Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA And AA Alliance - Attempt #3  
User currently offlineJACK02116 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 145 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6536 times:

According to the UK Sunday Times, BA and Anerican are having a third attempt at an alliance, possibly extended to include Iberia and Continental:-

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...ctors/transport/article4449627.ece

Suprised to see CO mentioned - I thought the Star Alliance membership was a done deal?

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6497 times:



Quoting JACK02116 (Thread starter):

Suprised to see CO mentioned - I thought the Star Alliance membership was a done deal?

They are. makes you wonder how much the journalism has deteriorated in the once proud Times....


User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6381 times:



Quoting JACK02116 (Thread starter):
Suprised to see CO mentioned - I thought the Star Alliance membership was a done deal?

Yes, I laughed my socks off when I read the business section of the Times this morning. How long ago was it that CO decided to go with UA and Star. Dear, dear.poor journalism.

That aside, whilst I suspect that AA and BA will get approval this time around will they not still need to cede slots to competition, or with open skies is that now mute. There dominance on the LHR-JFK route is and would be majorly dominant and thats an understatment.
VS will no doubt start throwing its toys out the pram in the next few week when BA/AA apply again.


User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6379 times:



Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 2):
That aside, whilst I suspect that AA and BA will get approval this time around will they not still need to cede slots to competition, or with open skies is that now mute. There dominance on the LHR-JFK route is and would be majorly dominant and thats an understatment.

As a loyal traveler of both airlines, I certainly hope the respective governments come to their senses and approve the alliance this time around. It makes no sense that LH & UA and DL/NW & AF/KLM are able to cooperate extensively on transatlantic routes while AA and BA are barred from it -- especially now that LHR is open. Not approving this cooperative effort would surely demonstrate a clear bias on the part of the governments involved.

Quote:
VS will no doubt start throwing its toys out the pram in the next few week when BA/AA apply again.

I would think they wouldn't, since the LHR issue isn't there anymore, but you never know what they'll say. They really don't have a leg to stand on in this case, though. Nothing's stopping them from competing.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineSketty222 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1778 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6356 times:

Ha Ha... cant believe CO got a mention, unless there's something going on that no one in the industry knows about Big grin

We all know that the BA/AA alliance application keeps being knocked back due to competition in LHR being dominated by the two. I was wondering though, although BA do have the majority of slots in LHR compared to other airlines is there a route from AMS that both KLM and NWA have pretty much to themselves?
Also, what percentage of slots do KLM own in AMS (I know its operated differently to LHR)?

Lee



There's flying and then there's flying
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6355 times:



Quoting JACK02116 (Thread starter):



Quoting Sketty222 (Reply 4):
Also, what percentage of slots do KLM own in AMS (I know its operated differently to LHR)?

I may be incorrect, but I do not believe AMS is slot-controlled.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11641 posts, RR: 61
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6213 times:



Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 2):
whilst I suspect that AA and BA will get approval this time around will they not still need to cede slots to competition, or with open skies is that now mute.

I sincerely hope that AA and BA are not, again, forced to give up precious Heathrow landing slots to satisfy bullsh*t claims from competitors who are just desperate to halt more competition (who's being anti-competitive?).

If AA and BA together are considered "dominant" in the U.S.-Heathrow and/or U.S.-London market, then all the other immunized alliances' presence in their respective U.S.-European hub markets would need to be categorized and near-"control."

The U.S.-Heathrow and U.S.-London markets are and will easily remain the most dynamic and competitive among all the markets between the U.S. and major European hubs - by far. Indeed, it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to find a U.S.-Europe market that is more competitive than U.S.-London, even combining AA and BA's respective shares.

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 2):
There dominance on the LHR-JFK route is and would be majorly dominant and thats an understatment.

There again, if AA+BA are considered "dominant" on JFK-LHR, than other immunized alliances' respective shares on Trans-Atlantic hub-to-hub routes are bordering on, or are, "monopoly."

The total nonstop capacity share of AA and BA cumulatively in the New York-London market (including Newark and JFK, and Gatwick and Heathrow) is 54.1%. Speaking solely about JFK and Heathrow, and removing Newark and Gatwick, the share rises to 58.5% of nonstop capacity.

By contrast, SkyTeam immunized airlines control, for example, 81.9% of the JFK-Paris capacity and 100% of the nonstop capacity in the JFK-Amsterdam, Atlanta-Amsterdam and Atlanta-Paris markets.

