Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Oneworld ATI Hopes Dim: DOJ Called Flawed  
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6569 times:

The oneworld anti-trust immunity (ATI) carriers (AA/BA/IB/AY/RJ)have just filed comments with the DOT expressing concern regarding the growing competitive disadvantage oneworld is in without ATI or a joint venture (JV).

They also called several analyses, assumptions. and policies which DOJ uses in ATI analysis “flawed” particularly around carveouts.

The following excerpts are taken from the 149 page public document and as such is not copyrighted.

"In Star II, DOJ suggested that there is no need to approve further
transatlantic alliances because the United States has already reaped the full benefits of the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement (DOJ Comments, pp. 34-35).
Yet it would be naïve to assume that the United Kingdom and Spain – two of the countries most directly impacted by liberalization (and whose support was critical to the adoption of the agreement) - would find value in a regulatory policy that denies their consumers the benefits of fully integrated alliance hub operations.

The following comments provide further evidence that: (a) DOJ’s
methodology for analyzing nonstop and connecting transatlantic fares is fundamentally flawed and asked the wrong questions; (b) carve-outs would destroy the metal neutrality of the Joint Business Agreement and reduce significantly the consumer benefits the JBA would otherwise create; and (c) antitrust immunity is a necessary pre-condition to deeper and expanded cooperation among oneworld’s transatlantic airlines and to the consumer benefits that will arise out of enhanced inter-alliance competition.

American receives approximately [REDACTED] requests per year for mileage credit on ineligible British Airways flights due to the transatlantic gap. While it is impossible to accurately quantify this consumer benefit, it is obvious that consumers demand frequent flyer reciprocity and that the only way that the American/British Airways transatlantic gap will be closed is by approving the JBA without carve-outs.

Indeed, with Continental’s announcement that it will formally join Star on October 27, each day that passes makes it even more critical that the proposed oneworld alliance be approved and immunized within the statutory October 31 deadline."

It seems increasingly unlikely that oneworld will receive ATI by October 31 and its comments indicate that it cannot accept the standard terms which have been applied to Star, StarII, and Skyteam.

62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4447 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6539 times:

Ugh.

Not good.

Sheesh!


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32692 posts, RR: 72
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6475 times:

It really does not matter.

DOJ filed similar objections against other alliances that have passed, including the expanded CO/Star Alliance, which was approved shortly after DOJ's objections.

What this really means is a sign that approval is only weeks away.

AA/BA ATI will be received soon, probably by the end of October.



a.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11523 posts, RR: 61
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6396 times:

You are so sadly predictable, WorldTraveler.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Thread starter):
It seems increasingly unlikely that oneworld will receive ATI by October 31

According to who?

Quoting WorldTraveler (Thread starter):
and its comments indicate that it cannot accept the standard terms which have been applied to Star, StarII, and Skyteam.

Well, actually, when the DoT made the final determination on Star II recently, they explicitly repudiated the carve-out recommendations from DoJ on trans-Atlantic routes like Chicago/Dulles-Frankfurt, and those routes are far less competitive than most of the U.S.-Heathrow markets where AA and BA overlap.

Same with SkyTeam - DoT cleared Delta-Air France/KLM without carve-outs, and that was in markets that were, generally speaking, far, far less competitive than all but a 1 or 2 of the U.S.-Heathrow routes on which AA and BA overlap.

So why would you assume that the DoT is necessarily going to be predisposed to carve-outs for AA and BA? I am not saying that the DoT won't require carve-outs, but why I are you so sure they will?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22865 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6344 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Thread starter):
its comments indicate that it cannot accept the standard terms which have been applied to Star, StarII, and Skyteam.

They indicate no such thing. Rather, they indicate that OW's attorneys are doing what they ought to do: responding vigorously to the comments that Justice made (which I and others think DoT will largely ignore).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6335 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
So why would you assume that the DoT is necessarily going to be predisposed to carve-outs for AA and BA? I am not saying that the DoT won't require carve-outs, but why I are you so sure they will?

