Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA Applies For JFK-MEX Authority  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7349 times:

American Airlines today filed with the the DOT for authority to commence service between New York JFK and Mexico City, Mexico.

American Airlines proposes daily service utilizing B737-800 aircraft within "120 days of receiving all governmental authorities".

What is interesting about the application is that New York - Mexico City per bilateral restrictions can only be served by two designated airlines in each nation. The two US designations are held and utilized by Continental and Delta Airlines.

American Airlines cites a recent application by Volaris Airlines to be designated the third air carrier on three separate but similarly restricted Mexico-USA pairs in the absence of Mexicana Airlines which has not been operating since Summer 2010. AA states the NYC-Mexico City market has been left with decreased capacity with the absence of Mexicana, and if Volaris was to be awarded the extra-bilateral 3rd party designation, AA should similarly be granted such extra-bilateral authorization.

A bit of a odd argument IMO, since AA is not a Mexican carrier which is the side that has bilateral rights tied up in the Mexicana BK process. The US designations are fully allocated and being used.


OST-2011-TBA


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6324 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7401 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
A bit of a odd argument IMO, since AA is not a Mexican carrier which is the side that has bilateral rights tied up in the Mexicana BK process

I wonder if AA just figures "might as well try!"? They might see even the slightest chance to be successful in gaining access, and without much to lose, just decided to go for it...but that's just a guess.


User currently offlinenetjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7355 times:

I hope AA is allowed, there is room for AA on that New York- Mexico City route. Aeromexico has 3 daily 737 flights, Delta 1 757 flight and Continental 2 737.

My opinion, JFK/EWR-MEX could support 10 daily flights


User currently offlineaajfksjubklyn From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7341 times:

AMEN! I wont have to travel through DFW or MIA to MEX anymore. AA has been in MEX for ages...they should have no problemo! This is great news!

User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7582 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7263 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
A bit of a odd argument IMO, since AA is not a Mexican carrier which is the side that has bilateral rights tied up in the Mexicana BK process.

I had the same thought. Do they also need to apply with the Mexican authorities?

Quoting netjetsintl (Reply 2):
I hope AA is allowed, there is room for AA on that New York- Mexico City route. Aeromexico has 3 daily 737 flights,

Actually, AM has 24 weekly flights IIRC. There is a flight that operates 3x weekly in addition to the 3 dailies.

Quoting aajfksjubklyn (Reply 3):
.they should have no problemo!

I am not so sure their argument will stick. But we'll see. I am not a fan of AA, so the only good thing I find in this is that it will push prices down (I fly JFK-MEX quite a bit).



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13608 posts, RR: 61
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7267 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aajfksjubklyn (Reply 3):
AA has been in MEX for ages...they should have no problemo!

Don't get too excited just yet - serving a city "for ages" isn't the sole criteria used when awarding international route authorities.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11640 posts, RR: 61
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7232 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
A bit of a odd argument IMO, since AA is not a Mexican carrier which is the side that has bilateral rights tied up in the Mexicana BK process. The US designations are fully allocated and being used.

I'm not sure why AA thinks this ploy will work - but, alas, I guess they feel it's worth trying. While I agree with other posters that the market could use, and would support, additional competition from a new entrant, however I don't see it happening.

Although - I would suspect that if - by some off chance - this is ultimately allowed by the U.S. and Mexican regulatory authorities, that AA would also apply in short order for LAX-MEX.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7178 times:

Hey, if it doesn't cost anything (or not much at least) why not try? Everyone laughed when DL applied for all 4 HND slots and they got 2/4! Doesn't hurt to try!


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinejetMarc From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 554 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7041 times:

I think it should be authorized simply for the reasons that the bi-lateral agreement should be extended only to city pairs, not cities, meaning, it shouldnt be MEX-NYC with two airlines each, but 2 carriers from each country for each city pair. ie: MEX-EWR should be a separate market from MEX-JFK...

Would that mean that since two carriers arleady fly LAX-MEX, would service from ONT, BUR, or LGB be prohibited as well? (understanding that some set-up customs and immigration facilities)... When airlines try to market OAK as "SF Bay Area" then why does this bi-lateral rule not extend to both SFO and OAK, perhaps even SJC?



"Sucka, I'm gonna send you out on Knuckle Airlines. Fist Class!!" ~ Mr. T
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6879 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 4):
Do they also need to apply with the Mexican authorities?


