Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US-UK Open Skies-now Or Never!  
User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Thought you might be interested in an article from today's Observer, taken via Airliners.Net news section;

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,636470,00.html

Regards

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

It is going to happen, period, no question, end of discussion. In fact BA and the UK always dreaded the french getting ahead of them in this game. May I remind everyone that a few days ago, the US govt. gave DL, AF and CSA final anti-trust approval for immunity. The US/France openskies will be signed on Tuesday January 22, 2002. My questions is to all the diehard, rabid supporters of BA.How do you expect BA, LHR and the UK to keep up with aviation developments, tourism, business developments and advancements, etc., if they do not open up LHR to more US competition in the form of openskies? This is the 21st century.If the truth be knowen, I am sure that there are some people in the UK and BA that are pretty upset that the french have beat them to the punch. Serves them all right. As a result of that the company I work for is downsizing the UK branch and expanding the office in France. Wake up people.

User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think its about time. This Bermuda II agreement is out-dated, old fashioned and anti-competitive. If its not agreed then i would be astonished and the UK-US will both lose out, CO, DL, NW wont get into LHR, BA-AA alliance wont happen, so everyone loses out completely (not to forget BMI). but ofcourse, Virgin is the odd man out!

Plus it will be a bonus for us avaition enthusiasts/spotters, we'll get to see the likes of Delta, NW, CO at LHR.

Regards
Arsenal@LR



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineGreenjet From Ireland, joined Aug 2001, 939 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1707 times:

But if Opean Skies goes ahead will the likes of DL, CO, NW, etc. get the slots?

User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11151 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1697 times:

What on earth is wrong with Virgin Atlantic?????

They're going to try and block it??????

Sheesh.......



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineRickB From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1685 times:

Virgin would like to block it as they already have their foot in the door at Heathrow. As the smallest carrier flying transatlantic from Heathrow they are the most vulnerable to increased competition.

Anything that upsets Branson is good in my eyes - i'm fed up with his perpetual whining !!


User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

There is much, much too much political presssure in the USA, that the US govt. will NEVER agree to an openskies with the UK unless the slots are guaranteed to DL, CO,NW US, etc. The UK and BA know what the guidelines are. I cant believe that anyone involved is that stupid. If the US agreed to an openskies that did not involve guaranteed slots, this agreement would have been done years and years ago. It is common knowledge that many things can be done to make more efficient use of slots, runways, gate space etc. at LHR. This is partly how the slots will "magically" appear. Furthermore if the USA agreed to an openskies without the guaranteed slots, congress would pass legislation blocking the anti-trust immunity, thousands and thousands, perhaps, hundreds of thousands, of airline employees would be laid off in the USA immediately.There would be additional layoffs at Boeing due to cancelled aircraft orders etc. More airlines in the US would face bankruptcy or extinction becasue of the inability to compete on the international scene, on a level playing field.I know for a fact that this has been brought to the attention of very high people in the US govt.I am well aware that the UK has helped the US during the war on terrorism, and that AA is a big contributor to Bush. However, you have to look at the whole picture and this will all fall into place. The political reality in this country is such that there is no other alternative. PERIOD!!!! END OF DISCUSSION!!!!!

User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11151 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1672 times:

Virgin Atlantic has officially lost my respect........


"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineRickB From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

Not sure how an open skies agreement could result in the loss of quite so many jobs in the US without guaranteed slot availability !! Unless you count jobs at AA who will be giving up slots as well as BA !!

AND an open skies agreement would also have to include other UK airlines such as BMI having access to LHR. It wouldn't be just a free for all for US airlines !!

As for efficiency at LHR - the runways are operating at full capacity - without reducing aircraft seperation (since most aircraft at LHR are heavies this is not a good idea) or increasing operating hours (local people wont allow it) there is not a lot you can do regardless of how 'well known' it might be !!

You could build more runways but I doubt the locals will allow that either !!


User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6344 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1654 times:

Without the guaranteed slots perhaaps hundred of thousands of airline employees would be laid off in the US? They are working now aren't they?

User currently offlineCyprus-Turkish From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1645 times:

It is very important for increased competition that more transatlantic airlines are allowed access to LHR but it is unfortunate that it will mostly be US airlines "attacking" LHR and only a few British ones will benefit from opening up LHR.

It is also about the time they sort out BA-AA partnership properly because the passengers are not really benefiting since there are no codeshares or common mile programs


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1608 times:

However the EU is trying to get one EU-US open skies plan and to abolish all the individual countries-US treaties.
Alex


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I dont want the EU involved in this. Open skies should be agreed between individual countries.


In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineHoffa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1578 times:

Surely CO, NW, DL would be paying top dollar for whatever slots they may be given@LHR and could edge out the smaller non-flag carrier operators or else take a few frequencies from the flag carriers themselves at a very inflated price?