I'm assuming nothing. The oneworld carriers filed comments including the statements above that express concerns about carveouts. Section 2 - one-third of the primary document - is devoted to the issue of carveouts.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Same with SkyTeam - DoT cleared Delta-Air France/KLM without carve-outs, and that was in markets that were, generally speaking, far, far less competitive than all but a 1 or 2 of the U.S.-Heathrow routes on which AA and BA overlap.

And it is clearly the 1 or 2 routes which the DOT has an issue with.... we can easily guess that it includes at least ORD,MIA,DFW and/or NYC, and probably more.
AA uses the argument that there were no carveouts granted to those carriers but they also do not acknowledge that AA/BA still control a higher percentage of US-UK traffic than any other carrier does of any market... and the fact remains that LHR is not an open market in terms of readily available slots.

Again, it is the oneworld carriers who are concerned. They have apparently been given preliminary information that carveouts will be included in the deal or they are concerned enough that expect them to be....

Quite simply, AA/BA/IB is facing the heat of not being in an immunized alliance:
"oneworld in its current form simply cannot compete effectively with
Star and SkyTeam because the lack of antitrust immunity puts the Joint
Applicants at a severe regulatory disadvantage."


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22865 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6322 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 5):
And it is clearly the 1 or 2 routes which the DOT has an issue with....

Has DoT (as opposed to DoJ) publicly said anything about any specific route?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32692 posts, RR: 72
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6297 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):
Has DoT (as opposed to DoJ) publicly said anything about any specific route?

Nope.



a.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11523 posts, RR: 61
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6257 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 5):
And it is clearly the 1 or 2 routes which the DOT has an issue with

According to who - you?

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 5):
AA uses the argument that there were no carveouts granted to those carriers but they also do not acknowledge that AA/BA still control a higher percentage of US-UK traffic than any other carrier does of any market.

That is categorically false. AA+BA control a smaller share of the U.S.-U.K. market than any other single immunized U.S.-European airline pairing controls of their respective U.S.-E.U. country market. That goes for France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, etc. Every single one of those countries' markets to the U.S. is more dominated by that country's national airline and its immunized U.S. alliance partner than U.S.-U.K. would be with AA+BA. And, anticipating your equally-false rebuttal, the same goes for U.S.-Heathrow versus U.S.-other European hubs. AA+AB still only control about 55% of the U.S.-Heathrow market, whereas every single other immunized U.S.-E.U. airline relationship controls a substantially larger portion of the U.S.-European hub market in their respective European country.

And yet, every one of those alliances got antitrust immunity with virtually no restrictions.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 5):
and the fact remains that LHR is not an open market in terms of readily available slots.

Of course it is. Any airline can get as many slots at Heathrow as they want if they are willing to spend the money for them. Delta has plenty of money, and they have gone from 0 to 5 daily flights out of Heathrow in the span of less than two years, including Northwest. Continental also obtained 5 slots, and US got 1. So it's obviously possible, and LHR is most definitely an "open market" - just as much so as Paris or Frankfurt or Amsterdam. Those airports may be less slot constrained, but they are also far, far less competitive, and far more dominated by a single airline/immunized alliance, and thus much harder for a new entrant to effectively break into. Would those be "closed" markets?

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 5):
Again, it is the oneworld carriers who are concerned.

Airlines and alliances make filings to the DoT all the time. The OW carriers made a similar filing in response to the DoJ's recommendations regarding the application of another alliance - Star - and we see how much the DoT took those DoJ recommendations into account. Plus, the Secretary of Transportation has been quoted on record as saying that:

"These alliances are life savers for airlines. That is the premise from which we start. We believe it. The airlines believe it. And so we are going to continue to pursue those kinds of opportunities where we have them."

So, at this point, while I don't know which way the DoJ or DoT will rule, I'm going to count the comments of the actual Secretary of Transportation with just as much weight (actually much, much more) than I count yours.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 5):
They have apparently been given preliminary information that carveouts will be included in the deal or they are concerned enough that expect them to be....

Again - according to who?


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6180 times:

again, it is the oneworld carriers who are debating DOJ's position and arguing it should not apply to them.

oneworld's statements that they are falling further and further behind is evidence that the lack of an ATI is indeed hurting oneworld.

