in each region of the world. A balanced plan should be sought to ensure a fairer and more equilateral commercial relationship between the two countries.

For Romano, it is also essential that operations be subject to growth and clearly reject the use of airfares for predatory practices, Mexicans could not compete in such an environment, Romano says.

Full story (subscription required)
http://www.aviationweek.com/publicat...2C+Market+For+Open+Skies+With+U.S.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21507 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4914 times:

If it's the idea of USA carriers running domestic mexico flights, I'm against that too. But if it's just carriers running unlimited international flights, that's different. There are so many unconnected dots right now between the nations due to the current situation, and it can only help the mexican economy to connect those dots, far more than the USA economy, frankly.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4880 times:

Last week the foreign ministers of Canada, US and Mexico meet in Washington. One of the things the US pushed was further liberalisation of air-service between Mexico and the US.

Indeed there are many dozens of city pair combinations not currently served while many current markets still have capacity restrictions on the number carriers.

Mexico obviously feels its airlines would get run over if the markets between the countries were opened further.

While there might indeed be pressure on Mexican airlines to become more efficient or perish eventually, Mexico as a whole could stand to benefit greatly as more links are established between the nations which ultimately expands commercial and tourism ties bringing yet more dollars into the Mexican economy.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4717 times:

I think the Mexican government will go forward with the 'North American Open Skies Treaty' to attrack tourism, but Aeromexico and Mexicana will stand 100% against it, and understandbly so. As it is AM and MX are facing much competition at home with all the start-ups, and on the US-Mexico routes with the US airlines. I can't even imagine if all the US airlines were allowed to fly any route they wanted, as many times as they wanted. At present Mexicana would be able to fend off the US airlines, but I'm not sure about AM.

Not good for the Mexican airlines, great for Mexican Tourism.....


User currently offlineKLM685 From Mexico, joined May 2005, 1577 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4661 times:

Of course they oppose, it's suicide! You can't compare the 2 legacy airlines in Mexico with the 5 big airlines in the US.
I believe we're definately not ready for an open skies agreement.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
But if it's just carriers running unlimited international flights, that's different.

Well I remember when AA sent the A300 to MEX from MIA against the A320 MX sends to MIA. Unfair of course, but AA could do it. Now imagine an Open Skies...

Quoting Juventus (Reply 3):
but Aeromexico and Mexicana will stand 100% against it,

Of course, they have tons to loose if they don't do it the right way. I think an Open Skies would be good in a future as we're two countries with an amazing amount of flights between each other. Just don't think that right now is the right time to do it. MX and AM need to solve things up before going against the giants.



KLM- The Best Airline in the World!
User currently offlineOakjam From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4632 times:

If there were an open skies treaty; I can see a couple of airlines jumping on the OAK/SFO/SJC-GDL if lower fares that what MX already offers. Although it's a good idea, American legacy carriers would benefit the most. The only sad part is that Mexicana and Aeromexico would suffer. Although MX and AM offer superior service on Int'l flights to Mexico than a hand full of American carriers. American carriers on coach would offer pretzels. Sad to see that service will be sacrificed.

User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Quoting KLM685 (Reply 4):
Well I remember when AA sent the A300 to MEX from MIA against the A320 MX sends to MIA. Unfair of course, but AA could do it. Now imagine an Open Skies...

Right, imagine UA, CO, AA, DL flying several times between MIA, JFK, ORD and LAX to MEX, SJD and CUN. AM and MX loosing market within Mexico, where would they go????


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11529 posts, RR: 61
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4600 times:

Quoting KLM685 (Reply 4):
Well I remember when AA sent the A300 to MEX from MIA against the A320 MX sends to MIA. Unfair of course, but AA could do it.

I fail to understand how that is, in any way, "unfair." Could you please explain your reasoning?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22876 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4600 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):

Indeed there are many dozens of city pair combinations not currently served while many current markets still have capacity restrictions on the number carriers.

There aren't that many city pairs outside of California that would benefit from increased liberalization, and even there, recent changes to the bilateral have helped a lot.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
Mexico obviously feels its airlines would get run over if the markets between the countries were opened further.

