Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Open Skies...what's More To Come?!?  
User currently offlineAdicool From Netherlands, joined Apr 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3206 times:

With the recent development I wonder what more is to come...
BA just announced CDG-JFK service, AF announced LHR-LAX. What will other carriers do with the new agreement? I haven't heard anything from LH nor from KL or SK...
But then again, the Open Skies agreement is more about LHR, isn't it.
I personally think that competition will reach a new level yet I can't really see IB operating LHR-SCL for example.
So, what do you think, what will the European carriers make of this. Especially BD and VS

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9149 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3143 times:

Quoting Adicool (Thread starter):
With the recent development I wonder what more is to come...

If the US don't allow European carriers to operate domestically, I think this temporary open skies will be torn up and things go back to the way they were.

The US carriers want "open skies"/competition all one way, European carriers will let it slide for a while, but I believe it will all go back to the way it was before too long.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

Quoting Adicool (Thread starter):
But then again, the Open Skies agreement is more about LHR, isn't it.

Er, many of the EU15 countries (plus Switzerland, Iceland, Norway) already had 'open skies' agreements - they just didn't have the community air carrier clause.

The two main issues on the table are ownership and control and cabotage. I would doubt that the US side would be prepared to negotiate either meaning - one of two possibilities

1. What you see, is what you get, or
2. The EC tears up the new agreement and all air services US-EU ceases.

Guess which of these will prevail.

(From a European perspective, they were better off when the Brits were the negotiators - these twits in Brussels are useless)


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
The US carriers want "open skies"/competition all one way, European carriers will let it slide for a while, but I believe it will all go back to the way it was before too long.

I don't really believe that can happen. It's the governments that are responsible, not the airlines for making the decisions. Open skies should lower the profits of European Carriers as they will start competition against themselves more for flights to the United States. The US airlines already compete against each other. Overall prices should start to decrease, thus helping the people. Governments are after helping their constituents and not just making companies more profitable. With the tendancy for world liberalization of competition restrictions, removing open skies would require a dramatic policy shift in the US and EU. Protectionism is out. It might come back, but with technology where its at, that seems unlikely.

US airlines have had rights to fly within the countries now in the European Union ever since WWII. Pan Am, TWA, Delta and United have all had small subfleets of planes operating flights within Europe. That ability is established. European airlines never could operate within the United States. So there is precedent for the European airlines not getting access to the US domestic market.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4923 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3040 times:

Quoting Adicool (Thread starter):
BA just announced CDG-JFK service, AF announced LHR-LAX. What will other carriers do with the new agreement? I haven't heard anything from LH nor from KL or SK...
But then again, the Open Skies agreement is more about LHR, isn't it.

LHR is were the big new opportunuity is. If LH want to do anything I predict they will use bmi. And KL are of course owned by AF, so they wont do anything. And SK arent in the same league as LH/AF so wont be interested in LHR-USA I would have thought

Quoting Adicool (Thread starter):
So, what do you think, what will the European carriers make of this. Especially BD and VS

bmi have postponed their LHR-USA plans due to having BMed to integrate (its a matter of opinion how true this is). Personally I hope when bmi do start LHR-US service they dont go for the flagship routes like LHR-JFK but pick those whith less competition. IAH, SEA, MIA, PHX for example. This would also complement UA's services. IAH in particular would be very useful for feeding the BMed routes

As for VS, they've been very quiet and probably will be until they get B787's. They dont have any slots at LHR used for short haul, or a partner that has any, which makes it harder to implement a major increase in LHR-US service



Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33033 posts, RR: 71
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3016 times:

I think DL/AF joint venture might start to enter some other premium Heathrow-USA markets in the next two years, like Boston, Washington, and Miami. It might be interesting.


a.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

Quoting Humberside (Reply 4):
LHR is were the big new opportunuity is. If LH want to do anything I predict they will use bmi. And KL are of course owned by AF, so they wont do anything. And SK arent in the same league as LH/AF so wont be interested in LHR-USA I would have thought

I don't think LH wants to do much with LHR. UA and LH cooperate heavily and share revenue on certain transatlantic flights. UA has been cutting back at LHR and selling slots. UA has also given slots for LH to use to connect Germany with LHR. LH can start operations out of LHR, but I doubt they would want to. If it couldn't work for UA who had a strong base at LHR with a strong presence and many more flights, then I don't think LH with no feed or loyalty anywhere with regards to LHR can do much profitably. There are still plenty of opportunities for LH to expand out of FRA, and other airports such as MUC and ZRH.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2943 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 1):
If the US don't allow European carriers to operate domestically, I think this temporary open skies will be torn up and things go back to the way they were.

