Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK Airlines Trying To Pull Plug On Open Skies?  
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12409 posts, RR: 37
Posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8595 times:

This reads very much like a spin from UK carriers, trying to arm twist the UK into pulling the rights of new US entrants, if the US doesn't move ahead with the next phase of Open Skies. I don't see that happening in 2008, with the election coming up. I see this really as an effort by UK carriers to try and force the issue; it seems to be mainly Virgin pushing for the withdrawal of rights. I don't see that happening.

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articl...s-deal-with-us-could-collapse.html

What do you think?

Personally, I think the real catalyst for a serious bilateral spat between the EU and US could be moves by the EU to include aviation in emissions trading; the US has already ruled this out and the EU seems determined to go ahead with it.
Hopefully any disagreement on that could be contained, but I wonder if the US would use the second stage of bilateral negotiations as a quid quo pro, i.e. move ahead with aviation being part of emissions trading and say goodbye to stage two. That could result in a collapse of the O/S process.

153 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBY738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2264 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8578 times:

Its should be real open skies and US should allow it there too to be fair.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8569 times:

If that happens, the USA should immediately pull the plug on VX in retaliation.

Quoting BY738 (Reply 1):
Its should be real open skies and US should allow it there too to be fair.

Whatever.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12393 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8520 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
If that happens, the USA should immediately pull the plug on VX in retaliation.

What has ACES got to do with this?  wink 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineJunction From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8520 times:

Is the issue that they want UK carriers to able to fly U.S. domestic? I couldn't really tell from the article.

User currently offlineJunction From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8499 times:

VX is the code for Virgin America. The decode given on here is wrong. The flight all display with VX:

VX 834 LAXSFO 630A+ 750A 320 0 120
VX1848 LAXSFO 1035A+1155A 319 0 120
VX 846 LAXSFO 1150A+ 110P 320 0 120
VX 836 LAXSFO 155P 315P 320 0 120
VX1852 LAXSFO 405P 525P 319 0 120
VX 832 LAXSFO 625P 745P 320 0 120 >


User currently offlineLHRBlueSkies From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8470 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Whatever.

Oh dear, not afraid of some competition from UK carriers are you?

Quoting Junction (Reply 4):
Is the issue that they want UK carriers to able to fly U.S. domestic?

Basically, yes!



flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1256 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8389 times:

Well, Article 21 of the Open Skies agreement provides that Stage II negotiations must begin within 60 days of the provisional application of Open Skies (March 30, 2008), and that within 18 months, if no agreement has been reached, they can then review their progress. If no agreement has been reached with 12 months of the start of that review, THEN either party can suspend the agreement. However, such suspension could take effect no sooner than 12 months from that point. That's a pretty long lag for the Brits to wait for negotiations to fail.

However, Article 25 provides for cancellation of the agreement notwithstanding failure of Stage II negotiations. That allows cancellation at the end of the next IATA traffic season ending after a 12-month period from the time of cancellation. So once it starts, it goes for at least one year. That means that even if the Brits were somehow able to persuade the entire EU to cancel this agreement on the day it started, Heathrow would still be opened up for 1 year.

Therefore, the only way the British can unilaterally stop the agreement is via Article 26, and failing to certify the completion of their procedures for implementation. It's a bit unclear what happens under the treaty if one of the countries intentionally breaches it; the adjudication articles (18 and 19) only seem to cover "interpretation or application" of the agreement, not what happens if someone breaches it. The Brits are further in hot water because they're not really even contemplated as a "party" to the treaty, but rather just a part of one of the parties.

Therefore, them intentionally breaching the treaty by failing to certify completion of preparations would seem to stop the March 30 date, but it's unclear what the hell would happen after that. It'd be a gigantic mess for sure though.


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1256 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8369 times:



Quoting LHRBlueSkies (Reply 6):
Quoting Junction (Reply 4):
Is the issue that they want UK carriers to able to fly U.S. domestic?

Basically, yes!

Then they shouldn't have made the deal. You make the bed, you have to lie in it or pay the consequences. Regretting a deal isn't grounds for mandatory re-negotiation. What this gamesmanship is really comprised of is the Brits threatening a bad-faith breach (not allowing implementation) in retaliation for their anticipation of a bad-faith breach by the Americans (refusing to reasonably negotiate Stage II).


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2865 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8313 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
If that happens, the USA should immediately pull the plug on VX in retaliation.

Why should they pull the plug on a US company and put a couple of thousand US citizens out of work...?  stirthepot 

Shamu



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineSbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 836 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8260 times:



Quoting IADCA (Reply 8):
What this gamesmanship is really comprised of is the Brits threatening a bad-faith breach (not allowing implementation) in retaliation for their anticipation of a bad-faith breach by the Americans (refusing to reasonably negotiate Stage II).

