Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Branson Says Open Skies Will Be A "Damp Squib"  
User currently offlineBALHRWWCC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11928 times:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...airwaysbusiness.theairlineindustry

Interesting article. I have to agree that if the US don't open up there skies like we have in Europe then the whole open skies agreement is pointless. Remember the UK and other EU governments did say that they would pull out of the agreement if european airlines where not given the same rights as US carriers will soon have in Europe.

I also agree that congress should open the skies up and stop protecting these carriers that should have shut up shop years ago. The agreement would result in greater competition in the US and a higher standard of service on internal and international flights. If the US carriers are so confident that they are amongst some of the best in the world then they should put there money where there mouth is and get congress to STOP stalling and open up the airspace. Greater competition is only a win win situation for the American consumer.

Also think of the merger opportunities. For example LH & UA, AF/KL & NW, BA & AA, VS & CO and US & BD.

So what do you think should the skies be opened up??. Why are they stalling???

As was reported when the agreement was reached, 2010 was when the EU wanted the same rights to be given to EU carrier as US carriers will soon have in Europe. This date is fast approaching......

Just think if this doesn't happen then all this money US carriers are investing in moving routes and starting new routes will be a waste of money that some of the carriers can not afford.

102 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11782 times:

Interesting...I think the US airlines might actually be interested in having Phase 2 occur, not so that BA, LH etc. can start flying NYC-LAX but because it would relax foreign ownership rules. From recent indications, LH buying into B6, AF/KL rumored to be supporting DL/NW then the airline businesses already see merger/combination benefits with international airlines as a good thing. AA/BA might finally get to dance the way they've wanted to for years!

Of course Congress would need to rethink its nationalistic, protectionist approach to the airline business and that won't be happening before 2009 which doesn't give much time before Phase 1 of Open Skies expires. Anyone else a series of "temporary extensions" that drag on for years without anyone tackling the core issues?


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11730 times:

Quoting BALHRWWCC (Thread starter):
As was reported when the agreement was reached, 2010 was when the EU wanted the same rights to be given to EU carrier as US carriers will soon have in Europe. This date is fast approaching......
Not this again.

1. There are no USA airlines utilizing cabotage within the single EU airspace, so your "same rights" premise is facetious.

2. The USA congress will not relax foreign ownership limitations in the foreseeable future.

3. The USA congress will not allow cabotage within it's borders for the foreseeable future.

4. The EU negotiators are and were aware of all of this from day one of the negotiations. The EU does not realistically have expectations for anything more than perhaps an increasing of ownership of USA airlines to 49% in 2011.

edited for spelling

[Edited 2008-03-03 13:01:01]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11706 times:



Quoting BALHRWWCC (Thread starter):
Remember the UK and other EU governments did say that they would pull out of the agreement if european airlines where not given the same rights as US carriers will soon have in Europe.

What rights are those? Domestic French flights? Domestic UK flights? Domestic German flights not grandfathered in from the Cold War that nobody uses? Last time I checked, we don't have those rights...

At this point, the rights are EQUAL. The EU wants unequal access. It is amazing how so many UK posters spin this, towing the VA/BA line of confusion...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4009 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11661 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2):
1. There are no USA airlines utilizing cabotage within the single EU airspace, so your "same rights" premise is facetious.

2. The USA congress will not relax foreign ownership limitations in the foreseeable future.

3. The USA congress will not allow cabotage within it's borders for the foreseeable future.

For weeks I have been reading similar statements in the USAF A330/B767 tanker threads. I started to believe that all the US flagged posters knew something when they said that the USAF would buy A330 when hell freezes over. Then they did. So for now I am going to stop worrying about statements like this that crop up every time Open Skies emerges.


User currently offlineMMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11658 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2):
There are no USA airlines utilizing cabotage within the single EU airspace, so your "same rights" premise is facetious.

Which means they can if they choose to?

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2):
The USA congress will not relax foreign ownership limitations in the foreseeable future.

3. The USA congress will not allow cabotage within it's borders for the foreseeable future

Pure protectionism and/or pure politics. Other industries don't get this benefit why is the airline business so special (and national security isn't the answer, needs to support the US military in times of need can be built into any agreement to open up ownership)


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25276 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BALHRWWCC (Thread starter):
Also think of the merger opportunities. For example LH & UA, AF/KL & NW, BA & AA, VS & CO and US & BD.