Yes. What would happen is if the DOT approves this, then AA would become a designated US carrier on the city-pair and it would be submitted to the Mexican side to agree as well. Considering all this is extra bilateral outside of the normal frame work you would need both sides to agree to the exception.

Another fly in the ointment from what I gather the Mexicana authorities will become free at the end of August anyhow, and Mexico will be able to designate a 2nd carrier on its own, which makes both the Volaris desire for extra-bilateral authority mute anyhow, which presumably would make the AA case no longer pertinent either if a 2nd Mexican carrier enters MEX-NYC.

Quoting jetMarc (Reply 8):
simply for the reasons that the bi-lateral agreement should be extended only to city pairs, not cities


Co-terminal points are spelled out in bilateral agreements. It would be rather unusual to simply use airports and not city pairings for the simple reason you would end up with an imbalance of service in cities with multiple airports. The idea behind most bilateral is to govern traffic between cities, regardless of specific airports in the region.

The US-Mexico air service agreement spells out what constitutes co-terminal airports. For NYC specifically both EWR and JFK are consider one as they serve the same passenger constituents. Here in SoCal however LAX and ONT are considered separate as they are considered to serve more distinct separate markets.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1071 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6379 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
American Airlines proposes daily service utilizing B737-800 aircraft

AA has proposed twice daily service, with a morning flight and late afternoon flight too.



Ryan / HKG
User currently offlinenetjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5918 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
American Airlines proposes daily service utilizing B737-800 aircraft within "120 days of receiving all governmental authorities".

looks like the 737-800 is about to dominate the U.S- Mexico market.

Quoting DFWEagle (Reply 10):
AA has proposed twice daily service, with a morning flight and late afternoon flight too.

2 737-800 flights. that's more like it..


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7229 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5659 times:

Another slant, the bilateral list two US carriers, DL and CO, is anyone aware of whether the Mexican Government was consulted on the demise of CO? US government could simply transfer all ownership rights of CO to UA, but other nations do not have to do the same, if for example, the Mexico had approved CO because of something that airline bought to Mexico that AA or UA at the time did not offer, they may be inclined to revisit the award since CO no longer exist.

Just another slant on the topic.


User currently offlineDelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1512 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5668 times:

Quoting sw733 (Reply 1):
I wonder if AA just figures "might as well try!"?

This attitude seems to work quite well for DL.  
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Co-terminal points are spelled out in bilateral agreements. It would be rather unusual to simply use airports and not city pairings for the simple reason you would end up with an imbalance of service in cities with multiple airports. The idea behind most bilateral is to govern traffic between cities, regardless of specific airports in the region.

In the case of NYC there is a fairly good arguement in EWR's favor; it actually serves a somewhat different market than JFK. There's a huge chunk of New Jersey that flies out of EWR that would actually travel south to Philadelphia rather than dealing with getting to JFK. Of course, that's not how the treaty works, but there's definitely arguements in favor of splitting out EWR.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5566 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
is anyone aware of whether the Mexican Government was consulted on the demise of CO?

Why would the Mexican government be consulted?

Air carrier designations are managed by each nation, and all the Continental authorities were consolidated with United's in 2010.

The foreign nation (Mexico in this case) cannot control whom the US designates. The same manner how the US cannot control if Mexico designates Aeromexico, Volaris, Interjet or any other of its airlines on a specific route.


Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
they may be inclined to revisit the award since CO no longer exist.

Again, there is nothing to revisit. CO authorities and their respective designations have been consolidated into United's.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 13):
Of course, that's not how the treaty works, but there's definitely arguements in favor of splitting out EWR.

Argument or not, you rightfully mention the bilateral lumps NYC airports into a single market basket.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1512 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5480 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
Argument or not, you rightfully mention the bilateral lumps NYC airports into a single market basket.

Of course.

Honestly though, that treaty really could use a revisit. It amazes me we still don't have an Open Skies agreement with Mexico.


User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7582 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

Quoting netjetsintl (Reply 11):
looks like the 737-800 is about to dominate the U.S- Mexico market.

Ugh, I know. It'd be great if any of the big three would order A320NEOs. I don't see AM going that way sadly.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 13):
there's definitely arguements in favor of splitting out EWR.

I frankly don't see the Mexican and U.S. governments revisiting the treaty to split EWR from JFK. I am also sure that the designated carriers would not want that anyway, and would lobby against any such attempt.

