Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8531 posts, RR: 100 Posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
While scanning aviation news articles I found this:
Quote:
Bahrain's state-owned Gulf Air wants to double its flights to India to more than 100 a week but the air services agreement between the two countries is a constraint, it said on Thursday.
On Wednesday India permitted Gulf Air to increase the number of its weekly flights to 65 from 56, under a revised agreement between the two countries. But a Bahraini official involved in the negotiations said his country wanted more flights approved.
First, I find it interesting that the new bilateral only allows 9 more flights per week. Since that isn't even a 15% increase, I wonder why the tight bilateral agreement?
If you haven't noticed, I've been posting quite a bit lately on flights and bilaterals to/from India. Currently, I believe it is strongly in India's favor to open up the bilaterals to increase traffic flow in and out of India. I'm not saying they should 'give away the farm,' but traffic to/from India is very constrained. Perhaps there isn't enough benefit to India to open up traffic to Bahrain (what are the number of Indian airline flights to Bahrain? In other words, what is the advantage to India to loosen up the biltaral?)
The bilaterals would benefit both India and the other party to open up would be (in my opinion): Korea, Japan, Germany (50 flights/week each way isn't enough), Britain (The daily limit on flights excluding the 4 'entry cities' is too tight in my opinion), and a few other countries.
Pa747sp From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1456 times:
India's attitude to bi-laterals is that, at least in the past, it has wanted to 'protect' Air India from more competition. Of course, why Air India doesn't increase services itself is a mystery. Secondly I believe that India has also restricted access to the bigger cities like Mumbai and Delhi, allowing additional services to these cities only if the airline also starts new services from lesser cities. EK is desperate to get greater access to the Indian market, but is also constrained by the bi-laterals.
Of course, India is not alone in this. Up until relatively recently most countries entered bi-lateral negotiations with the view to primarily protecting the flag-carrier. In recent years, some countries have realised that the bigger issue is about encouraging more traffic and tourism, and so have adopted a much more lassez-faire approach. Still, there are suprizingly few countries that have a blanket 'open skies' policy.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8531 posts, RR: 100 Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1410 times:
Quoting Pa747sp (Reply 1): Secondly I believe that India has also restricted access to the bigger cities like Mumbai and Delhi, allowing additional services to these cities only if the airline also starts new services from lesser cities.
But overprotection can slow down growth. Without more seats, India's growth will be constrained.
However, the policy to drive service to other cities is certainly not unique to India. Australia requires service to other cities for a year before service to SYD. I don't agree with it, but that policy type seems to be growing with bilaterals.
Quoting Pa747sp (Reply 1): EK is desperate to get greater access to the Indian market, but is also constrained by the bi-laterals.
Last I looked, EK still has some capacity to grow to India, but they are hungry for more service.
18 more flights to/from Abu-Dhabi.
However, this almost looks like an increase to just make life better for the Indian workers at Abu-Dhabi (AI) and allow EY flights to two new gateway cities. Not a dramatic change. http://middleeastaviation.aero/news/...ontent&task=view&id=2914&Itemid=59
From above:
Quote:
Etihad expects revenues from the country to increase to about 20% in future, up from 12% currently.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 44 Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1394 times:
Quoting Pa747sp (Reply 1): India's attitude to bi-laterals is that, at least in the past, it has wanted to 'protect' Air India from more competition
And at the time India didn't allow other Indian airlines to fly international. Obviously the priorities have changed.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 2): But overprotection can slow down growth. Without more seats, India's growth will be constrained.
It's not apparent that they are suffering any growth constraints without more seats.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 2): Last I looked, EK still has some capacity to grow to India, but they are hungry for more service.
Quoting Lightsaber (Thread starter): The bilaterals would benefit both India and the other party to open up would be (in my opinion): Korea, Japan, Germany (50 flights/week each way isn't enough), Britain (The daily limit on flights excluding the 4 'entry cities' is too tight in my opinion), and a few other countries.
I think India is most interested in preventing excessive 6th freedom traffic leaching by foreign airlines on India-Europe routes and particularly India-US routes. They signed an open skies agreement with the US because 6th freedom issues weren't a concern given the huge distance between the two countries. European carriers were living off 6th freedom traffic between the US and India and UK and India. Gulf carriers want to skim some of that traffic as well.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Pa747sp From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1357 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 2): But overprotection can slow down growth. Without more seats, India's growth will be constrained.
Well, it seems that, in the past, the Indian government has been more concerned with protecting Air India, rather than looking at the overall benefits of liberalized air service agreements.
Pretty much until the recent spate of privatisations, many governments were much more concerned about protecting the state controled flag carriers rather then looking at the overall benefits to the economy. Even after privatisation, some governments still listen to the flag carrier airline rather too much. Witness the recent denial by the Australian government to SQs request to fly OZ - US transpacific. Qantas, though privatised, still seems to have a lot of sway with the government and was able to get the access denied.