In all honesty though I think that most people knew that this "2nd Stage" was never gonig to happen - too many in the US will oppose.



The best way forwards is upwards!
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8234 times:

I fully expect the Brits to pull out every stop -- legal, regulatory, commercial, and otherwise -- to derail Open Skies. The UK would be remiss if it did not exhaust all overt and discreet efforts to protect its aviation market.


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlinePixuk From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8201 times:

I don't see the UK 'pulling out every stop' to derail Open Skies - we want it as much as the US do - but I do see the UK fighting hard for the 2nd stage of negotiations (as agreed by both sides) to open up the US too. If the US fail to do so, then the UK is perfectly within its right to throw a spanner in the works, otherwise the EU has given up freedom for US carriers to operate within Europe and unrestricted from Heathrow for what? Seems a like a very one-sided deal.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8198 times:



Quoting LHRBlueSkies (Reply 6):
Oh dear, not afraid of some competition from UK carriers are you?

Nope. It's not about that. It's about a deep pocket international carrier coming into the USA and plucking high yield passengers from domestic routes while leaving other carriers to clean up the scraps. It would have a deadly effect on our carriers, with no commensurate risk on the UK carriers side, since the domestic market in the UK is not where they make most of their money.

I don't want to see our carriers collapse and lose service to smaller markets in out country because a foreign airline is allowed to dump capacity on high yield routs. Connecting the smaller cities in our vast country is far more important to me that CO and DL having access to LHR.

If the UK is going to try to pull anything, the response is NOT to capitulate but to retaliate. One simple way is to apply slots to JFK and ORD and trim VS and BA's access, while pulling VX's cert. We can also grant more access to JFK by EK and AF, for example, and encourage them to fly via LHR.

If the UK wants a war on this, they'll get one. The USA lived far too long under the B2 agreement that was more beneficial to the UK. But we signed it, negotiated the best we could for access, we had to live with it.

Now the new deal is signed, and if the UK doesn't want to live with it... well, that's their problem. Not only are they trying to break it, but they are doing so years before we were even supposed to discuss another round of liberalization.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 9):
Why should they pull the plug on a US company and put a couple of thousand US citizens out of work...?

To retaliate against VS, that's why. VX is already on thin ice by not strictly adhering to their approval and having SRB much more involved. Since VS is the lead dog on this fight, it would seem that he really does want VX to just be part of the Virgin brand and not really be American.

As for putting people out of work, it's not that simple. How many people won't be employed if the UK blocks access to LHR for our carriers? Those were going to be expansion jobs. And are all those VS employees unfit to find work elsewhere in the industry? If the demand was there for that capacity, isn't that demand to be met by other carriers? If so, won't they need employees?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBY738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2264 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8169 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Nope. It's not about that. It's about a deep pocket international carrier coming into the USA and plucking high yield passengers from domestic routes while leaving other carriers to clean up the scraps. It would have a deadly effect on our carriers, with no commensurate risk on the UK carriers side, since the domestic market in the UK is not where they make most of their money

So US carriers are not not cherry picking the lucrative transatlantic routes.....
Yes its all about competition. Or current lack of it.


User currently offlineJonnyWishbone From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8134 times:

Seems to me that the 'high yield' domestic passengers are thin on the ground! Whenever I am on US or AA domestically, I am the only one not on a mileage upgrade.

I am sure my american friends will viamentally oppose 'open skies' and so they should - their own products are woeful compared to European and Asian carriers.

Who would honestly prefer to travel AA first on an overnight LAX-JFK in preference to a BA club bed if the fares were comparible, the FF points the same etc etc.

Just HOW patriotic would you be if it were your money and your sleep you needed - I think the US carriers should be very worried indeed.

J


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8090 times:

Quoting Sbworcs (Reply 10):
In all honesty though I think that most people knew that this "2nd Stage" was never gonig to happen - too many in the US will oppose.

Well, yeah. It's difficult for an airline to invade the hubs of European majors, unless they had a signifcant presence. We simply don't see BA, IB, LH, or AF trying to invade each others hubs, so the 5th freedom rights to other European countries don't have much value to US airlines. Why give access to our more easily entered market?

Quoting BY738 (Reply 1):
Its should be real open skies and US should allow it there too to be fair.

Nonsense. The EU countries should give up their separate ICAO memberships, and then the US should give up the the basically unused rights it has for 5th freedom flights between EU countries. As long as the EU countries remain separate signatories to ICAO agreement, flights originating from a country outside the EU and going between two EU countries picking up traffic along the way will be 5th freedom.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
If that happens, the USA should immediately pull the plug on VX in retaliation.

