TOMASKEMPNER From Mexico, joined May 2001, 389 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2371 times:
Source : Delta.com
Atlanta, Dec. 21, 2001 -- Delta Air Lines (NYSE:DAL) filed comments yesterday with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) expressing support for the Justice Departments (DOJs) determination that the proposed American Airlines - British Airways alliance cannot be approved without large scale slot and facility divestitures at Londons Heathrow Airport.
According to Delta, this weeks Department of Justice filing for DOT confirms that the
American - British Airways alliance cannot be approved unless conditions are imposed to remedy the competitive harm that will be caused by the alliance. The DOJ submission validates Deltas position that the AA/BA combination would have disastrous consequences for consumers unless large-scale slot divestitures are included as part of any remedial conditions.
"If anything, the competitive situation in London has become worse since the Justice Departments review of the alliance in 1998," according to Scott Yohe, Deltas senior vice president - Government Affairs.
DOJ has confirmed once again that competitive access to slots, gates, and airport facilities at London-Heathrow Airport is virtually impossible, and a very substantial number of Heathrow slots and facilities must be divested to prevent consumer harm that would result from a combination of the two largest U.S.-London competitors.
"Without substantial divestitures of London Heathrow slots and gates, the British Airways/American partnership should be disapproved for the same reasons it was rejected by regulators four years ago," said Yohe.
The DOJ, refuting claims of American and British Airways, found that:
* Capacity and pricing in US-London markets is severely restricted
* For a liberalized US-UK bilateral agreement to be meaningful, it must be accompanied by substantial US carrier access to London
* Entry into the London Heathrow Airport is severely restricted
It is very difficult for US airlines to obtain London Heathrow slots
It is unlikely that US carriers can obtain London Heathrow slots from European alliance partners
In addition, London Heathrow gates and facilities are very scarce
* US flights to London Gatwick are not a substitute for US flights to London Heathrow
* If DOT cannot impose London Heathrow conditions to remedy these harms, DOJ would oppose the AA/BA alliance
Delta said DOJs proposed remedies address two separate, yet equally important objectives:
· First, to remedy discrete competitive harms in the New York-Heathrow and Boston-Heathrow markets, the Justice Department recommends that DOT require the divestiture of 126 weekly Heathrow slots and related facilities so that competitors can operate seven additional New York-Heathrow flights (98 slots) and two new Boston-Heathrow flights (28 slots). Delta asked DOT for release of 56 slots for four daily round-trips for New York- Heathrow and 28 slots for two daily round-trips for Boston - Heathrow services.
* Second, for consumers across the United States to realize the true benefits of a liberalized US-UK aviation bilateral agreement, the Justice Department recommends that DOT require the divestiture of additional Heathrow slots and facilities to ensure there will be a net gain in consumer benefits as part of any new US-UK aviation treaty. Although the Justice Department did not identify a specific number of slot divestitures that would satisfy this requirement, Delta said that DOJ in 1998 determined that the AA/BA alliance would need to give up 336 weekly Heathrow slots (equivalent to 24 daily round-trip Heathrow-US flights) to balance the harm caused by formation of their imposing alliance. Delta asked DOT for release of 42 slots for three daily round-trips for Atlanta- Heathrow and 28 slots for two daily round-trips for Cincinnati - Heathrow services.
In its filing, Delta said that British Airways and American should release a minimum of 504 weekly slots to competitors, with 154 of those slots - the equivalent of 11 daily round-trip flights - allotted to Delta. Delta said that without such divestitures AA/BA will stifle competition on most U.S.-London routes.
Imagine if DL gets those 504 weekly slots, they are already No.1 transatlantic airline, with access to LHR they´ll be a pain in the ass to AA, UA and many others, plus the alliances with AF and AZ.
My guess , if they get the slots, (something almost impossible), is that DL should be ordering more 777-200ER
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31117 posts, RR: 74 Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2069 times:
It would be nice, but hell will freeze over first. If DL ever gets accsess to LHR I could definitley see JFK-LHR, BOS-LHR, and FLL-LHR. ATL and CVG too, if they were opened up to LHR. AA/BA will take over .
