Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Oneworld Atlantic ATI Tentatively Approved  
User currently offlineDFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1078 posts, RR: 8
Posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 17474 times:

DOT release -:


No carveouts are required. However, four pairs of LHR slots must be divested as a condition. The final decision will come after 60-day comment period.

[Edited 2010-02-13 10:06:12]

Ryan / HKG
197 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3023 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 17458 times:

Only four pairs of slots? That seems like a very small price to pay for the alliance to get final final approval.

Good news for oneworld!

User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 4207 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 17432 times:

Quoting DFWEagle (Thread starter):
The final decision will come after 60-day comment period.

In which SRB will moan and groan about a "monster monopoly" while ignoring his own mistakes over the years...

But seriously, congratulations to BA/AA/IB! I know that they have been working hard to make this happen. And I know that FWA supported this big-time, and that FWA's prez Tory Richardson worked to support oneworld trans-Atlantic ATI.

Let the reciprocal AAdvantage miles begin!

"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17441 posts, RR: 49
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 17380 times:

Excellent news for AA/BA/IB/AY/RJ;

The disposition of four landing pairs at LHR is not that bad, perhaps one each to..

CO, DL, US and either VS or UA.

Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineaa1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3543 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 17326 times:

Quoting DFWEagle (Thread starter):
No carveouts are required. However, four pairs of LHR slots must be divested as a condition. The final decision will come after 60-day comment period

So four slots to be divested...hmmm. How significant is that for BA/AA/IB. Could those four slots be handed over without disrupting their operations. Great that there are no carve outs- I guess for BA and AA, that's the most important point!


“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
User currently offlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1277 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 17232 times:

What are the conditions placed on the sale of these slot? I assume they will be allowed to sell them? Do the slots have to be for the peak Transatlantic travel windows?

Four pairs isn't a lot. I expect BA/AA to quibble over the number, but with no carve-outs on the JFK/LHR route, they've got more than enough slots there to play with.

User currently offlineRIPCORDD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1313 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 17191 times:

About time they get this and are able to effectivelly compete against other alliances....Soon they will get JAL as well...Now lets wait and see what negative comments Word Travler has to say.

User currently offlineMiAAmi From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 765 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 17016 times:

Pretty smooth sailing this time around. Great news!

User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4469 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 17001 times:

Not only do the LHR slots have to be divested, but they have to be divested to people who will fly US-LHR as well. Might Virgin Atlantic be interested?

User currently offlineDLMD90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 16887 times:

Great news for One World! Things at AA are starting to look up finally!

User currently offlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8897 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 16880 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That seems reasonable - the game has changed a lot since they first applied and LHR has opened up a lot . I am sure that there will be some who will argue there should have been carveouts ( DFW-LHR ? ) on the one side and on the other side some who will argue that there should be no slot divestiture but on the whole it seems to be something that everyone can live with to produce a reasonably level playing field . Assuming that BA/AA/IB/AY dont contest this ( and I think they would be crazy to do so ) let's get it up and running . It will be interesting to see who the 4 slot pairs go to and for which route . If I am not mistaken it says that they have to be for a "new services" - does that mean that an airline currently serving a route such as ATL-LHR or EWR-LHR cannot apply for them for extra frequencies on that existing route or am I reading something into the wording which is not actually there ? I would have thought that re-introducing CLE-LHR for CO might be a use for one pair and starting CLT-LHR for US could be another . On the side , it will be interesting to see what VS do ( other than a lot of loud moaning   ) , will this finally be the tipping point for them to get off the fence and join an alliance ( presumably *A with the number of links they have to existing *A members such as CO NZ BD NH SQ etc ) .

Let the games begin !

Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineDelta763 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 16877 times:

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out given that the combination of these airlines would become major slot-holders at JFK and LHR. I wonder if four slot pairs really makes up for that.

User currently offlineDeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 9016 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 16807 times:

Alone, I could see one slot coming from the morning BOS-LHR flight (AA currently has a 763, BA has a 777 - this will probably become one flight under the JV), another 1-2 from JFK-LHR (upgrade equipment to 747s, AA can still use the JFK slots to launch new TATL services which would benefit everyone under the JV), and then just finding another 1 or 2, which could even conceivably come from BA shorthaul services at LHR (I would think).

As for who would want the slots - I'm sure Delta, Continental and Virgin will all each want one. United might as well, but they do tend to lease slots out at LHR. US Airways might want to move CLT-LGW over to CLT-LHR and drop the Gatwick station.

Glad to see this happening though - it's a move that should benefit the vast majority of consumers. Given that AA has the 757s available for TATL services (something that BA does not have), it should allow for better capacity alignment in some markets (possibly BWI-LHR?), as well as potential new/resumed markets (maybe DTW-LHR or BDL-LHR?).

User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3023 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 16732 times:

Maybe two pairs to British airlines and two pairs to US. Which could mean VS could open up two new transatlantic flights (Dallas? Anyone? Anyone?) and then DL, CO, US and UA could lobby for one or two sets.

So are these slots simply "given up" and the recipients get them for free?

