Smolt From Japan, joined Nov 1999, 271 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1619 times:
From time to time I have wondered why US carrier as NWA.
UAA, Fedex have their routes Inter-Asia like NRT-Seoul,
NRT-Taipei, NRT-Beijin and so on. Sure their flight of US-
ASIA (SFO-Taipei, LAX-Seoul) cities should touch at NRT
for technical neccesity as refuel or emergency. But why can they sell tickets of Inter-Asia and get benefits out of
For example, NRT-Seoul flights should be shared ONLY by
Japanese and Korean flights and US carriers have nothing
to do with it.
With historical views, soon after WWII under post-war confusion US prevailed their superior Aviation standards which last today in ATC or supplied excellent aircrafts.
Natural that US have good leadership in this field.
But it's one thing and quite another is the question that
they can bring up benefits even today when half of one century have passed since WWII.
Panamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4711 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1511 times:
Ultimately, the more competition the better off the consumer...helps to keep fares down or at least reasonable. For example, when UA had their HKG-SIN service, they were offering some pretty good fares because they knew they could not compete with SQ/CX and others on frequency, etc.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7716 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1486 times:
When the bilateral agreement between the US and Japan was written after the war it heavily favored the incumbent carriers, Pan Am and Northwest and a Japanese carrier (was JAL even in existence then). Because it was more or less right after the war the US could dictate terms (including 5th freedom rights). Additionally you have to remember that that part of the world was in shambles and there was a need for air service.
Over the course of time the bilateral has changed somewhat. It opened up the US market to ANA, which had not had as open access as JAL, plus it opened up the US-Japan market to other carriers. Now the amount of 5th freedom flights being operated today by United and Northwest is certainly less than had it been in the past, but it still provides an important amount of competition and the market is certainly big enough to support it.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31726 posts, RR: 72 Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1463 times:
It works both ways. Varig flies LAX-NRT and LAX-NGO. JAL flies JFK-GRU, MAS used to fly MEX-LAX, Air Jordanian flies AMS-JFK and used to fly VIE-MIA. Not Asian, but Iberia Airlienes even has a US hub at MIA, Air France flies LAX-PPT and MIA-PAP. It is called 5th freedom.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16110 posts, RR: 57 Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1459 times:
The bilateral agreements permit it.
Japan still benefits from the US carrier bases at NRT....they US carriers use large #'s of Japanese crew on their Asian flights and have large local employee groups. Japanese consumers benefit from competition.
Dont forget Japan has a HUGE trade surplus with the US. So if Japan ever gets tough on the bilateral issue, the US could tighten up some of the other trade issues.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Smolt From Japan, joined Nov 1999, 271 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1437 times:
Thanks all for your replies.
YYz717, you gave me another point of view, the balance of trade. True Japan have trade surplus toward US, but
the biggest problem is that TOYOTA does not pay JAL's captain's salary, nor SONY does
Besides NRT-Seoul, Beijing, Shanhai, Hongkong, Manila,
Saipan, Guam, Singapore, from April this year NWA set flights of NRT-Pusan, and NRT-Kaoshung as a new shorter runway open at NRT for short and middle distance routes. NWA will prepare middle range aircrafts only for these flights which do not fly Japan-US as usual. It is pleasing I can see new type of
NWA aircraft at NRT, but coming to thinking of this matter,
I want JAL, KAL, CAL to fly instead.
Aking8488 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 129 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
Interesting post...I'm curious as to when and by who the term bilateral was coined to describe this agreement. It seems to me unilateral (one-sided) would be more appropriate. It's doubtful Japan had much bargaining power after their unconditional surrender and I wonder how much of a true choice they had in agreeing. I'm not U.S. bashing or anything, it just seems like strange term. If I have my facts wrong, please someone let me know. Incidentally, I'm totally for a free market system and I really think U.S. carriers offer great competition to prices in the region.
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31726 posts, RR: 72 Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1393 times:
But it is fair, because if Japanesse airlines want to, they can ask the US for 5th freedom and fly MIA-MAD, BOS-MEX or whatever they want. It is not anyone's fault that they do not make use of that. Obviously JAL and others do not want to make use of thier ability, the same way US carriers do not make use of flying FRA-NRT, CDG-RUH, or what not, while European carriers fly routes such as MIA-PTY, MCO-AUA, and YUL-JFK.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7257 posts, RR: 14 Reply 13, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1366 times:
Are you saying that if JAL applied to do have fifth freedom flights from one US airport to 15 to 20 destinations serving them on a 2 or 3 times daily basis then they would be given the go-ahead? And if ANA decided to join JAL at that same airport offering the same range of destinations, then that would be okay as well?
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16110 posts, RR: 57 Reply 14, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1346 times:
You can't look at a bilateral agreement and assign it the term 'unfair' without looking at the entire trading relationship between 2 countries.
The US invested $B in rebuilding Japan after WWII. Japan has had a ongoing 30-year trade surplus with the US. The seemingly unfair bilateral is just one very small advantage to the US.
You have to look at the entire picture, not just the rather narrow bilateral relationship. And.....if you're still incensed that US carriers are flying intra-Asia routes, then simply don't fly those US carriers.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31726 posts, RR: 72 Reply 16, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1329 times:
Hey, why not, they can definitley try. Iberia has a hub at MIA with over 60 flights a week to 6 Central American cities. LanChile flies from MIA to 8 Latin American cities, only one in Chile, and Mexicana is starting a hub at MIA (tomorrow, actually) with service to 4 cities. Every single route each of these airlines flies copetes with American, and sometimes United.
Bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6243 posts, RR: 9 Reply 17, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1317 times:
Basically, any country that has an open sky agreement with the US allows the carriers of that country to fly from the US to any other country they want. The fact that they do not do it is their decision. ie:Japan Airlines can fly fron the US to London if they want(in fact they used to).
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Reply 18, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1309 times:
Continental has many inter asia flights on Micronesia which is essentially wholly owned by CO, and more and more of the planes have removed the Micronesia from the Livery. Is the reason for Northwests heavy presence not due to the fact that they were once Northwest Orient ?
Travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1288 times:
What a strange thread. First someone says it is "unfair" of the US carriers to fly routes they are legally allowed to fly. And then it is pointed out that the Asian carriers have 5th freedom rights as well, they just don't use them much. (Air New Zealand is another that chooses to excercise its 5th freedom rights LAX-LHR, and previously LAX-FRA).
Again, how is this unfair in the US' favor? Thomas and David_itl, please explain.