Aussiestu From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 778 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2020 times:
A 2AM slot is probably all they will get. Where do they expect to get 504 slots. BA/AA are certainly not going to hand over any big slot allocation. And then there is the problem with gates and facilities. There is no space at LHR and yet they want to operate here. Yeah right!!!!
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 23 Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
Delta is already a massive airline over the atlantic, just imagine if they did get the LHR slots (which i think they will) then they are going to be one hell of a force to everyone else. Personally i'm waiting to see the likes of Delta, Northwest, continental and US airways getting into heathrow. Just look at the fares BA and AA impose on passengers even economy class. But if the bermuda 2 agreement is cancelled and open skies agreed, then i can maybe see the ticket prices go down a bit.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1975 times:
CO has said in the past that if it gets access to LHR, it would run 6 daily EWR-LHR nonstops, while keeping the 2 EWR-LGW nonstops; it would run 4 IAH-LHR nonstops, and 1 IAH-LGW nonstop, and it would run two CLE-LHR nonstops, and scrap CLE-LGW altogether.
So it isn't just DL that would benefit from this situation.
Aamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1040 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1963 times:
US carriers should not be allowed so much access. Granted it will help competition (a good thing) but US carriers are know for flying small a/c over the atlantic...
BA uses 747-400s and 777-200s to JFK from LHR... UA uses 767s and 777s... and they complain they dont get enough slots... get real, they have all the slots they need, if they used LARGER a/c they would be able to carry twice as many people.
Virigin in the future will be using A380s... with 550 pax... compared to the 777s UA Flies carrying ?320?
I dont see what their problem is there...
And if the US airlines get slots then the British airlines will require many more slots in the US gateways, none of which is mentioned above.....
GKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, RR: 58 Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1961 times:
Only 1 more US airline would be allowed into LHR as BMI would be from the British side. If US airlines do get into LHR i dont see why BA/AA, should give up any of their slots up.
Remember, there are two sides in this argument, if both dont agree on things, nothing happens..
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2167 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1959 times:
The reality is that not many of our airports are slot-controlled, and for a British airline to be allowed more flights out of one of our airports, well, that could be facilitated quickly if need be.
The reason I say "if need be" is because BA and VS fly to as many US destinations as they want to right now. I don't see a need for BA to serve Sarasota, FL or Long Beach, CA. I guess what I am trying to say is that BA and VS (BA in particular) flies to all the US destinations it needs to, and does not have a large demand to serve any more cities, so that should not become a stipulation in the final agreement (if one ever comes).
As for the smaller aircraft, notice that the majority of US airlines are relegated to serving Gatwick, and perhaps cannot fill two 744s each day on the route, so in order to make money, the airline runs 3 767s at different times of the day and is able to fill them. It's all about economics, and if a carrier finds that the demand exists to fill 4 747-400s on a London flight, they will use the 744.. But by the same token, if money can't be made with the 747, those same routes will be operated by the next smaller aircraft that can make money.
Either way, the point of aircraft size is moot and irrelevant.
(sorry if I wasn't clear there, my mind was going 100mph and I may have made the meaning a little foggy, it still is early in the morning!)
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31117 posts, RR: 74 Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1902 times:
777gk, FLL is covered under Bermuda II. No need to get around it. Bermuda II is categorized by metropolitan area, not airport. FLL is the Miami metropolitan area. That's how BA was able to add the BWI-LHR route this year, because Baltimore is the Washington metropolitan area.
G-VIIB From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 91 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
My question is, what is the big deal over LHR?? Is it more connections or what?? I mean DL flies to LGW, and thats still London, why is LHR so much "better" and why does every airline want in there?
2cn From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1712 times:
UA isnt complaining becuase they have slots... DL, NW and CO do not. It is like comparing apples to oranges here.
As for what the big thing is over LHR vs LGW, airlines can get higher yeilds on the LHR run. This is considered the most profitable route. LHR is prefered by business men since it is closer to London then LGW is.
And it isnt a matter of even AirFrance giving slots up to Delta and KLM to NW, because the current agreement wouldnt permit it- it still can only be two US airlines and two British airlines... so even if the slots were there, they still cant fly untill the agreement is modified.