User currently offlineAAExecPlat From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 16653 times:

First of all, congrats to AA/BA and all of us AA flyers who have been waiting for this for so many years. They deserve this ATI as much as any of the other alliances. The best news is that no carveouts are required and giving up 4 pairs of slots is a pittance relative to the value the ATI will deliver. That said, I surely hope AA/BA are not required to "give" them away as that would constitute monetary concessions north of $100MM. Obviously, it would still be worth it, but a steep amount of money to hand over to your competitors. I hope that the divestiture will be a sale or lease.

User currently offlinenyc2theworld From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 696 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 16545 times:

Quoting AAExecPlat (Reply 14):
First of all, congrats to AA/BA and all of us AA flyers who have been waiting for this for so many years. They deserve this ATI as much as any of the other alliances. The best news is that no carveouts are required and giving up 4 pairs of slots is a pittance relative to the value the ATI will deliver. That said, I surely hope AA/BA are not required to "give" them away as that would constitute monetary concessions north of $100MM. Obviously, it would still be worth it, but a steep amount of money to hand over to your competitors. I hope that the divestiture will be a sale or lease.

Making their competitors pay for the slots doesn't stop AA/BA from charging a ridliciuos rate and saying "Look DOT nobody wants the slots can we keep them?" They should be forced to give them away. If they are sure that ATI will add to their bottom line...those 4 slots shouldn't be a problem.

Always wonderers if this "last and final boarding call" is in fact THE last and final boarding call.
User currently offlineDFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1078 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 16423 times:

AA's comments on the matter -:


Ryan / HKG
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 8496 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 16346 times:

The DoT statement when it says:

" . . . the Department is proposing in its show-cause order that the applicants make four pairs of slots available to competitors for new U.S.-Heathrow service."

is not specific as to exactly what it means by "four pairs of slots". I take it to mean four pairs of daily and not four pairs of weekly slots. This may sound paedantic but as many slots have been handed out for use on specific days of the week (as a visit to the slot co-ordinator's, Airport Coordination Ltd, web site will show) it is a cent to a dollar that AA and BA will argue that it means weekly and not daily slots. Recognise here that the last slots BA gained were 54 weekly LHR slots (27 slot pairs) from BD at a cost reported to be about £30 million.

If I am correct and this purchase is used as a yardstick, the value of the 56 weekly slots (i.e. 4 x 2 x 7) would also be about £30 million or $47.5 million.

The DoT is clearly saying the slots to be disposed of should be subsequently used for US-LHR services. How can they legally ensure this happens? Would BA or AA not be in breach of EU competition rules if they refused higher offers from airlines with no authority to serve American destinations from LHR?

I also assume from the wording of the DoT statement that they are not expecting AA/BA to give up four daily LHR-US flights but just the slots that would enable competitive airlines to fly LHR-USA. Of course it is easy to assume that other airlines will leap at the chance of obtaining such slots. But hold on a minute. Did not AF/DL have total freedom of choice as to where they used the daily slot pair they allocated to the short-lived AF LHR-LAX service. Yet after one season they cancelled the service and now use that slot pair to operate LHR-CDG. But I guess that as long as AA/BA are allowed to sell the four slot pairs at market prices they can always buy them back if they are put back on the market.

When BA wanted to move their LGW-IAH services to LHR on the implementation of the Openskies agreement they chose to find the slots by moving their three-times-daily LHR-WAW service to LGW. (Two flights were moved back to LHR on the purchase of the above-mentioned 54 weekly slots and the third flight was started from LCY.) Which service should BA give up to free up the four slot pairs?

User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4510 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 16348 times:

Might as well quote some passages from the DOT Show Cause Order to dispel a few a.net mythologies on the spot:

"For the passengers traveling to/from Europe, the evidence shows that Heathrow is uniquely situated. We agree with Virgin Atlantic’s assessment that “[a]lthough Heathrow attracts a robust share of connecting transatlantic traffic from other major European hubs, the converse is not true. Very few passengers originating in London, or at Heathrow, travel to the United States via other points in Europe.”


With regard to Heathrow services, we believe the evidence as a whole shows that:

- Business passengers exhibit a strong preference for using Heathrow versus the other international airports in London, based largely upon Heathrow’s location and pattern of service. Virgin Atlantic states that

"[t]here are many reasons why time-sensitive passengers in particular do not view flights operated from Gatwick as substitutes for Heathrow service. The most important attraction of Heathrow to time-sensitive passengers is its convenient schedules, greater frequency of flights and its extensive range of flight connections. Passengers know that if they miss a flight at Heathrow there is a good chance that they can catch a later flight, whereas at other London airports, a missed flight may mean an overnight wait or a journey to Heathrow to catch an alternative."

The counterargument – that Gatwick and other airports are true substitutes for Heathrow for transatlantic service – is not compelling. Documents submitted by the applicants show that Heathrow is a separate market that is more convenient to business travelers and more suitable for launching long-haul services due to its hub and ground infrastructure.

- The preference for business passengers to use Heathrow is strong enough that many travelers will choose to fly on a connecting itinerary out of Heathrow instead of a nonstop itinerary out of Gatwick. By a three-to-one margin, passengers in the U.S.-U.K. market travel to/from Heathrow even when alternative Gatwick service is available.

[Edited 2010-02-13 11:47:55]

Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineDFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1078 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 16224 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 5):
What are the conditions placed on the sale of these slot? I assume they will be allowed to sell them? Do the slots have to be for the peak Transatlantic travel windows?

