RJ_Delta From Chile, joined Oct 2000, 1944 posts, RR: 12 Posted (13 years 1 week ago) and read 1475 times:
I consider the option of "Open Skies" is a good choice to develope the commercial aviation in American Continent and in all the world, in according with the new concept of globalization. The "Open Skies" is a good form of integration with all the countries.
A good example of the "Open Skies" is the agreement signed between Chile and United States in 1999.
Jessman From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1506 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (13 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1446 times:
I think open skies agreements go far toward opening up oppurtunities for competition, if every US carrier was allowed in LHR I would bet fares would drop and service would increase on the whole. No guarantees, but this is how I feel.
I have the list of open skies with the US(1), but what about other countries? Example does the UK and France have open skies agreements with each other? Do they need them or is this just an american thing.
How do countries go about negotiating open skies agreements? For example open skies with US and France seem to be pushed by DL/AF for the skyteam and US/UK with AA/BA for their alliance. Do airlines have to lobby for it?
Other questions 1.)Why no open skies agreement with Mexico, wouldn't NAFTA have been a big incentive for this?
2.)What freedoms are granted under open skies?(2)
Mx727 From Mexico, joined Feb 2001, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1439 times:
Open skies agreements between US and Mexico? God saves us. Yes. It would be nice to see Mexicana Airlines fly ORD-LAX, EWR-BOS, DEN-ORD, etc taking all the latin market, but that won't happen:USA only wants unilateral agreements, but won't open its skies for other countries, they only want to fly domestic in Mexico, and that wouldn't be fair. Anyway, I wouldn't be taken from Mexico to Tijuana with the terrible service, food, and on time performance of american carriers. I prefer things to be like they are now.
PS. If British Airways had domestic flights in USA, i'd definitely fly with them.
Acvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1410 times:
I will step up on this one.
Open skies implies and means that both carriers would recieve the right to fly within each other's respective countries.
As the agreement stand now between the US and Mexico it allows both carriers to pretty much fly unlimited flight between each others countries and therefore the complaints in the above post are somewhat meritless.
Open skies is exactly that and if the above poster wishes to see Mexican carriers flying within the US then he must allow for the US carriers flying within Mexico.
The US market is without a doubt the largest aviation market in the world. With that comes opportunities and concerns for foreign countries and their carriers.
If a country signs a true open skies agreement it will allow it's carriers to fly in this lucrative US market on the other hand that would also open the other countries markets to the US and therein lies the concerns and why most other countries have not signed open skies agreements. With that you would have approx 5300 Commercial and regional aircraft available to fly the most lucrative routes and compete with that countries carriers. That is a frightening posibility for many.
While the above poster complains about US carriers and their "service" and boasts of certain Mexican carriers and their "service" it should be noted that there is obviously concern. The US government is actively pursuing open skies with all countries that it has agreements with. Like Mexico most realize open skies can be a plus and a minus and they have opted for a liberal unilateral agreement.
After several interesting experiences with Taesa, Mexicana and a few others I can only say it is probably a very good idea. I know that my experiences with some Mexican carriers have left me dreaming of a middle seat in coach on Delta, American or Continental.
Suffice to say that each can make their own arguments. But, If you want to reap the rewards then you must take the risk and rewards do not always outweight the risks.