Nah the US should then announce that they will pull out of Bermuda II and that they will stop flights between Heathrow and the US airports where a major US international carrier is locked out of Heathrow by the original agreement. As long as Delta is shut out of LHR from JFK, no airline will be able to fly LHR-JFK, and as long as CO is locked out of LHR, no airline will be able to fly LHR-EWR. A lot of the value in Heathrow comes from the US-UK business given that a rather substantial portion of the passengers passing through the airport are arriving/departing/connecting/transferring from US flights. Curtailing that business will remind the UK airlines that the US has a legitimate gripe about Heathrow access. The setup under Bermuda II is archaic and was negotiated under the threat that the UK would pull out from the original Bermuda agreement and throttle the then dominant position of US carriers on US-UK routes.

[Edited 2007-12-04 16:11:01]


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineBreaker1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 938 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8085 times:

I will bet this - a full-blown Open Skies will certainly change the competitive landscape. Some carriers are going to win, and some are going to loose. And the deep packets referred to are going to be the players really rocking the boats in years to come - both US and EU boats I might add. Just wait till EK, Quater, etc eye more Europe-USA routes as SQ is considering already. Guess we need to be careful what we wish for eh? It does feel like all this from a US perspective was hell-bent on one thing - getting LHR access to US carriers that didn't have it.

Will it be worth it in the end? I assure you AA and UA don't think so! Time will tell, strap yourselves in. I for one think I will miss the pleasure of easy service to Gatwick!!



Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. J. Wayne
User currently offlineBlueSkys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8049 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
And are all those VS employees unfit to find work elsewhere in the industry? If the demand was there for that capacity, isn't that demand to be met by other carriers? If so, won't they need employees?



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
If that happens, the USA should immediately pull the plug on VX in retaliation.

I dont quite know what is clouding your judgement....patriotism?....

Do you really think it is that simple? "Hi, I am from the former airline known as Virgin America.... Americans did not like us so now I have no job, can you help me out UA? I have a family to feed and I am american so you must give me a job"
 sarcastic 

Foreign or not, they are a player in your economy that is helping your economy. I am not going to get into examples of how the USA take over other countries and 'borrow' resources that do not belong to them or give any benefit to the people of that country or its economy. So maybe you should be a little bit more humble and realize that Virgin America is not the devil just because it is indirectly being run by a Britt.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11434 posts, RR: 61
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7982 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
This reads very much like a spin from UK carriers, trying to arm twist the UK into pulling the rights of new US entrants, if the US doesn't move ahead with the next phase of Open Skies.

Yeah, lots of bluster and chest-beating to assert themselves and show the U.S. and the E.U. that they're still not happy, not that it's going to change much. This whole little move by the U.K., coming on the heels of their yells last year and earlier this year that they would never agree to Open Skies unless cabotage was included, and then amending that to they would never agree to Open Skies unless the U.S. started talking about cabotage, and on and on, is just comical.

They know exactly what Brussels and Washington know: it's not going to happen. Not now, and almost certainly, not for quite some time.

The national mood and political climate in the U.S. the way it is right now, the Democrats in control of congress who were largely sweeped in on a popular suspicion of globalization, there is just absolutely no way that this could ever happen. Even if the U.S. did come back to the table next year and start actively negotiating a "Stage 2" deal, and even if the Bush DoT did agree to cabotage within the U.S. (fat chance), it would be next to impossible to ever get Congress to okay it. And once again, the U.K. knows it.

Furthermore, the U.K. knows that if they really do throw a tantrum and put the ice on this entire deal, they're going to have to explain it to the entire rest of the E.U. which, on balance, seems pretty much okay with the deal as-is. Sure, they all want U.S. cabotage, too, but their rationality and realism tells them it won't happen, and they're all seemingly satisfied to have ATI with their U.S. partners and be able to fly anything E.U.-U.S. unrestricted (including from Heathrow!).

So, come on, U.K. government: I dare you to kill this agreement. The result will be this: the U.K. will get nothing out of it except hurting themselves. The U.S. will likely immediately revoke British carriers' landing rights at U.S. airports, and perhaps all E.U. carriers just to piss off everyone and get even more people mad at Britain, and then the two sides will sit down and, once again, for those playing the home game, figure out what we all already know: it's not going to happen.

Important to remember: British carriers need the U.S. market a whole lot more than U.S. carriers need the U.K.

Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
the US has already ruled this out and the EU seems determined to go ahead with it.

Yeah, the E.U. seemed "determined" to get cabotage in the U.S., too, but they dropped that little chestnut when they realized - news flash - that it was never going to happen.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
If that happens, the USA should immediately pull the plug on VX in retaliation.

I like it. And while we're at it, let's just revoke every British carrier's landing rights at U.S. airports.

Quoting Junction (Reply 4):
Is the issue that they want UK carriers to able to fly U.S. domestic? I couldn't really tell from the article.

The issue is they don't want more competition on U.S.-Heathrow routes, and the U.S. doesn't want their competition on U.S. domestic routes.