The slots must be suitable for peak transatlantic travel and can be sold or leased for 10 years. AA/BA may collect only 'limited compensation', for them. Two slots pairs MUST be used by competitors for BOS-LHR and the other two can be used for any route. They may not be used by any carrier in the oneworld alliance. If no competitor wants them, then they will be kept by BA/AA.

Ryan / HKG
User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4510 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 16204 times:

Regarding the slot divestitures:

We tentatively find that slot transfers would best address the potential competitive harm in this
case. We tentatively determine that four slot pairs are necessary to remedy the potential harm,
divided as follows: two slot pairs earmarked for the Boston-London Heathrow market (the “fixed
slots”) and two slot pairs to be used at any U.S. gateway for services in the U.S.-Heathrow market
(the “flex slots”). Under this proposal, prospective new entrants would not be forced to compete
where oneworld is strongest, such as in the Dallas/Ft. Worth-London market. Rather, they would
be able to serve routes in which they have a greater chance of success and a greater opportunity to
exert competitive discipline on the oneworld network.

This proposed approach would serve the public interest because it addresses the lost
competition, particularly where it is most acute, in the Boston-London market, while also
addressing the diffuse network-level effects of the proposed alliance across all U.S.-London
markets, such as oneworld’s superior network coverage, frequency, and ability to attract highyield
business traffic. This approach would also improve the chances that the slot pairs will be
utilized and that new capacity will be added to the U.S.-London market. Meanwhile, the
applicants can proceed with their alliance plans and deliver the promised public benefits.
We recognize that more information is needed to implement the proposed remedy. We are
proposing a general framework for implementation. Mindful of DOJ’s comments, urging us to
avoid inefficiencies, we tentatively determine that an implementation mechanism should comport
with the following principles:
 Airlines are not eligible recipients if they are members of the oneworld global alliance,
affiliates of the applicants, or airlines in which the applicants have a substantial
financial interest.
 The fixed and flex slots must be usable for transatlantic service and have commercially
viable times.
 Given that there is some scope for airlines to adjust their portfolios once they receive
slots or eventually acquire slots through other means, we tentatively find that the
applicants need not permanently divest their ownership rights in the four slot pairs
subject to the remedy. Thus, the applicants may elect to lease, rather than sell, the slots,
and collect limited compensation. We expect the compensation to be at such a level so
as to attract prospective new entrants by lowering the barriers to entry below where
they are today. We are proposing that the applicants make the slots available for a
period of 10 years from the date of issuance of a final order in this case. The slots
would be made available in time for recipients to launch services in the IATA 2011
Summer Season. If slots were not used initially, or if they were returned to the
applicants, they would remain available for the full 10-year period.
 The proposed remedy should be administered expeditiously and independently. While
we intend to exercise some oversight and monitor the process, we do not seek to
administer the day-to-day tasks. We tentatively find that the applicants should appoint
and pay for the services of a trustee, who must be approved by DOT.
 To the extent possible, the administration and implementation should be compatible
with any remedy adopted by the European Commission, which is also reviewing this
matter. Both the Department and the European Commission committed to explore
compatible approaches to common matters in Annex 2 of the U.S.-EU Agreement.89
Annex 2 was incorporated because both parties to the agreement recognized that
incompatible approaches could frustrate the effective exercise of the parties’ regulatory
responsibilities. In the context of this case, it is possible that incompatible
implementation and administration of a slot remedy could potentially place prospective
new entrants at a disadvantage, jeopardizing efforts to reduce the competitive harm that
we have tentatively found in the proposed transaction.

Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 24306 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 16181 times:

All in all, as many have said, this is about as good as AA/BA could have expected.

Quoting DeltAirlines (Reply 12):
Alone, I could see one slot coming from the morning BOS-LHR flight (AA currently has a 763, BA has a 777 - this will probably become one flight under the JV), another 1-2 from JFK-LHR (upgrade equipment to 747s, AA can still use the JFK slots to launch new TATL services which would benefit everyone under the JV), and then just finding another 1 or 2, which could even conceivably come from BA shorthaul services at LHR (I would think).

ORD-LHR could also probably be the source of a slot pair - probably one of the ones used for a 1700-ish departure from ORD and 0630-ish arrival at LHR.

Quoting DFWEagle (Reply 19):
Two slots pairs MUST be used by competitors for BOS-LHR and the other two can be used for any route.

No one will want 2 slots for BOS-LHR - DL is the only even remote possibility, and I don't see them doing it.

I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineryand36 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2008, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 16141 times:

It is great news for BA/AA but it does still concern me that key routes will have huge One World Dominance. I think 4 slots is a tad on the easy side. Especially if they mean 4weekly slots, not daily!

User currently offlineevomutant From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 525 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 16082 times:

The Show cause order can be found in full here:


It's a pretty good read.

User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4510 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 16008 times:

The most interesting take-away from the Show Cause Order is this paragraph:

"Because the scope for new entry is limited, we tentatively find that the infrastructure constraints at Heathrow could exacerbate the potential competitive harm caused by the proposed alliance. If approved, an immunized oneworld would hold 47.2% of Heathrow slots, including a large share of slots usable for transatlantic service. We believe that this factor, more than the loss of a competitor in the transatlantic market or any specific competitive effects in a city pair, poses
the greatest risk of harm for consumers. Without more and easier access to Heathrow slots,
competing carriers would find it difficult to introduce new services to compete with an immunized

This paragraph is intriguing because historically, the DOT does not consider the market share held by an airline at a particular airport, absent more, to be a significant consideration in its analysis.

