MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31116 posts, RR: 74 Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2062 times:
No surprise here, and it is only a matter of time before British Airways is added to the mix. While I believe BA ATI will be approved, it is clearly a more delicate and time consuming process, so it is good to see them go with the rest of the alliance first, not allowing BA to slow them down.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days ago) and read 1961 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 1): No surprise here, and it is only a matter of time before British Airways is added to the mix. While I believe BA ATI will be approved, it is clearly a more delicate and time consuming process, so it is good to see them go with the rest of the alliance first, not allowing BA to slow them down.
... ..there is no reason why AA/BA shouldn't get it....other carrier pairs have it also...
ElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1515 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1834 times:
Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 3): ...IINM, doesn't AA already enjoy ATI with them, and this movement is to fold them into a larger group?
Yup.
American also applied for ATI with Iberia earlier this year, though American didn't make any press release about it.
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 2): ... ..there is no reason why AA/BA shouldn't get it....other carrier pairs have it also...
BA/AA would dominate the (by and large) largest transatlantic market. That's good enough reason for the DoT to investigate and scruitinize.
Does the United States have open skies with Jordan?
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1745 times:
Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 3): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 2):
there is no reason why AA/BA shouldn't get it....other carrier pairs have it also
Which is why they were granted it when last they applied.......... it was AA/BA who chose not to follow through, not government entities denying them.
..interesting...didn't know they were granted before.....however, I don't think their conditions were fair...
Quoting ElmoTheHobo (Reply 4): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 2):
... ..there is no reason why AA/BA shouldn't get it....other carrier pairs have it also...
BA/AA would dominate the (by and large) largest transatlantic market. That's good enough reason for the DoT to investigate and scruitinize.
..with the most competition also...but nothing wrong with having a lot of scrutiny..
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1728 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 5): I don't think their conditions were fair...
...only problem is, those officially qualified to make that decision-- did.
And so do most with any sense of objectivity. Even at the time of the 2nd application, the USA-LON market was still comparable to the USA-PAR/FRA/AMS markets combined. To say that AA/BA deserved immunization the in same percentage share of their European "home" market as enjoyed by DL/AF and NW/KL, and that anything else was "unfair" or "anticompetitive", is anecdotal at best-- disingenuous at worst.
ElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1515 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1576 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 5): ..interesting...didn't know they were granted before.....however, I don't think their conditions were fair...
Quoting AA787823 (Reply 7): Slots at LHR....Until each carrier gives up a chunk it will never happen.
BA/AA had to give up 17 slots, essentially American's entire operation. They pretty much gave the DoT the finger and went about figuring out other ways to cooperate, which eventually became the gateway codeshares (LHR-Europe/Middle East/Africa for AA and MIA/BOS/JFK/ORD/DFW/LAX-Secondary cities in the US for BA).
Quoting Teme82 (Reply 8): Yeah AY's JFK flight is code shared with AA so I think AY is there since the deal could go easier thought ...
That, and a number of Americans' Heathrow and Paris - USA flights carry the AY code.
WorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1505 times:
Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 3): Which is why they were granted it when last they applied.......... it was AA/BA who chose not to follow through, not government entities denying them.
The reason why AA and BA didn't and couldn't apply for ATI before is because the US DOT only grant ATI to carriers whose country has Open Skies with the US. The UK currently does not. I don't have my list in front of me but I somehow think the US does not have Open Skies w/ Spain either; correct me if I'm wrong. However, with EU-US Open Skies, there will be no difficulty for US airlines to get into Spain; that is far from certain into London and thus AA is probably deflecting the inevitable objections until US carriers get enough of a presence in London to keep them quiet for a while. Plus, AA can argue that everyone else already has it with their largest partner.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31116 posts, RR: 74 Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 6): ...only problem is, those officially qualified to make that decision-- did.
