Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US/EU Openskies - 1 Year On. Winners/Losers?  
User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8515 times:

30th March, 2008.

The implementation date of phase 1 of the US-EU open skies agreement. 1 year ago today, all the hype was about the inauguration of new services into LHR by Delta Air Lines, Continental Airlines, US Airways and Northwest Airlines.

BA's 'Open Skies' subsidiary was in the process of launching, with their inaugural flight planned for June 19th on the ORY-JFK route.

Carriers were making a big deal about flying to both LHR and LGW. Now, one year on - CO and AA have completely withdrawn from LGW, consolidating their London operation at LHR. Credit markets are in meltdown, forcing carriers to re-think their expansion in Europe.

DL and NW have merged and reduced their services (in frequency). NW no longer fly LHR-SEA. DL serves ATL and CVG from LGW, and ATL/JFK from LHR. At LHR, NW only serves DTW and MSP. US serves only PHL from LHR now, and only 3x weekly effective March 29th. CO serves IAH and EWR and introduces CLE seasonal service in May.

Looking at how Openskies has panned out, who really are the 'winners and losers'?

IMHO, I'd say the following -

Winners
AA - consolidated operations at LHR, moved the highly lucrative RDU service to LHR, along with DFW. Increased BOS and DFW services

CO - consolidated operations at LHR. Increased service from 1x777 and 1x762 IAH service, plus 1x777 and 1x762 service to EWR to the current 2x daily 777's to IAH plus 1x 777 / 2x 757 daily EWR service, plus 1x daily seasonal 757 service to CLE from May.

DL - didn't consolidate at LHR, but is up-gauging LHR service to 764's this summer.

London Heathrow Airport - a definite winner - extra flights means more charges to more airlines for more aircraft. BAA are laughing all the way to the bank.

Losers
US - started out well, now down to only 3x weekly 762 service (from A330) LHR to PHL. Apparently not doing to well at LHR.

NW - lost their SEA service, losing their LHR service eventually, to be operated as DL service.

London Stansted Airport - lost AA's STN-JFK service completely, along with Eos Airlines too.

London Gatwick Airport - lost revenue from both AA and CO.

Of course, these are just my opinions, but I'd love to hear yours. What do you think?

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8514 times:

Another Loser....

BD - made such a big issue over the "Open Skies" issue, then didn't even bother launching any flights!


Lee



Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8483 times:



Quoting LHR777 (Thread starter):
NW - lost their SEA service, losing their LHR service eventually, to be operated as DL service.

NW's not losing its LHR service - it's merging with DL.

No question the SEA flight wasn't successful, but the slots NW acquired for its arrival/departure times was heavily unattractive.

It'll take time for the new carriers to LHR to develop their routes and acquire the slots they need to be successful...



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently onlineUSFlyer MSP From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8455 times:



Quoting LHR777 (Thread starter):
US - started out well, now down to only 3x weekly 762 service (from A330) LHR to PHL. Apparently not doing to well at LHR.

According to usairways.com, US is still flying PHL-LHR, PHL-LGW, and CLT-LGW daily in addtion to UA and BD codeshares via various cities. Im not sure where you got this information from,


User currently offlineThestooges From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8454 times:

Quoting LHR777 (Thread starter):
London Heathrow Airport - a definite winner - extra flights means more charges to more airlines for more aircraft. BAA are laughing all the way to the bank.



Quoting LHR777 (Thread starter):
London Gatwick Airport - lost revenue from both AA and CO.

Well BAA still own both LHR and LGW, so I don't think if it makes too much of a difference to them which airport an airline flies to, but maybe the airlines pay more to use LHR than LGW. Airlines moving to LHR have actually opened up more space at LGW for the expansion of low-cost carriers like Easyjet, Ryanair and Aer Lingus, so any voids left by American carriers have been filled up quite quickly.

Quoting LHR777 (Thread starter):
US - started out well, now down to only 3x weekly 762 service (from A330) LHR to PHL

It still looks daily from what I can see or at least from the week starting April 6th.

Quoting LHR777 (Thread starter):
NW - lost their SEA service, losing their LHR service eventually, to be operated as DL service.