With Star Alliance, their immunized airlines control 71.2% of Chicago-Frankfurt capacity and 100% of the capacity in the Chicago-Munich, Dulles-Frankfurt and Dulles-Munich markets.

Now - what I find odd is why regulators would ever contemplate forcing AA and BA to give up slots in the JFK-LHR market, or make that route a carve-out from the larger antitrust immunity, on competitive grounds, when the JFK-LHR market is already basically the most competitive large hub-to-hub market across the Atlantic.

Quoting Sketty222 (Reply 4):
I was wondering though, although BA do have the majority of slots in LHR compared to other airlines is there a route from AMS that both KLM and NWA have pretty much to themselves?

The majority of the routes from the U.S. to Amsterdam are 100% controlled by KLM, Northwest or Delta.

Indeed, of the 17 U.S. gateways with nonstop access to Amsterdam, only six receive nonstop service from an airline other than the above (Miami being served by KLM unit Martinair).

Not to mention, in the U.S.-Amsterdam market, SkyTeam immunized partners (KLM, Northwest and Delta) cumulatively account for fully 84.4% of the capacity offered.

In the U.S.-Frankfurt market, Star Alliance immunized partners (Lufthansa, United and USAirways) account for fully 78.6% of the capacity offered.

In the U.S.-Paris market, SkyTeam immunized partners (Air France, Delta, Northwest) cumulatively account for fully 70.0% of the capacity offered.

Now, contrast the above with the U.S.-London (Heathrow) market, where, cumulatively, AA and BA would account for a mere 56.2% of the capacity, or the even-more-competitive U.S.-London market overall (including Gatwick), where AA+BA account for just 50.3% of the total capacity.

Given the infinitely-more-dominant presence of other immunized alliances at their respective European hubs, I fail to see any plausible argument why AA and BA should not now have the same antitrust immunity that their competitors enjoy - particularly considering that the main argument against it, that Heathrow was closed, is not a moot point.

Quoting Ssides (Reply 5):
I may be incorrect, but I do not believe AMS is slot-controlled.

AMS is, indeed, slot-controlled, just like virtually every other major airport in Europe.


User currently offlineJACK02116 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6110 times:



Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 2):
VS will no doubt start throwing its toys out the pram in the next few week when BA/AA apply again.

Yes you can be sure Sir Richard will come out with his usual bleetings about price competition - nasty evil BA and poor Virgin the weak 'start-up!!!!!!  Smile ............. the press release is probably already written!!

Virgin have plenty of slots at LHR and could choose to up the fequency to USA any time they want. Add to that Openskies and the appearance of Air France, Delta, Continental and North West from LHR to USA and I would say there is plenty of competiton out of LHR.

They really should let it through this time - as long as I am able to tell which flights are operated by which airline - Americans Business class (even their new product) is not a patch on BA.

And on the subject of Openskies, isnt it time the US finalised the last part of the 'deal' and allowed European operators to fly point to point inside US?


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8374 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6100 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With Delta on tehe JFK to LHR double daily and Continental's double from Newark to LHR any argument about BA/AA having too many flights between LHR and JFK is no longer valid. LHR now has every resident from teh USA which had to go to LGW, USairwasy, Delta, Continental & NW.

User currently offlineJACK02116 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6079 times:

Of course forgot about US Airways! Lets hope its a non issue now?

User currently offlineBALHRWWCC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6077 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 6):
The majority of the routes from the U.S. to Amsterdam are 100% controlled by KLM, Northwest or Delta.

That is probably why EC has made AMS it's next destanation and it should do well offering it's newly configured 752 aircraft with 24 in BIZ and 40 in Prem+.

When EC start the route will they be the only airline offering Premium Economy to AMS.

Also could BA get around giving up JFK slots by transefering them to EC??.

Surely if BA/AA doesn't get the go ahead the regulators are going to HAVE to give very good reasons for there decision as they have already approved the likes of KL/NW and AF/DL.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11641 posts, RR: 61
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6073 times:



Quoting BALHRWWCC (Reply 10):
Also could BA get around giving up JFK slots by transefering them to EC??.

JFK slots won't be the issue. It's slots at LHR that have presented a problem in the past.

Quoting BALHRWWCC (Reply 10):
Surely if BA/AA doesn't get the go ahead the regulators are going to HAVE to give very good reasons for there decision as they have already approved the likes of KL/NW and AF/DL.

Indeed.

