DariusBieber From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 128 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 15485 times:
According to USAToday.com's Today In The Sky Blog, Russia is saying that Austrian Airlines is too "German." Apparently Russia is really upset and incompetent with Lufthansa having a presence in the Russian market. If I recall correctly, didn't Russia almost force LufthansaCargo to go through Moscow?
Isn't this a little, well being quite frank here, unjust? I know Russia has a tight grip on just about everything, but still....
sandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 868 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15087 times:
Quoting DariusBieber (Thread starter): Russia is saying that Austrian Airlines is too "German." Apparently Russia is really upset and incompetent with Lufthansa having a presence in the Russian market.
That really is a tough call! How many LH / OS flights fly through Russian Aerospace. I though Russia had stopped all this soviet style politics? Is there any commercial reason for this? LH taking to much market share from SU?
From both the linked articles it appears Russia's bilateral is with Austria, not the EU. Therefore it is quite normal for bi-laterals to have requirements regarding just what is considered an airline from a country. It appears Austria is in breach of its bilateral with Russia by designating OS as their airline under that bilateral, because it is a German Airline. Seems very reasonable to me. In effect Austria has breached its contract with Russia, you want Russia to just accept that?
This is exactly why the Australia Government has a max foreign shareholding in QF limited to 49%.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22719 posts, RR: 88 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14837 times:
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 5): It appears Austria is in breach of its bilateral with Russia by designating OS as their airline under that bilateral, because it is a German Airline. Seems very reasonable to me.
I'm with the Russians here.
They may have some other agenda - trying to provoke a renegotiation of some kind with either Austria or the EU - but on facts shown, I think they're right.
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3128 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14386 times:
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 5): From both the linked articles it appears Russia's bilateral is with Austria, not the EU. Therefore it is quite normal for bi-laterals to have requirements regarding just what is considered an airline from a country. It appears Austria is in breach of its bilateral with Russia by designating OS as their airline under that bilateral, because it is a German Airline.
To start with, legally, Russia is in it's right. No doubt about that. But the situation is not that black & white as it seems.
But it is an interesting side-effect from the creation of the European single market.
Most traditional bilateral ASA's mention that only carriers from the two countries are allowed to serve the route. In the European Union, a single market is created. Also, there is a law that European governments are not allowed to discriminate between companies from different EU-countries. Meaning, that the Austrian government is (EU-wise) illegal by signing an ASA that mentiones "14 weekly frequencies by an Austrian carrier". (They are allowed, EU-wise, to mention "14 weekly frequencies by an EU-carrier").
Since the creation of the single market, the European Commission has been negotiating with many countries in the world to revise the ASA's, by basically just Search & Replace Austrian/German/Dutch/French/etc. with "European". This is known as the community clause. Please note that other restrictions (in weekly frequencies, for example) are still allowed by the EU (not advocated, but it's just how it is).
Many countries have agreed to this community clause (the vast majority of American, Asian countries, Australia, New Zealand; most notable exceptions so far ar Russia and Turkey; and many African countries). Actually, for these countries, not much changes, as the (protecting) regulations limiting the number of seats that can be flown between two countries, is untouched; it's just that the ownership from the carrier is different).
The European Commission and Russia have been negotiating about liberalizing the air transport market, but this is not going quite smooth. Actually, the EU wants a very liberal air transport relation with Russia, but they also want Russia to abolish the Siberian overflight fees. (Interesting to read: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/in...iation/country_index/russia_en.htm )
The Russian government has agreed (in speaking) that it would agree on abolishing the overflight fees, already a few years ago, but so far, the Russian government has not signed the agreement. As long as this agreement remains unsigned, the EC is unwilling to move.
This move by the Russian government is clearly part of this negotiations tactics.
I assume - but this is just my personal opinion - is that the recently proposed merger of Aeroflot, Rossiya and other carriers, is a step that the Russians want to take before liberalizing the market. They want to have a financialle strong carrier that can well catch up with their European counterparts, before opening the market.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 13438 times:
The LHCargo blackmail was actually against Germany and Kasachstan. LH had TSE as technical stop and Russia forced them to use KJA instead. LH had little choice but to accept that offer they could not refusa. They had to accept the lemon and use it as long as they are stuck with their MD11s.