Quoting Sbworcs (Reply 10):
In all honesty though I think that most people knew that this "2nd Stage" was never gonig to happen

It's not "most" people. It's "all" people, at least all rational people. The U.K. knew full well - or at least should have known - what this agreement was: this was it. It was a done deal. Sure, they can come back and keep talking, blah, blah, blah, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever in the current political environment in the U.S. that the U.S. will ever agree to cabotage. Not going to happen. The U.K. knows it.

Quoting Pixuk (Reply 12):
but I do see the UK fighting hard for the 2nd stage of negotiations (as agreed by both sides) to open up the US too.

Have fun "fighting hard." They'll be fighting for the rest of their natural lives.

Quoting Breaker1011 (Reply 17):
I will bet this - a full-blown Open Skies will certainly change the competitive landscape. Some carriers are going to win, and some are going to loose.

The thing is, though: if people were smart, they'd recognize that if managed well, every airline can benefit from this. Nobody has to lose. Willie Walsh said it himself, that in the short-run, the impact on BA from Open Skies would likely be "manageable," and in the long-run, it might even have an upside.


User currently offlineBreaker1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 938 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7957 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 19):
The thing is, though: if people were smart, they'd recognize that if managed well, every airline can benefit from this. Nobody has to lose. Willie Walsh said it himself, that in the short-run, the impact on BA from Open Skies would likely be "manageable," and in the long-run, it might even have an upside.

I agree - but you make a big wish there to think that all companies will manage it well! Some will be extraordinary but some with withdrawl because they can't figure out how to put themselves together against newer and in many cases, wealthier competition.



Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. J. Wayne
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7942 times:



Quoting Pixuk (Reply 12):
I don't see the UK 'pulling out every stop' to derail Open Skies - we want it as much as the US do -

No, the Brits don't. The whole point of Open Skies to savage the UK-USA air market -- that's why the new services announced focus almost exlcusively on adding flights by USA and EU carriers from London Heathrow to the USA.

No one really give's a rat's *ss about adding flying from Paris or anywhere else -- all the airlines want to go where the money is, and the money is in operating transatlantic flights from London.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 19):
So, come on, U.K. government: I dare you to kill this agreement. The result will be this: the U.K. will get nothing out of it except hurting themselves. The U.S. will likely immediately revoke British carriers' landing rights at U.S. airports, and perhaps all E.U. carriers just to piss off everyone and get even more people mad at Britain, and then the two sides will sit down and, once again, for those playing the home game, figure out what we all already know: it's not going to happen.

Far more likely would be a freeze on any new USA services to LHR past, say, April 1, 2008. This could in fact make everyone happy if carried out with the proper delicacy.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7938 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 19):

 checkmark 

At least someone here understands what is really going on here behind the political bluster.

Cabotage was always just a strawman in the negotiations, used by the EU as a "stumbling block" while the EU worked out a unified negotiating position.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7917 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
If that happens, the USA should immediately pull the plug on VX in retaliation.

Why? VX is an American company.....as determined by your own authorities.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Whatever.

Very predictable, and indicates precisely that most Americans have no interest whatever in 'free trade', except when it sounds good and suits them.


User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 893 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7905 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 19):
Yeah, lots of bluster and chest-beating to assert themselves and show the U.S. and the E.U. that they're still not happy, not that it's going to change much. This whole little move by the U.K., coming on the heels of their yells last year and earlier this year that they would never agree to Open Skies unless cabotage was included, and then amending that to they would never agree to Open Skies unless the U.S. started talking about cabotage, and on and on, is just comical.

They know exactly what Brussels and Washington know: it's not going to happen. Not now, and almost certainly, not for quite some time.

The national mood and political climate in the U.S. the way it is right now, the Democrats in control of congress who were largely sweeped in on a popular suspicion of globalization, there is just absolutely no way that this could ever happen. Even if the U.S. did come back to the table next year and start actively negotiating a "Stage 2" deal, and even if the Bush DoT did agree to cabotage within the U.S. (fat chance), it would be next to impossible to ever get Congress to okay it. And once again, the U.K. knows it.

Well said. Even if the cabotage rights were reciprocal, there is simply no chance of this happening anytime in the near future. US carriers are probably not nearly as interested in picking up the high yield passengers between say, LHR and MAN for instance, as British carriers would be interested in picking up the high yield traffic between say, JFK and LAX, or JFK and SFO, or MIA and SEA, or BOS and SAN, etc etc. So even if the deal was reciprocal in law, it wouldn't really be "fair" per se.

Then throw in the political climate. I happen to be a staunch free trader myself, but the political climate in the US currently tends to be skeptical of free trade. You can sure as hell bet that the import of foreign labor who won't be paying US income taxes to work domestic flights is going to be looked at with even more scorn potentially.

So while not taking a view on this myself, the reality is that there is no chance whatsoever of the US DOT granting cabotage rights to BA, VS etc anytime soon. If you're waiting for it, don't hold your breath.