I wonder why mergers are considered so desirable.

The presently most profitable airlines, such as Emirates, Singapore and Qantas, have all grown organically, with very few, if any, mergers.

Sure, another very profitable airline - Lufthansa - bought Swiss, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Mergers have happened more frequently in the US, but they don't seem to have helped the bottom line much. American has taken out more competition than just about any other, but then pretty much dismantled what they bought.

If taking out the competition is perceived as a good idea, it hasn't helped Americans present financials, and there's just as much competition as there was before - maybe more.

Nor can the union between America West and US Airways be seen as a poster child for mergers, and when Air NZ bought Ansett, it destroyed Ansett and nearly destroyed Air NZ.

Any of the mergers listed above can achieve most of their goals by code share - I don't see what merging brings to it.

All the mergers have done is make the acquiring airline bigger. Size matters - is that all there is?

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4920 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11573 times:

Im not surprised Virgin arnt very enthusiastic. I dont think the rights to serve LHR-DFW/IAH etc are off interest to them. They already have a US network they are pleased with pre Open Skies and now it faces increased competition. We know what Branson really wants - to own Virgin America


Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7780 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11546 times:



Quoting Humberside (Reply 7):
Im not surprised Virgin arnt very enthusiastic. I dont think the rights to serve LHR-DFW/IAH etc are off interest to them. They already have a US network they are pleased with pre Open Skies and now it faces increased competition. We know what Branson really wants - to own Virgin America

Honestly VS has a lot to lose vis-a-vis open skis. US carriers now have open access to Heathrow (if they can get the slots), likewise other European carriers can do so as well. So what it comes down to is the foreign ownership limits on airlines. I seriously doubt that any European carrier really wants to get into the US domestic market. Likewise I don't see many US carriers looking for intra-EU service either. It seems to me but nothing but confused rhetoric and making an issue out of something that isn't likely there.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4920 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11403 times:



Quoting DesertJets (Reply 8):
So what it comes down to is the foreign ownership limits on airlines. I seriously doubt that any European carrier really wants to get into the US domestic market. Likewise I don't see many US carriers looking for intra-EU service either.

Virgin definetly want to own VA. BA have made noises about starting US domestic flights. But perhaps more likely in a BA-AA merger. As it stands AA would have to be the senior partner at the moment



Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineBALHRWWCC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11092 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
What rights are those? Domestic French flights? Domestic UK flights? Domestic German flights not grandfathered in from the Cold War that nobody uses? Last time I checked, we don't have those rights...

Example CO will be able to operate IAH/LHR/NCE and be ablw to pick up pax in LHR to take to NCE. However European carriers going from LHR/BOS/PHL can not pick up pax on the BOS/PHL sector because of so called non traffic rights.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11073 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2):
ncreasing of ownership of USA airlines to 49%

IINM, they already can... just not with an equal amount of voting stock/percentage


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11043 times:



Quoting BALHRWWCC (Reply 13):
Example CO will be able to operate IAH/LHR/NCE and be ablw to pick up pax in LHR to take to NCE. However European carriers going from LHR/BOS/PHL can not pick up pax on the BOS/PHL sector because of so called non traffic rights.

Wrong!!

Read Commavia's post. The USA carriers will not have inter-euro tag on rights when the new open skies agreement goes into force on April 1.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10995 times:

The big bad guy US protectionists fear is not the EU. Or Japan. Or even, now, Taiwan or Korea.

It is low wage, third world countries, particularly those with a lot (in raw numbers, not proportion) of English speaking, educated workers. That means India, China, the Philippines and Mexico. It is these countries that face the protectionist's
ire now. The protectionists fear call centers in India. They don't fear BA going between Chicago and LA.

I doubt there will be that much cabotage even when it is allowed by both sides. Mostly, cabotage passengers will
give extra support to routes that exist to support profitable international operations.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11640 posts, RR: 61
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10941 times:



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 16):
The protectionists fear call centers in India. They don't fear BA going between Chicago and LA.