Aerologoic is not involved as they fly T7s which go n/s to the far east. That is only about overflight rights which does not involve the traffic rights issue OS is confronted with. My personal oüpinion is that when more T7s joing the Aero Logic fleet that will be it fpr MD11s and KJA. The JADE 744s are helpful in that direction as well. Show the Russians the finger.
I understand that Austrian is owned not directly by LH but through an Austrian registered holding (a juristic person), which makes OS still an Austrian carrier and not as the Russians say, German. Air France has used a similar construct with KLM and they have no problem.
What Russia totally neglects as usual is the fact that they use intensively 6th freedom traffic between Germany and the far east, Air Bridge Cargo and Aeroflot with their lower cost base are undercutting LHCargo rates. The German government and the EU should pt this on the negotiating table together woith the overflying rights issue. I don't think that Russian carriers would be too happy to pay similar fees on the way to North America. OTH, why should Russia get something free for which EU carriers have to pay?
globeex From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 13247 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9): I understand that Austrian is owned not directly by LH but through an Austrian registered holding (a juristic person), which makes OS still an Austrian carrier and not as the Russians say, German. Air France has used a similar construct with KLM and they have no problem.
And that exactly is the point. One must be naive to think the Russians are just doing it to protect their bilateral in general.
I mean, Lufthansa is no amateur with this. They have been doing the same with Swiss and Swiss operates flights to LED and Moscow. AF is doing the same with KL.
The only reason here is that OS is already very stong in the opinion of Russia and now, as the are owned by LH it seems to be a a threat to their Aeroflot merger game.
To me it only shows one thing, which is that politic whise Russia is still stuck in a different century. No other country on this planet seems to have a problem with how LH operated Swiss for the last years or for the same matter now Austrian, because it is absolutely in line with the bilaterals.
[Edited 2010-02-12 04:05:30]
[Edited 2010-02-12 04:12:15]
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 12988 times:
Russia is not a state of the law, unfortunately. It is extremely difficult for anybody to do business there and especially for companies bound under the corporate governance regulations. LH and many others would have no problems if they pay the right person under the table. LH can't do that, the CEO, the CFO and the country dirctor would put not only jeopardize jobs, they would be subject to heavy fines and probably jail sentences.
LH was convicted in a Russian court to pay taxes which they clearly had not to pay under the bi-lateral. May be a couple of first class tickets would have solved the problem, LH cannot do that. OTH, Germany cannot retaliate and ask SU or Air Bridge Cargo to pay similar taxes. We have an independent judicial system and SU por ABC would win such cases.
mainMAN From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 2064 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12820 times:
Interesting story, and I can't see how ownership should make one scrap of difference to the Russians. As I view it, the bilateral agreement is with Austria, not Austrian and as PanHAM has just remarked, OS is legally owned by an Austrian registered holding.
slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12810 times:
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 10): It's perfectly black & white, Russia is legally correct.
Actually it isn't, because although the bilateral may read 'AUSTRIA', it is to be automatically replaced by 'EU' under the community clause, as correctly explained by Joost.
If for instance your employer were to merge and change name, would that also void your employment contract, then, given that it is no longer the same name appearing in the contract????
Obviously NOT, the rights and obligations are passed on to the new entity, and the same applies here: Russia just does not want to do this, which is legally NOT correct, since the community clause is part of the EU treaties, as signed and ratified by Austria....
It is as if Austria MERGED into a new state, called the EU. the EU thus being the successor state to AUSTRIA, just like Russia is internationally seen as the successor state to the Soviet Union, or are we suddenly going to dispute that too then, taking away their seat which they've simply inherited from the CCCP at the UN security council for instance?
SQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1437 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12624 times:
We are just facing some protecionism here.
LH and OS are having a strong presence in Russia while Russian carriers failing to make profits on their routes to the EU!