Why should Delta shut up, quit whining, and be happy with CDG? They are, even if you dont believe it, helping passengers by trying to get more competition (even if it is to try and benifit themselves as well, which AA/BA are doing by not giving up slots) on the route which would actually equal lower prices.
Untill more competition can take place on this route, BA/AA should not get approval for their agreement. They do need to release slots to allow fair competition, thus making sure prices do not just go up more then down.
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31117 posts, RR: 74 Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1696 times:
2cn, yes, UA has slots, but bmi does not. They do want bmi to get slots. Also, Gatwick is closer to Central London. I totally understand they are helping passengers out here (though AA/UA/BA/VS have already established themselves with many frequent fliers between the US and Heathrow and 99% of them won't be switching over), but they should just live with what is. NW/KL have an almost complete monopoly on the US-Amsterdam market. Now I know that the US/AMS market is open to everyone, but even when it is open to everyone, that does not stop the monopoly. Only Miami, New York, and Chicago have more than one carrier to Amsterdam. This thing is just all messed up. In a perfect world, all the US airlines and airports would have LHR accsess. But this is not a perfect world. DL should just face reality and get on with thier business.
Deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1589 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1697 times:
Forgive my ignorance at what I'm about to ask, but I honestly have no clue as to the answer to this and what better board/thread to ask!
How busy is LHR-really? And how many runways does it use? Is it really that signifcantly busier than ATL, ORD or DFW? With all the fuss these airlines are making over these slots, one would be lead to believe this. Yet when you hear airport statistics being discussed in either A) the media B) published papers or C) this board, no one ever addresses LHR and congestion. Just ORD, ATL, DFW and to a lesser extent EWR and CDG. So would someone please enlighten someone who has never flown to Europe before (someday soon, hopefully!) as to how busy LHR really is and the exact reason for probably the globe's strictest slot system?
25 2cn: NW/KL have an almost complete monopoly on the US-Amsterdam market. Now I know that the US/AMS market is open to everyone, but even when it is open to
26 Ryanb741: LHR is the world's busiest INTERNATIONAL airport (i.e. for international flights). It is smaller is size than ORD because planning permission has been
27 Ciro: BA won´t give up its slots in LHR simply because its accessibility at the world´s busiest international airport is the major competitive advantage t
28 G-VIIB: Hey, Thanks 2cn for answering my question!! Yea it is a rather annoying train ride from LGW to the city. Thanks again!, Regards, G-VIIB
29 Mah4546: 2cn, someone correct me if I am wrong, but yes, NW and KL have what AA and BA want. They have anti-trust immunity across the Atlantic and are basiclly
30 Ryanair: Without AA/BA giving up slots it would be very hard to get any sort of meaningful operation in and out of LHR, as the peak times are absolutely full i
31 Blink182: MAH4546- go us! hehehe. Deltaflyertoo- The big deal with the business at LHR(I have been there a few times) is the slots. Heathrow is very congested a
32 DeltaSFO: While it's easy for Blink182 and Mah4546 to talk about how Delta should quit whining, there are things more important to the industry than what is bes
33 PanAm747: DeltaSFO- >>There are currently two U.S. carriers and two U.K. carriers providing LHR-US service.
34 SESGDL: The US should allow one airline from the UK into JFK, and make other airlines use Newark just to cause some stirrups. HEHE P.S. I was just kidding....
35 David_itl: PanAm747 VS has been flying from LHR to the US for around a decade! David/MAN
36 Mikeymike: I like your thinking SESGDL...granted thats tit for tat...but hey...thats the airline industry. No, Heathrow is closer to Central London...Heathrow is
37 DeltaSFO: The US should allow one airline from the UK into JFK, and make other airlines use Newark just to cause some stirrups. HEHE SESGDL... No... to make it
38 Afitch7881: I am all up for sending the international flights to BDL. With the new international termial, BDL will be able to handle 300 pax an hour! HAHA Eric
39 Jessman: Why don't we have this problem over LGA and DCA airports in the us. LGA can obviously handle at least a 767, Dl flies them in from ATL, and DCA is obv
40 Donder10: It wasn't just the UK who signed the Bermuda II agreement.