Union protectionists absolutely fear "BA going between Chicago and LA." Not surprising, of course, as unions are inherently against progress and change, but nonetheless, if the U.S. ever agreed to cabotage (which, again, has 0 chance of happening anytime soon) the U.S. unions would absolutely flip out.


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5957 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10765 times:



Quoting BALHRWWCC (Thread starter):
I have to agree that if the US don't open up there skies like we have in Europe then the whole open skies agreement is pointless.

The EU does not have open skies at least not the way that EU/Branson seems to want to have here in the US. For instance the way I understand it AF can fly between FRA-FCO if they want as the route is between two different countries in the EU. However AF can not fly between FRA-TXL as the route is an internal German route. Why should the US open its skies to domestic operations by EU carriers when the EU doesn't even allow carries from its member states to operate domestic flights in other EU members territory?.....feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I that is how it was explained to me.

Quoting BALHRWWCC (Reply 13):
Example CO will be able to operate IAH/LHR/NCE and be ablw to pick up pax in LHR to take to NCE. However European carriers going from LHR/BOS/PHL can not pick up pax on the BOS/PHL sector because of so called non traffic rights.

Everytime this topic comes up I think the exact same thing which is that certain members of the EU that are calling for this have no real idea on how the US Government is structured. The State of Illinois is NOT a sovereign entity in the same way that France or the UK is. The EU is attempting to negotiate the right to operate domestically inside of another nation even if the flights cross state lines. Its akin to allowing WN to fly between CDG and NCE. In my opinion at least the French response to that would be the same as what you are hearing from US members on this thread......no chance ever!!!!! And If in the almost infinitesimally small chance that cabotage ever was allowed I don't think that BA would really want to take on AA, DL, UA, B6, VA, & CO even on NYC-LAX you might see one or two flights a day just for feed at the JFK end.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3105 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10734 times:

I personally don't see the benefit of BA, LH, AF, etc. being able to fly domestic flights within the US - yields are crap to begin with, it would screw with aircraft utilization (since most TATL flights only require one plane to operate at a daily frequency), and one would imagine that they're already serving the money-making cities as it is.

With that in mind, I do think cabotage should be allowed in markets where there is not currently service by a US carrier (CX and ANC-JFK comes to mind). Alternately, I would support cabotage rights for markets where current service does not meet demand (for instance, a city where nonstop flights don't meet O&D pax by a marging of 100-200 pax daily). I would also support increased ownership percentages (maybe up to 67% or so) because I think foreign ownership would help the struggling US carriers. I think this is a good compromise.

I don't support BA, for instance, being able to offer 10x daily JFK-LAX however. That's purely a domestic market, is well served by existing carriers, and obviously the JFK-LHR flights don't need connections to survive.


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2290 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10692 times:



Quoting United1 (Reply 18):
AF can not fly between FRA-TXL as the route is an internal German route. Why should the US open its skies to domestic operations by EU carriers when the EU doesn't even allow carries from its member states to operate domestic flights in other EU members territory?.....feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

Well, you're wrong...



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10674 times:



Quoting MMEPHX (Reply 5):
Pure protectionism and/or pure politics. Other industries don't get this benefit why is the airline business so special (and national security isn't the answer, needs to support the US military in times of need can be built into any agreement to open up ownership)

The reason is that getting slots in Europe is more difficult than in the US.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 6):
I wonder why mergers are considered so desirable.

The presently most profitable airlines, such as Emirates, Singapore and Qantas, have all grown organically, with very few, if any, mergers.

Sure, another very profitable airline - Lufthansa - bought Swiss, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Almost of those airlines operate in countries where there is or has been a virtual monopoly on travel by one airline. Hence no mergers.

Quoting BALHRWWCC (Reply 13):
Example CO will be able to operate IAH/LHR/NCE and be ablw to pick up pax in LHR to take to NCE. However European carriers going from LHR/BOS/PHL can not pick up pax on the BOS/PHL sector because of so called non traffic rights.

No US carrier is going to waste a pair of landing slots to fly LHR-NCE given the expense of those rights. On the other hand BOS and PHL are unslotted.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5957 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10627 times:



Quoting RedChili (Reply 21):
Well, you're wrong...