And so do most with any sense of objectivity. Even at the time of the 2nd application, the USA-LON market was still comparable to the USA-PAR/FRA/AMS markets combined. To say that AA/BA deserved immunization the in same percentage share of their European "home" market as enjoyed by DL/AF and NW/KL, and that anything else was "unfair" or "anticompetitive", is anecdotal at best-- disingenuous at worst.
The biggest block was the lack of US-UK Open Skies, not AA/BA's large dominance of London traffic. You cannot blame AA/BA for having an alliance that involves such a large market. It isn't really their fault. AA/BA will get ATI.
ElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1515 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1461 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 10): I don't have my list in front of me but I somehow think the US does not have Open Skies w/ Spain either; correct me if I'm wrong.
Correct.
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 11): The biggest block was the lack of US-UK Open Skies, not AA/BA's large dominance of London traffic.
The lack of open skies didn't end up blocking anything, as the UK&US authorities had given tentative approval to AA/BA's alliance. It was American and British Airways that balked at the number of slots that they had to give up and scuttled the plan.
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 10): The reason why AA and BA didn't and couldn't apply for ATI before is because the US DOT only grant ATI to carriers whose country has Open Skies with the US.
You ought to tell them that, they applied twice, and even got (tentative) approval the second time.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1461 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 11): The biggest block was the lack of US-UK Open Skies, not AA/BA's large dominance of London traffic. You cannot blame AA/BA for having an alliance that involves such a large market. It isn't really their fault. AA/BA will get ATI.
You can't blame them for each separately having large portions of the market. But one has to really wonder if AA and BA aren't pursuing an alliance because they have both have large portions of that market, and coordinating will give them an even greater share. If so, you can blame them.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 10): the US DOT only grant ATI to carriers whose country has Open Skies with the US.
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 11): The biggest block was the lack of US-UK Open Skies
....not entirely true on either account.
First, ATI can and has been (tentatively) granted to applying carriers from a nation lacking Open Skies... AA/BA are an example, as well as UA/BD, which also was granted near that time.
Secondly, this granting; like every one before it; was indeed contingent upon the UK (at that point, operating outside of the auspices of the EU's sayso) entering an Open Skies agreement with the USA--- which they disagreed to almost immediately after AA/BA officially dissolved their ATI attempt. Imagine that.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1318 times:
Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 6):
And so do most with any sense of objectivity. Even at the time of the 2nd application, the USA-LON market was still comparable to the USA-PAR/FRA/AMS markets combined. To say that AA/BA deserved immunization the in same percentage share of their European "home" market as enjoyed by DL/AF and NW/KL, and that anything else was "unfair" or "anticompetitive", is anecdotal at best-- disingenuous at worst.
..and there is much more competition on USA-London (or USA-Great Britain) routes than other USA-European routes...so to a certain extent, they "equal/negate" each other out....
Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 6):
...only problem is, those officially qualified to make that decision-- did.
..stating the obvious.....
Quoting AA787823 (Reply 7):
Slots at LHR....Until each carrier gives up a chunk it will never happen.
...its a possibility now....at least one hopes...
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 11): You cannot blame AA/BA for having an alliance that involves such a large market. It isn't really their fault. AA/BA will get ATI.
....don't blame AA orBA for being having so much "control"...AA has made some great decisions over the past number of years......UA had many opportunities at LHR and has not taken as much advantage as they should have.....too bad...
Quoting ElmoTheHobo (Reply 12): The lack of open skies didn't end up blocking anything, as the UK&US authorities had given tentative approval to AA/BA's alliance. It was American and British Airways that balked at the number of slots that they had to give up and scuttled the plan.
...giving up all those slots would have been a bad move, both were basically "strong-armed" into balking....
....actually not, they are doing what makes the best business strategy...management owe it to their shareholders and to the corporation to take as much advantage as they can of their unique situations...
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2755 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31116 posts, 
..there is no reason why AA/BA shouldn't get it....other carrier pairs have it also...
From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1148 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
