747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1007 times:
I have an idea. To show good faith, that BA and the UK is sincerely, honestly and genuienly interested in opening up LHR to more USA service. I have an idea. Why dont the US and UK make a good faith start like Germany did when their openskies was being negotiated. Let VS move their LAS flight from LGW to LHR, let BMI start 1 or 2 flights from LHR to points in the
US, let 1 or 2 US carriers move an equal number of flights from LGW-LHR and if need be let BA move 1 USA flight from LGW-LHR. I know this is a small start, but it also clould add considerable goodwill to all parties after 12 plus years of this haggling and going no where. Bermuda II would have to be amended, but it is at least a start.I think that if that proposal was put forward, that BA would probably still balk. It would only prove to the world that it is the mindset and mentality of BA that is obstructing progress.
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33793 posts, RR: 70
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 984 times:
Nothing like that is going to happen. I doubt we will see US/UK open skies anytime soon. LHR accsess is too valuable to AA and BA, and they don't want anyone else getting into it. AA spent a lot of thier own money to get those LHR flights, money that US, DL, NW, or CO could have spent, but they didn't. AA purchased those slots and will not, and should not, give them up.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4573 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 960 times:
No, Arsenal, American *should* have to give up some of their slots--lots, I would argue--if they want their alliance approved. It would be reasonable to ask the other US airlines that want them, to pay for them. They probably all would.
A BA/ AA alliance would control 65 percent of air traffic between the USA and Britain. If they want the freedom to more or less collude on fares and schedules, they'd better be prepared to let *all four* of the US Cartel carriers that lack LHR acces, in. And BMI. If they don't like it, too bad. There's only one Heathrow, which yes isn't their fault. One surrounded by psycho-NIMBY's who won't let a badly needed third runway be built. IF AA and BA don't like divestment requirements, too stinking bad.
If not, forget it. Of course, readers of this post will probably already heard that BA and AA rejected the very generous terms US DOT offered them to allow the alliance. The US DOT is no longer the lapdog for big airlines it once was. Good for Secretary Mineta and President Bush.
No meaningfully open Heathrow, *NO* AA-BA!
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 950 times:
Without AA/BA getting together, i cant see how open skies will happen, and with the EU sniffing around to take over bilateral agreements between individual countries, things could become rather interesting.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 936 times:
Even if the alliance went ahead, the EU would have eventually ruled it illegal, arguing that such rights should be decided in Brussels.
I'm confident that if the EU take over the liberalisation of European skies, in concert with America, a much fairer outcome will result.
You guys have to understand that their are protectionist elements in both the UK *AND* the US goverments.
It's not just a case of BA and UK PLC v America.
That America wants to get the best deal it can for it's own carriers (such as insisting any freed-up slots be given exclusively to American carriers, and no one else), is understandable.
That the UK government broke-up talks because the price their sacred flag-carrier had to pay to the Americans was too bitter a pill to swallow, is also understandable.
But that's why the EU should take this job over now. It represents a number of countries and their interests, more or less insuring that it will attempt to reach as fair a compromise as possible between all parties involved.
This will be interesting, because the US is still too protective of it's interests (as plenty of other governments are), in Brussels's view.
Interesting times lie ahead......meanwhile, I can still fly to New York for 170 pounds!