Really I must have misinformed then....would you care to elaborate or do you feel that a three word statement is sufficient in explaining EU rules and regs regarding domestic air travel?



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7228 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10620 times:



Quoting RwSEA (Reply 20):
I personally don't see the benefit of BA, LH, AF, etc. being able to fly domestic flights within the US - yields are crap to begin with, it would screw with aircraft utilization (since most TATL flights only require one plane to operate at a daily frequency), and one would imagine that they're already serving the money-making cities as it is.

BA is presently the largest carrier operating out of LHR to the US, so lets pick a large enough city within the US that does not have direct LHR service, BA would be using its domestic US cabbotage to service its international flights, after all which BA customer wants to fly LHR-NYC to take B6, WN , DL, AA whoever to get to the local US destination?


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2290 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10552 times:



Quoting United1 (Reply 23):
Really I must have misinformed then....would you care to elaborate or do you feel that a three word statement is sufficient in explaining EU rules and regs regarding domestic air travel?

The rules are very simple: Any airline can fly anywhere! There's not much more explaining to do.

Take the Irish Ryanair as an example. They've got many domestic flights in other countries, e.g. "Milan" to Rome.

Also note that Norway and Iceland are included in this free market through the EEA agreement.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineEI564 From Ireland, joined May 2007, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10844 times:



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 22):
No US carrier is going to waste a pair of landing slots to fly LHR-NCE given the expense of those rights. On the other hand BOS and PHL are unslotted.

I've always felt that the issue was ownership not cabotage. I'd be dubious about making money flying CDG-BOS-LAX for example. An EU airline being able to set up its own airline or merge with a US airline is a whole different ballgame. But for whatever reason, these debates nearly always revolve around cabotage. Maybe because people think it more likely?

49% control would be a significant change but it does seem a difficult idea to sell to US Congress. But it also seems the best solution.


User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10820 times:

If this goes through will codesharing all but disappear?

User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3105 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10735 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 24):
BA is presently the largest carrier operating out of LHR to the US, so lets pick a large enough city within the US that does not have direct LHR service, BA would be using its domestic US cabbotage to service its international flights, after all which BA customer wants to fly LHR-NYC to take B6, WN , DL, AA whoever to get to the local US destination?

This is accomplished through their current codeshare agreements. Do you think it's realistic for BA to base a bunch of narrowbodies at JFK to fly to MSP, DTW, BNA, MSY, etc. for one connecting flight a day? Doesn't make sense to me.