Live life to the fullest.
25 Seatback : Great news, although I don't understand slotting. I thought a slot was a slot, no matter whether it is domestic or international. I would imagine AA
26 Post contains images StuckInCA : It's about time!
27 blink182 : Can't this be made up though by using a single bigger aircraft on routes that normally competed? For example, rather than have AA and BA both use 777
28 LDVAviation : Thanks for the response. I had just gotten to that section of the Show Cause Order. It seems just from my first read that AA/BA prevailed in their ar
29 Cubsrule : Apparently, BA and AA keep the slots.
30 MAH4546 : Great news. No carve outs, just like I expected, and only four slot divestitures with conditions so specific that it is even possible that nobody will
31 DFWEagle : Yes, although they must remain available for a period of ten years. So, if someone suddenly decides they want them a few years from now, AA/BA still
32 United1 : Agreed its been a very good week for AA, and assuming they can get the rest of their house in order (maintenance, contracts ect.) they may actually b
33 DeltAirlines : The only other possibility (which is even more remote than DL possibly wanting a BOS-LHR slot) is Virgin wanting a second BOS-LHR flight, which I don
34 mogandoCI : approving oneworld ATI and give them virtual monopoly on JFK-LHR (70% market share?) ? might as well awaken Frankenstein while we're at it well, if th
35 evomutant : I dare you to look at the AMS-JFK numbers....
36 Post contains links DFWEagle : Apparently, Branson has already made a start -: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/br...s-airlines-link-plan-14681631.html Got to admit, he was quick
37 Post contains images United1 : lol..leave it to him.. but seriousely VS has made their argument already against it and if they can't come up with something new this is a done deal.
38 FlyCaledonian : So who might want to try get the flexi slots? DL - ATL - could close LGW as a station and offer twice daily service from LHR. DL - JFK - opportunity t
39 Cubsrule : You can take a look at ATL-CDG or WAS-FRA, too. I wonder whether Branson might take one (or, less likely, both) to make a political point.
40 ManchesterMAN : I would think, in order of likelihood: 1/ DL (B757) 2/ Nobody 3/ VS (A330) 4/ EI (A330) 5/ BD (A330 - if they end up keeping the two frames that were
41 WorldTraveler : Thanks for copying and pasting the article, avek00. This is good news for AA but it also points out exactly what some of us have been arguing: LHR is
42 BOACCunard : This is better than I expected. Indeed, this is surely as good as anyone could have hoped for, from a pro-oneworld standpoint. It's been a long time c
43 DeltAirlines : The one thing with Delta is that Delta has repeatedly stated that they intend to offer only lie-flats to LHR. I don't see them using a 767-400 to Hea
44 LHR380 : Never. They dont fly to the US and with just 1 330 left in the fleet very shortly I dont see them getting more longhaul. Oh CONGRATULATIONS ONEWORLD!
45 OA412 : Of course they did. VS has more to lose than any other airline in this whole thing. Every other US/UK airline serving LHR save for US (and they only
46 Sketty222 : This is great news and fingers crossed its four weekly slot pairs rather than four daily. TBH, I thought it would be a lot more than this with some ca
47 STT757 : Well the BOS-LHR slots will be up for grabs to anyone who will want them, is there anything precluding VS from dropping it's current BOS-LHR flight an
48 jfk777 : Last time BA/AA were asked to give up 12 slots by teh DOT, so 4 is a number they can live with. The big question is what discretion do the two airlin
49 WorldTraveler : the trip costs for a 764 are almost identical to a 763. There is little incentive not to use a larger aircraft if it provides the opportunity to incr
50 STT757 : I wouldn't rule out CO going for one if they don't get one of the non route specific slots. BOS-LHR with a 737-700/800/900ER/ 757-300?.. Or they coul
51 DeltAirlines : I'd bet against it as Continental has said in the past that they do not plan to fly a plane to Europe unless it has BusinessFirst. There had been som
52 LDVAviation : I think it was 16 daily slot pairs. There is a footnote in the Show Cause Order that confirms that it was 16. From reading the order, it appears AA a
53 LipeGIG : Very good news for competition over Atlantic and in special very good for AA/BA customers that finally would take advantage of Oneworld benefits in fu
54 Gemuser : It can not! Think about it, you are talking about the USA DOT awarding slots in another country, ie outside its jurisdiction. The more I think about
55 LDVAviation : If you read the show cause order, you will see that the DOT refuted the reasoning you have been using to try to argue that AA/BA should not be approv
56 LDVAviation : Perhaps, that is why the DOT in its show case order suggested AA/BA hire a trustee to manage the slot allocation process. I imagine the DOT could tec
57 Sydscott : The DOT couldn't even pick the route in an award case. But by threatening revokation of the Immunity Grant if an appropriate Trustee and/or slots are
58 WorldTraveler : no, that is not what was said.
59 Flighty : I didn't know the US government had such a sick sense of humor. Maybe I am just the last person to realize it.
60 flyfree727 : This is old news. This stems primarily from the s80 issues in 2008. Everyone, including AA has expected a fine and I would imagine the money is alrea