Why would they operate domestically? Are US carriers going to be operating domestically in the EU? That's what codeshares are for on both sides.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2916 times:

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 7):
Are US carriers going to be operating domestically in the EU?

US airlines enjoy unlimited fifths between EU member states (but not yet 8ths within MSs). But it is all on the table - they could, and why shouldn't they?


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9149 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
The US airlines already compete against each other.

What to see who goes in and out of Chapter 11 first ?

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
Overall prices should start to decrease, thus helping the people. Governments are after helping their constituents and not just making companies more profitable. With the tendancy for world liberalization of competition restrictions, removing open skies would require a dramatic policy shift in the US and EU. Protectionism is out. It might come back, but with technology where its at, that seems unlikely.

Not surprised you only see advantage in Atlantic competition, but when you talk about your back yard, domestically, you say "US airlines already compete against each other". Newsflash, European airlines already compete against each other as well, maybe you have heard of two little ones called Easyjet and Ryanair.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
US airlines have had rights to fly within the countries now in the European Union ever since WWII. Pan Am, TWA, Delta and United have all had small subfleets of planes operating flights within Europe. That ability is established. European airlines never could operate within the United States. So there is precedent for the European airlines not getting access to the US domestic market.

Great, if you think nothing is gained, close the agreement and go back to the way things were. Considering the EU did not exist at the time of WWII, I dont believe your statement is true. I would love to read about the " Pan Am, TWA, Delta and United" subfleets in Europe and what they what they actually did, and how they were structured.

US carriers cannot make a profit in their own backyard at the best of times, the US government is protecting that from real competition. US airlines do compete against each other, but have operated in an artificial environment where they can go into Chapter 11, a mechanism which is not really available outside the USA, which in itself if anticompetitive on a global scale.

BTW...this sounds like a broken record....seen it all before ....

"Hong Kong / US Air service Agreement and "Open Skies"

Hong Kong people should have the choice to fly with their preferred airline.

* The United States uses the term "Open Skies" as if it means “open markets”. It doesn’t. Under the policy, US airlines would enjoy unfettered access to regional markets that feed Hong Kong, but Hong Kong airlines would remain banned from competing on American turf.
* Any air service agreement between Hong Kong and the US should first and foremost bring greater benefits to Hong Kong customers: true competition is about choice, and Hong Kong people should have the freedom to fly within the US with the airline they prefer.
* Hong Kong has an open aviation regime based on the Government’s policy of progressive liberalisation. With it, Hong Kong has become the world’s busiest airport for international air cargo and the region’s biggest passenger hub.
* Travellers and cargo shippers using Hong Kong airport have the choice of flying with some 70 airlines to over 140 destinations, making the city one of the most connected in the world.
* The market between Hong Kong and the US is already completely open. Right now, there are almost 200 cargo and passengers flights between Hong Kong and the US each week, and no limit to any airline adding more.
* US carriers also enjoy valuable "fifth-freedom" rights that let them compete to destinations beyond Hong Kong that are just as much a part of our local market as are provincial US cities to hubs such as Chicago, New York and San Francisco.
* Further liberalisation would be welcome in Hong Kong, but only if it comes on equal terms. Unlimited rights for US carriers to compete in Hong Kong’s backyard should be fairly matched by Hong Kong airlines being allowed to operate between cities in the US.
* A characteristic of many of the world’s most successful airports such as London, Dubai and Frankfurt is that they have the loyalty and support of a strong home carrier. That is no less true here in Hong Kong.
* "Open Skies" rhetoric is short on substance because there is nothing open about competition that denies Hong Kong customers the right to choose."

from http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_...utus/cxbackground/companyviewpoint



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2876 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 8):
But it is all on the table - they could, and why shouldn't they?

Because they can have their codeshare partners do it.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2800 times:

I personally am in favor of opening up the domestic US market to foreign airlines. I think it would be great to get more competition. My economic belief is that competition is always good. People can always argue about how US bankruptcy laws work, but that's a much different argument. People can also argue about the US government bailing out airlines after 9/11. That's an interesting argument too. I personally believe that a bailout of some proportion was in order because the federal government banned the airlines from flying for 3 or so days, which drastically cut their revenue and financially hurt them. The government needed to offer reparations for that act because without it many more companies would have gone bankrupt. We lost smaller airlines like Vanguard and National, but it looked like US Airways wasn't even going to make it after their cash reserves disappeared in the span of three days.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):
Considering the EU did not exist at the time of WWII, I dont believe your statement is true.