It is the oneworld carriers that are asking for reduced timeframes for the comment period so oneworld can obtain approval within the remaining 45-50 days left.

It is indeed problematic that oneworld will receive its approval in time and without the restrictions that they fear could negatively impact oneworld.

Despite what people on here want to assert, slots at LHR are not available at rates anywhere close to the prices that are charged for slots at other airports. As such, AA and BA enjoy a structural advantage that other carriers do not have at their hubs.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11523 posts, RR: 61
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6135 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 9):
As such, AA and BA enjoy a structural advantage that other carriers do not have at their hubs.

And again, since those "other carriers" are so drastically more dominant at their respective European hubs, those carriers offer just as large a (in my opinion, larger) "structural advantage" at their hubs.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22865 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5924 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 9):
again, it is the oneworld carriers who are debating DOJ's position and arguing it should not apply to them.

You seem to be forgetting a key point, though. DoJ doesn't make the decision. DoT does. What we are currently seeing is mostly (entirely?) political theatre.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4007 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5859 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 8):
Delta has plenty of money, and they have gone from 0 to 5 daily flights out of Heathrow in the span of less than two years, including Northwest.

Not only that, from Summer 2008 to Summer 2009, DL/NW service to London went from 11 daily flights to 6. DL is running away from any more London service. Wouldn't it be funny if the DoT stripped BA/AA of some Heathrow slots and then forced any whining competitors to fill them? If DL could have as many more slots as it wanted, how many would that be? Zero!


User currently onlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7548 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5840 times:

Do remember that the DOJ voiced concerns about the CO/UA/LH tie up, then the DOT approved it. No doubt will be the case for AA/BA/IB.


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7461 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5463 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 9):
Despite what people on here want to assert, slots at LHR are not available at rates anywhere close to the prices that are charged for slots at other airports. As such, AA and BA enjoy a structural advantage that other carriers do not have at their hubs.

Did you mean "a structural disadvantage" and not "a structural advantage"?

BA has just over 41 per cent of all slots at its hub at LHR. No other major international airline in the world has such a low percentage of slots at its home hub. The only one that comes annywhere near as close is UA at ORD. There they have fractionally under half of the slots reflecting AA's significant presence. Every other major international airline has a significantly greater structural advantage at their home hub.

In the case of the other major European hubs at AMS, CDG and FRA the structural advantage held by KL, AF and LH is some 50 per cent greater at around 60 per cent of the total slots versus BA's 40 per cent of LHR slots. So it should be clear to everyone that the airline suffering most from the difficulty of obtaining slots at LHR is actually BA.

Here is the data for the current summer season:

LHR weekly slots maximum limit: 9,524
LHR weekly slots allocated: 9,515
LHR slots available but not allocated: 9

LHR weekly slots allocated to British Airways 3,976 (41.8%)

LHR weekly slots allocated to American Airlines 250 (2.8%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Iberia 196 (2.1%)

LHR weekly slots allocated to Finnair 56 (0.6%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Cathay Pacific 64 (0.7%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Japan Airlines 34 (0.4%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Royal Jordanian 16 (0.2%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Qantas 56 (0.6%)

LHR weekly slots allocated to oneworld 4,648 (48.8%)


LHR weekly slots allocated to Lufthansa 406 (4.3%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to bmi 1,091 (11.5%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Austrian Airlines 70 (0.7%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Swiss International 84 (0.9%)

LHR weekly slots allocated to Lufthansa Group 1,651 (17.4%)


LHR weekly slots allocated to Air Canada 168 (1.8%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to China Airlines 14 (0.1%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Continental Airlines 84 (0.9%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Blue 1 14 (0.1%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to LOT 40 (0.4%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Egyptair 16 (0.2%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to All Nippon Airways 14 (0.1%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Air New Zealand 28 (0.3%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Croatia Airlines 18 (0.2%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Asiana 8 (0.1%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to South African Airways 42 (0.4%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Scandinavian Airlines 272 (2.9%|)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Singapore Airlines 48 (0.5%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Thai International 28 (0.3%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Turkish Airlines 42 (0.4%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to TAP Air Portugal 88 (0.9%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to United Airlines 154 (1.6%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to US Airways 14 (0.1%)