It should be very interesting to watch any of their already-immunized competitors argue - with a straight face - that AF+KL+DL+NW+AZ or LH+UA+CO across the Atlantic, or for that matter DL+NW here in the United States, somehow poses less of a "threat to competition" (whatever that means) than AA+BA.


User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5994 times:

I think some of you have a wrong understanding how the process work. The authorities don't care very much what happens happens in AMS, FRA or CDG. They will look at the markets where both BA and AA operate from. And then they will have a look on each market and will determine if there is a thread for competition. Certainly in most markets from LHR there will be a huge reduction in competition and competition authorities don't like that. But since they have shown in the past they will accept that to a certain extend.

I don't have all the number what market share what airline from LHR to anywhere in USA has, but since COMMAVIA has shown in a different thread that even between NYC-LON BA&AA would not have much more than 50% of the market, I don't think there is a big thread that that this cooperation could be completely blocked.

What is the market share for AA&BA between JFK-LHR? Maybe they would be forced to give up one slot each on this single route, maybe the same for BOS-LHR and MIA-LHR, but I can't think of any more routes where they might become too dominant.


User currently offlineMMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5981 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 6):
Now, contrast the above with the U.S.-London (Heathrow) market, where, cumulatively, AA and BA would account for a mere 56.2% of the capacity, or the even-more-competitive U.S.-London market overall (including Gatwick), where AA+BA account for just 50.3% of the total capacity.

Given the infinitely-more-dominant presence of other immunized alliances at their respective European hubs, I fail to see any plausible argument why AA and BA should not now have the same antitrust immunity that their competitors enjoy - particularly considering that the main argument against it, that Heathrow was closed, is not a moot point.



Quoting Commavia (Reply 11):
It should be very interesting to watch any of their already-immunized competitors argue - with a straight face - that AF+KL+DL+NW+AZ or LH+UA+CO across the Atlantic, or for that matter DL+NW here in the United States, somehow poses less of a "threat to competition" (whatever that means) than AA+BA.

Indeed Indeed, before Open Skies there was a decent argument to not let BA/AA dominate at LHR, now with Open Skies throughout the EU and the subsequent opening up of LHR plus the Anti Trusts awarded to NW/KL/AF/DL etc. then there really is no solid argument to deny BA/AA this time around.

However, I wonder if the regulators will tie this application to final step of Open Skies to get the US market opened up to allow EU airlines point to point within the US? Or even a final agreement to allow foreign ownership of US airlines?


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11641 posts, RR: 61
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5975 times:



Quoting JoFMO (Reply 12):
I think some of you have a wrong understanding how the process work. The authorities don't care very much what happens happens in AMS, FRA or CDG. They will look at the markets where both BA and AA operate from. And then they will have a look on each market and will determine if there is a thread for competition. Certainly in most markets from LHR there will be a huge reduction in competition and competition authorities don't like that. But since they have shown in the past they will accept that to a certain extend.

I think we all understand the process, but many are just making the point that if regulators feel AA and BA post too severe a threat to competition, that would seem to imply that other immunized alliances pose an even greater threat to competition - since they all have far more dominant positions in trans-Atlantic hub-to-hub markets - and yet they all got their immunity.

Quoting JoFMO (Reply 12):
What is the market share for AA&BA between JFK-LHR? Maybe they would be forced to give up one slot each on this single route, maybe the same for BOS-LHR and MIA-LHR, but I can't think of any more routes where they might become too dominant.

In the JFK-LHR market (excluding EWR and LGW), AA+BA have 62.1% of the market's nonstop capacity. (*Note: I miscalculated in Excel in a previous reply.)

In the BOS-LHR market, their share is 79.6% of the nonstop capacity.

In the MIA-LHR market, their share is 73.7% of the nonstop capacity.


User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2091 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5919 times:

The big sticking point in the past was that with Bermuda II in place you only only had UA and VS able to compete from LHR. CO and DL (who could compete to EWR and JFK) were restricted from doing this by the fact that for CO there was no LHR access, and for DL not only no LHR access but no ability to serve JFK (It had to buy the route licence from UA, and until Open Skies was restricted to LGW).

With CO and DL now both at LHR, and CO moving to STAR, both competing alliances will have service from LHR to New York. Indeed, in the case of STAR it will serve EWR via CO and JFK via AI.

The fact that UA is leasing slots at LHR to other airlines will make it hard for STAR to complain it should be given slots from AA/BA, as UA could make those slots available to other STAR carriers.