Interestingly, where governments do persue a policy of 'open skies' where possible, generally speaking the flag carriers do well out of it. Ultimately, fair competition is good for an airline it seems.
Nimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 2972 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1335 times:
IMO - we should just sign open skies with every country that is interested to do so. Ultimately passengers to/from India will benefit, and the Indian economy will have a chance to grow without artificial constraints.
Unfortunately the GoI is a majority share holder in AI - which so far has been quite a shoddy airline with patchy services and connections. Being a share holder in AI and the policy maker for India at the same time puts them in the uncomfortable position of needing to open up the skies on the one hand, while constraining capacity to make sure AI's shoddy services have some takers on the other hand. Luckily the GoI chose on behalf of Indians while opening up the markets to the US and UK. They're still sadly favoring AI when it comes to opening up the Gulf bilaterals. But hopefully things will change, and the GoI will open up our skies even more allowing for top-class carriers like 9W and IT to start expanding rapidly.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8531 posts, RR: 100 Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1299 times:
Quoting Pa747sp (Reply 4):
Pretty much until the recent spate of privatisations, many governments were much more concerned about protecting the state controled flag carriers rather then looking at the overall benefits to the economy
Its often hard to describe to people how letting in foreign competition can improve a population's lifestyle.
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 3): European carriers were living off 6th freedom traffic between the US and India and UK and India. Gulf carriers want to skim some of that traffic as well.
I'd be very happy to see the Indian carriers grow capacity quickly enough to meet the unmet demand. But they aren't... US airlines haven't been either. Oh, I'm impressed by all the new JFK-BOM 772LR flights, but that isn't enough. The west coast US to India is an impacted market.
There has to be some economic consequence to India for having all of that demand unmet. Better to let other carriers meet some of that demand. I understand spreading around the capacity so no one airline as seen as the path to India (if its a non-Indian carrier).
I do wonder why US airlines haven't added more flights to India... I found CO, DL, and AA direct flights.
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 3): It's not apparent that they are suffering any growth constraints without more seats.
I know of a ~$100 million IT contract that the Indian bidders lost due to lack of seats to India. Several of my coworkers from India are commenting on certain technical skills seeing relatively high unemployment in India. So actually... I would argue strongly otherwise. Yes, India's economic growth is impressive, but it could be even better.
Quoting Pa747sp (Reply 4):
Interestingly, where governments do persue a policy of 'open skies' where possible, generally speaking the flag carriers do well out of it. Ultimately, fair competition is good for an airline it seems.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8531 posts, RR: 100 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1175 times:
Quoting Nimish (Reply 5): IMO - we should just sign open skies with every country that is interested to do so. Ultimately passengers to/from India will benefit, and the Indian economy will have a chance to grow without artificial constraints.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
The real short to medium term constraint is the poor ATC Infrastructure, runway and terminal facilities.
ATC can be improved relatively quickly.
And I tend to have one opinion when it comes to expanding airports. But I have a feeling I'd cause quite the political furor if I was put in charge of BOM, DEL, BLR2 or any of the projects that need to get done in India. I see no reason why many of the top Indian airports couldn't eventually fill up the ranks of the ten busiest airports in the world... as long as they build the runways and terminals. Hence why I'm a fan of Hyderabad building their new airport and the proposal for BLR2.
Then again... I'm a fan of Ivanpah (long term), SAN2 (get that one done yesterday!).
Behramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4247 posts, RR: 50 Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1148 times:
Gulf Air has secured rights to operate on a daily basis to Hyderabad and also been granted additional capacity to operate daily service to existing routes of Kochi and Kolkata under the bilateral agreement signed recently between Bahrain and India. The agreement was concluded after a two-day discussion between the Civil Aviation authorities from India and Bahrain.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1129 times:
brings in more people via connection, but frankly, it's just one of many transfer points where M/E carriers are trying to funnel pax away from non-stops and airlines like AI with cheap fares. people are only talking about protecting AI, but they are forgetting the India is trying to grow it's private international airlines as well, so why give one-sided rights to so many M/E carriers when Kingfisher and Jet are looking to expand and bring more non-stop traffic to India rather than the M/E onestops?
the point of a bilateral is supposed to be to foster traffic and trade between two nations. but if only one nation disproportionately benefits, there's no reason to expect the other party to keep expanding.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8531 posts, RR: 100 Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1129 times:
Quoting Behramjee (Reply 9): Gulf Air has secured rights to operate on a daily basis to Hyderabad and also been granted additional capacity to operate daily service to existing routes of Kochi and Kolkata under the bilateral agreement signed recently between Bahrain and India.
Thank you. This is indeed developing bilateral news. Is it just my perception, or is India tweaking its bilaterals regularly, almost a new modification every quarter?