LHR weekly slots allocated to * 2,743 (28.8%)


LHR weekly slots allocated to Air France/Delta Air Lines 154 (1.6%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Alitalia 136 (1.4%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Korean Air 18 (0.2%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to KLM 196 (2.1%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Kenya Airways 20 (0.2%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to CSA Czech Airlines 40 (0.4%)
LHR weekly slots allocated to Aeroflot 40 (0.4%)

LHR weekly slots allocated to Skyteam 604 (6.3%)

Yes. CO is currently in Skyteam. But that, of course, is about to change.

Of course the Star share of LHR slots at almost 30 per cent is a figure that oneworld can only dream of at all other major European hubs. Their structural disadvantage is very apparent.


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5195 times:

Your analysis is appreciated.

However, you fail to address the RELATIVE SIZE of AA/BA in the transatlantic market due to its slot position and the fact that LHR slots are not easily obtainable (1/10 of 1 percent available slots is not an open market). Even those that are obtainable are not at prime TATL times or at costs that can justify addition of a flight.

The assumption that every slot that is currently used for ANY service from LHR could be reallocated to compete with AA/BA to N. America is flawed since that simply will mean that BA gains a disproportionate advantage in another market - even if the slot times were suitable for TATL flights.

LHR continues to be a highly restricted access market and AA/BA will control such a huge percentage of the slots relative to BOTH what is available and what can be obtained at reasonable prices that there is no meaningful opportunity for any other alliance or carrier to meaingfully compete with AA/BA/IB.

There is a reason why the oneworld ATI application has dragged on longer than any other and is still not resolved - and in a nutshell it is LHR and specifically several key US-LHR markets. Absent oneworld's ability to serve those markets under the JV, there is no meaningful arrangement. With such an arrangment, AA/BA have tremendous capacity to harm the public - and that is what the US and EU are charged to prevent.


User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4007 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5060 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 15):
huge percentage

In view if what is being discussed in this thread should 48.6% be qualified as "huge percentage"?

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 15):
There is a reason why the oneworld ATI application has dragged on longer than any other and is still not resolved - and in a nutshell it is LHR

That is wrong. The impediment was Bermuda II.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7461 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4890 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 15):
The assumption that every slot that is currently used for ANY service from LHR could be reallocated to compete with AA/BA to N. America is flawed since that simply will mean that BA gains a disproportionate advantage in another market - even if the slot times were suitable for TATL flights.

This argument is also flawed. For example here on a-net we often read criticism of BA better scheduled for passengers travelling in both directions through LHR between, as in a recent thread, the USA and Canada and India. And the reson is simple. Unlike AF at CDG, unlike KL at AMS and unlike LH at FRA, BA numerically has insufficient slots at LHR to operate what most would regard as a true hub and spoke operation.

If you care to look at any market served from LHR more often than not you will find BA operates at some form of disadvantage.

As an example look at the the number of slots LH has at LHR, 406. Compare that number with the number of slots BA has, 3,976. When these slots were allocated back at the begining of this year LH only flew between LHR and Germany. Now note that BA has less than ten times the number of slots operated by LH to serve the whole of the world. Is Germany more than one tenth of the world? No, it is not by whatever measure you care to choose.

All of this explains something else. It explains why you can see Regional Jets like these at LHR:

but why you can search the data base for as long as you like but you will not find a photo of a BA Regional Jet of any type taken at LHR. BA simply does not have the slots at LHR to allow it to operate Regional Jets into the airport.

It also explains why many of BA's flights from LHR operate at different times on different days of the week. So, for example, BA053 LHR-SEA is scheduled to depart from LHR at 5.30pm on Monday, 6.35pm on Tuesday and 6.15pm on Wednesday because BA has accumulated a mix of slots over the years and has to mix and match as best as it can to give a consistent service to its regular customers, frequently swapping slots in an effort to make its timetable more passenger friendly.