I'm not sure why Mexico believes this. American carriers own the resort traffic (PVR, CUN, etc.) currently, and I can't think of too many MEX or GDL routes that more than 2 or 3 American carriers could or would feasibly serve. Of course, it may just be an example of the standard nationalistic protectionism that someone is preaching (rightly or wrongly) in most countries around the world.

Quoting KLM685 (Reply 4):
Well I remember when AA sent the A300 to MEX from MIA against the A320 MX sends to MIA. Unfair of course, but AA could do it. Now imagine an Open Skies...

How does open skies affect AA' s ability to fly widebodies to Mexico?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineJRDC930 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4575 times:

I dont understand how unless U.S. airlines reduce prices to almost nothing, how they could compete with Mexican carriers, U.S. carriers service are crap, even the LCCs in Mexico make the legacies in the U.S. look like crap. Why would any one fly on U.S. carrier over a mexican one. Yeah they have larger fleets, but prices are better and service better on Mexican airlines. Its probably best for the time being for no open skies. Id hate U.S. carriers to ruin the experience of flight in yet another nation with crap service and price gouging...

User currently offlineFLYGUY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4571 times:

Quoting Oakjam (Reply 6):
If there were an open skies treaty; I can see a couple of airlines jumping on the OAK/SFO/SJC-GDL if lower fares that what MX already offers. Although it's a good idea, American legacy carriers would benefit the most.

The interesting thing is that United Airlines has very limited service from its San Francisco hub to Mexico. Most importantly the Bay Area has no nonstop service by a US airline to the markets of:

Morelia > 642,314 Population
Monterrey > 3,664,334 Population
Culiacan > 793,730 Population
Guadalajara > 4,095,853 Population
Puebla > 2,109,000 Population
Hermosillo > 701,838 Population

It is a rather glaring hole that United Airlines could fill with single flights on each route, they would not even have to be run daily.

Quoting Oakjam (Reply 6):
Although MX and AM offer superior service on Int'l flights to Mexico than a hand full of American carriers. American carriers on coach would offer pretzels.

This is a huge difference between the US and Mexican airlines. The service is not matched. The US airlines roll any old crewmember onto the flight. Stock some liqueur, and snacks and the plane is off. To the opposite end where you have the likes of AM, and MX. Both have very professional crews, stellar grooming guidelines, great meals, and very well maintained fleets. Perhaps this is why we dont see the US airlines serve Mexican business markets from more than one or two cities in the US..

-JD


User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4552 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
Mexico obviously feels its airlines would get run over if the markets between the countries were opened further



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 9):
I'm not sure why Mexico believes this.

if you are not sure why Mexico believes this, wait until the treaty is signed, then you'll see. This thing can bring serious consequences for AM and MX. I would like to reiterate that the Mexican governement is not against this, but the Mexican airlines will be.


User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 625 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4374 times:

Right, imagine UA, CO, AA, DL flying several times between MIA, JFK, ORD and LAX to MEX, SJD and CUN. AM and MX loosing market within Mexico, where would they go????

Right, it is just like how the Canadian airlines got crucified in the trans-border market after near-Open Skies in the mid 1990s......oh wait. The dominant Canadian carrier didn't get crucified -- it did quite well and has the biggest marketshare in the trans-border market despite all the U.S. competitors and the relative size of Canada's home market.

First of all, understand what you are talking about. Open Skies is a fairly well defined term. It doesn't include domestic service, known as cabotage. The biggest impact U.S. style Open Skies would have with Mexico would be to open more city pairs to service since there currently are restrictions on the number of carriers that can operate each. In theory you could all of a sudden get a huge increase in competition, yes, but this isn't likely in practice: There are just so many carriers that are going to be interested in, say Denver-Acapulco, or Atlanta-Mazatlan.

Open Skies also would open up fifth freedoms --- the right for a U.S. carrier to pick up passengers in Mexico and take them on to a third country. It would do the same for Mexican carriers (ie MEX-MIA-MAD, anybody?). In practice though, fifth freedoms are some of the most overrated underused traffic rights out there. They just don't make a lot of financial sense for most airlines in most circumstances.


