N863DA From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 48 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1617 times:
Because the Bermuda II agreement makes no mention of Atlanta, it is not a permitted LHR- destination. Only certain US cities are permitted from LHR, for example JFK.
Thus, it is required that ATL be served from LGW. Besides, if BA flew LHR-ATL, then it would be required that Delta be allowed to fly into LHR too, and we all know how opposed the UK carriers are to that happening. (how partial is that?)
And for what it's worth, Gatwick is a MUCH nicer airport than Heathrow.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1564 times:
I think you & me can understand why the UK airlines would like to keep *potential competitors* out.
Politics is still a game where he who can pull the most strings (BA & UK Gov't), gets what he wants.
The fact is though, until LHR expands, there is not much point in scrapping or amending Bermuda II, because LHR will not be able to handle any more new slots (at least the number DL and others would like).
Secondly, I beleive the *official* line (and I stand to be corrected), is that the UK Govt's impasse on Bermuda II with the US, is as a result of the US not permitting British carriers cabotage rights within the US.
(Apparently BA and others would like to exploit the juicy US Domestic market). Now, if the US Gov't says "no", I smell a whiff of protectionism on your side of the "pond" too! Tit-for-tat.