Does Gulfair have plans to fly to the US with the 787s?
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1079 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 8): ATC can be improved relatively quickly.
India ATC consists of civil controllers, and mil controllers, they don't talk to each other. Frequency congestion is bad, CDPLC falls over all the time. Their HF is okay, VOLMET next to impossible to understand, like a human machine gun.
BTW CX gain more flights into India recently as well.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8531 posts, RR: 100 Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1058 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
BTW CX gain more flights into India recently as well.
In exchange for some nice carry through rights for the Indian carriers. If anything, that bilateral favored the Indian airlines.
ABpositive From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1035 times:
Can someone clarify to me how some of these bi-laterals are structured. Are they limited by number of seats or number of flights? If latter was the case, I can see why EK can't wait for the A380s to arrive.
Pa747sp From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1031 times:
Quoting ABpositive (Reply 14): Can someone clarify to me how some of these bi-laterals are structured.
Depends. Each one is different. Some specify frequency, some specify number of seats, some even specify aircraft type. Some specify a mixture of the three. Some specify that the route has to be operated as a revenue-sharing, some specify what intermediate points are used, ownership of the aircraft etc. It really does vary enourmously from country to country
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8531 posts, RR: 100 Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1023 times:
Quoting Pa747sp (Reply 15): Depends. Each one is different. Some specify frequency, some specify number of seats, some even specify aircraft type.
100% correct.
Quoting ABpositive (Reply 14): Can someone clarify to me how some of these bi-laterals are structured. Are they limited by number of seats or number of flights? If latter was the case, I can see why EK can't wait for the A380s to arrive.
EK's bilateral limits number of flights weekly to India (142/week) and the number to BOM and DEL (numbers elude me). So yes, they will be utilizing the A380's to India quite a bit. However EK's A380's:
1st to LHR
2nd to JFK
3rd to ??? I expect due to very restrictive bilaterals to Australia, SYD is a high likelihood to beef up the Kangaroo routes.
Thus it won't be until the 4th A380 that India will see an EK A380 (in my opinion).
Part of the reason certain countries have 'frozen up' on bilaterals with Dubai is that horde of A380's they've ordered. (e.g., Australia and Germany)
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8531 posts, RR: 100 Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 991 times:
Quoting Pa747sp (Reply 17):
According to their website the A380 starts on the 30Sep on the JFK run, replacing the 77W
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 20630 posts, RR: 62 Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 965 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 16): Part of the reason certain countries have 'frozen up' on bilaterals with Dubai is that horde of A380's they've ordered. (e.g., Australia and Germany)
And a treaty is only as valuable as the paper it is printed on. If those who signed open skies begin to see their own carriers decimated by the A380 onslaught, the bilateral will return and open skies will be thrown out.
This is why I expect EK's expansion plans to be harder to achieve than some do. They will face blowback when they throw 55 A380s and 100s of 777s and A350s into the open skies.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8531 posts, RR: 100 Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 957 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 19):
And a treaty is only as valuable as the paper it is printed on. If those who signed open skies begin to see their own carriers decimated by the A380 onslaught, the bilateral will return and open skies will be thrown out.
I doubt that. Smoot-Hawley was the last time we cut off trade like that. Its the act that made the Great Depression as bad as it is. If countries start throwing out their open skies treaties, it will mean all treaties with them are thrown out.
Smoot-Hawley proved how many jobs are tied to trade. It destroyed those jobs very effectively. So hopefully we aren't stupid enough to repeat that experience.
So what open skies there are will persist. Don't think that many are true 'open skies.' The US has some of the more restrictive policies (no domestic travel, airline ownership, etc.) that have not been waived in an open skies.
But Dubai's sovereign wealth fund is the carrot and the stick on their treaty enforcement. India opened up their bilateral for Dubai investment into India. It was a win-win.
As to bringing back carriers decimated by an open skies, just look at the Kangaroo routes. Five carriers have been decimated so far. EK, QF, VA, and SQ have been the winners. Instead of Belgium closing its borders, its welcomed 9W. Austria seems to be OK with EK.
Now, I'm not sure if the Kangaroo routes had anything to do with the fall of Swiss, but they've adapted. In general trade builds jobs and wealth.
Now with China... I don't agree. But they also have some of the most restrictive bilaterals out there. Only recently are they opening up India to China despite the fact that good air travel between the two countries would move headquarters into one or the other from 3rd countries.
For air travel we should embrace this. Without a global system of bilaterals, we couldn't fly around the world as we can today.
Pa747sp From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 939 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 20): For air travel we should embrace this. Without a global system of bilaterals, we couldn't fly around the world as we can today.
Or, maybe, if the airline industry had grown up in an environment of true 'open skies' it would be a very different beast today.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8531 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 168 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 2972 posts, 
Well run airlines thrive under open skies.
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4247 posts, 
, 20630 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