61 klkla : That might be a bit of an exagerration but considering how avid a fanboy of AA you are we'll give it to you. IMO this is really the best week ever fo
62 FlyCaledonian : It's actually quite a clever solution. The alternative to saying divest two slot pairs for BOS-LHR would have been a carveout. By offering competitors
63 Flighty : What promises might those be? What specifically are you planning to see, other than collusion and higher prices? Which is what I'm planning on. It wi
64 crosswinds21 : Great news for AA. One thing I hope this does is at least partially silence those who continue to bash AA management for not being an industry leader,
65 avek00 : I'd expect CO to pursue a BOS-LHR frequency in addition to one or both of the "flex" slot allocations.
66 klkla : By promises made I mean a more seamless travel experience. Currently the alliances without ATI do not always provide great connections as they are no
67 VV701 : There does not appear to be any such stipulation. And clearly the EU-USA Open Skies agreement allows any EU or US airline to fly betweeen LHR and BOS
68 Viscount724 : I don't think the UK-SIN air services agreement permits cabotage. Do you have the specific wording that you believe gives SQ cabotage rights within t
69 ken777 : Great news - especially if I can combine my AA & BA miles. On the slots, I can see the slots leased only. That keeps control in the hands of onewo
70 Flighty : Maybe this is a party foul, but the Nazis probably had a seamless travel experience too. But, they were evil and taking over the world. Many things w
71 OA412 : That's pretty much all I'm expecting.
72 avek00 : This will likely not be a feature of the AA or BA programs. More likely is that the airlines will allow reciprocal earning and redemption in either A
73 LipeGIG : In this case, in the future you can select only one carrier, and took advantage of a better tier (in case you're not a top tier)
74 klkla : Damn! I didn't know it was that serious.. LOL. Nazis!?!?!?!? Seriously a monopoly would not have 3 competitors plus all the LCC's in the world and un
75 PUDFW : Since this is going through any thoughts on AA moving to Terminal 5 with BA? Anyone who has flown through there knows its a pain to connect and Termin
76 kiwiandrew : No one is going to move into T5 with BA , there is not enough room in T5 for all of BAs flights let alone their nearest and dearest airlines . BA hav
77 MAH4546 : Regardless, I believe you owe Commavia lunch.
78 PUDFW : Ok, I believe Iberia might move in there when 5C is completed. Its only 16 gates according to the information I found, I guess thats enough to move B
79 kiwiandrew : I was under the impression that even then BAs remaining JSA flights to Australia will stay in T3 . I had not heard that , can you remember where you
80 Post contains links PUDFW : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Heathrow_Airport "A further building, similar in size to Concourse C, may yet be constructed to the East of the ex
81 Post contains images commavia : Wow - seriously - this is monumental. This is the single most massive positive piece of news that AA has gotten since September 11. No other single ac
82 Sydscott : You mean the Skyteam ATI and the STAR ATI have lead to higher prices? How shocking that we let these airlines actually make some money for a change a
83 DCA-ROCguy : We'll likely hear plenty during the comment period, and not just from SRB. Four LHR slot pairs is an extremely small requirement for such a massive AT
84 Post contains links and images readytotaxi : Ohhhhh! The Great Bearded One is not happy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8514671.stm
85 LHR380 : Even with T5C open there will still be coaching deps as there will not be enough stands to cope with the full operation BA has. I very very much doub
86 mdavies06 : According to an earlier post, the slots will be available to non-OW airlines for a 10 year period from the time the ATI becomes effective. It can be
87 Post contains images WorldTraveler : no, it isn't old news because the amount hasn't been announced - nor have formal charges been filed. Nor, has AA filed a plan as to how they will pre
88 Speedbird2155 : There will be 16 aircraft stands, not gates. Only 12 of these will be on pier (i.e. gates) and the remaining 4 will be off pier/remote stands. Of the
89 Post contains images Determinist : I think if you read your own quote it clearly says that BA flights to "Bangkok, Barcelona, Helsinki, Madrid, Malaga, Singapore and Sydney will remain
90 MAH4546 : The respectful thing about you is that you usually would admit you were wrong. In this case, you seem unwilling to which is unfortunate. American, Br
91 JAL : Second great news for OneWorld this month!
92 Post contains images WA707atMSP : 1. When will DL replace their DC-9s? 2. Will DL ever buy 747-8s or A380s? 3. Will DL ever be able to make LAX work as a hub? 4. DL / AS merger - will
93 BestWestern : Curve ball - Could we see EI (on behalf of UA) launching BOS DUB using EI A333's? EI already have the aircraft, with UA and EI having a strong presenc
94 BigGSFO : Coke vs. Pepsi contracts.... So a lot of attention has been focused on AA/BA/IB (and arguably so - they are the largest part of the agreement). What
95 LAXdude1023 : Excellent news for AA! This really has been the best week for AA in a long time! The question is now what changes can we expect in the route network f
96 WorldTraveler : I appreciate you saying that you recognize I am willing to admit I am wrong...but I am struggling to know why you think I am wrong here.... AA/BA hav