The Russians are trying to improve the market environmnet for their own carriers.
airproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 553 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12308 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9): What Russia totally neglects as usual is the fact that they use intensively 6th freedom traffic between Germany and the far east, Air Bridge Cargo and Aeroflot with their lower cost base are undercutting LHCargo rates. The German government and the EU should pt this on the negotiating table together woith the overflying rights issue. I don't think that Russian carriers would be too happy to pay similar fees on the way to North America. OTH, why should Russia get something free for which EU carriers have to pay?
Totally agree with you...
The same issue with russian government occured when it came to negociate "overfly rights" (totally amazing!) for the AF A380 and the CDG-NRT route...
Why is it always free for Russian carriers to overfly European territories then?
If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3128 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12247 times:
Quoting slz396 (Reply 14): It is as if Austria MERGED into a new state, called the EU. the EU thus being the successor state to AUSTRIA
But this is the point, the EU is not a state, and Austria is not merged into the EU. A state is (amongst others) only a state when other countries accept this to be.
Actually, the EU single carrier market is not the first of it's kind. Sweden, Norway and Denmark have been acting as a single state since they have SK together.
Whether the EU (or actually, the EEA) could or should be "considered similar" as a state in the definition of the Montreal convention is a question for both lawyers and politicians. Personally, I'm on the side of Russia here when it comes to the pure legal question (as, simply, the EU are not a state).
Now, it's not that Russia is too concerned about the Montreal convention: this clearly states that it's absolutely not allowed to charge overflight-fees (no discussion here) and still they do.
Quoting mainMAN (Reply 13): Interesting story, and I can't see how ownership should make one scrap of difference to the Russians
Well, LH and OS together have a significant presence in Russia. That's what they're concerned about.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9): I understand that Austrian is owned not directly by LH but through an Austrian registered holding (a juristic person), which makes OS still an Austrian carrier and not as the Russians say, German
Well, this construction (similar to AF-KL) is a legal workaround that most countries accept, but Russia apparantly not, now. Most countries do accept it, simply because
(1) they couldn't care less as the bilateral ASA remains unchanged;
(2) and they want to maintain good relations with the EU
(3) and/or they get something in return for being cooperative (like LHR access for the US)
....and uses thew 1000 lbs gorilla tactic. That is as cute as the smiling Rottweiler whose owner claims that he just wants to play. I think it is time that the EU and the countries concerned make a point to such negotiating tactics.
pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1391 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10967 times:
Sigh...the usual Russia busting attitude of many a.netters makes me
completely unwilling to explain, or discuss, or insist. It's in vain..
Basically the guys above presented the situation in legal terms correctly.
Arguments like "gorilla", 'rottweiler" are just beyond my understanding.
As far as I remember in LH Cargo discussion PamHAM behaved the same way.
globeex From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 6 Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10609 times:
Quoting pylon101 (Reply 19): As far as I remember in LH Cargo discussion PamHAM behaved the same way.
So you don't think this wasn't blackmailing of a company by a government?
Quoting pylon101 (Reply 19): Basically the guys above presented the situation in legal terms correctly.
So you think that KL should be banned from flying to Russia as well?
Lets face it. It has nothing to do with not accepting this under bilaterlas in general. There is just one reason behind it and it's called protectionism.
Just to quote the article: ATW writes: "A Star Alliance source told this website that Russian officials are unhappy with the increasing presence of Lufthansa and its subsidiaries in the Russian market."
OS is owned by an Austrian foundation and is based in Austria. So I don't see any legitimat reason to haggle.
In other news. Russia has denied AeroLogic overflight rights.
[Edited 2010-02-12 08:11:54]
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
Fabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1111 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9742 times:
Quoting slz396 (Reply 14): Actually it isn't, because although the bilateral may read 'AUSTRIA', it is to be automatically replaced by 'EU' under the community clause, as correctly explained by Joost.
Bilateral is called bilateral because it consists of two sides. While Austria might be willing to forward "itself" to the EU, Russians did sign an agreement with Austria, which is still a sovereign country, more or less. There is no "Federative Republic of Europe", there is European Union, which is composed of 27 sovereign Member States.