Well in that case, NW has lost all their service everywhere and not just to LHR, as they have now been completely taken over by DL.

But in terms of European airlines flying from other countries in Europe to US cities, there really hasnt really been a whole lot happening other than BA Open Skies, which itself has already curbed expansion plans. Air France's service from LHR to CDG didn't last too long and their replacement LHR to JFK service, to complement those by SkyTeam partner DL, has not yet materialised.

[Edited 2009-03-29 17:27:16]

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7627 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8441 times:



Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 2):
It'll take time for the new carriers to LHR to develop their routes and acquire the slots they need to be successful...

Considering how much money some carriers had to spend to get slots into LHR, economic downturn or not it would take a couple years before the route would be in the positive area on a balance sheet.

Winner:
BAA and those airlines who sold slots

Loosers:
LGW and those pax who preferred that airport to LHR.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8418 times:

The big losers are BA , VA, and AA.

LHR-NYC was the most lucrative market for these carriers due to the Bermuda II restrictions.

The removal of Bermuda II restrictions has deeply eroded the yield on the NYC-LHR route, and hurt the profitability of these carriers.

[Edited 2009-03-29 17:36:30]

User currently offlineAf773atmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2713 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8340 times:

I was hoping US/EU carriers would look at more than JFK and LAX for expansion and try cities with little or no competition. Wasn't EI also planning TATL service from LHR?


It ain't no normal MD80 its a Super 80!
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23299 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8321 times:



Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 2):
No question the SEA flight wasn't successful, but the slots NW acquired for its arrival/departure times was heavily unattractive.

...not to mention the glut of SEA-Europe capacity. SK-- an airline with a much longer history of TATL service ex-SEA than NW-- was another victim.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8320 times:



Quoting Af773atmsp (Reply 7):
I was hoping US/EU carriers would look at more than JFK and LAX for expansion and try cities with little or no competition. Wasn't EI also planning TATL service from LHR?

The addition of LHR to ATL/MSP/PHL/DTW/CLE/RDU/DFW/IAH/SEA since the introduction of the Open Skies accord doesn't count?

I don't quite understand what you expected. LHR-GYY?


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8265 times:



Quoting LHR777 (Thread starter):
DL - didn't consolidate at LHR, but is up-gauging LHR service to 764's this summer.

DL is not doing very good in at LHR. The only reason its going to 764 is the new C seats.
Loads (and really on JFK-LHR) are not very good.



yep.
User currently offlineAf773atmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2713 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8242 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 9):

But most of those routes just switched from LGW to LHR so it wasn't really any expansion.



It ain't no normal MD80 its a Super 80!
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8225 times:



Quoting LHR777 (Thread starter):
Winners
AA - consolidated operations at LHR, moved the highly lucrative RDU service to LHR, along with DFW. Increased BOS and DFW services

CO - consolidated operations at LHR. Increased service from 1x777 and 1x762 IAH service, plus 1x777 and 1x762 service to EWR to the current 2x daily 777's to IAH plus 1x 777 / 2x 757 daily EWR service, plus 1x daily seasonal 757 service to CLE from May.

DL - didn't consolidate at LHR, but is up-gauging LHR service to 764's this summer.

I think these carriers paid a small fortune to get slots at LHR, and then a few months later the greatest financial crash since World War II happened. I'm guessing that given what we know today, these carriers would have preferred to keep their money and continue flying from LGW.

Quoting LHR777 (Thread starter):
London Heathrow Airport
- a definite winner - extra flights means more charges to more airlines for more aircraft. BAA are laughing all the way to the bank.

There are no extra flights. The slots have merely been shuffeled around. I believe DL got some slots at LHR that were previously used by AF/KL. I'm not sure why the BAA, with more than 1,300 movements per day at LHR and more than 700 per day at LGW, would laugh about a handful of flights changing hands from one airline to another.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineMillwallSean From Singapore, joined Apr 2008, 1294 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8087 times:

Winners - the airlines that sold their slots at peak prices.
Loosers - the airline that bought slots at peak prices.