97 STT757 : Can VS support double daily on LHR-BOS?.. Right now only EWR and JFK get double daily flights from VS. The options for VS are: Double daily LHR-BOS M
98 PUDFW : It also says on the same page that Iberia moves to T5 which is why I asked if anyone knew. Apparently you didnt read the other quote. PUDFW
99 ACKattack : Could this ATI push VS into Skyteams hands? This would give LHR a major presence by all three alliances and it could give VS strong feed for their LHR
100 MasseyBrown : I wonder if B6 is runnng up the numbers on BOS-LHR. As interim aircraft, they could acquire a few used widebodies and work them in to their Carib/LatA
101 Post contains images Determinist : No apparently I didn't, confusing isn't it?
102 STT757 : There's the 49% ownership that SQ holds, plus the relationship with BMI, LH and CO to take into account. That put's Star as the most likely partner f
103 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : Maybe it's time for B6 to take the plunge. They look pretty in blue, too. Just slap a "JetBlue" on the side. And once again you are able to hijack a
104 avek00 : I wouldn't rule out VS aligning with SkyTeam, but it's quite doubtful. Delta/SkyTeam and Virgin Atlantic are a very poor fit for each other, and there
105 PlanesNTrains : Must have been typing at the same time, but yes - JetBlue would be an interesting option, though I don't know as though they've ever addressed it. -D
106 avek00 : Hell, I wouldn't even completely rule out AirTran (though I think both B6 and FL unlikely applicants). In fact, I could envision a FL application for
107 BestWestern : Skyteam arent that strong in Heathrow for short haul flights, and I dont think that AF KL AZ would want to feet onto VS long haul - with no additiona
108 WorldTraveler : It will be interesting to see what Virgin does... they could compete well given their previous protected existence... they will not be as strong but
109 ota1 : Well, they already do and have been doing so for years. Given SQ's 49% stake in VS and the fact that VS does exclusively partner *A members or unalig
110 Post contains images MasseyBrown : As somebody once said, either great minds do think alike or there are really only a few ideas to play with. I'm *sure* B6 has thought about it, I jus
111 kiwiandrew : I have to admire your lateral thinking . An airline 49% owned by *A member SQ , with codeshare agreements with *A members NH BD CO SQ SA US and frequ
112 WorldTraveler : There is nothing inherently different about LHR that makes this a particularly good time for an LFC to start TATL service... if anything, an LFC tryi
113 FlyCaledonian : As I've posted in the separate thread about whether it's time for VS to join an alliance, it would be a very big case of about face for VS to link up
114 ACKattack : It would more be VS coming to Skyteam desiring their feed in other countries so that VS doesn't have to rely on O&D passengers only on all their
115 avek00 : ...Such a deal would also do virtually nothing to boost VS' revenues or adapt its business model to the changed market envitonment. In fact, as thing
116 WorldTraveler : Given that DL and Skyteam are very small at LHR compared w/ Star and oneworld with only US being smaller, DL can only benefit from a coordinated mass
117 AirNZ : Where are you getting this notion from? How can LH combine VS with anything when they don't own them, or are you pulling something out of a hat? And,
118 avek00 : The assumed predicate condition is that LH, LHBD, and VS will enter into some sort of transaction combining the operations of BD and VS.
119 VV701 : The possible disposal of its stake in Virgin Atlantic was first mooted by SQ in September 2007. Subsequently on 14 May 2008 SQ publicly stated that i
120 avek00 : My point exactly. VS has some nice slots at LHR, but beyond that, the airline in its current form ain't all that valuable. It needs a restructure, an
121 9252fly : Probably as mentioned,it's sale would be at a significant loss at current and recent values. SQ would likey have to write-off a good portion of the i
122 commavia : For starters: I'd hardly call 4 slots on lease to other carriers "significant slot divestitures or carveouts." This is about as close to "the way AA/
123 BOStonsox : Wow, I'm surprised to see a lot of talk about BOS. I thought the only difference would be that IB would be replaced with an AA 757 flying BOS-MAD. I h
124 RIPCORDD : They have to give up btwn them 4 slot pairs they all will come from BA I'm sure things will be changed up. You will prob see in the near future DTW/PI
125 MAH4546 : I'm pretty sure Delta, United and US Airways would strongly disagree with such a statement. It doesn't matter - to the consumer - "who" they come fro
126 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I'm still owed lunch by WorldTraveler since 2008, I haven't seen any results. Exactly....."significant" isn't 4 slots. All of us know WorldTraveler m
127 LHR380 : RJ will not be involved in giving up a slot in LHR, they only have 1!!
128 WorldTraveler : I can clearly see that you aren't going to acknowledge that slot divestitures of the value AA/BA have to make has NEVER happened as part of a US carr
129 B752OS : Granted BOS-LHR is a big market, BA has it on lock with their 3 daily flights. As mentioned, other domestic carriers, DL and UA, have had little to n
130 AirNZ : Yes, correct indeed and that wasn't in question, or being disputed. I was referring to the fact that SQ can easily relinquish it's stake in VS any ti