25 COEWR787 : I find it truly odd that someone from a country which does not even use the same currency as most of the EU somehow thinks anybody will take the argu
26 Post contains images WunalaYann : I understand your point and I can see many areas where it would apply. But you may want to narrow your brush stroke a little bit as "unions" defines
27 VV701 : I guess that if the US government were demanding that, as a condition of Open Skies, American carriers be allowed to operate routes like LHR-EDI, then
28 Commavia : I find it far, far more anti-competitive that under any sort of Transatlantic cabotage regime, U.S. airlines would be effectively shut out of 95% of
29 LTBEWR : Where I think it could work is so that 2 smaller cities could be served by the same flight and aircraft at either or both ends to fill up a flight. Th
30 Ajs123uk : First post so excuse if its wrong but vlm the belgian airline fly between london city and manchester so i believe that a eu airline can fly domestics
31 XXMHxLHx5LXx : I don't think you're wrong Ajs123uk, Air Berlin also offers flights within Spain (e.g. Malagá - Bilbao or PMI - Madrid). Or are all these flights spe
32 DLPMMM : I think that Europe has it's own "Open Skies" treaty among themselves which allows any EU (EC?) airline to fly between any 2 points within the EU (EC
33 AirNZ : Then your 'understanding' is completely wrong. There are no restrictions on any EU airline operating any flight within the EU. An example, just off t
34 Post contains images Atmx2000 : As has been repeatedly pointed out, US carriers are unlikely to use LHR slots or slots at any major European airport to fly short haul within Europe.
35 AirNZ : What has state lines got to do with it? In one sentence you say the State of Illinois is not a 'sovereign entity', while in the next you talk about t
36 AirNZ : Sorry, but I can't agree with that at all and you see it as a compromise relevant to what? I mean, you are happy enough to allow the dreaded cabotage
37 AirNZ : Well, quite simply, to very many Americans here on a.net we hear the constant argument that the EU is one bloc, and particularly when talking about t
38 AirNZ : Then why did the US government agree to, and sign, the treaty as a promise to negotiate to do so? By your own argument are you then claiming the US g
39 Sebring : If you consider that both Democratic candidates for president what to scrap or make more restrictive the North American free trade agreement, you wil
40 FFlyer : Wasn't that so, that the US had (still has?) separately Open Skies agreements with most of the European countries, but then EU wanted to convert/re-n
41 Slider : This is exactly right--SRB and VS have arguably the greatest to lose.
42 Cloudy : I can see why some US airlines would oppose it, but I don't see how the country as a whole would lose if more of our traffic flowed through Toronto,
43 Sebring : It's not that I disagree with you in principle, but that there isn't any stomach for ending the status quo.
44 Atmx2000 : You are seriously mischaracterizing the argument. The argument is that traffic between EU countries is legally international traffic and the EU chara
45 AirNZ : I am not mischaracterising anything of the sort, nor am I claiming it is identical to cabotage. I am clearly stating that, on these boards particular
46 United1 : My point was that a state is NOT a sovereign entity and that flying between the states is a domestic flight which for a foreign carrier would require
47 Commavia : No, there's no "either." It just is. A state is not a foreign negotiating entity in any form or fashion. It's written specifically into our Constitut
48 EI564 : I still don't know why people get so caught up in the definition of cabotage. I'm sure the EU is not going to block US airlines flying domestic fligh
49 Commavia : But again, it still ignores the fact that, either way - even if the U.S. is allowed to fly domestic sectors within sovereign nations in Europe (LHR-M
50 RedChili : In my opinion, this is not correct. The EU is just as unrestricted as the USA is. There are a few exceptions, yes, and those are mainly airports wher
51 Post contains images Ikramerica : The long and short of it: Cabotage has never been a condition of "Open Sky" agreements between any other country or block of countries and the USA. Th
52 Commavia : Who said U.S. airlines want any part of this? Why would any U.S. airline want to fly within the E.U. these days, when they can use 757s to reach just
53 RedChili : With all due respect, I believe that you're displaying a sort of "U.S. airline egoism" that doesn't belong in an open sky environment. If there's goi
54 Commavia : Once again, where did you get this proposition that the U.S. was onboard with "Open Skies" as you see it? The Americans are perfectly happy with the
55 Post contains links United1 : add TXL DUS MUC STR AMS DUB LGW MAN and STN to that list and CDG is actualy not slot restricted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_slots Why do yo