Probably one of the few times we can say that UA is a winner. They sold rights and slots and did it at the right time.

I also reckon the US airlines paid a hefty price for their access in terms of revenue shared.
KL, AF allowes US airlines to rent their slots, slots that were being used on routes that werent profitable and gets both rent plus half the revenue on transatlantic routes.
Thats a good deal, The Europeans renting their slots to American partners are thus also winners.



No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7849 times:



Quoting USFlyer MSP (Reply 3):
According to usairways.com, US is still flying PHL-LHR, PHL-LGW, and CLT-LGW daily in addtion to UA and BD codeshares via various cities. Im not sure where you got this information from,

Information is from US Airways online timetable, at US Airways.com. They only show 3x weekly 767 service from LHR to PHL only. It that's incorrect - US Airways should probably update their own timetable!

Quoting RedChili (Reply 12):
There are no extra flights. The slots have merely been shuffeled around. I believe DL got some slots at LHR that were previously used by AF/KL. I'm not sure why the BAA, with more than 1,300 movements per day at LHR and more than 700 per day at LGW, would laugh about a handful of flights changing hands from one airline to another.

AA and CO purchased slots. DL acquired theirs from AF. NW acquired theirs from KL. US - i'm not too sure about. Airlines pay higher fees for a 777 than for a 737, thus BAA makes more money....

Quoting Thestooges (Reply 4):
Well in that case, NW has lost all their service everywhere and not just to LHR, as they have now been completely taken over by DL.

Fair point. I'll miss seeing NW metal at T4 though. Their A330's look fantastic!

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 10):
DL is not doing very good in at LHR. The only reason its going to 764 is the new C seats.
Loads (and really on JFK-LHR) are not very good.

So, increasing capacity with dwindling loads, to introduce the new J class seats? interesting business plan....


User currently offlineB747-4U3 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7812 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 6):
The big losers are BA , VA, and AA.

LHR-NYC was the most lucrative market for these carriers due to the Bermuda II restrictions.

The removal of Bermuda II restrictions has deeply eroded the yield on the NYC-LHR route, and hurt the profitability of these carriers.

I would like to see your sources on that. I highly doubt that BA, VS, and AA have had their yields seriously eroded due to open skies especially considering it had been reported on here that DL haven't been doing that well on their LHR-JFK runs and CO haven't increased capacity that much, if at all. They have simply moved from LGW to LHR. If anything is impacting yields it is the financial crisis. I would also add that the routes weren't profitable due to Bermuda II. They were profitable because of the demand and nature of that demand between London and New York.

Moreover, I would argue that BA is a huge winner due to open skies as their IAH, DFW and ATL operations can now be consolidated at LHR with vastly improved connectivity to the rest of the network.


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7725 times:



Quoting LHR777 (Reply 14):
AA and CO purchased slots. DL acquired theirs from AF. NW acquired theirs from KL. US - i'm not too sure about. Airlines pay higher fees for a 777 than for a 737, thus BAA makes more money....

But the 777 flights that were moved to Heathrow were moved from Gatwick. Both are BAA airports.

Have the former slots at Gatwick been taken up by other airlines? If so, what airlines and what airplane types? Smaller or larger than the American planes that used to land there earlier? I don't know the answer to those questions, but it is entirely possible that one 777 moved from LGW to LHR means one less 737 at LHR, and one 737 more at LGW. I don't think the BAA makes one penny by this reshuffling of slots.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7661 times:



Quoting RedChili (Reply 16):
But the 777 flights that were moved to Heathrow were moved from Gatwick. Both are BAA airports

Yes, but AFAIK charges are higher at LHR than LGW.......so thus more income.


User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7616 times:



Quoting RedChili (Reply 16):
But the 777 flights that were moved to Heathrow were moved from Gatwick. Both are BAA airports.

Have the former slots at Gatwick been taken up by other airlines? If so, what airlines and what airplane types? Smaller or larger than the American planes that used to land there earlier? I don't know the answer to those questions, but it is entirely possible that one 777 moved from LGW to LHR means one less 737 at LHR, and one 737 more at LGW. I don't think the BAA makes one penny by this reshuffling of slots.