In the case of SkyTeam it is even harder to argue that they should be given slots from AA/BA as DL and NW have both picked up slots from AF and KL, and there is no reason this should happen more in the future.

As for VS, Sir Richard Branson has already started his bleatings about it being anti-competitive, etc, etc. As VS is cutting a JFK frequency to launch the second daily to HKG it's a bit of a cheek for him to then come out with that!


Now, if this deal goes through (As most seem to expect) I would say that the liklihood of seeing the A380 at JFK for BA increases, as AA and BA will be able to reduce the number of services by a couple of rotations where they have a lot of flights in a short space of time. Both carriers would welcome that opportunity to free up a few slots, particularly AA given that it is so keen to launch a second daily MIA flight.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7541 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5903 times:



Quoting Sketty222 (Reply 4):
We all know that the BA/AA alliance application keeps being knocked back due to competition in LHR being dominated by the two. I was wondering though, although BA do have the majority of slots in LHR compared to other airlines is there a route from AMS that both KLM and NWA have pretty much to themselves?

Here is what Commavia reported in an earlier thread:

"What I found is that, given present schedules:

"SkyTeam carriers (mostly KLM and Northwest) control 92.7% of the U.S.-Amsterdam market.

"Star carriers (mostly Lufthansa and United) control 85.5% of the U.S.-Frankfurt market.

"SkyTeam carriers (mostly Air France and Delta) control 78.2% of the U.S.-Paris market.

"And what about AA BA at Heathrow?

"Even combining their entire U.S.-Heathrow schedules cumulatively, the two still only control a mere 56.1% of the U.S.-Heathrow market. If you account for the London market overall, and thus also account for Gatwick, the AA BA share drops even further, to only 50.3%."

More at:

BA%2FIB#ID4057601" target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...It+Comes%3A+AA%2FBA%2FIB#ID4057601

So to refuse AA/BA/IB ATI on the basis of competition clearly would not be natural justice and show significant bias.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5883 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 6):
immunized alliances' presence in their respective U.S.-European hub markets would need to be categorized and near-"control."

Yep. AMS/CDG-ATL/DTW for example. Or IAD-FRA how about? IAH-CDG (soon to be replaced with IAH-FRA).



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5857 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 14):
I think we all understand the process, but many are just making the point that if regulators feel AA and BA post too severe a threat to competition, that would seem to imply that other immunized alliances pose an even greater threat to competition - since they all have far more dominant positions in trans-Atlantic hub-to-hub markets - and yet they all got their immunity.

Fair enough. I did not mean that offensive in any way! Apologies if it might have sounded like that.

I just think we should concentrate more on the lines where AA and BA would really be dominant. Other European routes are very much irrelevant for the question if to grand BA and AA ATI. They don't have much more than anecdotal value and distract the discussion from the real 'problem'.


User currently offlineDano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 499 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5825 times:

Lets face facts...

We all know deep down that Congress won't allow for point to point services within the USA for european airlines, and we also know that they wont pass the share majority rule allowing far better run European airlines have control of USA based airlines.


QUESTION.

If the USA didn't have chapter 11, how many of the major's do you think would be operating today?.... Its an unfair system, that allows techincally broke airlines to screw its creditors and shaft its employee's



Children should only be allowed on aircraft if 1. Muzzled and heavily sedated 2. Go as freight
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11641 posts, RR: 61
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5817 times:



Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 19):
If the USA didn't have chapter 11, how many of the major's do you think would be operating today?.... Its an unfair system, that allows techincally broke airlines to screw its creditors and shaft its employee's

The only one that I thing would not exist today would be USAirways.

Had Chapter 11 not existed, USAirways - in my personal opinion - would have liquidated sometime in the 2002-2004 range (right around the were filing for bankruptcy, twice).

That would have likely lifted the tides for the rest of the airlines and staved off bankruptcy for United and Delta.

Northwest, on the other hand, may have filed for bankruptcy anyway, but they also may have been able to stave it off.

AA and Continental have not filed for bankruptcy in the recent past - and AA never - so they would likely have been in about the same position as now, except perhaps a bit better off if a big network carrier like USAirways liquidated.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5817 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 14):
In the JFK-LHR market (excluding EWR and LGW), AA+BA have 62.1% of the market's nonstop capacity. (*Note: I miscalculated in Excel in a previous reply.)

How much of the NYC-LON market do they control?

