Why do so many countries not have open skies agreements with the United States? In reading the above post about various airlines being granted routes between the US and Colombia, it made me wonder what's in it for either country to have restrictions on the number of flights between the two places.
I suppose it makes more sense to me that China, for instance, would not pursue open skies in order to protect their own airlines' profits, etc. (Did I just answer my own question? )
Sebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1424 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 703 times:
Yes, you answered your own question. Japan is the same. The US tends to negotiate open skies agreements at least in point to point international travel, with beyond fifths, liberal or unlimited codesharing, etc. But if you define open skies as domestic access, is does not.
Commavia From United States, joined Apr 2005, 6765 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 658 times:
Many countries are still afraid of completely opening their markets to competition from U.S. carriers, which - for all the complaining and moaning - are immensely good at seeking out and cultivating new markets, when given the opportunity. U.S. airlines have yield management and capacity planning tools that are several orders of magnitude more sophisticated that what is available to airlines in most of the developing world, for example, so many of those countries choose to protect their own airlines from more competition from larger, richer and more advanced U.S. carriers.
It is important to remember, though, that even though your question is framed in the context of, why do so many countries not have liberalized aviation treaties with the U.S., it is perhaps more appropriate to say, why do so many countries have liberalized aviation treaties with the U.S., compared with other nations? The U.S. has more liberalized aviation agreements than probably any other country on earth - as the U.S. has made "Open Skies" a major cornerstone of its international civil aviation policy going back nearly two decades.
As for domestic access - it is true: the U.S. has never opened up its domestic markets to foreign airlines, and likely won't do so anytime in the near future. The U.S. has also, as far as I know, never sought such rights from other countries, at least not on a permanent basis. The U.S. position on Open Skies has always been that both sides should have completely unlimited access to each others' markets, from their respective home markets, plus unlimited fifth freedom "beyond" rights behind the other parties' gateways. This has been the Open Skies formula that the U.S. has extensively pursued around the world, with nearly 100 countries thus far.
SLCUT2777 From United States, joined Dec 2005, 3693 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 572 times:
Quoting CODCAIAH (Thread starter): I suppose it makes more sense to me that China, for instance, would not pursue open skies in order to protect their own airlines' profits, etc. (Did I just answer my own question? )
You hit the nail right on the head! In the case of China they have three state owned air carriers that they admit aren't up to the same standard as their U.S. counterparts. And with an economy growing by leaps and bounds, China flights directly to the U.S. are in demand, so hence the big contests between carriers to secure route authorities that the USDOT is allotted. Also in how the USDOT allots these route authorities is effected by the cities the big three Chinese carriers serve, being mostly to LAX and JFK, so hence the reason most U.S. carriers have avoided proposing service from one of the two big world gateways.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
Cubsrule From United States, joined May 2004, 13126 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 495 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 3): U.S. airlines have yield management and capacity planning tools that are several orders of magnitude more sophisticated that what is available to airlines in most of the developing world, for example, so many of those countries choose to protect their own airlines from more competition from larger, richer and more advanced U.S. carriers.
It's interesting, too, that when you look to developing countries with "first world" air carriers, you tend to find fairly liberal air travel treaties. Chile (LA, and arguably UC when they existed) comes to mind; there is robust competition between several American carriers and LA from SCL to the States, and though the treaty isn't open-skies, if you look to attitudes of both the carrier and the government in question, I would argue that South Africa is another.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 434 times:
Quoting CODCAIAH (Thread starter): Why do so many countries not have open skies agreements with the United States?
Another factor is that some countries, including Australia, up until our recent change of government do not like industry by industry agreements, they perfer "whole economy" agreements.
On a whole economy basis the USA is a fairly protectionest country. During negotiations a few years ago over the USA/Australia free trade agreement the US refused point blank to include the whole agricultural sector. Our stupid government agreed to this!
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 41 Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 424 times:
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 7): Another factor is that some countries, including Australia, up until our recent change of government do not like industry by industry agreements, they perfer "whole economy" agreements.
On a whole economy basis the USA is a fairly protectionest country. During negotiations a few years ago over the USA/Australia free trade agreement the US refused point blank to include the whole agricultural sector. Our stupid government agreed to this!
Gemuser
Air services agreements are almost always been negotiated separately from other trade negotiations. The issues arising from transport of people are unique. Exactly how many air services agreements have been negotiated by Australia with other countries as part of a larger trade agreement?
Anyway, people who claim that the US is "fairly protectionist" are making unsupportable claims.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 394 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8): Exactly how many air services agreements have been negotiated by Australia with other countries as part of a larger trade agreement?
Off the top of my head? Three.
Australia/New Zealand, Australia/Singapore and Australia/USA.
The current OZ/USA Open Skies was basically agree to in the 06(?) Australia-USA Free Trade Agreement, details left to be work out after that agreement was in force. They were in Feb 08.
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8): Anyway, people who claim that the US is "fairly protectionist" are making unsupportable claims.
Oh come on! Its getting off topic for this forum but the USA is very, very protectionist in the farm sector! Arguably more so than the EU, but still behind Japan. Why do you think the "Cains Group" of agricultral exporting countries was formed? If you want to take it further shift it to Non-Av.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jul 2006, 87 posts, 
)
.
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1424 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3039 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