Now, de Iure, OS might still be owned by Austrian holding, but we all know de facto the owner is LH. It is perfectly OK to question its state as Austrian company, IMO.
Quoting pylon101 (Reply 19): Sigh...the usual Russia busting attitude of many a.netters makes me
completely unwilling to explain, or discuss, or insist. It's in vain..
If only a-net. It is basicaly everywhere. Some bash it for being Soviet Union in their minds, some bash it for not being Soviet Union in their minds, some bash it for the sake of bashing it. I am sick of it, but I learnt to live with it.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18): ....and uses thew 1000 lbs gorilla tactic. That is as cute as the smiling Rottweiler whose owner claims that he just wants to play. I think it is time that the EU and the countries concerned make a point to such negotiating tactics.
Well, tactics is tactics. Russia has their favourites, EU has, the US has.
The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7771 posts, RR: 26 Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9669 times:
Quoting pylon101 (Reply 19): As far as I remember in LH Cargo discussion PamHAM behaved the same way.
I used the same arguments, that is quite correct. My "behaviour" is not your concern, we can discuss openly here, you can defend your country, it s your good right, but I "behave" as I please. If your country is picking on Lufthansa and their subsidiary companies, and on the other hand Russian companies enjoy all the freedom to do business in Germany without any harrassment, it is my good right to make such remarks.
Fact is, Russia did not like that LHCargo used TSE as tech stop to and from the Far East. Whatever you may call it, from blackmail to gentle pressure, the way they "convinced" LHCargo to move to KJA was questionable.
Fact is, LH was convicted in a Russian court to pay taxes which they should not have to pay under the bi-lateral. Now, Germany cannot impose similar taxex on Aeroflot, simply because SU could appeal in an indeüpendent juducial system and would win the case against the German tax authorities. LH had to pay. Again, questionable.
Fact is, OS is owned by an Austrian registered foundation, same set-up as AF uses for KL. I outlined that in reply # 9. Russia picks on OS/LH and not on AF/KL. Again, questionable.
Fact is, Russia denies overflying rights to AeroLogic, a German registered company. This is another arbritary act against good business conduct. Again, questionable.
pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1391 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9588 times:
I am not an expert in international law. So I should wait when viable opinions appear here on the Net.
Anyway "USAToday" is hardy a good start point for any discussion.
I don't believe that LH may possibly have any serious issues here in Russia - I used to see LH flights taking-off from DME all day long.
Understably Russian side is cautious in a situation when Aeroflot is supposed to increase its domestic flights' share from 10% to 30% by integrating "AirUnion" companies - which by itself is quite a task.
As to overfly fees - we discussed this on LH Cargo topic 2 years ago or so.
25 slz396: In Russia, everything is still pretty much politics and so I have a very strong feeling the fact LH and OS have a very good presence in the kaukasus r
26 mariner: In this case, they are. Okay. And - ? In this instance, Russia didn't sign a deal with the EU. The New Zealand Maori didn't sign a deal with the Brit
27 slz396: The community clause of the EU (meaning one member stands for all) is internationally accepted as the EU is a unique kind of a confederation, with as
28 PanHAM: SU and any other Russian carrier can duuplicate these routes if they wish. Russian carriers serve a dozen German airports without restrictions, I men
29 slz396: IMHO, it's not the product that sets them off, it's the politics they image are behind it. By offering all these easy connections, LH/OS are seen by
30 SQ325: And nothing! Just another story of Governments trying to protect and support their own airline industry no matter how good or bad they and their repu
31 globeex: I totaly agree. And as far as I'm concerned the bilateral between Russia and Austria involves Russian (owned) and Austrian (owned) companies and that
32 JU068: Well I think it makes sense to NOT attack AF/KL simple because they are the partner airline (SkyTeam) of the Russian national carrier
33 flyingAY: Russia has never accepted the community clause. And is not the only country in the world to do so. Austria/EU cannot change a bilateral agreement bet
34 mariner: It doesn't matter what others think the EU is or if others accept transfer of sovereignty or not. What matters here is what the bilateral between Aus
35 blrsea: This gives unfair advantage to the EU carriers. Say Russia and Austria have an agreement. If Austria under EU rules says LH too can use the same bila
36 mariner: That may be true, it wouldn't surprise me. Most countries and national instruments do it. I guess it could be argued that Lufthansa and EU/Germany ar
37 globeex: 1) I think they wouldn't even if they were in the same alliance. It's the excellent network OS and LH offer to all different parts of Russian and the
38 BlueFlyer: It is not to be automatically replaced. Last I checked, Russia wasn't a member of the EU. The Community Clause requires EU members to re-negotiate th
39 globeex: You are SO RIGHT. However this should affect Aeroflot as much as OS or as little right now. Yes. So either they don't refresh a bilateral OS stops fl
40 mariner: It seems to me that it has. Sovereignty appears to have changed. mariner
41 PanHAM: ... sorry, you got me wrong. What I meant are the destinations LH serves in Russia itself. Like Perm, samara, Nizhnij Nowgorod etc. All these places a