25 AirNZ : Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this precisely what all the whinging was about from Americans regarding Bermuda II? It was a bi-lateral treaty ne
26 AirNZ : Sorry, but that's what it's all about. If certain US carriers can't compete in the open market then get out of it.....how much protectionism do they
27 Baexecutive : Why not? Afraid of some competition? BA/VS would wipe the floor with your carriers on service alone LOL EXACTLY.....Chapter 11??
28 Avek00 : Actually, for long-haul, the fear is in the opposite direction -- European workers are afraid that one day US airline workers, who cost roughly 30% l
29 Atmx2000 : That's too severe. My proposal is better, as it highlights the assymmetry in the current aviation agreement, and eliminates the advantage it conferrs
30 Commavia : A very important point. The obvious and severe political ramifications (the whole "foreigns steeling our jobs" scare) notwithstanding, even if Bush c
31 Baexecutive : I don't see any harm in opening up LHR to competition, BA will continue to flourish whatever happens as 'service' wise they wipe the floor with US car
32 FreequentFlier : Excellent analysis. Welcome to my RU list. Any sort of legal contract negotiation implicitly assumes that both parties agree to it without any sort o
33 Post contains images Commavia : Exactly. Ding, ding, ding ... no more calls ... we have a winner. I consider myself in exactly the same position. While I consider myself about as pr
34 IADLHR : I totally , totally agree. I also think the only way it will come about is when the next wave of proposed mergers of US carriers is announced or a US
35 Max999 : Not true for non-airline union voters. I think one party that's been left out of this discussion are the flying public on both sides of the Atlantic.
36 Commavia : I don't think so, not by a long shot. That is "wishful" thinking about best, respectfully. If voters were so rational as to see the benefits of globa
37 Post contains links VV701 : In response to the above and similar comments please first note that the first government to ratify the Open Skies agreement was the UK government. A
38 Post contains images Commavia : Rolling on the floor, laughing my a** off. Wow, that's a good one - you should really do stand-up. Both of which, relatively speaking, are a drop in
39 Bongodog1964 : Here in the UK we are taught that it is better to lose in a honourable way, than win in a dishonourable way; signing agreements with every intention
40 Commavia : Who's not adhering to anything? They way I read/understand the agreement, the U.S. agreed to begin discussions/negotiations on Phase 2 within a set p
41 Kanebear : Yes, from the UK side. BA has the ability at unserved points to switch services from LGW to LHR. No US airline has that capability and it's a sure be
42 Kanebear : And a RR slot for you for being so circumspect about the UK position.
43 IADCA : Well, what the Brits fear is that they won't negotiate in good faith. The negotiation clause almost definitely means in good faith, though, as it wou
44 Kellmark : Something that nobody has mentioned in this discussion but which is very important is the difference in safety standards between the US and the EU. Al
45 Post contains links Atmx2000 : It was agreed to by the US, because the UK announced they were going to pull out of the original Bermuda agreement, a far less restrictive agreement
46 Pixuk : Really not sure why you insist on perpetuating this myth that VX is a British airline. Branson has a minority stake, and very little influence on the
47 AirframeAS : Barely. Very, very, very borderline and pushing it. VX is still being watched very closely by the D.O.T. and the F.A.A. With conditions. If VX, later
48 ANother : Cabotage? Why is everyone on about cabotage? What the Europeans would like is a relaxation of ownership and control rules on the US side to (at least)
49 Commavia : Because that's what the E.U. have repeatedly said they want. And that - as I said - is I think something they might realistically be able to get. At
50 AirframeAS : You're comparing the airline industry to a soft drink maker and an appliance maker?? Strange. Apples and oranges, bro. Like I said in post #47: The w
51 CHRISBA777ER : Agreed - sad really. Nice. Lovely people. Agreed it wont happen - the bare point is, will the deal still go through as planned if the US do not allow
52 ANother : You forget that the US position at Chicago in 1944 was complete freedom of the skies - It's taken quite a few years for the Europeans (and the Singap
53 Post contains images Commavia : Sure, the U.S. has no interest in free trade. Right. Isn't that what we've been doing? Again - beyond the fact that it "just isn't going to happen" (
54 CHRISBA777ER : Fantastic post - welcome to my RU List. The major side-effect of a Hypothetical Completely Open Skies Agreement would be that of consolidation – yo
55 CHRISBA777ER : Of course you do, but on the "right" terms - its just that some trades are freer than others, right? You play the game, you play the market and you g
56 Par13del : Let me as a simple question here regarding open LHR access. Does the UK govt. EU or any other body in the EU side of it assure US carriers that they c
57 CHRISBA777ER : They buy the slots at hugely inflated premiums from carriers who do have them, or they pull strings within their respective alliances to get reciproc