I did correctly phrase my sentence to say that US airlines operated between countries that are now in the EU. I didn't say that they were in the EU after WWII. I believe I used correct grammar there except for maybe forgetting a comma.

US airlines have had rights to fly within the countries now in the European Union ever since WWII

Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):
Pan Am, TWA, Delta and United" subfleets in Europe and what they what they actually did, and how they were structured.

Pan Am linked Berlin to Western Europe. I believe their planes were the only ones flying between Berlin and West Germany, but my history may be wrong on that. UA, DL, TW and PA all had 727s or 737s based in Europe at one point to operate regional routes. They could carry local traffic on many of these routes I believe, but they were mainly to feed international flights out of LHR, CDG and FRA.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):
* The United States uses the term "Open Skies" as if it means “open markets”. It doesn’t. Under the policy, US airlines would enjoy unfettered access to regional markets that feed Hong Kong, but Hong Kong airlines would remain banned from competing on American turf.

This is where it gets difficult. A Hong Kong carrier can fly to the United States from any country just like a US carrier can fly to Hong Kong from any country with open skies. The diffierence is the lack of a domestic market in Hong Kong. So in one way it is fair and in one way it is not.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7392 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2783 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Whilst there may be a 0.1% probability of it happening, I'd love to see a European carrier add any route from any UK regional airport (outside London, lest people say LTN and STN!). Imagine the embarrassment for BA should any such route be sucessful, given the retrenchment that they have performed from the regions over the past decade or so.

User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6775 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

I don't what the problem is..

The US is made up of 50 states which is a part of the same COUNTRY..

The EU is made up of 27(?) COUNTRIES that make up a union...

So how is it wrong that the US is able to fly between different countries? If an airline wants to fly US-FR-SW. is there a problem with that? Now, flying US-CDG-NCE would be the same as flying CDG-JFK-SAV.. and even that is allowed to some airlines.. but I don't think pax are allowed to be picked up..

it's all the same thing.. unless all the countries in the EU decided to have 1 government over all the land and becomes states.. but that's on the Europeans to decide.. until that day comes.. there shouldn't be any problems with CO flying EWR-FRA-BCN..



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9149 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2717 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
I personally believe that a bailout of some proportion was in order because the federal government banned the airlines from flying for 3 or so days, which drastically cut their revenue and financially hurt them.

They didn't compensate airlines outside the US that they also stopped.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):

I did correctly phrase my sentence to say that US airlines operated between countries that are now in the EU. I didn't say that they were in the EU after WWII. I believe I used correct grammar there except for maybe forgetting a comma.

US airlines have had rights to fly within the countries now in the European Union ever since WWII

Between countries and within countries are different ICAO freedoms, which on is it ? Still have not said in what capacity, still would like to read about how this was done, and if it was precipitated as a result of the Berlin air bridge etc.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
Pan Am linked Berlin to Western Europe. I believe their planes were the only ones flying between Berlin and West Germany, but my history may be wrong on that. UA, DL, TW and PA all had 727s or 737s based in Europe at one point to operate regional routes. They could carry local traffic on many of these routes I believe, but they were mainly to feed international flights out of LHR, CDG and FRA.

Still would like to know how this was structured, for the delta case, I think they may have been operating in conjunction with a local airline, not in their own right.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
This is where it gets difficult. A Hong Kong carrier can fly to the United States from any country just like a US carrier can fly to Hong Kong from any country with open skies. The difference is the lack of a domestic market in Hong Kong. So in one way it is fair and in one way it is not.

Incorrect, CX cannot fly with passengers anywhere in the states it likes from YVR or ANC, we have tried. We cannot even let passengers on or off in ANC on the HKG-ANC-YTO. Instead our passengers or crew have to fly HKG-YVR-ANC, and dont understand why they cannot get the direct flight.

Hong Kong is not a country, it is a region that is part of China, just like Honolulu or Alaska is to the lower 48. China has one of the largest if not largest domestic markets in all of asia. You get the likes of United and Northwest picking and dropping off passengers on a milk run in asia, but we cannot do the same in the North America, we are very restricted in what we can and cannot do.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 13):
I don't what the problem is..

Yourself being from the US, I am not surprised.

The ICAO conventions only form one part of international law, using one law when convenient and disregarding others at the same time is what lead Microsoft loose its anti trust actions in Europe, and since withdrawn similar actions in Asia.

Using the aspects of the ICAO conventions that suit the USA (individual countries aspect), but then to enter into an agreement with the EU, not individual countries, in my view is what will get them unstuck.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33033 posts, RR: 71
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
Hong Kong is not a country, it is a region that is part of China, just like Honolulu or Alaska is to the lower 48.