You're assuming BAA charges the same across their airports, which they don't. Landing a 777 at LHR is more expensive than landing a 777 at LGW. A 777 at LHR is substantially more expensive than the A320 that previously held the slot, and more expensive than the same 777 at LGW. Thus, BAA wins all round. Slots at LGW get used by other operators, slots at LHR are now used by larger aircraft - thus BAA at LHR is a winner.

Also, remember that LGW is in the process of being sold, thus BAA will no longer be able to rely on revenue from LGW.


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7510 times:



Quoting LHR777 (Reply 18):
You're assuming BAA charges the same across their airports, which they don't. Landing a 777 at LHR is more expensive than landing a 777 at LGW.

This is probably true, but do you know the answer to the other questions I asked? Have the former slots at Gatwick been taken up by other airlines? If so, what airlines and what airplane types? Smaller or larger than the American planes that used to land there earlier?

If AF cancelled an A321 flight at LHR to make room for a 777, and if the 777 at LGW has been replaced by an A319, you also have to take into account that a 319 at LGW will generate far less income than a 321 at LHR. Without having all this data, it is impossible to tell whether the BAA has won or lost on the slot shuffle.

Quoting LHR777 (Reply 18):
Also, remember that LGW is in the process of being sold, thus BAA will no longer be able to rely on revenue from LGW.

Which is true, but since LGW has lost many of its premium flights, it's safe to assume that BAA will receive a lower price for Gatwick today compared to before open skies. Gatwick has definitely lost value over the past year.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2036 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7375 times:



Quoting RedChili (Reply 19):
Quoting LHR777 (Reply 18):
Also, remember that LGW is in the process of being sold, thus BAA will no longer be able to rely on revenue from LGW.


Which is true, but since LGW has lost many of its premium flights, it's safe to assume that BAA will receive a lower price for Gatwick today compared to before open skies. Gatwick has definitely lost value over the past year.

LGW has turned into STN mark 2, mainly shorthaul, and lots of LCC flights. So a definite loser will be the LGW duty free and upmarket shops Big grin



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17822 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7164 times:

The winners are probably the carriers that invested the least amount of money in shifting operations at LON Silly. The losers are obviously AA/BA/VS and LGW.


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineSuper80 From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6897 times:

I think AF/DL LAX-LHR service is one of the biggest loser under the Openskies!

User currently offlineSeemyseems From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 971 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6188 times:



Quoting LHR777 (Thread starter):
LHR by Delta Air Lines, Continental Airlines, US Airways and Northwest Airlines.

Which airports did these airlines fly into before?



seemyseems
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23299 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6011 times:



Quoting Seemyseems (Reply 23):
Which airports did these airlines fly into before?