131 Post contains links Seatback : I just read here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNLDE61E1OZ20100215?rpc=44 that the ATI won't begin until April 2011! Why a whole year????
132 DFWEagle : It really needs to begin at the start of an IATA season (summer/winter) for the purposes of schedule changes/slot allocations/swaps etc. Major networ
133 Cubsrule : Access? Yes. Reasonable chances of success? No. Could AA/UA/US/CO/BA/LH make ATL-CDG work?
134 jfk777 : United tried and no longer does Boston to LHR. Delta did a 767 to LGW a few years ago, they discontinued the flight. Lots has happened at DL, merged
135 BestWestern : With Aer Lingus this could work.. Discontinued in early 2002, after really poor loads. I can see DL trying this again to LHR this time...
136 BOStonsox : Well, times have changed. I don't know how many flights BA and AA had on the route at the time DL and UA were also on it, but if BA/AA have to drop a
137 Cubsrule : ...but they don't have to drop a flight.
138 styles9002 : I'm not as confident as you are about this. Sure, Aer Lingus has served BOS for a long time to SNN and DUB but they have no real brand to speak of in
139 ssides : MAH, just curious as to what you mean by this -- what conditions make the slots less attractive?
140 Determinist : I presume he's referring to the fact that two of them must be used for LHR-BOS-LHR routes
141 BOStonsox : Well, they don't HAVE to, but everyone seems to think that the slots for a BOS flight will be two of the four they give up. Early 2002 is during the
142 C010T3 : Well, I think that not only the scheduling is an issue, but the fact that they could also need an approval from the European authorities may take som
143 Post contains images MasseyBrown : Presumably, AA/BA/etc will make the four slot-pairs available to the bidder(s) least likely to succeed or to pose a significant threat to other onewor
144 WorldTraveler : No one thinks that any carrier could make an interior hub work as a gateway to any int'l gateway. That is why the order says that two of the four slo
145 United1 : Very true WT but the order doesn't say that BA/AA must give up the slots that they use for LHR-BOS simply that they must give up 4 slot pairs two of
146 WorldTraveler : correct.. it is actually more likely that BA will give up domestic slots. It isn't clear that AA can't pay BA for its part of BA's domestic slots rat
147 Cubsrule : For, not from. There's a big difference. There is no requirement that AA/BA reduce BOS-LHR (though I wouldn't be shocked if they did). Right, which i
148 Post contains images WorldTraveler : we're not disagreeing on this issue, Cubs.
149 Cubsrule : Didn't think so. I do think that US will look at the slots for CLT and that CO might look at a pair for CLE, but I really don't see any other possibl
150 BOStonsox : Oh. So why is BOS being singled out? Does the government feel that the current service is inadequate?
151 Byrdluvs747 : I am glad that the DL fanboys are now eating crow and that OW will be allowed to compete on the same level as the *A and Skypiles. One question I have
152 MasseyBrown : All the order proposes is an "expeditious and independent process" subject to definition. Expeditious and independent doesn't mean fair and equitable
153 WorldTraveler : NO one said that it would be equitable to ALL - which is impossible given that there are far more US-LHR competitors NOW than there are slots that wi
154 evomutant : How can that happen? You have been telling us for months that Heathrow is so constrained, and slot prices are so high that new entrants and expansion
155 WorldTraveler : You can read the DOT report yourself.. it's referenced here. They said along with the DOJ that LHR is a constrained airport where competitors have a l
156 Cubsrule : That begs the question - which you've never answered - of what current or prospective TATL carrier cannot get the slots it wants to start TATL servic
157 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ......you have incessantly stated that there would "many" slot divestitures as well as carve-outs. The DOT has completely disagreed with you.
158 WorldTraveler : again, AA/BA are having to divest slots which was never required by any other alliance....I'm not sure about the use of "many" or not but AA/BA still
159 MasseyBrown : My comment in another thread was that AA/BA/etc would get 98% of what they want - and that's about what has been proposed. This begs the question. No
160 Viscount724 : CO paid $209 million for their 4 LHR slots in 2008. That's a pretty significant price for a valuable asset.
161 WorldTraveler : you can add up the number of flights but combined I believe AA and BA operate about 45 flights each way between the US and LHR. 4 is closer to 10% th
162 USAirALB : I think that if this was maybe 2 years ago, US would restart BOS-Europe service. Even though, I wouldn't rule them out on BOS-LHR. DTW/PIT/CMH/IND/BD
163 mariner : I've been a lurker, reading the Japan Airlines threads and these and I'm starting to find your posts here baffling. You seem extraordinarily discombo
164 Cubsrule : Huh? Who said that AA/BA need to cut 4 US-LHR flights?
165 Post contains images golli : I must admit, I find WT to be very knowledgeable and he sure knows the DL route network. But his conclusions are often mysterious. He's been on his b
166 Mexicana757 : NO where does it say that AA/BA will cut any of their US-LHR flights. And giving up 4 slots of the large number that BA/AA have at LHR is NOT 10%. And