I know slots aren't bought and sold per se, but you get the picture.


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1568 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What about US airways, will they enter LHR, if Open skies is agreed?


In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1557 times:

I can absolutely, positively guarantee that, under no circumstances will any elected member of congress or anybody else sit back and watch any US airline pay for slots at LHR. Never, ever, under any coinditions, has any foreign airline paid for any slots at any US airport. There would be an instant and automatic legislation passed that would than start charging foregin airlines for the slots at JFK,LAX.ORD---get the picture? I can assure you that this subject has been discussed already at the highest levels behind closed doors.It will not happen.Lets approach this with a level head running on intelligence and not emotions. The UK govt. and BA and other interested parties know what the bottom line is.It is the guaranteed and unrestricted access to LHR for all US carriers. After 10 years of going around and around and around some more on this subject, BA, the UK etc. knows where the US stands in exchange for antitrust immunity. I cant believe that anyone would be so stupid to show up for negotiations
and try and "compromise" this subject. It is non-negotiable. PERIOD.


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11151 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1554 times:

Arsenal@LHR,

I don't think so. First of all US Airways doesn't have a lot of presence in Europe, and they don't have any partners there, so most of the flights to LGW are O&D. Therefore, there is no need for them to use LHR.

The reason why airlines want to serve LHR is because of the excelent connections available there.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1553 times:

US has made it very clear that when openskies comes they will start service from PIT-LHR, PHL-LHR x2 daily
and CLT-LHR They already have their schedulkes worked out, which are under lock and key, to put it mildly.They will NOT sit back and stay at LGW. They have issued many, many press releases realting to this subject.


User currently offlineVS11 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1062 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1541 times:

There are some very ignorant statements in this discussion.
If US companies are enlarging offices in France and downgrading UK ones, this is not because the French have beaten the British to the punch! I hope the person who wrote this does not mean that US companies go to France because of the Open Skies agreement. That is nonsense. If anything, France is a better choice than Britain since it is integrated better in the EU than Britain. For one thing, Britain did not join the euro so for US companies makes much more sense to set up their European offices in France rather than Britain.
Regarding the Open Skies, I am fairly sure that agreement will not go through. And the reason for that is that, hopefully, the British are not that stupid to agree for an Open Skies agreement without having the US concede foreign ownership of US-based airlines.
First, many airline jobs in the UK will be lost if more American airlines are allowed into LHR because UK airlines will have a much harder time competing with American airlines because American carriers are generally stronger than British carriers.
The reason for that is that the American aviation market is stronger than any other because it is huge. BA is losing money in the European market, and what made it profitable before was the transatlantic routes. As opposed to British carriers, which sustain their profitability basically relying on the Transatlantic routes, American carriers have huge domestic market, which is the source of their strength.
So why would British authorities sign an agreement with the US that will be detrimental to British carriers and will diminsh British jobs without anything in exchange?
You have to understand that Bermuda II is profitable and advantageous for Britain.
Richard Branson does have a point that if two airlines have a substantial market share in a regulated market with almost no new entrants then this is anti-competative. But he has something much more bigger in mind, and that is having the US to allow foreign, or at least British, ownership of US-based airlines.
This is the game here, and the BA-AA deal is only the superficial part of it. The logic here is, yes, the deal is anticompetitive but to make it more competative let's open LHR but the question is why open LHR when this way is better for UK carriers.
Branson's point have all along been that if the UK opens LHR, they should get in exchange from the US the permission British nationals to own an airline in the US. That is the bigger picture. Indeed, Branson is looking for new markets for Virgin Atlantic but if British carriers are allowed to operate in the domestic American market then all British carriers will benefit.
And while Bermuda II is still in effect, the AA-BA deal will be anticompetative no matter how many slots are given away.
You should look at this deal much more strategically than just as a BA-AA deal. And yes, France and Germany will continue to become the preferred choice for the European operations of American companies because they offer better conditions to do business there, and the Euro is only one of them.

Hope this helps, although I am sure a hot debate will follow....

Regards.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7928 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1497 times:

I think there is one very simple reason why France and the USA will now have an Open Skies agreement: plentiful gate capacity at CDG.

Since CDG has potentially way more capacity than LHR, the could easily accommodate more flights from the USA. Also, CDG is connected to France's own high-speed railroad network, so that means fast ground travel from CDG to the rest of France and the Benelux countries are possible, not to mention the potential for a Eurostar link from CDG back to Waterloo International station in London. Imagine after landing at CDG you hop onto a TGV train and within two hours you're in downtown Amsterdam.