And it explains many of the threads on this web site where individuals take BA to task for, for example, not offering as comprehensive service to Asia as AF does from France or LH does from Germany, or why there are persistent threads talking about BA's poor coverage of Latin America. They do not have the slots that others have at their hub homes.

And it also one of the explanations as to why BA carries hardly any more passengers today than it did 10 years ago. New slots created at LHR are allocated under EU regulations to new comers in preference to established carriers. BA therefore has much greater difficulty in growing its business.

Having said all of this there are, of course, a small number of markets that BA has focused on. Nevertheless there is no airline hub in the world other than LHR that is the home hub for three airlines, in this case BA, BD and VS. And there is no hub in the world other than LHR where all the domestic operators have, combined, as few as 56.7 per cent of all of the slots out of which they must operate domestic as well as international flights. By the time you have discounted the domestic flights operated by both BA and BD - 10 per cent of BA's LHR passengers fly domestically - you will clearly see that non-British operators have more slots at Heathrow operating international services than the three British operators combined. Further on every major route it operates BA is not only likely to face competition from at least one non-British airline but also from either BD or VS who have been able to cherry pick the best routes to fly


User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4499 posts, RR: 33
Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4845 times:

Oneworld ATI/ LHR discussions are always interesting, in that there are, ISTM, fair arguments to be made for both sides. As someone without a dog in this particular fight--not a loyalist of any US or EU legacy carrier--I suspect that if OW ATI is approved, there will be LHR conditions of some kind or other.

Fair or not, Heathrow is perceived as special. That's not AA or BA's fault. LHR is far and away the single most desirable airport in Europe. It will have two runways for the foreseeable future (we'll see if the approved third runway ever materializes in green-crazed Britain), and its access will remain limited. Britain's decision to never build a big, CDG-sized or AMS-sized airport, with room for more runways, pointing somewhere other than right at the heart of the city, has had historical consequences.

Fair or not, the fact that non-Bermuda II US legacy carriers are stuck buying slots at whatever times can be chipped out of some EU partner's schedule, at massive cost, is perceived as a limit on access. That limit does *not* exist at any other major EU hub. Whether or not in this bad economy any non-B II carrier is actually experiencing serious competitive disadvantage at LHR, the perception, IMO, remains. Commavia's perfectly reasonable observation about actual market share concentration may not weigh highest in the minds of competition authorities.

As WT notes, only the AA-BA/ OW ATI has remained unapproved--and it remained unapproved through the more free-market oriented Bush Administration. Whatever the actual legalities are, and I leave those to the experts in this thread, I for one would not be surprised to see OW ATI remain delayed, or approved with substantial LHR conditions.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7118 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4690 times:



Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 18):
Commavia's perfectly reasonable observation about actual market share concentration may not weigh highest in the minds of competition authorities.

Just as the facts are also listed of the greater percentage that home carriers have at the other airports in Europe, however, what is never mentioned is the percentage of the TATL traffic that LHR accounts for versus those other airports. What percentage of TATL traffic does LHR get?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22865 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4619 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 15):
LHR continues to be a highly restricted access market and AA/BA will control such a huge percentage of the slots relative to BOTH what is available and what can be obtained at reasonable prices that there is no meaningful opportunity for any other alliance or carrier to meaingfully compete with AA/BA/IB.

How is that situation different from the reality at CDG or FRA, though? Neither one has gobs of gates or slots available; the chances of seeing a Oneworld hub at CDG or a Skyteam hub at FRA are just as low as the chances of seeing a Star hub at LHR . . . wait, BD HAS a hub at LHR.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently onlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7548 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4470 times:



Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 18):
Whatever the actual legalities are, and I leave those to the experts in this thread, I for one would not be surprised to see OW ATI remain delayed, or approved with substantial LHR conditions.

I wouldnt be surprised to be a few carveouts, however I fully expect it will be approved in some form. I bet NYC-LHR will probably be carved out, but other than that and maybe one or two more, it should roll out.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4499 posts, RR: 33
Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4450 times:

Cubsrule--fair or not, the situation seems to be perceived *very* differently.