42 JU068: But doesn't Niki fly to Moscow? Doesn't the agreement say only one airline from each country, or am I wrong?
43 BrouAviation: Because when it isn't, Medvedev will close it's oil- and gas taps a bit more. Ask Belarus and the Ukraine. They can tell you what happens when you do
44 globeex: I (think to) know what you are aiming at. Well I have to agree that sovereignty has changed. They keyword here is globalisation. About all countries
45 pylon101: I am sure that there is something fundamentally wrong in the PanHAM stance: "Russia enjoys overflight right in EU while charge for overflying the RUS
46 mariner: Which is critical to the issue. What Russia negotiated with Austria may be quite different from what they would have negotiated with the entire EU. S
47 globeex: Enlighten us then please, as you seem to have a differen view of this.
48 fraT: I have no idea what you are talking about. But PANHAM brought up some topics and it seems you don't want to talk about them. So I guess he is plain r
49 pylon101: Having PhD in German history it would be my pleasure to enlighten you, globeex, in the field of my knowledge. As to the overflight issue - it will tak
50 globeex: How is it irrelevant. NO. If Russia would stick to the law, they wouldn't make any such claims. They have a biliateral with Austria and OS is an Aust
51 pylon101: Okay. It's late here. I hope we will be able to go on tomorrow. Perhaps a.netters with more expertise in the field will provide information reg. overf
52 SeverNaya: Another Russia bashing thread Eh, why should Russia be stuck in a different century politic wise? Is not agreeing with all of EU's policy's already a
53 globeex: For the last time. This has nothing to do with EU politics. Russia and Austria have bilateral which enables carriers from each country to fly from Ru
54 PanHAM: . Not my words in this thread. Do not mis quote me please What does German history have to do with this? Wrong approach mate. There are laws, internat
55 globeex: So I assume you didn't do your PhD in anything relevant to the topic. That's what I'm reading out of that.... don't blame me, you brought it up as a
56 blrsea: How is OS an Austrian carrier if it was acquired by LH? It may be according to EU rules, but Austria didn't negotiate the treaty with russia on behal
57 globeex: OS was leagally aquired by an Austrian foundation. who the owner of this foundation, in this case LH, is is absolutely not important to any bilateral
58 blrsea: If the foundation is not majority-owned by Austrian nationals, then it is not an Austrian company. And hence makes OS an non-Austrian airline. From t
59 mariner: Obviously, very hard. Austrian is now a German company. First hit on Google: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...009-08-28-lufthansa-takeover_N.ht
60 JU068: I seriously don't see why all of you are getting so excited over this. Europe needs Russia far more than Russia needs Europe, and the russians know th
61 globeex: But it does't matter for a bilateral. They could have said that in the inital bilateral, but they didn't and I'll tell you why: because it makes thin
62 mariner: I'm glad you said it was fictional. Dealing in facts, who controls decision making at Austrian? mariner
63 globeex: The thing is that in Germany, as mentioned before it is illegal o bribe someone, whereas in other countries like Russia or Eastern Europe it seems to
64 mandala499: If OS is majority owned by X... X is majority owned by Lufthansa..., if that is true then... In a shareholding vote within OS... the results would be
65 globeex: You know it as well as I know it. Obviously it is LH and I'm not argueing that at all. If Russia would have signed a bilateral that would have said t
66 mariner: You've lost me. Lufthansa's ownership of Austrian is illegal? mariner
67 globeex: Yes... and I do agree. But that's not what matters. The legal part is the important thing. They are going the same way as with LX,OS and later SN....