167 LHR380 : The current domestic network brings in a lot of connecting traffic for BA, and I don't see them giving any of them up.[Edited 2010-02-16 21:52:37 by d
168 WorldTraveler : not sure where the reading comprehension problems are coming from but there is nothing in this statement that says anything about AA/BA cutting ANYTH
169 LDVAviation : Here are the DOT's own numbers: US-EU Market (Onboard Share) Star (immunized carriers only) - 31.7% Skyteam - 28.9% Oneworld - 22.3 % Only 6% or less
170 STT757 : A guess on my part; 2nd daily LHR-BOS (VS) LHR-BOS (DL) CLE-LHR (CO) LHR-CLT (US)
171 Gemuser : Reasonable guess, but I would guess that 50% of the reallocated slots (2) will go to UK carriers and 50% (2) to US or other country carriers. Why on
172 DCA-ROCguy : Other than Virgin Atlantic, what other British carrier is there that wants to do USA-LHR? Isn't BD out of the transatlantic business? Is there somewh
173 Gemuser : Does that really matter? If VS is the only UK applicant they could use the reallocated slot for a new route to the US or swap things around so as to
174 commavia : I'll acknowledge that slot divestitures have value - though not sure how much, seeing as bmi recently couldn't even offload slots because the going p
175 SATexan : Indeed! OW is going to get crushed by Skyteam in major, extremely important markets like Cameroon, Chad, Benin, Niger, Republic of the Congo, Equator
176 B377 : While I have been mostly a lurker on the forum regarding the outcome of this topic..I will add my comments on the outcome..because I feel based on my
177 Gemuser : I really, really doubt that if this is the case that the USA DOT can make it stick. The slots are not in the USA, the UK/EU governments will have the
178 AirNZ : Whilst I can see the point you are trying to make, surely it is straightforward. If, in order for the US DOT to grant ATI, 4 slots must be given up a
179 FlyCaledonian : I thought the plan was that AA/BA would set up a trust to manage four slot pairs for 10 years. These slot pairs can be sold to the Trust or it can le
180 Post contains images Jacobin777 : The other Alliances have carve-outs-OneWorld is the first not to have carve outs. Its "give and take". Again, practically everyone on this board know
181 VV701 : Here is the simple math: In the Summer schedule 2009 BA operated 3,976 weekly flights in and out of LHR. The equivalent figure for AA was 250 flights.
182 EMB170 : I'm going to think WAY outside the box here... If LH owns BD, what is to keep LH from operating LHR-BOS on their own metal? LH has a Senator lounge i
183 panamair : But DL already has int'l ops from BOS today (to AMS, courtesy of the NW merger).
184 Cubsrule : But why would that flight change Delta's aversion to international flying at BOS without an A FIS? It doesn't really make the second or third or four
185 panamair : I was responding to the OP's statement that "DL doesn't want to RESTART international ops". Restart would imply that they don't currently have any in
186 Cubsrule : It would. I guess we are then in agreement that Delta is loathe to start BOS-LHR because of the facilities issue.
187 DCA-ROCguy : LH likely would not want to feed BOS pax to BD at LHR, when they can feed them to their own flights at FRA. If LH were to try to enter the route, it
188 Post contains images ssides : Kudos, SATexan.
189 styles9002 : I have no reason to believe that LH would start BOS-LHR, but if LH own BD, what difference does it make to the bottom line if passengers fly on LH or
190 LDVAviation : This cannot be emphasized enough. It represents a dramatic change in the DOT's thinking. In effect, AA/BA prevailed in convincing the DOT that a flig
191 commavia : Absolutely. This passage from the DoT's order says it all (emphasis added is mine): "We recognize Virgin Atlantic’s concern that the large degree o
192 Cubsrule : It is really interesting. One question I have is how generalizable to the rest of the world. I said from the beginning that AA/BA would be approved i
193 ridgid727 : Or way outside the box, perhaps Hawaiian going for one of the LHR slots.
194 LAXdude1023 : My guess is that US will get a slot for CLT-LHR and that DL will get another slot for ATL-LHR.
195 Cubsrule : I think SEA and perhaps LAX are more likely than additional ATL; NW said that slot timing was a problem with SEA, and that might not be as problemati
196 cesarv777 : Or.... JFK CDG IAD FRA ORD FRA Just to name a few. ATI is just leveling the playing field.
197 MasseyBrown : The fact that Japan has only two players for three international alliances will make it interesting. Maybe the Japanese govt. should recreate JAS as
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...
How Will ATI Impact AA/BA Trans-Atlantic Balance? posted Tue Jul 21 2009 08:30:58 by Ssides
BA Expects ATI To Be Approved By This Summer posted Thu Feb 12 2009 16:00:50 by LAXdude1023
APA Asks DOJ To Defer OneWorld ATI Decision posted Wed Sep 17 2008 14:14:53 by WorldTraveler
DOT Asks Oneworld To File More Info In ATI Case posted Tue Nov 20 2007 16:32:47 by LAXintl
ONEWorld BA AA & Mileage Rules Trans Atlantic posted Mon Dec 11 2006 02:24:56 by 707437
Atlantic Airways LF CPH-FAE posted Tue Feb 9 2010 05:08:33 by NicoEDDF
Could OneWorld Lose LAN? posted Fri Feb 5 2010 14:04:24 by Seatback
When Did Virgin Atlantic Launch IAD Service? posted Sat Jan 30 2010 18:51:54 by RJpieces
Star Alliance/OneWorld/SkyTeam Updates posted Fri Jan 29 2010 22:35:30 by 777ER
Thoughts On A Possible AA/LP ATI posted Fri Jan 29 2010 08:46:10 by BigGSFO