58 Commavia : Indeed: but therein lies the fundamental problem, from the U.S. perspective. While, to me - and many others, including yourself, I suspect - "free" m
59 Theginge : But the ones like BA and LF and AF that would want flights inside the USA do monitor their flights! Surely the running in to hazardous weather and ha
60 Post contains images Mir : Examples? European airlines are just as safe as US airlines. -Mir
61 Post contains links Commavia : Another perfect example of why, at least for now, there is absolutely no way the U.S. will ever agree to cabotage: However, even in the 1990s, the Dem
62 Sevenair : Ikramerica - classic yankee response. Look after yourselves - sod everyone else. What about all the non Airline companies from the US that move abroad
63 UAL777UK : I am afraid to say that to a degree your right. BA would collapse if they were denied the right to fly to the US. We all know thats where they make t
64 Antonovman : etc etc etc As much as i hate to say it, i agree with Commavia This has to be the most sensible posting from the U.S. side
65 LTBEWR : Perhaps better would be some USA based carriers offering more non-stop service to Africa and the Middle East so that pax wouldn't have to go through L
66 Commavia : I think the opportune comparison would be whether it was acceptable for a European fast-food chain to come and compete in America, which it most cert
67 Donder10 : I can perfectly understand the arguments of Commavia and others on the U.S. side, even if the E.U. market was theoretically and legally opened up to U
68 DLPMMM : Even the UK and EU negotiators realize this as well. Remember, these negotiations were spurred by the EU courts ruling that the existing bilaterals b
69 Commavia : I'm not referring specifically to any particular individual here on A.net or elsewhere, and I don't want to speak for anyone, but generally yes, I do
70 Post contains images Atmx2000 : It was, but it realized it wasn't going anywhere. Foreign retailers and restaurants have the same right to setup shop in the US. Like for like is fai
71 CHRISBA777ER : When EU airlines go bankrupt they stay bankrupt, whereas when US carriers do they just declare Ch.11 and get most of their debts written off. The EU
72 Brilondon : I would still fly any mainline U.S carrier over Ryanair or easyjet any day of the week.
73 VV701 : Well Bermuda 2 is restrictive on operations into LHR and LGW. But it gives US airlines the same access to all other airports in the UK (including STN
74 Kellmark : Carriers would not be allowed to operate domestic service with passengers without meeting US rules. Why don't you ask the FAA what they thought of th
75 Commavia : Some people act as if the U.S. bankruptcy code was crafted specifically for airlines, and as if the entire concept of "Chapter 11" bankruptcy was des
76 Commavia : And yet, even with the FAA stepping in, the capacity situation at U.S. airports like JFK is still far, far more transparent than Heathrow. In explici
77 Avek00 : Not at all true - this has already happened at least once with a major US airline (Northwest).
78 CHRISBA777ER : The suggestion that US airlines are intrinsically safer than their EU counterparts because of the perceived difference between the Governing FAA/JAR-O
79 Mutu : My oh my. What a lot of empotional, well argued but at times OTT reading on this thread. All on the back of a "trade" mag article thats quoted the CEO
80 Post contains links Atmx2000 : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_company_file/137564.stm Wednesday, July 22, 1998 Published at 18:28 GMT 19:28 UK Air France receives state ai
81 Tonystan : "Deep pocket international carriers"???? Well you need a smack of reality sir. When all the European (and other airlines) were suffering after 9/11,
82 Humberside : Have to agre with Mutu here. This is VS moaning, not the UK. And its VS who have just seen LHR-USA opened up to full competition, while not gaining mu
83 Baexecutive : LMAO..........am not saying a word...............jus LAUGHING : ) Do you live under a rock? HERE HERE well said
84 Atmx2000 : The debt collectors ended up with ownership of the airlines. During the 90s carriers like LH and AF received substantial sums of government money in
85 Post contains images AirframeAS : Of course. If they break any of the conditions, their certification will be yanked. Its obvious. Who is being victimized. Its VX that asked for the c
86 Bongodog1964 : And how much compensation did EU airlines get for their cancelled flights to North America ? answer none. Just think, as you Americans keep saying BA
87 StarGoldLHR : I don't care. Which ever Star Alliance carrier starts any London airport direct to any New York airport gets my business.
88 Post contains links Kanebear : You're having a laugh. When's the last time you've flown BA First? Service is still excellent yet staffing has been cut back. The soft product has be
89 Par13del : Regarding the safety issue, a poster mentioned that US airlines have specific rules / laws they have to follow which EU airlines do not. Examples of s
90 Sbworcs : But then again - BOTH sides agreed to the second round of negotiations and also agreed to the rights to withdraw after certain time period if the 2nd
91 Mutu : I am nor going to disagree fundamentaly with you but yo0u should bear in mind that of these carriers BA is the last to introduce its next generation