What US legacy carrier has had to beg non-hub partners at AMS, CDG, or FRA for a slot at an anywhere near competitive time? At 9-figure expense? Not having "gobs of gates or slots" (do any of these airports even have slots? I didn't think they did ) is probably a very, very different reality in the minds of competition authorities than "pleading for whatever one or two slots we can get at huge expense from a partner." Is any US legacy carrier prevented from landing or departing at a competitive time at AMS, FRA, or CDG? As far as I know, they aren't.

The fact that Star has a partner at LHR in BMI seems to me not very important; BMI's operation small enough, in light of the figures above, as unlikely to offer meaningful enough possibility of competition to BA, even if UA has all those presumably well-timed Bermuda II legacy slots.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22865 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4418 times:



Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 22):
probably a very, very different reality in the minds of competition authorities than "pleading for whatever one or two slots we can get at huge expense from a partner."

In the minds of competition authorities? Sure. But remember, the Competition authorities don't matter. DoT does, and AFAIK there has never been any indication that they share the sentiment.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 22):
The fact that Star has a partner at LHR in BMI seems to me not very important; BMI's operation small enough, in light of the figures above, as unlikely to offer meaningful enough possibility of competition to BA, even if UA has all those presumably well-timed Bermuda II legacy slots.

Is BD completely irrelevant? They may be small, but they are larger than their (nonexistent) analog at AMS, CDG, or FRA.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4007 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4091 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 18):
Fair or not, the fact that non-Bermuda II US legacy carriers are stuck buying slots at whatever times can be chipped out of some EU partner's schedule, at massive cost, is perceived as a limit on access.

That is not really 100% accurate. All US carriers serving LHR, ex Bermuda II carriers or not, have to buy slots to increase service. Look at the massive flops by DL/NW and AF on LHR to the USA service: Slots are not a constraint to them adding service at Heathrow. This thread is littered with moot points.

[Edited 2009-09-10 13:45:56]