User currently offlineAbrelosojos From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 5088 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4298 times:

In the end the people who really get screwed are the low-/middle- income Mexican migrant workers in the U.S. who would have been able to take more flights back home. Sometimes I wonder if protectionist governments care about their local populace or the bottom line of some industrial czars.

-A.



Live, and let live.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21507 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4296 times:

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 11):
Perhaps this is why we dont see the US airlines serve Mexican business markets from more than one or two cities in the US..

??? This is the whole point! It's not due to poor service, it's because we CAN'T see these flights due to the current treaty.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAeroMexico777 From Mexico, joined Oct 2005, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4249 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Thread starter):
They fear big brother to the north.



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
hile there might indeed be pressure on Mexican airlines to become more efficient or perish eventually

HI!
Well... I personally think that the first commentary went (literally) over the border...
The second one for me has two sides. One is the positive side: Mexican airliners will have to be less corrupt and more efficient talking about bussines decisions.
The other side: Well, More efficient? I think that, in my personal experience and reading opinions here, Mexican airlines offer a more efficient passenger-related product. They are more friendly towards us: The costumers.

I think that if the open skies treaty is signed, U S Carriers will take advantage of their HUGE world network for feeding their service in/out Mexico, thus killing any oportunities of the Mexican carriers (at least) in their biggest international market (USA)

My two cents,
Regards, AeroMexico777



"When the hope of dying becomes the only reason to live..." Die Laughing (Gothic), Safe little world.
User currently offlineFLYGUY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4242 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
??? This is the whole point! It's not due to poor service, it's because we CAN'T see these flights due to the current treaty.

I am sorry, I may have missed something...

I understood the treaty to read no more than 2 US airlines per route to Mexico..

-JD


User currently offlineDrgmobile From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 625 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4218 times:

I think that if the open skies treaty is signed, U S Carriers will take advantage of their HUGE world network for feeding their service in/out Mexico, thus killing any opportunities of the Mexican carriers (at least) in their biggest international market (USA)

And yet the international experience -- most notably for comparisons purpose the Canada-U.S. experience, does not back this up.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4196 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
Mexico obviously feels its airlines would get run over if the markets between the countries were opened further.

The irony of Mexico being afraid of being run over due to "opening" anything is too good to pass up.

Pot? This is the kettle!


User currently offlineCaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4187 times:

Quoting JRDC930 (Reply 10):
but prices are better and service better on Mexican airlines.

I fly to the US very often from Mexico. I have never gotten a cheaper flight on a Mexican Carrier. The service is better no doubt on the Mexican Carriers, but AM and MX charge more than the American Carriers except UA ex MEX, or sometimes CO ex GDL. I fly to NY. If I fly out of GDL, AA is always the cheapest. If I fly out of MEX, US is always the cheapest.



There is something special about planes....
User currently offlineLH498 From Germany, joined May 2007, 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4155 times:

An Open-skies-agreement between Mexico and the US is not a matter of if, but rather a matter of when.
The market is demanding more frequencies and not just for tourism, it's goes well beyond.

Mexican airlines must solve their problems well and soon, otherwise, well...
I know my countrymen, if they have to face a great challenge, they can do it, mostly better than expected; they just have to believe they can...and do something about it, of course.

The fear (understandable) towards such a treaty, reminds me of all the sayings against NAFTA some years back.
Mexico has been doing quit good since(actually should be doing better).

Mexican airlines have many strengths(e.g. service) and can develop many more, specially both AM and MX with their alliances.
My wild idea: They can take advantage of such an agreement by not only focusing on the Mexico-USA market, but rather connecting Latin America with the US. Specially to cities with large Latino communities, where the large US-airlines are not present.

Perhaps this agreement is what Mexican aviation needs to become the industry Mexico demands.

Just my opinion


User currently offlineAbrelosojos From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 5088 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4150 times:

Quoting AeroMexico777 (Reply 17):
I think that if the open skies treaty is signed, U S Carriers will take advantage of their HUGE world network for feeding their service in/out Mexico, thus killing any oportunities of the Mexican carriers (at least) in their biggest international market (USA)

= Does empirical analysis support your claims?

