Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US - Hong Kong Open Skies Talks Unsuccessful  
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13756 posts, RR: 18
Posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3403 times:

The United States' Department of Transportation has announced that 'open skies' talks between the US and Hong Kong have ended with no deal reached.

New talks may be held in the future.

China National Aviation Corp should be happy as it has opposed the deal saying that expanding Dragonair would be threatened if such a deal was reached. An American Airlines pilots union has also previously voiced its objections.

Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineCXCPA From Hong Kong, joined May 2000, 387 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3362 times:

Of course, the talk is NEVER sucessful because Us ask HK to open the sky, but US do not open the sky. It is not fair! Now US may try to make greater pressure on HK government to accept this kind of unfair agreement. Hope US lose again.

User currently offlineAirbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1567 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3337 times:

CXCPA is actually right in this case, the US ask for more, but in return don't give as much.


People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
User currently offline9V-SVE From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3309 times:

Its true, every post turns rotten when Hkgspotter1 touches it. Anyway, I agree with you guys. US is kinda unfair when it demands but doesn't give much back.

User currently offlineBlink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5499 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3286 times:

I agree with you guys. The US really wants "one way open skies" meaning that the other country opens skies to USA carriers while the US doesn't want to open their sky. I wish Bush&crew would get a life and realize that there is no such thing as "one way open skies".

So what about CX/AA? Does this mean that the deal is off or what?


Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineNicolasrolland From Canada, joined Jun 2001, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3285 times:

Instead of beginning another fight could
someone explain to me in detail what is this all
about the open sky things.....

I wouldn`t like seeing china gives things so easily to
the hamburger peoples... unless they are sure to make
tons of money..  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

but I might be someone who doesn`t know a things
about it...


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3269 times:

Surely the US new 'open skies' agreement with Outer Mongolia shows that they are really ready for true market liberalisation?

User currently offlineHkg82 From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2002, 1331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3262 times:

This is unfortunate for the people of Hong Kong but surely CX shareholders have breathed a collective sigh of relief! Despite the loss in income CX would incur if an 'Open Skies' deal was reached & hence the US airlines getting the fifth freedom rights, that would be offset by the CX/AA codeshare.

I really thought a deal was imminent, as both sides appeared to be close to reaching an agreement with just a few more issues lingering; CX/AA codeshare & exactly how many fifth freedom rights, both pax & cargo, the US carriers should get.

When are they going to hold the next round of talks?


User currently offlineJiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

Excuse me, but it seems like everyone is pointing their fingers at US.

But did you all read a report that it was actually China trying to intervene this talk?

China has demanded that HK should NOT have the open-skies deal with US, because China's aviation market is "not mature", and the open-skies will hurt all the airlines in China.

However, HK authority has stated that they have the rights to do whatever they want under "One country, Two systems" policy. If HK and China is not being able to settle down on their own, this talk will never be successful, no matter how many times has the talk been held.

Another thing needs to be noticed is that although CX wants to code-share with AA, but it self is NOT willing to have HK-US open-skies, because they say this will hurt them and other airlines.

User currently offlineHkg82 From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2002, 1331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3271 times:

Yes, CNAC & their Hong Kong counterparts, CITIC Pacific amongst others, voiced their objections but China has no authority to intervene in the talks. The Hong Kong government has denied coming under pressure from China but then again you never know. I would say it has nothing to do with China pressuring HK, but that they just couldn't agree on each other's proposals (HK & the US) as the US isn't giving much in return for their demands to open HK to more US flights.

The only interest China has in this issue is CNAC holding a 25% (I think) stake in Dragonair.

How can a HK-US 'Open Skies' agreement hurt all Chinese airlines?? It would affect only KA & CX, the two Hong Kong-based carriers. The US carriers would be granted fifth freedom rights out of Hong Kong & not China.

What do you expect from China though? They know nothing of economic liberalization & the benefits to consumers via healthy competition in an industry & just care for their own interests. Morons.


User currently offlineCarnoc From China, joined Oct 2001, 875 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

Jiml1126, I have been asked my friend who is currently in CAAC about this matter and he answered and also promised me that China has absolutely nothing to do with 'Open Skies' talks and it is true that CNAC is holding shares of Dragonair, but it is really not an issue in this case.

Furthermore, I do not know what the hell is going on, because I don't understand a question, as Hkg82 mentioned that how can a HK-US 'Open Skies' agreement hurt all Chinese airlines?