I don't think a US-UK Open Skies treaty will become possible until LHR's Terminal 5 opens, which will allow a major reassignment of gate at the current LHR terminals since BA will move most of its operations to T5. This could mean US-based airlines can be assigned its own LHR terminal or have use of most of one, meaning that CO, DL, UA and US will have its own terminal (or vast majority use of one terminal) at the airport; AA will likely go to T5 as part of the AA-BA alliance agreement.


User currently offlineBlink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5476 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1477 times:

I am fed up with Branson, but he does have a point though.

The US wants it both ways. Every US airline into LHR, and UK airlines can't own US carriers. It favors the US based airlines too much and puts the European carriers in the dust.

I want AA/BA to go through but in exchange, I think it would be fair for Virgin to create a "Virgin USA".

Plus, the US government doesn't get it, there just simply isn't enough space to go around in LHR. True, when T5 is built, it will help ease things, but that will be awhile.

Also, I never understood what the whole point of Bermuda II was. If it wasn't there, you could be 90% sure AA would fly DFW-LHR and UA would have DEN-LHR, not to mention the VS and BA routes.

I want AA and BA to go through, but they shouldn't have to give up a million gajillion slots like the other airlines want them to do.

Also, no one seems to get it... AA bought those slots from TWA. Any airline had a chance at those, but they didn't. They have no reason to complain.

blink



Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

The story I hear from sources close to the scene is this. If there is not an openskies AA will walk away from the BA alliance and go elsewhere. They are tired of waiting around watching paint dry on the new T5 at LHR. Consequnetly no other US airline will want to team up with BA. So, reluctantly BA, the UK and others with the exception of Branson will go along with openskies. Dont forget that by the antitrust immunity will allow access via code share to the entire US for both BA and BMI. In return the US will not step in the way of anybody from the UK trying to lobby for changes in the US ownership laws of airlines.It will be up to BA, Branson, anybody else that is interested to lobby to get the changes etc. Thats the only way the ownereship limit can be increased from 25% to 49% or even 51%.The laws have to be changed.

User currently offlineVS11 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1062 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1418 times:

Well, I was wrong - a hot debate did not follow.  Smile

Cheers.
VS11


User currently offlineBlink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5476 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1393 times:

747firstclass, I never thought about the possibility of AA walking away if it didn't go through, but your sources do have a point.

There is one question though, that basically leaves no other major european hub left. Keep in mind that Alitalia is now with Delta, so they are no longer an option.

Olympic has Athens, but Olympic doesn't exactly have a huge route network and Athens is a bit far south and not big enough.  Insane

blink



Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineHoffa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1387 times:

LHR isn't just for connecting passengers...its a given fact that flights from the US average 85-95% loadfactor compared to 75%-80% for those using LGW.

25 Cyprus-Turkish : Why is Heathrow so important? I mean what is wrong with Gatwick or Stanstead? With Gatwick and Stansted Express, both are very accessible airports and
26 Carduelis : >>>So someone please tell me why Heathrow is this crucial?
27 David_itl : One of the problems for STN is the perception of being a low-cost carrier airport. Additionally, any long-haul airline would also seek some transfer
28 747firstclass : Please dont forget that AA has been in a code share at SN and Swissair. Granted both airlines are goners but the point remains that AA is a bit entren
29 VS11 : Why LHR is so important as compared to LGW, someone asked? Well, to start with the runways. LGW has one, which is inconvinient since when weather is b
30 Qantas744 : I would disagree on the comment about adding £20 to get from LGW to central London-the Gatwick express is reasonably priced whereas the Heathrow expr
31 Banco : There is a bigger market in and around LHR. That's the crucial aspect to it. It serves London itself and the M4/M3 corridors where there is great weal
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...
US UK Open Skies Agreement posted Sat Sep 17 2005 09:45:42 by Coa747
US/UK Open Skies Deal On The Table? posted Fri Aug 16 2002 21:04:22 by Qantas744
Just An Thought On US/UK Open Skies.... posted Mon Jul 1 2002 20:28:23 by Srbmod
US-UK Open Skies Deal Troubling For United posted Sun Dec 9 2001 18:34:02 by SFOintern
US-UK Open Skies Agreement posted Mon Mar 19 2001 22:09:20 by Arsenal@LHR
US-UK Open Skies posted Sat Jul 22 2000 20:47:52 by 747firstclass
US And UK Open Skies. What Is It? posted Wed Jun 28 2000 13:06:53 by Dellatorre
US-EU Open Skies Delayed Again posted Wed Aug 16 2006 06:56:27 by MasseyBrown
New US-EU Open Skies Treaty Possible? posted Sun Dec 4 2005 20:32:56 by Targowski
US-EU Open Skies News! posted Fri Nov 18 2005 22:46:33 by Panaman