92 TristarSteve : Just read through this whole thread and I am really amazed that the posters with US flags seem to be so scared of European airlines. If we moved into
93 Sllevin : Exactly. True Open Skies during the 1950's and 1960's and really, the 1970s would have led to the end of most European airlines. The Bermuda treaties
94 Sbworcs : Again a benefit for only the US side. Is there any way to truly balance the history of slot allocation in the EU, the current main incumbents at majo
95 Baexecutive : Why should we relinquish access to the busiest international airports in the world, the largest economy on earth not to mention 710,000,000 people wit
96 CitrusCritter : That's simply a false analogy as the two industries are not remotely similar. Should a European fast food chain or market chain wish to come to the U
97 Commavia : Well, being completely objective, and taking out all of the emotion, politics and West Side Story "us versus them," could you understand why it is th
98 Pixuk : Been there, done that. Dripped ketchup on the T Shirt. Burger King was owned by British company Grand Metropolitan PLC from 1989 until 1997, and then
99 Baexecutive : Not to mention, HSBC, BP and Shell which are all household names in the USA (and three of the worlds top ten companies), BT, bae systems, Citizens Ba
100 VV701 : Are you saying that the fifth freedom rights allowed in Bermuda2 were worthless and that first PA and then UA should not have based short haul fleets
101 FreequentFlier : Yes, putting aside the "my side of the pond, your side of the pond" nationalism, the argument against allowing EU carriers to serve the US domestic m
102 Sllevin : That's a bit disingenuous since BA wasn't even privatized until a little more than 10 years ago. I would strongly argue that fundamentally Europe too
103 David_itl : More like 20 years a plc
104 Gh123 : At the same time, almost the same amount of staff would be required in the US is EU airlines started flying in the US internally. ie: Pilots, Ground C
105 Commavia : My gosh, I don't know why this is so difficult to understand - can we please stop repeating this oft-cited mythology over and over? Again, I don't kn
106 Jacobin777 : ....JFK and ORD as well as smaller airports for practical purposes are slot-controlled...
107 Commavia : Relatively speaking, though, the U.S. is almost entirely un-regulated and not slot-controlled. In the U.S., the number of major hub airports serving
108 DLPMMM : I don't know why you bother. The facts don't matter for some people, they just want to argue. Cabotage is total bullshit, and both sides know it. The
109 FreequentFlier : You're sort of all over the place here. I wasn't complaining about Bermuda 2, in fact I've never mentioned it once. The point is that there are slot
110 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..true but most EU carriers probably don't want to fly to locations such as IND either (no disrespect to IND)....
111 BAxMAN : What!????! The Loco's have pretty much driven BA out of all domestic markets other than those routes that provide feed into the LHR operation (with t
112 Commavia : But they might want to fly to Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Hartfor
113 AirframeAS : Let me add one thing to this, it was not originally US that got the aid. It was HP that got the aid and paid it back in full a couple years ago. And
114 Commavia : Like I said, BA doesn't have much exposure to these markets since they no longer really operate in said (domestic U.K.) markets. But again, the point
115 VV701 : I am sorry but this is factually wrong. BA was privatised in February 1987, more than twenty years ago which is not 'a little more than 10 years ago'
116 Commavia : It's exactly the same in America. The government sets regulations, and airlines and airports follow them. That's not a subsidy in the slightest. Airl
117 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ....I'm not so sure how this would apply to international carriers..... .....maybe you could be a little more clear...thanks...
118 Commavia : All I'm saying is that any of the cities listed above - and then some - are pretty much wide open for anybody who wanted to to come in, set up shop,
119 ANother : Forget cabotage - keep the rule that only US based airlines (and supervised by your DOT/FAA) can fly US domestic routes with US citizen labour. What
120 Commavia : For many in America, that is effectively the same - in practice - as cabotage. To this school of thought, letting a foreigner own a U.S. airline is t
121 VV701 : Thank you for your clarification. But I am still having difficulty in understanding, for example, how a central government payment of US $ 3.679 bill
122 DLPMMM : Why would the USA allow non-USA citizens to own a USA airline? The EU does not let non-EU citizens own EU airlines! The only difference between the 2
123 Commavia : Because the government isn't "paying" the airlines - it's paying its own federal employees who now act as airport screeners. And it's not just mintin
124 VV701 : The 25 per cent US ownership rule is a law. The 49 per cent rule to which you refer to is not a law. To me this is a very significant, non-numerical
125 ANother : The EC (not the EU) is not against changing this - but as VV701 points out, it does complicate the assignment of route rights. Taking it in steps the
126 Byrdluvs747 : After reading this whole thread it seems that the European members here just don't want to admit that they are offering very little in trade when it c