-A.



Live, and let live.
User currently offlineFLYGUY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4120 times:

Quoting LH498 (Reply 22):
My wild idea: They can take advantage of such an agreement by not only focusing on the Mexico-USA market, but rather connecting Latin America with the US. Specially to cities with large Latino communities, where the large US-airlines are not present

Case in point:

Sacramento
Fresno
Bakersfield
San Jose
Ontario
Tucson

-JD


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4105 times:

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 18):
I understood the treaty to read no more than 2 US airlines per route to Mexico..

A revision to the US-Mexico air service agreement was reached in late 2004 which liberalised cargo and charter operations in addition to the ability to designate a 3rd carrier on several routes. In addition some US metro areas were split up allow for more airport designations.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAA61Hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4054 times:

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 24):
Sacramento
Fresno
Bakersfield
San Jose
Ontario
Tucson

Mesa



Go big or go home
25 Sllevin : I don't believe that's fifth freedom (the ability to pick up passengers in one country and take them to another via your "home" country); and I belie
26 Drgmobile : I don't believe that's fifth freedom (the ability to pick up passengers in one country and take them to another via your "home" country); and I believ
27 2travel2know : Under a Mexico - U.S.A. Open skies treaty, I wouldn't see Mexican airlines flying to Europe or Asia via an U.S. airport anytime soon. The U.S. visa re
28 FLYGUY767 : Mexicana already serves Sacramento to Mexico Aero Mexico has filed to serve Sacramento to Mexico Frontier flies Sacramento to Mexico Mesa is not the
29 FATFlyer : ???? I'm not sure what you mean here. That Mesa would be the only one to fly from those cities to Mexico? Or that Mesa currently flies to Mexico from
30 Juventus : Correct, mainly routes out of MEX and CUN.
31 Cubsrule : American carriers can compete against AM and MX as much as they'd like to in 95+ percent of markets right now. Can you name more than 3 routes that w
32 OzarkD9S : to ANYTHING.
33 FLYGUY767 : LAX-MEX LAX-GDL LAX-CUN ORD-MEX JFK-CUN DEN-CUN DEN-SJD DEN-PVR SFO-SJD SFO-PVR -JD
34 Sllevin : I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. Open Skies typically means that two countries have agreed not to regulate flights between them (i.e., no governmenta
35 Post contains links Drgmobile : Your example, a Mexican carrier flying MEX-MIA-MAD and picking up passengers for the MIA-MAD sector -- is not part of open skies but is, rather, a fif
36 Juventus : I agree with you. Big difference between 5th freedom rights and Opens Skies. However, they can be easily confused. I think it was the LA Times where
37 Cubsrule : Who besides AA and UA? Who besides UA or F9? Who besides AA, UA, and DL? Who besides UA? You're overplaying your hand...
38 Drgmobile : I agree with you. Big difference between 5th freedom rights and Opens Skies. However, they can be easily confused. I think it was the LA Times where I
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...
US, Canada & Mexico Plan North American Open Skies posted Sat Jun 9 2007 17:38:36 by Juventus
Frontier Applies For Open Skies Authority posted Fri Apr 13 2007 23:14:09 by Mariner
Japan Wants Open Skies With Asian Countries posted Tue Apr 3 2007 00:57:31 by Atmx2000
BMI Pushes For Open Skies posted Mon Oct 17 2005 09:36:03 by ZSOFN
U.S. Announces 'Open Skies' With India posted Sun Jan 16 2005 02:57:09 by Atltraveler
U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft posted Tue Mar 9 2004 18:53:04 by AirportPlan
EU Urges Members To Renounce Open-Skies With US posted Tue Nov 19 2002 19:55:59 by N79969
UK Again Rules Out Open Skies With USA posted Wed Jun 13 2001 08:57:18 by Singapore_Air
Open Skies: EU Still Not Taking "no" For An Answer posted Mon Jan 29 2007 19:29:40 by Kaitak
Open Skies For Domestic Airlines In Mexico! posted Wed Dec 10 2003 22:23:15 by Ghost77