56 RedChili : I find it interesting that once more, you're basically saying, "We are happy with the deal and we don't want to change anything. We, we, we. As long
57 Commavia : The same could be said of the Europeans. "We, we, we, as long as we don't have reciprocal cabotage - which will be valuable to us and worthless to th
58 United1 : Just for the record that is not what I said. I said that the EU and governments that make up the EU have a history of protectionism of corporations b
59 Post contains images RedChili : Naturally, I can't vouch for what every airline CEO has said about this issue, in the same way as you probably can't vouch for every American CEO. Bu
60 EI564 : " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing...slots I think there might some confusion regarding this issue. Just because the airport is slot
61 VV701 : This is incorrect. Any EU airline may operate between any two airports anywhere in the EU. In the UK current 'foreign' airlines operating on UK domes
62 Post contains images EMB170 : Yes and no. I think the point the EU negotiators are attempting to make (and I use the word attempt intentionally) is that if UA wanted to start flyi
63 DLPMMM : And you have every right to your opnion. Foreign airlines can fly intra-USA city pairs, they are just forbidden to carry local traffic. EU could have
64 Commavia : Neither does anyone in the U.S. Are you sure about that? Okay, and your point is? Yes, it is. The European market is - without question, debate, or d
65 RedChili : Let me just add about ARN: Slots are actually easier to come by today compared to a few years ago. During the past few years, the size of airplanes a
66 EMB170 : I just don't think people realize that with the advent of codesharing (which is the only thing BA/VS don't have, and why they're screaming their colle
67 Commavia : If you are referring to "fees" meaning payment for buying slots, then no, they don't. I swear, this is like talking to a machine that just continues
68 DLPMMM : The point is that it make absolutely no difference who is elected. Obama, Clinton, McCain, Paul, Nader..... There is not and will not be any congress
69 Post contains images EI564 : I agree. That's why I think BA and other EU airlines really want a change in the ownership rules, so consolidation can occur across the transatlantic
70 Post contains images Atmx2000 : While US carriers could do that, it is extremely unlikely to happen. US carriers are better of letting alliance partners provide connections to secon
71 Post contains images EI564 : I wonder do some people deliberately try to antagonise or do they really mean what they say. Would you prefer if there had been 25 separate bilateral
72 VV701 : Really? Here is what was reported from Singapore when the agreement was signed: 'SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore said on Wednesday it had reached an
73 Commavia : No, the reason the British signed the deal was because there was no reciprocal cabotage issue to negotiate over. Singapore only has one commercial ai
74 United1 : What ATMX2000 said was meaningless is the cabotage agreement built into the Open Skies agreement between the UK and Singapore. What SQ will get excit
75 VV701 : Thanks for pointing out that the British are happy to give cabotage rights to SQ while no such rights can be exercised by British airlines. This show
76 Commavia : But that's just the point. British airlines could care less because: a) they know there is virtually no chance SQ will use much if any of its rights
77 Atmx2000 : The US had been negotiating individual open skies treaties with any European country of interest prior to the EU deciding it should negotiate a singl
78 Skytroll : difference is product standard! US carriers have nothing at all compared to BA/VA. if anything it will show the embarrasment thats the ageing dying un
79 Post contains images EI564 : Mostly. But there were 25 agreements to be made. So it just needs 20% of them to get complicated and you quickly start wasting time. And as you say y
80 Commavia : That is the definition of cabotage, and that's exactly what the E.U. wants.
81 Post contains images EMB170 : I think that the EU airlines and their respective ICAO negotiating teams should really have a long look "from the inside" as it were at the U.S. dome
82 EI564 : 8th or 9th freedom? Cabotage, refers to 8th freedom rights. 9th freedom refers to changing the ownership rules, so that EU airlines can effectively s
83 TristarSteve : I really can't any EU airline wanting that at all. I can imagine that an EU airline would like to be able to take control of a US airline to operate
84 VV701 : At last some common sense! The British CAA publishes data that includes 'Airline Personnel Costs'. I cannot find any reference to exactly what is inc
85 DLPMMM : Fine, you can't understand it. However, the EU has restricted ownership of their airlines to 49% non-EU entities. The USA restricts non-USA ownership
86 Post contains links United1 : BA and AA were not granted Anti-trust immunity due to the lack of access of LHR by other US carriers. With the new Open skies agreement in place you
