Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Imagine DL With Access To LHR ...  
User currently offlineTOMASKEMPNER From Mexico, joined May 2001, 389 posts, RR: 1
Posted (13 years 1 month 1 day ago) and read 3127 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

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3492 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day ago) and read 2833 times:

I agree! That would be great to see Delta kicking the other carriers butts. Delta would be unstoppable then! GO Delta!

User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33353 posts, RR: 71
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day ago) and read 2825 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  Smile/happy/getting dizzy.

User currently offlineWatewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day ago) and read 2808 times:

What good is access if there's no slot leftover for new entrants? If LHR is opened for competition, substantial number of slots must be made available for other carriers to have a meaningful effect.

User currently offlineTwa902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3134 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 2796 times:

maybe they can open up some slots at like 2AM i am sure Delta passengers would go to LHR instead of LGW for that


life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineAussiestu From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 780 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 2776 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!!!!

User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 2730 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 2731 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.

User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

Thats correct, Alpha 1.

I also recall hearing the possibility of FLL-LHR (assuming Bermuda II is scrapped) with a 752 for us out of our new concourse at FLL.

User currently offlineAamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1061 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 2719 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.....

User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24979 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 2717 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!
User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2469 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 15 hours ago) and read 2715 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!)

User currently offlineRipcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1201 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 15 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

Well maybe if Airfrance gives somes slots to delta and klm to northwest they both could fly into LHR. KLM and Airfrance have plenty of slots. KLM & Airfrance could just use larger aircraft.......

User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1838 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 15 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

I'll say what Lord Marshall, then CEO of British Airways, said when AA wanted to fly to LHR, back in the early 1990s:

"American is a jolly-come-lately, and Heathrow is a very crowded airport".

The same now applies to DL, NW, US etc.

Until 2005/6, when the first phase of T5 opens, there will be no room for Delta - it's not a case of 'releasing' slots - there are none availabe to 'release'!

The only way Delta will get into LHR before then is if they take over someone else's total operation - as AA and UA did with PA and TW 10 years ago. And is that likely to happen?

User currently offlinePapatango From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 530 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 2660 times:

without ba and aa giving up alot of lhr slots their code share is not going to get approved this is where dl co and nw will get their lhr slots

User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33353 posts, RR: 71
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 13 hours ago) and read 2658 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.

User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 2601 times:

Delta will never get LHR access. End of story.

` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

Thank you, Mah4546, I wasn't sure of that.

User currently offlineBlink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5487 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

I agree with the person who said that if they got slots, it would be slots for some really odd hours. Delta has got to be kidding me if they think AA/BA should give up 500 slots.

Delta should quit whining and add more flights through Paris where their proposed alliance with Air France is expected to go through.

For United's case, they should be using larger aircraft then. If their alliance with bmi goes through, than they shouldn't be opposing the AA/BA alliance.

AA/BA all the way!


Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineLowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 2559 times:

Looking through the topic, I determined several things:

1) Should any divesting of slots happen, the carriers with the new slots should operate the flights with a 777/744/A333.

2) AA/BA have to give up something to get this immunity. Whether it be slots at LHR, price contolled, or whatever, it needs to be something.

3) Delta/Continental/Northwest/USAirways should get most of the slots if the agreement happens, with some left for another carrier that might get larger later in life(ATA, Alaska, JetBlue, etc.).

4) Get an open skies agreement in place. I don't want to hear the 'we have a third UK carrier that wants to fly from LHR, now it can be 3UK/3US to LHR'. It doesn't work that way.

User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33353 posts, RR: 71
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 2526 times:

Blink182, I totally agree! DL should shut-up, quit whining, and be happy with CDG. I don't think UA is complaining that vocally, but they would like to have bmi get LHJR-US flights.


User currently offlineG-VIIB From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 91 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2480 times:

Hey everyone,
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?
Regards, G-VIIB

User currently offline2cn From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (13 years 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2468 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.

User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33353 posts, RR: 71
Reply 23, posted (13 years 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2452 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.

User currently offlineDeltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1667 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (13 years 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2453 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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.
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...
CO- Access To LHR With Their Metal & VS Flight #? posted Thu Jun 3 2004 04:28:14 by PanAm330
Can Someone With Access To A CRS Help Me... posted Tue Mar 9 2004 09:47:47 by MileHighClub
Can Someone With Access To A CRS Help Me.... posted Mon Feb 9 2004 09:17:28 by MileHighClub
I Experienced A Near Miss With Snba To LHR posted Tue Aug 20 2002 13:26:58 by Dragonrapide
US/CO/DL/NWs Access To Heathrow posted Sat May 27 2000 19:19:34 by Avion
"Agreement" Reached Over US Access To LHR posted Mon Feb 28 2000 18:33:10 by Kaitak
SAA 744 Returns To LHR With Cracked Window posted Mon May 8 2006 09:35:13 by Andz
AC Responds To DL With SLC Service; SAN Is Back posted Tue Mar 7 2006 22:35:52 by Boeing757/767
How Many Allowed With Me To DL Crown Room Club posted Wed Jul 6 2005 20:15:23 by Gokmengs
Evergreen 747 Divert To LHR With Engine Failure posted Sun Apr 25 2004 00:04:44 by Leezyjet