Swiss-airplane From Switzerland, joined May 2000, 591 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
I still hope that Swiss can join to the Onewold Alliance very soon. I don't understand the slot problem too. I hope this is not true. I only heard that Finnair and Qantas and Iberia and of course AA wants that Swiss joins Oneworld.
747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2784 times:
Swiss knows that AA will be part of oneworld. At some point in time BA/AA will want to once again apply for US antirtrust immunity. Again slots and landing rights for other US carriers will be an issue. AA has US antitrust immunity with both Finnair and Swiss. Both Finland and Switzerland have openskies with the US. Get the picture?
Swissgabe From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 5266 posts, RR: 35 Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2686 times:
747firstclass got the point. I could imagine that AA wants pushing BA to let join another strong carrier in Europe (if possible one based in a country were USA has and openskies agreement). Optimal would be a airline based in Central Europe.
The possibility that Swiss could join OneWorld are much higher when BA and AA still don't get the US antirtrust immunity and even if they would get it, I don't think that AA would be able (or willing) to feed all passengers through LHR only. Swiss has to offer excellent connections to African, Middle East and European Destinations.
Where does AA arrive at LHR, which terminal? Whats the minimum connecting time from this terminal to the one with European flights.
Why are CX and QF not that strong in the OneWorld alliance as BA and CX?
Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
Marara From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 677 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2634 times:
No, not joking, the OW members used to take turns at leading the alliance (dunno if they still do). I guessed it was one of those two because the last (?)meeting was in Ireland and the next one is in Santiago.
I like work: it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours. Jerome K Jerome
JAL From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 5069 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2565 times:
I hope that all parties involved in the negotiations can resolve their differences so that Swiss can join OneWorld. With rival Star growing bigger and stronger, OneWorld desperately needs a new member to better compete.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2519 times:
I think it turns out that OW's biggest asset- BA's LHR hub is also it's biggest liability from a regulatory perspective. It is so big and so important as an international destination and transit point that the OW alliance as envisioned by the members is viewed as anticompetitve by regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. What a weird dilemma for BA. When push comes to shove, BA will not give up (too many) slots at LHR. It would not be smart.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2495 times:
It makes me quite sad to think that LHR, a truly global airport, suffers from so many problems.
As those who have used LHR will know, the airport terminals can become EXTREMELY congested, even T4, probably the most user-friendly terminal at LHR, used by BA/QF/UL/KL and maybe some others....
AA uses Terminal 3, the non-BA terminal for intercontinental airlines. (Terminal 2 is Euro airlines, T1 is domestic flights--although there are some exceptions).
LHR only has two big r/w's and desperately needs to expand if it is to continue to compete with CDG, FRA, AMS, MUC etc.
Unfortunately, the UK has some very complex and silly planning regulations which make it very difficult to actually get any kind of expansion or runways even proposed!! Politics is also, as ever, involved.
Bermuda-god, I'm soooooo fed up with this stupid rule. LIBERALIZE!!!!!! Both of you!!!
Hope SWISS joins OW, from what I've heard they are a quality airline!
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2491 times:
The British government and citizenry really needs to sit and think about LHR. It is ridiculous for people to move near an airport and then complain about the noise. I wish there were more environmentalists on this forum to give that side of the story. But from what little I have heard from them, their position is absurd. The lost economic value from preventing LHR expansion is huge.
Blink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5454 posts, RR: 18 Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2413 times:
As for the leader in Oneworld, I would give honors to either British Airways or Qantas. American definately has its opinions heard, but British Airways or Qantas are probably the leader for the following reasons:
-BA is loaded with slots at LHR, which is probably the central hub for the alliance.
-QF has immunity with just about every Oneworld member.
Regarding SWISS, I think they will join. First of all, Zurich could ease congestion at LHR and would be a good alternate to ease congestion there and move some of the Oneworld operations over to to ZRH. I am pretty sure that American wants SWISS in that alliance mainly for the fact that they(and Oneworld) can have a presence in Central Europe. Also, AA/BA did got get anti-trust immunity, so American needs another European partner to make up for it.
From Oneworld's standpoint, I think it needs to be known that there is a Star Alliance lounge in ZRH, and if SWISS does decide to give Oneworld the green light, I am sure Star might have second thoughts on that lounge given the fact that ZRH would become dominated by Oneworld.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
OA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5154 posts, RR: 25 Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2409 times:
It is ridiculous for people to move near an airport and then complain about the noise. I wish there were more environmentalists on this forum to give that side of the story. But from what little I have heard from them, their position is absurd. The lost economic value from preventing LHR expansion is huge.
I wrote an Environmental politics seminar paper on this so maybe I can shed some light on this subject. As I saw it, the whole thing is, more or less, a double-edged sword. If LHR does not, for example, build T5 they stand to lose a significant amount of revenue to Continental airports which are far less hemmed in. BAA/BA have promised that they will build T5 and not a thrid runway.
For their part, enviromentalists (especially the West London Friends of The Earth) don't buy into BAA/BAs line. They say that the history of LHR is one of broken promises. Therefore, they are convinced that construction will not end with T5. Rather, they are convinced that a 3rd runway will follow in short order succeeded by a sixth terminal. Furthermore, they argue that because West London is now one of the most congested areas of London that building T5 will only excacerbate the situation. Moreover, they argue that the Perry Oaks Site (the site on which the proposed terminal will be built) which acts as a wildlife refuge, the Twin Rivers, and the Colne River Valley are all far too important to Britain to be destroyed in order to bring about T5 construction as well as the widening of the M4. Finally, they argue that, because the airport has already surpassed the number of aircraft movements that BAA claimed LHR would be at in 2008 with the opening of T5, this is a clear indication of the fact that BAA and BA have no interest in curbing the number of flights at the airport. Thus, they argue that flight movements will continue to increase affecting local noise pollution, air pollution, and water pollution.
This is a very, very abbreviated version of the problem. My paper was roughly 27 pages long and IIRC the governments report on the matter was some 1000 pages long. There's no clear answer to the problem. The only clear thing in this whole mess is that both sides have compelling arguments to back up their position.
Swissgabe From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 5266 posts, RR: 35 Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
Well, if Swiss could replace LH they might think about joining STAR
But I don't think at all, it isn't the question if Oneworld sucks or not, its just the better solution for them iso to go into a Group where you find LH, OS, NG etc., there would be simply no place for Swiss at all.
Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2193 times:
Thanks for the info OA412. Environmentalists typically reject all forms of cost/benefit analysis on the grounds that assigning monetary 'values' to clear air or clean water is unacceptable. Is that also the case with West London people?