127 Post contains images AirframeAS : No, we don't. I have said this countless times and I'm going to say it again: We do things alot differently than you do. Just because you do things d
128 Post contains images Jacobin777 : .....there are really no large enough profitable markets (for European carriers) for many of the airports you listed.....again, as I stated previousl
129 DLPMMM : You are comparing 5th freedom rights (JFK-LHR-BAH) and cabotage (LHR-JFK-HNL). Not that any USA carrier would want to waste a valuable LHR slot pair
130 LHRBlueSkies : If US really wants competition, then open itself up to true competition from all the worlds carriers, not just EU one's. I'm sure they'd soon find ou
131 DLPMMM : Who said that the US really wants more competition on domestic routes? We already have 5 of the 6 largest airlines in the world flying domestically.
132 Gigneil : It is LITERALLY impossible to do so. I would raise holy hell to my useless house delegate if it did. Virgin America is an American company with Ameri
133 Indy : Even if they wanted to fly to these locations is there really room for growth at LHR? That is a lot of extra equipment as well. Plus why fly to some
134 Avek00 : H**l no on both counts. 1. The intorduction of foreign carriers would almost invariably prove net negative to US air consumers. Why? The foreign carr
135 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...no need to be pedantic... I could easily use LHR-JFK-YYZ/YVR or LHR-JFK-EZE as an example.....the argument is basically the same.. ....again, as I
136 Viscount724 : BA already has 5th freedom rights JFK-YYZ. They operated that sector for a couple of years in the 1990s as part of their YYZ-JFK-BHX route using 757s
137 Trvlr : Like what? The ability to fly between Brussels and Rome? Let them retaliate, US carriers could care less...
138 DLPMMM : It is not the same because EU airlines have the right to fly LHR-JFK-YYZ or EZE as 5th freedoms now. That is entirely different than cabotage. The fa
139 DTWAGENT : Why can't both sides of the pond grow up and act like adults. Besides I thought the Brits wanted this open skies agreement? Chuck
140 DLPMMM : In this case, the governments are acting like adults. BA is reportedly looking forward to the new open skies arrangement and flying from the continen
141 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..seems as if I've been doing the same thing ad nauseam ....that's not what I was referring to.... ....you are correct, I did forget about that....so
142 Avek00 : Good adults seek to reasonably defend their interests.
143 DLPMMM : The point is that USA carriers do not want to fly TXL-HAM. USA carriers also do not want to fly GLA-FRA. The USA carriers have no interest in flying
144 Jacobin777 : ..not the EC's problem... ..not the EC's problem again.... ....if its nothing for the USofA to gain then why should the EC (particularly the UK) open
145 Viscount724 : Even German carriers don't want to fly TXL-HAM. There hasn't been any air service between Hamburg and Berlin for a few years since fast trains were i
146 Post contains links and images DLPMMM : You stated the reason yourself earlier. The EC was asking for the USA to open up LHR-USA access to all the EC carriers, not just the UK carriers. Thi
147 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..that's not the point... ....a fair trade according to you? Not according to some in the EU... "I appreciate-indeed, I share-the deep disappointment
148 DLPMMM : That was the trade. If all the EC carriers were going to get rights to fly to the USA from LHR, then all the USA carriers were going to get rights to
149 Jacobin777 : ... ...and you think you are a Mr. "Cognoscenti of International Diplomacy".....even though I continuously present facts which refute/contradict a bu
150 DLPMMM : This is getting quite boring. Regardless of what the USA negotiators would like to agree to. 1. The US congress will not change the laws regarding for
151 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..it has a lot to do with the USofA negotiating....i.e-"Phase-II" of the "Open Skies" agreement.... ....the UK Govt. has the ruling of the EC which g
152 Pixuk : DLPMMM, if I could make one request, could you refer to Virgin Atlantic as VS and Virgin America as VX. Talking about both airlines in one thread but
153 DLPMMM : My apologies for the misapplication of abbreviations. Well, we found some common ground. I just don't believe the EC negotiators are so inept or dens
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...
European Carriers Influence On Open Skies posted Mon Mar 26 2007 21:21:59 by GARUDAROD
Current US Position On Open Skies? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 20:58:05 by Kaitak
MSP Officials Trying To Improve Safety On Tarmac posted Sun Sep 10 2006 01:55:52 by KarlB737
Trying To Book Flight On AA A300 posted Wed Jun 7 2006 17:45:30 by RJpieces
China Airlines (CI) To Add Winglets On 738 posted Fri Feb 17 2006 23:36:41 by FlyingHippo
Airlines` Responsibility To Bring You On Time… posted Tue Sep 13 2005 21:53:42 by Vio
Why Are Airlines Trying To Crush Eachother? posted Fri Mar 18 2005 16:38:17 by F9Animal
Who Is United Airlines Trying To Fool? posted Tue Jul 13 2004 09:58:43 by Ciro
EU To Negotiate Single US Open Skies Deal posted Thu Jun 12 2003 18:00:42 by United01
UK Airlines Back To Kenya From June15? posted Sun Jun 8 2003 11:58:18 by Donder10