68 globeex: 1)No, legaly OS is owned by an Austrian foundation. (That is the only necessary part for the bilateral between Russia and Austria) 2) I never argued
69 mariner: You said "legally" is all that matters and that is right. Ownership - however structured - is vested in control. Thus the fuss about Virgin America's
70 globeex: Sorry I restructured my post. Yes they did. Not as obvious as LH but Mr. SRB and his folks did have a far lager share in the project of Virgin Americ
71 blrsea: It depends on how many bilaterals were affected. Maybe LH evaluated the options and thought it would still work, as EU nations were going in for EU-s
72 blrsea: Can you please define this part? Just because the foundation is registered in Austria doesn't make it Austrian, if the people controlling the foundat
73 globeex: Russia and the rest of EE are the key markets of OS. Concering the bilateral it does. The thing that makes it more obvious is simply that the foundat
74 mariner: It is a shell company designed to get around the law - but Russia is the one playing games. We come back to control. Where is control of Austrian ves
75 blrsea: Yup, rightly said. The shell company is formed to ensure continuation of bilateral even though they were otherwise not entitled to it.
76 globeex: Yes you are right. Howver that is not how the bilaterals work or are defined. Imagine UA would be owned by a foreign investor by 15% and somehow he m
77 mandala499: I'm curious as to the wording within the bilateral documents. As my region has began entering the mess of cross-border ownerships and multilateral ag
78 blrsea: Nope, that is not right. Why even have 1st level ownership then? any airline can establish a shell company and open an airline and try to get bilater
79 kiwiandrew: I agree that ultimately this will come down to the exact wording of the bilateral . If it specifies only that the company must be "Austrian" rather th
80 mariner: I have plenty of experience of bilaterals, and I remember the issues that "control" caused in the US/Mexican bilateral. In the days when there were o
81 globeex: I had different bilaterals on my PC two years ago concerning Russia. It was Germany and Switzerland (because it was about Lufthansa Crgo an dwith LH
82 kiwiandrew: Probably a silly question , but are all bilaterals published in both applicable languages ( assuming that the countries do not share a common languag
83 globeex: Obviously Yes. And that is the Russian's right. However changing means changing and not just saying OS ins#t allowed to fly to Russia anymore while w
84 globeex: I had a German (translation) of Russia-Germany/Switzerland/Austria. The rest was English...... I don't speak Russian........Only my father does. Edit
85 blrsea: Then why are you making out that Russia is not doing the right thing here, while it is LH which is trying to get around the law? Russia can always sa
86 kiwiandrew: Actually it is the wording that counts regardless of what the intent may have been , and in fact Mariner said this himself - see below . I am imparti
87 lightsaber: The old phrase, "You must buy the horse from the Russian twice" is as true as ever. Russia will probably win on this. What will it do for their aircr
88 blrsea: I wasn't referring to the intent behind the law in this particular post, but about Russia's intent in raising this issue. specifically, to this marin
89 kiwiandrew: Ooops , sorry , out of two possible interpretations of your post I went for the wrong one .