87 EI564 : There are 2 reasons for this I think. One is the existence of a huge number of bilaterals, which insist on airlines which fly between 2 countries bei
88 VV701 : VS is 49 per cent owned by Singapore interests, 51 per cent owned by British interests. This means it can fly as a British airline. If the ownership
89 DLPMMM : LOL You don't seem to comprehend the USA's political position. A new administration will have no better chance of changing the ownership levels than
90 Post contains links United1 : Exactly even if another Republican were to be elected into the White House the US Congress has shown time after time that they will not allow this ch
91 Flighty : Personally I would like Thai operating a large US network. We'll see.
92 VV701 : How very sad. The cabotage I understand. But to isolate the US commercial aviation industry from that of the rest of the world will only accelerate t
93 United1 : But the exact opposite is occurring, UA, CO, DL, AA, US have all expanded massively over the past 5 years internationally. Just look at DL the larges
94 DLPMMM : The biggest problem for the USA is there are too many legacy carriers. What the USA's aviation market needs is a reduction in the number of legacy ca
95 LH423 : What's your point? EI operated a BFS-SNN-JFK service for a year or two. With the air agreements between the UK and Ireland, that's the exact same thi
96 Drgmobile : Branson's comments are silly. No European carrier paying any serious attention will be interested in sustained domestic service in the U.S. (any more
97 VV701 : And during your five years more than half of the airlines you list sought Chapter 11 protection. Clearly if they really needed this protection expans
98 DLPMMM : But in the mean time, you have no qualms over lambasting the USA's laws and systems, without adequate understanding of the economics involved in the
99 Basrabob : In my opinion , and this has been well thrashed by our US a-netters , what I think we need to differentiate between is the pure traffic rights issue ,
100 AirNZ : I'm doing nothing of the sort. In your post you clearly stated the following: I am thus asking you to clarify what, in your opinion, crossing state l
101 United1 : What does chapter 11 have anything to do with cabotage, open skies or expanding internationally?
102 United1 : Some people on this thread were stating that because US Carriers now have the right to fly between European States that they wanted the same thing he
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...
AC Will Be First In "Star Order" posted Thu Oct 23 2003 09:02:05 by 717fan
Italy Says Still Undecided On "open Skies" Deal posted Wed Mar 21 2007 14:26:08 by TACAA320
"All Skies Should Be Open Skies. Except America's" posted Tue May 30 2000 14:10:31 by Tailscraper
What Are Ryanair's Plans Once "Open Skies" Is Open posted Tue Feb 12 2008 20:00:02 by BP1
UK/Singapore Sign "Open Skies"? posted Fri Nov 23 2007 21:03:04 by Mariner
What Will Boeing's Next Plane Be "named?" posted Sun Nov 11 2007 14:52:52 by 7E72004
Open Skies: "All About Heathrow" posted Mon Apr 30 2007 10:24:44 by Hugosel
"Open Skies" For Cargo Airlines posted Thu Mar 22 2007 17:07:44 by Mozart
Virgin Eyes Europe-U.S. Flights Under "open Skies" posted Sun Mar 18 2007 06:20:36 by TACAA320
Canada Signs "open Skies" With Serbia And Croatia posted Mon Dec 11 2006 20:53:23 by AirbusfanYYZ
Who Will Be "real" First Operator Of The A380? posted Fri Jan 12 2001 07:05:45 by Airbus A380
Italy Says Still Undecided On "open Skies" Deal posted Wed Mar 21 2007 14:26:08 by TACAA320
"All Skies Should Be Open Skies. Except America's" posted Tue May 30 2000 14:10:31 by Tailscraper
What Are Ryanair's Plans Once "Open Skies" Is Open posted Tue Feb 12 2008 20:00:02 by BP1
UK/Singapore Sign "Open Skies"? posted Fri Nov 23 2007 21:03:04 by Mariner
What Will Boeing's Next Plane Be "named?" posted Sun Nov 11 2007 14:52:52 by 7E72004
Open Skies: "All About Heathrow" posted Mon Apr 30 2007 10:24:44 by Hugosel
"Open Skies" For Cargo Airlines posted Thu Mar 22 2007 17:07:44 by Mozart
Virgin Eyes Europe-U.S. Flights Under "open Skies" posted Sun Mar 18 2007 06:20:36 by TACAA320
Open Skies: EU Still Not Taking "no" For An Answer posted Mon Jan 29 2007 19:29:40 by Kaitak
"All Skies Should Be Open Skies. Except America's" posted Tue May 30 2000 14:10:31 by Tailscraper
Eagle: "We Will Be Serving Ice Water Only"? posted Sun Jul 27 2008 10:12:13 by FWAERJ
What Are Ryanair's Plans Once "Open Skies" Is Open posted Tue Feb 12 2008 20:00:02 by BP1
UK/Singapore Sign "Open Skies"? posted Fri Nov 23 2007 21:03:04 by Mariner
What Will Boeing's Next Plane Be "named?" posted Sun Nov 11 2007 14:52:52 by 7E72004
Open Skies: "All About Heathrow" posted Mon Apr 30 2007 10:24:44 by Hugosel
UK/Singapore Sign "Open Skies"? posted Fri Nov 23 2007 21:03:04 by Mariner
What Will Boeing's Next Plane Be "named?" posted Sun Nov 11 2007 14:52:52 by 7E72004
Open Skies: "All About Heathrow" posted Mon Apr 30 2007 10:24:44 by Hugosel