Gatwick.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
25 DLPMMM : You could argue any position you like, but since Willie Walsh is still complaining about the Open Skies Agreement and pushing the UK government towar
26 B747-4U3 : My analysis might be wrong, however, I would take a lot of what WW says to the government with a pinch of salt. The very fact that he is complaining t
27 COEI2007 : At the moment, the only winners are airlines that sold or leased slots to airlines when openskies was announced. BA, VS, DL, CO etc, havent really bee
28 VikingA346 : In line with the "OpenSkies" agreement, we must not forget BA's OpenSkies Airline. AFAIK, EC(OpenSkies) has been doing quite poorly on both the JFK-OR
29 DLPMMM : I would say that since he is actually pushing the UK government for opting out from Open Skies, that it does in fact mean that the agreement has been
30 LHR777 : I didn't! See? That's a very good question. I wonder how long BA will give OpenSkies?
31 Par13del : Would be interesting to know how negative it has been. Once open skies was implemented, we had the mergers, which ensured that no slots got out, ther
32 LipeGIG : And the business class only airlines... all have gone ! But in fact, considering the extra offer added by a lot of airlines (DL, CO, AF, NW, US, AA,
33 Cubsrule : At this point, I have to wonder whether EC is-- at least in part-- a political ploy. If WW wants what he says he wants, then maybe he's using EC to s
34 B747-4U3 : Could it just be an empty threat? Pushing for something as serious as opting out might make the UK government more likely to take BA's concerns more
35 DLPMMM : For some reason, you seemed to take it as an attack on BA. BA was the biggest loser from the Open Skies agreement, but that does not mean that they a
36 DeltaL1011man : I think it has to do with adding more Y seats and I want to say the 764 has lower CASM than the 763. LGW. I
37 WorldTraveler : The most recent DOT stats disagree. DL is doing mid-pack among US airlines in both loads and average fares. We have seen these kinds of statements ma
38 Norcica : AA has increased DFW-London service since Open Skies went into effect?
39 LHR777 : AA81 - 3rd frequency, during the summer schedule. Although a 3rd flight operated from LGW on occasion.
40 Avek00 : The British carriers were by far the biggest losers, and I'm not sure yet as to whether BA or VS is the biggest loser of them all (I'm more inclined t
41 Davehammer : Agreed. I wasn't surprised to see BA put a JFK frequency in to test the water down at LGW. There's definitely solid Y, W and reasonably priced J mone
42 MaverickM11 : Mid pack if you include AI and KU in the pack; otherwise DL is the bottom in terms of loads, and you know they aren't getting the premium traffic tha
43 Jfk777 : Continental and Delta( NW) are the clear winners, CAL has great servcie from its two main hubs. Delta finally got LHR service from Atlanta 30 years af
44 413X3 : the biggest losers are the pilots, with the open skies program used to bring in cheaper labor and drive down salaries.
45 MaverickM11 : You got anything to back that up or are we just making stuff up now?
46 413X3 : so because it doesn't fit your world view, you believe it is just made up?
47 MaverickM11 : Seriously? The only pilots with any exposure were maybe BA and its Openskies attempt, which is being drawn down in any case. With more expensive labo
48 413x3 : why don't you go visit pprune or other pilot sites and see what really happened instead of insult anyone who disagrees with your limited world view
49 MaverickM11 : Why don't you just post a link?
50 B747-4U3 : I wasn't taking it as an attack on BA, and I apologise if I came across in that way. I just do not think that BA have been a loser or indeed, the big
51 Norcica : That's what I thought...so no Open Skies related increase in service to London from DFW...
52 Jfk777 : The only "OPEN SKIES" using cheaper labor is BA's aeparte airline which should have used BA's own employees. The new LHR operations of Delta, Contine
53 Bartond : Agreed, and the numbers for BA's DFW-LHR service don't lie. This flight saw a 5% increase in passengers last year, even with the economic downturn. T
54 VV701 : I think it is impossible to identify even the winners (if any) or losers. But undoubtedly the credit crunch and associated fall in passenger numbers a
55 Cubsrule : With both AY and RJ serving the States, I'm not sure how much Open skies has helped them. For instance, 9 of the 10 quickest RDU-AMM OW itineraries d
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...
EU-US Open Skies: Effect On Pt-to-pt Vs Hub-hub? posted Thu Mar 22 2007 16:43:45 by NYC777
EU & US Agree To Talks On Airbus-Boeing Spat posted Tue Jan 11 2005 15:52:02 by JMV
BA38 G-YMMM One Year On 17th Jan 2008 posted Fri Jan 16 2009 21:56:08 by Flyingfox27
Is US Still Deactivating IFE On Domestic Fleet? posted Mon Nov 24 2008 20:54:10 by Soxfan
US Carriers Service Levels On Intl Flights posted Sat Jun 28 2008 15:44:29 by Cjuniel
Engine Failure US Airways( Flt 808) On 06/17 posted Wed Jun 18 2008 10:04:41 by Gopal
US Has Open Mind On Airline Ownership posted Tue May 13 2008 07:26:42 by VS11
FlightBlogger: "One Year On: The Story Of The 787" posted Tue May 6 2008 02:29:32 by 797charter
Will US Carriers Give Up On TransAtl. Meals? posted Sun Dec 23 2007 07:01:32 by USAirALB
US-EU Open Skies - Overseas Territories posted Mon Sep 3 2007 02:41:45 by FLY777UAL