90 mariner: But what is the letter of the contract, and what is Russia actually demanding? i am extremely litigious. LOL. I have been involved in several court c
91 lightsaber: And that is what I hope happens here. Lightsaber
92 PanHAM: Countries don't own OS or LH, both are completely privately owned. We are talking about a legal construct here. The foundation that owns OS is a lega
93 mariner: If the majority ownership - 50.1% - is German, control of the company is vested in those German owners, individual, institutional and/or corporate. T
94 PanHAM: We are running in circles here. The legal construction is the same used by AF/KL. AF/KL does not have a problem LH has. One of the miracles in Russian
95 mariner: What is this - the "why pick on us" syndrome? What happens with Air France/KLM is irrelevant here. A specific set of circumstances have conjoined to
96 AviationMaster: The way that LH is proceeding in the OS take-over is nearly identical to the way they acquired LX. The Russians didn't seem to care then. Why should
97 PanHAM: I do not suffer under any syndroms, I have an opinion which I voice here and I am glad to live in a country where i can do that. It is not since it i
98 jamincan: Aren't most bilateral agreements structured so that each country may designate an airline to fly specific routes? For example, if Canada should choose
99 lightsaber: I think we can agree those aircraft will not sell. But if Russia goes back to their old games, I believe it will hurt the SU100 and any other new air
100 evomutant: Without seeing the text of the Russia-Netherlands, Russia-Switzerland, and Russia-Austria bilaterals you cannot possibly be sure of that.
101 AirNZ: If that is the reason I don't see there should be a problem.......after all, doesn't Germany dictate minimum ticket price solely to protect Lufthansa
102 JU068: Plus anyway back in 2005 (i think) JU had a deal with EK to transport passengers to Hambourg and then they would board the flight to New York. Guess w
103 jfk787nyc: First off 11% of Russian exports are not destined for the Netherlands. They are destined for Rotterdam for transshipping to other locations threw out
104 AirNZ: Can't really complain about that though, and it's quite natural business. Doesn't it apply the world over and which country wants it's citizens to us
105 mariner: Very few cases are ever exactly the same - geography makes these two slightly different. But the Russians have chosen to make an issue of this one. W
106 Severnaya: The economy of the NL is heavy dependent on exports and imports, so comparing the numbers with the population of 16,5 mln doesn't add up and makes no
107 Revelation: Which is well-known by many, e.g. the Ukranians. And how do you propose they do so? I agree 100%. This is also why the Russians aren't bothering them
108 mariner: And possibly because Switzerland is not a full member of the EU? mariner
109 Viscount724: Switzerland isn't even a partial member of the EU, although it has numerous bilateral agreements with many EU members.
110 mariner: Yes, I know. But I believe (?) they are a member of EFTA and I am simply covering my butt in case things have changed that I don't know about. LOL. .
111 lightsaber: Agreed. Both counts. But it does have me *very* skeptical if any 'letter of the law' provision has been broken. Spirit? Sure. But hey, this is entert
112 mariner: Quite often, legal cases are instituted to establish precedent - or to make sure that precedent is not established. If Russia accepts, without demur,
113 lightsaber: Interesting. I wonder how this will play out. Since Russian isn't a language I can read... I'll have to just spectate. Lightsaber
114 Viscount724: Yes Switzerland is a member of EFTA, along with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein which also aren't EU members.
115 jfk787nyc: Again it's not the economy of the Netherlands that export import based. Netherlands is not the largest export market to Russia. You do not get it, Ne
116 Severnaya: Statistics are statistics mate. I did not say that the dutch are consuming anything of it, however it's included in the statistics, and the dutch are
117 jaylink: As an aside, why do Russian staff pronounce Lufthansa as "Luftgansa"?
118 Jano: I believe there is no sound for German 'h' in Russian language and 'g' might be the closest one.
119 Larshjort: A foreign H is often translated to a G sound in russian. Hamburg/Gamburg, Copenhagen/Copengagen /Lars
120 VV701: Although Switzerland is a member of EFTA it is not, like other EFTA member countries, a member of the EEA (European Economic Area). When the EU and t
121 uzzzer: Being close and overflown (to put it mildly) multiple times may I point out where this discussion goes off the track. The EU advocates try to talk rat
122 Viscount724: Switzerland had to renegotiate all their bilaterals before LH formally acquired 100% of LX to ensure that LX didn't lose their traffic rights. I don'
123 hjulicher: I have a problem with this quote as I can recall several instances in Germany where there is bribery, and at a much more sophisticated level than in
124 VV701: In Switzerland commercial aviation means, to all intents and purposes, LX. So to an extent Swiss commercial aviation was on the line. I can therefore