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 19):
Lets face facts...

We all know deep down that Congress won't allow for point to point services within the USA for european airlines, and we also know that they wont pass the share majority rule allowing far better run European airlines have control of USA based airlines.


QUESTION.

If the USA didn't have chapter 11, how many of the major's do you think would be operating today?.... Its an unfair system, that allows techincally broke airlines to screw its creditors and shaft its employee's

This is not the topic of this thread, it is discussed to death, and your views are not "facts" but opinion.  Smile



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 499 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5775 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):

But how long has the US got before the EU can pull out of the "openskies" agreement due to non committal from the US?

Then opinions will become fact.....if it happens (and in MY OPINION), thats what will happen, the USA is to protectionist (if thats a word).



Children should only be allowed on aircraft if 1. Muzzled and heavily sedated 2. Go as freight
User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4920 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5775 times:



Quoting JoFMO (Reply 12):
Maybe they would be forced to give up one slot each on this single route, maybe the same for BOS-LHR and MIA-LHR,

I know its been speculated on here in the past that should the BA/AA tie up will happen, AA will drop a BOS-LHR frequency anyway



Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11641 posts, RR: 61
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5757 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
How much of the NYC-LON market do they control?

My calculations have their share of the nonstop capacity in the overall New York (JFK/EWR)-London (LHR/LGW) market is 56.3%. This number has changed slightly since I just adjusted for something I hadn't previously: Virgin's dropping its 4th daily JFK-LHR flight.

With all players in the market included, their respective shares* are:

BA = 40.5% (82 flights/week)
Virgin = 19.8% (35 flights/week)
AA = 15.8% (34 flights/week)
Continental = 10.8% (28 flights/week)
Delta = 5.6% (14 flights/week)
Air India = 4.5% (7 flights/week)
Kuwait = 1.5% 3 flights/week)
Zoom = 1.5% (3 flights/week)

*These numbers are based on the airlines' current schedules, adjusting for already announced schedule changes (route/flight additions/subtractions)


25 Sketty222 : They will have to eventually allow for point to point services otherwise Openskies is dead in the water. If that did happen and Openskies was pulled
26 Commavia : The U.S. government doesn't "have to" do anything. And frankly, with the political climate in Washington right now, and the rise of protectionism bei
27 Pvd757 : I also agree with Commavia above. It may seem like the righteous thing to do and hold the US' feet to the fire, but with the climate that has arisen i
28 Humberside : The way I see it is the US has the EU over a barrel. They are very unlikely to compromise on ownership restrictions/cabotage and know that if the EU s
29 Pilot21 : So let's look at what happens to BA/AA on transatlantic routes if the alliance is granted? BA & AA both stay on LHR-JFK routes but share the revenue.
30 JoFMO : I agree with you, I don't see a complete roll back. But on the other hand, it would be really funny to see all the DL's, NW's, CO's, US's trotting ba
31 VV701 : To me even discussion of BA surrendering LHR slots to get ATI with AA is ridiculous. I have been searching for more up-to-date figures on slot concent
32 Ikramerica : Why do so many from the EU insist on stating that so many USA airports have "slots"? % of arrivals/departures does not equal slots. IAH, CLT, DEN, DT
33 VV701 : Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word "slot" as defined in the United States of America or even as we Europeans use it? There are, of c
34 JAL : I believe that this new tie-up should receive approval this time around!
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...
BA And AA To Possibly Merge...& BA A380's? posted Sun Oct 9 2005 07:48:54 by Jacobin777
Comparing BA And AA posted Mon Jun 10 2002 09:37:45 by B737-700
BA And American Alliance. posted Sat Sep 16 2000 12:19:09 by Renoair
Efficiency Of BA And CX - OneWorld Alliance posted Mon Oct 9 2006 16:58:33 by DernierVirage
SN And AA Sign Alliance Deal posted Wed Dec 10 2003 13:57:06 by Sabenapilot
The BA/AA Alliance posted Mon Mar 25 2002 21:38:18 by Stretch 8
BA/AA Alliance Possible? posted Sun Feb 3 2002 10:23:25 by Andie007
BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal posted Tue Dec 18 2001 09:21:46 by Singapore_Air
BA's Plans For AA's Alliance In Setback-Report posted Mon Dec 3 2001 04:29:08 by United Airline
BA/AA Alliance Opposed By 20 US Senators posted Wed Nov 28 2001 02:33:17 by United Airline