Poor comparison. Alaska and Hawai'i are states no different than any California or Florida. Hong Kong to China is more like Guam to the U.S.



a.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
Between countries and within countries are different ICAO freedoms, which on is it ? Still have not said in what capacity, still would like to read about how this was done, and if it was precipitated as a result of the Berlin air bridge etc.


Source:
http://www.iht.com/articles/1991/07/12/pana.php

PA's intra-German services, a remnant of WWII, included FRA-TXL, MUC-TXL and some other routes. LH was not permitted to fly these sectors during the Berlin Wall period. The authority went from PA to LH in 1990 or 1991. LH did not need to pay PA for the transfer, but did anyway to acquire gates, infrastructure, etc. in a hurry. PA did keep flights within Europe until they sold the hubs. PA had a hub in Frankfurt which it sold to Delta in 1991. Delta kept 727s in Europe until it dismantled the FRA hub in 1997. DL operated many routes. I know of PRG-FRA, SVO-FRA, ATH-FRA, and I'm sure there were many others. There were probably around a dozen or more 727s based in FRA.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Oliver Brunke



UA purchased PA's hub in LHR. UA got LHR authority and continued to operate a select few routes within Europe from LHR until the late 90s.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steven Freeman



Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
You get the likes of United and Northwest picking and dropping off passengers on a milk run in asia, but we cannot do the same in the North America, we are very restricted in what we can and cannot do.

UA and NW operations from Japan are a relic from WWII. NW and PA operated flights to Japan and beyond. PA sold off to UA. The two airlines are the only US airlines with fifth freedom rights for flights beyond Japan. Both airlines have significant numbers of slots at NRT. I believe NW is number two behind JL in the size of their NRT operation. It is archaic, but Japan lost the war and is still feeling its effect. The two US airlines can do what they want in the Japanese market just as the US navy can do what it wants in Japanese water. Some things die slowly.

[Edited 2007-10-17 13:28:56]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7392 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2628 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 16):
PA's intra-German services, a remnant of WWII, included FRA-TXL, MUC-TXL and some other routes. LH was not permitted to fly these sectors during the Berlin Wall period.

Perhaps LH didn't fly their own metal, but they did have a joint venture with AF called EuroBerlin France that operated about 7 737s (leased from Monarch) flying German domestic routes.


User currently offlineAirlineBrat From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 652 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 16):
UA purchased PA's hub in LHR. UA got LHR authority and continued to operate a select few routes within Europe from LHR until the late 90s.

I took advantage of that not long after it happened. The sale of PA routes to UA took place in 1991, I believe. To celebrate the new routes, UA offered MP members a great deal. I think it was 15,000 miles plus $200 from the East Coast, 15,000 miles plus $350 from the West Coast and 15,000 miles plus $450 from Alaska and Hawaii. I jumped on it during the spring break of 1992 and flew FAI-ANC-SEA-SFO-LHR-AMS and TXL-LHR-SEA-ANC-FAI. All that for $450 and 15K miles. I was getting a degree in Geography from UAF and this was a chance to put my education to use before I graduated.

The LHR-AMS flight originated in IAD using a 767-200. The TXL-LHR flight was on a 727-200 in UA colors. The 727's based in London left LHR in late morning after incoming flights from the US arrived They RONed at each European city then returned first thing in the morning to feed US bound flights. Unfortunately it was not very efficient as each aircraft only flew for 4 hours a day then spent most of the time sitting in outer cities.

I did a photo search a while back and it looks like UA ferried over 727's from their North American operation and did not use ex PA aircraft. The LHR hub didn't last long before UA started serving European cities they acquired from PA directly from the US. That all changed for the worse as well all know and UA's presence in Europe is nothing more than symbolic routes to Star Alliance hubs, more or less.

Going back to the topic, I don't expect to see too many European carriers enter the LHR-US frey. Too much competition will decrease profits. I would expect most US carriers to add flights between their main hubs and LHR to start off but I expect to see some of those routes dropped over time due to lower than expected profits. Reminds me of how the US transcon market has evolved in the past 20 years......

[Edited 2007-10-17 20:12:43]


I'm leavin on a jet plane. Don't know when I'll be back again....
User currently offlineHPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2479 times:

Quoting Adicool (Thread starter):
But then again, the Open Skies agreement is more about LHR, isn't it.

Yes, but then again after AAs comments on London area RASM, one might reconsider buying multi million dollar slots.... the recent performance despite exchange rate has been disappointing to say the least...