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
is anyone aware of whether the Mexican Government was consulted on the demise of CO? US government could simply transfer all ownership rights of CO to UA, but other nations do not have to do the same, if for example, the Mexico had approved CO because of something that airline bought to Mexico that AA or UA at the time did not offer, they may be inclined to revisit the award since CO no longer exist.

Good point. As long as two separate certificates are maintained, this should not be an issue. When UA and CO effectively become a single carrier with only one operating certificate, I think the authorities would recognize UA as successor of CO. It would be interesting to ask an expert.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2226 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4932 times:

AA has wanted to serve NYC-MEX for more than half a century.

AA first applied for the route in the late 1950s, when EA and AM were the only authorized airlines. The US and Mexico allowed AF to serve IDL-MEX as a tag on their PAR-IDL route. AA said that if there was enough room in the market for AF, there would be enough room for AA, too.

This application, and all subsequent AA applications for the route, were turned down.



Seaholm Maples are #1!
User currently offlineKLM685 From Mexico, joined May 2005, 1577 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4822 times:

Quoting Delimit (Reply 15):
Honestly though, that treaty really could use a revisit. It amazes me we still don't have an Open Skies agreement with Mexico.

Honestly i'm not 100% sure that is the way to go due to the differences in airline size both countries have. What I do believe is that bilateral is too old now and causing to much trouble to the aviation economy nowadays. No one can jump into the markets Mexicana left and US airlines are taking far more advantage from that rather than Mexican ones.

The treaty should be revised.


OTOH, I had no idea the bilateral was per city. I would have thought Newark had space for 3 more airlines into the EWR-MEX market as only CO serves from there, and JFK 2 (one from Mexico, one from the US). Guess I was wrong.


Cheers!



KLM- The Best Airline in the World!
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7582 posts, RR: 42
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4736 times:

Quoting KLM685 (Reply 18):
No one can jump into the markets Mexicana left

Yet. In a matter of weeks, if MX does not by miracle come back from the dead, those authorities will be up for grabs and all Mexican carriers will scramble to get them.

Quoting KLM685 (Reply 18):
The treaty should be revised.

In which way? What do you think it should provide for?



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17511 posts, RR: 45
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4627 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 5):
Don't get too excited just yet - serving a city "for ages" isn't the sole criteria used when awarding international route authorities.

   Or succeeding, as was the case with JFKSJO, which this has the strong potential to turn into if it actually flies



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineFyano773 From Mexico, joined Mar 2004, 784 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4581 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
A bit of a odd argument IMO, since AA is not a Mexican carrier which is the side that has bilateral rights tied up in the Mexicana BK process. The US designations are fully allocated and being used

In a similar situation, the MEX-EZE market was unserved due to the absence of an Argentinian player. AM had authorization for 2 of 14 allowed frequencies (MX had the authority for 12x). AM submitted an application and the Argentinian government awarded 3 extra bilateral frequencies for a total of 5x.

The Mexican frequencies were fully allocated and used, but a temporal exemption was granted, as long as an Argentinian carrier were absent.

Regards...


User currently offlineelmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1540 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4209 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 19):
In which way? What do you think it should provide for?

Openskies. The U.S. - Mexico market is massive, these restrictions do little more than raise prices for consumers and stifle competition, while protecting incumbent carriers from the market.

This system reflects Mexico's desire, back when it owned both Aeromexico and Mexicana, to protect them from competition from any other Mexican airlines in key markets where both carrier operated.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7229 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4053 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
The foreign nation (Mexico in this case) cannot control whom the US designates. The same manner how the US cannot control if Mexico designates Aeromexico, Volaris, Interjet or any other of its airlines on a specific route.

Yes, but does the US and Mexican governments have to APPROVE the selected carriers. It's a bilateral agreement, usually they do not say take it or leave it.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
Again, there is nothing to revisit. CO authorities and their respective designations have been consolidated into United's.

Except when the single certificate is issued CO will cease to exist, someones gonna have to update the agreement to remove CO and insert UA, the question raised is whether the change in a carrier listed mandates or allows the other party to request a revisit of the airlines selected.

Quoting elmothehobo (Reply 22):
Openskies. The U.S. - Mexico market is massive, these restrictions do little more than raise prices for consumers and stifle competition, while protecting incumbent carriers from the market.

This system reflects Mexico's desire, back when it owned both Aeromexico and Mexicana, to protect them from competition from any other Mexican airlines in key markets where both carrier operated.

Well when the going gets tough for US carriers one can expect them to look after their best interest, if that means dropping Mexican markets to focus on more higher yielding routes to the Caribbean, Canada or domestic, tough luck for the Mexicans. Supporting a local industry is not a bad thing, you never know when you will have to rely on your own.