25 Par13del : Is that flop as in failure to procure enough slots to effectively compete on what is largely a business route which requires multiple frequencies, or
26 VV701 : When UA operated that prime, golden route, JFK-LHR, it could not make a go of it. So it gave up the route and leased its slots to Star partner LH. So
27 WorldTraveler : BA is shutting down its LGW operation... if it wanted to grow its TATL business, it could figure out how to flow some traffic over other airports - L
28 United1 : I'm willing to bet that UA/LH/CO have at least an 80% market share on NYC/ORD/IAD-FRA and those routes are going to be part of the JV..... I don't th
29 Cubsrule : Obviously, though, there is some other barrier. Is it relevant that the barrier at LHR is slots and the barrier at CDG, AMS, and FRA is the competiti
30 Commavia : Well, for starters, you're making up numbers doesn't help your argument. AA+BA do not control 80% of the New York-London, nor JFK-Heathrow, markets.
31 Post contains links Viscount724 : I doubt any airline has ever had to pay $209 million for slots to operate 4 daily flights at any airport in continental Europe, as CO did for LHR slo
32 Commavia : On the contrary, bmi fought for years to get into Heathrow and has now decided they'd rather use their slots for flights to Saudi and Central Asia, N
33 United1 : It's a seasonal flight this is the second summer they have operated it. The flight will be back next summer... I agree with your point though LHR is
34 VV701 : But, of course, it is a "market" defined by some but nor recognised by others. Those that will not recognise it will include those who have frequentl
35 Incitatus : Let's not forget the Air France adventure into LAX.
36 Viscount724 : What statistics are you using to support those claims? The population of U.S. metropolitan areas with direct service to at least one European hub is
37 Avek00 : There's no need for carve-out on NYC-LHR.
38 MasseyBrown : The meaning of huge in this context is murky. It's worth noting, however, that the US DOT has often used 40% of the market as its definition of a dom
39 WorldTraveler : yes, but international carriers have READILY been able to obtain access to each of those airports when they have wanted to - without shelling out 8 d
40 Commavia : The DoT found it acceptable for antitrust immunity to be granted to: . Delta-Air France on JFK-CDG . Delta-Air France on ATL-CDG . Delta-Alitalia on
41 VV701 : Statistics are very much open to misinterpretation. So they are somtimes less useful than they might at first seem. However one of the sources of my
42 Cubsrule : That's exactly what they were doing. The levels that are considered by whom? WorldTraveler?
43 LAXdude1023 : Honestly the title of this thread makes me laugh every time I read it.
44 PlanesNTrains : He apparently is most interested in getting people to read/reply to his threads, versus the secondary role of being right. He indicated as much to me
45 WorldTraveler : The issue is that LHR is not a freely open market.... Period. Trying to look at what someone else has and say you should have it when you clearly hav
46 Cubsrule : Is that why AF started LHR-LAX rather than FRA-LAX after Open Skies?
47 LAXdude1023 : In the past it was because of Bermuda II. Thats gone. Its an open market.
48 Viscount724 : I really doubt that. In my experience, you are as likely (sometimes even more likely) to find people speaking fluent English at hubs like AMS/ZRH/FRA
49 WorldTraveler : AF has nonstop service from LAX to continental Europe and they carry alot of German traffic. What they lacked was service to LHR which is why they st
50 Evomutant : It is. What is a market? An exchange of cash for goods/services. The market price is $50m (if that figure is right). Just because the price is high d
51 VV701 : I totally agree. But the key word in what you say is "experience". Those that have never transited or even visited AMS, ZRH, FRA, MUC or even CDG wil
52 MasseyBrown : Based on my experience, CDG, FRA, and AMS are easy and efficient transfer points. Even the French will cheerfully speak English when it's to their ad
53 Cubsrule : Doesn't this contradict this: Apparently, Skyteam can start LAX when it suits them...
54 Ripcordd : WT are you going to need your meds when AA/BA tie up and then take on a huge stake in JL and run DL away from Asia....WT you are so bias for DL and ag
55 Mdavies06 : Can't agree more. LHR-US is a free market. All you need to do is pay to buy/rent a pair of slot, and you are in the market. The amount you pay to get
56 WorldTraveler : When LHR slots are the most expensive on the planet and less than 0.1% of the availalable slots at LHR are available for reallocation - and there is
57 Cubsrule : Right, so you can hardly argue that slots are "unavailable." Every major TATL carrier save US has either its own slots or an ATI relationship with so
58 JAL : I believe given that Star and Skyteam have ATI, OneWorld should and will get ATI as well so that they can compete on even grounds.
59 AirNz : Why do you continually, and deliberately, keep repeating this untruth? "...LHR slots are the most expensive on the planet....." because they are the
60 Sydscott : If you want a good slot at LHR then you pay the market price for it. The fact that it's an open market will drive slot prices up, if anything, becaus
61 Davehammer : Arguably 6th when you include NZ who have operated that route for many years. While it is expensive to gain slots at LHR the amount of competition on
62 Par13del : That is the reason why comparions to other EU hub airports is meaningless to the discussion of anti-trust on the LHR - USA market, folks are beating
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...
DOJ Opposes CO-UA ATI posted Mon Jun 29 2009 11:21:03 by LAXintl
DOT Asks Oneworld To File More Info In ATI Case posted Tue Nov 20 2007 16:32:47 by LAXintl
ORD Expansion Called "Fundamentally Flawed" posted Mon Jan 19 2004 19:52:06 by Deltaffindfw
Future Of Star/Skyteam/Oneworld At BOM posted Sun Aug 16 2009 11:35:43 by DTWLAX
Long-term Impact Of Transatlantic ATI Agreements posted Sat Aug 1 2009 19:13:08 by LHCVG
US DOJ/DOT Clash Over Airline Alliances posted Sun Jul 26 2009 06:46:54 by MasseyBrown
How Will ATI Impact AA/BA Trans-Atlantic Balance? posted Tue Jul 21 2009 08:30:58 by Ssides
Flydubai - Indian Operations Called Off For Now posted Sun Jul 12 2009 02:10:25 by Aviationbuff
9W Likely To Join OneWorld posted Fri Jun 26 2009 03:33:51 by Rajrs
When Will MX Join Oneworld? posted Sat Jun 20 2009 06:39:49 by Krasof