Why do I fly???
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting David_itl (Reply 12):
Whilst there may be a 0.1% probability of it happening, I'd love to see a European carrier add any route from any UK regional airport (outside London, lest people say LTN and STN!).

What? Are you suggesting that maybe an IRISH airline could fly from a regional airport like Aberdeen, or Liverpool, or Belfast to other points in the UK and in Europe???? Hey that would never happen, oh wait ... www.ryanair.com

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 13):
So how is it wrong that the US is able to fly between different countries? If an airline wants to fly US-FR-SW. is there a problem with that? Now, flying US-CDG-NCE would be the same as flying CDG-JFK-SAV.. and even that is allowed to some airlines.. but I don't think pax are allowed to be picked up..

What is wrong with any airline flying any route between or within different countries? Coca Cola operates in Europe and Phillips markets their products in Maine! So why can't Royal Air Moroc fly from San Diego to Santa Cruz?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
Still would like to know how this was structured, for the delta case, I think they may have been operating in conjunction with a local airline, not in their own right.

West Berlin was not part of the Federal Republic of West Germany. The 'three powers' France, UK and the US controlled West Berlin and their airlines were licensed to operate 3rd/4th freedom services between West Berlin and other 'countries', including the Federal Republic. Because of the sensitivities with the fourth power - the USSR German airlines were not permitted to operate to West Berlin.


User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 16):
I believe NW is number two behind JL in the size of their NRT operation

I think they are number 3 after JL and NH.

This is a relic but it is on the verge of changing. Japan just changed part of the bilateral that will allow alliances to carry codeshare numbers on 5th freedoms. Meaning CO and DL can have their codeshare with NW through to BKK, SIN, and a whole host of NW destinations. The US is pushing Japan for an Open Skies. Japan is moving slowly but seems to be warming to it but just like many things in Japan, only time will tell.

On the Atlantic side, I really wonder how things will really work out. LHR seems to be the main object involved. But think about what this could do for Italy where the main national carrier is almost dead.

Maybe Airbus and Boeing will need to design a good replacement for the 757 with more range so that every place on the map can be matched up.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2374 times:

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 7):
Why would they operate domestically? Are US carriers going to be operating domestically in the EU?

Well it seems that a US airline will be operating domestically in Australia (which has a liberal policy in these matters). See: http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/...2607684-27977,00.html?from=mostpop

Let me turn the question around - why should there be any restrictions on where an airline can operate. Provided that they operate with adequate safety oversight, and in accordance with applicable labour laws - what is the problem?


User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2269 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 22):

Let me turn the question around - why should there be any restrictions on where an airline can operate. Provided that they operate with adequate safety oversight, and in accordance with applicable labour laws - what is the problem?

I totally agree with you. But American unions and politicians are very jingoistic. One can look at the Dubai ports deal as a prime example. Unions & politicians aside, I am sure if you surveyed the traveling public the feeling would be positive to foreign carriers flying where they like.

As to the open playing field which LHR will become, Willie Walsh has stated recently he would love to have a "transformational" deal with a US carrier. Obviously he is referring to AA and VS doesn't like it. But it's alright to let AF/DL/NW & CO go anywhere they like!

Looks like VS has the most to lose seeing as they have no alliance partner. Apart from SQ, who want to sell their stake and have just obtained rights UK-USA themselves.

LH? There is that "agreement" they have with BD and some option they have to buy out Bishop later this or early next year. I don't know the exact details, maybe someone on here does.


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-EU Open Skies - What's New? posted Thu Sep 22 2005 22:46:08 by Elagabal
Qantas Axes 200 Job's And More To Come posted Tue Aug 9 2005 06:39:08 by QANTAS077
Boeing, MD & Airbus ... Any More To Come? posted Thu May 5 2005 23:46:25 by Cxsjr
FCO-U.S.A, More To Come? posted Sun Aug 24 2003 07:26:53 by AlitaliaORD
Security Questions Officially Gone - More To Come posted Thu Aug 29 2002 17:44:08 by TWFirst
Those Shiny Metal Machines-More To Come! posted Tue Jan 15 2002 06:27:12 by VH-BZF
US And UK Open Skies. What Is It? posted Wed Jun 28 2000 13:06:53 by Dellatorre
Bmi And UA Looking To Team Up To Battle Open Skies posted Wed Apr 4 2007 01:24:14 by UnitedTristar
Open Skies - New Routes? A Return To The Past? posted Thu Mar 22 2007 23:35:42 by MCO2BRS
EU-US Open Skies: Effect On Pt-to-pt Vs Hub-hub? posted Thu Mar 22 2007 16:43:45 by NYC777