User currently offlinegoldenstate From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 573 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3939 times:

Quoting elmothehobo (Reply 22):
Openskies. The U.S. - Mexico market is massive, these restrictions do little more than raise prices for consumers and stifle competition, while protecting incumbent carriers from the market.

This system reflects Mexico's desire, back when it owned both Aeromexico and Mexicana, to protect them from competition from any other Mexican airlines in key markets where both carrier operated.

With Mexicana gone and unlikely to return, the best way to protect Aeromexico without stifling competition is to allow AM to deepen its alliance relationships. Open skies would certainly make that possible.


25 MAH4546 : AA still flies JFKSJO seasonally. If this happens, I truly doubt it will become a seasonal service.
26 EddieDude : Oh, I agree with you that, on a textbook and all other things being equal, open skies would be the best way to go in order to let market forces deter
27 elmothehobo : Sorry for jumping in on that one in that case! If and when openskies does occur, I believe that an AM/DL ATI would likely pass with little opposition
28 goldenstate : I'm not so sure they would take this position. It's not at all unreasonable to think that under the right circumstances, AM would gain far more than
29 OA412 : Interesting move by AA. Obviously, they'd like to be in the JFK-MEX market, and they figure this is as good a shot as any. I don't know that Mexican a
30 Santi319 : Why would they? They practically are lovers now, they code-share and recently they extended their interline agreements...Its really no loss to JetBlu
31 SCL767 : Can B6's A320s operate MEX-JFK without weight restrictions? Anyways, B6 knows that if they want to enter certain markets in the future, they will nee
32 OA412 : But they are still separate entities, and they do not have any sort of JV. Code-sharing on JFK-MEX is not the same for B6 as actually flying it and k
33 LAXintl : It has nothing to do with single certificate. The CO-UA authorities have already been consolidated. See DOT Order - OST-2010-0163 - "International Ro
34 EddieDude : MX operated A318s, A319s and A320s on MEX-JFK and I am not aware of any weight restrictions on the A320 flights. The MEX-JFK segment has the advantag
35 SCL767 : That makes sense. MEX reminds me of BOG due to the altitude. BOG-JFK is around 5 hours and 10 minutes. Just thinking about what a/c LAN will use on t
36 EddieDude : 767!!!
37 SCL767 : I think you might be right!
38 LAXintl : In response to AA’s request Delta opted to file some comments. In essence Delta is calling AA attempt to link its request with that of Volaris for e
39 travelin man : Mexico is only hurting itself by limiting the number of carriers that can fly between the US and Mexico on any given route. Imagine if NYC and London
40 Post contains links and images ghost77 : The MX issue is political. AM and 40 (Interjet) owners are old politicians or high society people with lots of us billions. So, the government doesn'
41 MAH4546 : He is absolutely correct. It recent,y started SCLCUNMIA, which replaced SCLHAVCUNMIA.
42 SCL767 : You really need to keep up with the new routes added into CUN, but I'm not surprised though. LA582/LA583 both operate SCL-CUN-MIA and MIA-CUN-SCL (B7
43 LAXintl : I think this request is dead. The DOT today responded to the original Volaris request, and made mention that it did not find AA's comments to link it
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...
DL Has Competition: AA Applies For JFK-SJD posted Thu Sep 1 2005 05:48:34 by Commavia
AA Applies For MIA-BSB And JFK-GIG posted Thu Apr 8 2010 12:57:35 by mah4546
AA Applies For ORD-CZM Seasonal Service posted Wed Oct 6 2010 10:33:23 by LAXintl
Delta Applies For MEM-MEX; Makes LAX-PVR Seasonal posted Fri Sep 10 2010 09:05:28 by LAXintl
AA Applies For DL's Returned Brazilian Frequencies posted Mon Jul 26 2010 16:26:31 by C010T3
AA Applies For DFW-GIG Nonstop B763 posted Fri Jul 9 2010 02:55:48 by hardiwv
Delta Applies For MSP-MEX posted Mon May 17 2010 10:10:24 by LAXintl
AA Applies For Four Additional MIA - EZE posted Tue Mar 16 2010 12:37:39 by A300AA
AA Applies For SJU-VLN posted Thu Nov 19 2009 18:32:03 by MAH4546
AA Applies For More GYE Flights posted Sun Sep 13 2009 01:26:51 by MAH4546