As my personal view, I do think that the talks were under unfair conditions, US did really ask too much without paying something back to Hong Kong. Anyway, let's see what will happen next, just wish US government will know what is fair in the future.


User currently offlineJiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3212 times:


One thing you have to realize that China is beginning to use the trick the way they did to Taiwan.

When a foreign country wants to sign air traffic deal with Taiwan, they always needs Beijing's "Permission".

HK-Taiwan talks is one of the example right now. Not only both HK and Taiwan have problems with each other, so does China. China has stated that it's not willing to have the 3rd airline from Taiwan to fly HK.

And this time, HK-US talks. China states their position right now, indirectly wanted to control this talk. In this case, they see HK a "province" of China, not a "territory". This is why China claims this will hurt their airlines.

So I'm thinking it may be difficult to get HKG expanding if China keeps making comments.

User currently offlineLadevale From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3205 times:

Because no deal was reached now does not mean that no deal won't be reached in the future.

According to the press reports that I've read, HKG and the US have agreed to meet in Hong Kong for a next round of talks. So, they will continue tallking with the prospect of signing an agreement.

It does seem as someone noted earlier that Singapore Air only takes an interest in posting items that are unfavorable to the prospects of Singapore Airlines' competitors. This much is transparent.

User currently offlineHkg82 From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2002, 1331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3252 times:

Jiml1126 & Carnoc
I don't understand China's point of view. I haven't even heard of your (JimI226) claim that the Chinese government is objecting to the HK-US talks, just that Dragonair (which as I said CNAC holds a 25% stake in) is opposed to the pact because it will severely set-back its cargo expansion plans. I understand KA’s management's point of view but US-HK 'Open Skies' talks have nothing to do with them & they'll have to adjust to operating in a competitive environment, i.e. if an 'Open Skies' deal is reached (my viewpoint also applies to CX).

What will China gain from interfering in the talks? Nothing, it's none of their business. They can’t interfere anyway according to the Basic Law. I don’t think they’d want to spend time on trying to impose their influence. I’m sorry but it just doesn’t make any sense to me. If it’s true then the Chinese government is acting nonsensically.

China is pressuring HK in the HK-Taiwan air talks because they don't want the HK government to participate in the discussions as that'll result in government-to-government HK-Taiwan contact & that's a big no no as China sees Taiwan as a ‘renegade province’ & a sign of independence by Taiwan blah blah you know the story.

I wouldn't be surprised that at the next round of talks, whenever that may be, a deal is finally reached between HK-US. HK-Taiwan is still an uncertainty.


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1896 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

From the US, there aren't that many fifth-freedom routes that Asian airlines would be interested in. OTOH, there are a boat-load of fifth-freedom routes that US airlines can use out of places like Hong Kong. So, on paper, open-skies agreements do seem to be unfair for the Asian carriers. But don't forget that the US is the biggest airline market in the world. At least three countries in the Far East that have signed open-skies agreements with the US. All the national airlines of these four countries, namely, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, offer more trans-Pacific capacity between the US their respective homebase. So much for your theory that open-skies agreement is unfair.

User currently offlineJiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3163 times:


HK belongs to China right now. China can do everything what they
wants. "One Country, Two system" sounds great at the first place, but didn't you realize that it's failing?

China is using this policy to cover their "intervention".

That's why China is trying to intervene HK-US talks, eventhough they get nothing.

China now sees HK as a "Province", not a "Territory" anymore.

User currently offlineBlink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5499 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3137 times:

Legally speaking, couldn't the US and HK just ignore China's case?


Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineJesseycy From New Zealand, joined Aug 2001, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

Blink182, under "One country, Two systems", HK can pretty much work this out all by themselves, without giving any consideration whatsoever to the Chinese government. That's in theory. But practically, they are persuasive, and add that to the HK government now who are letting in quite a bit to China's opinions........

They can shut out the Chinese government totally, but they aren't doing that.....

User currently offlineCathay250 From Hong Kong, joined Aug 1999, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

Hong Kong 's case is different from Taiwan, as Hong Kong belongs to China, so it's nonsense for the Chinese government to do "WHATEVER" they want, just simply to show their powers in Hong Kong. They don't have to do that.
Sure the Chinese government do intervent the HK government i believe, and the HK govenment trend to listen to them from time to time, but i will trust it's true if there's a real benefit to the Mainland China side, otherwise, it will only give the impression to HK people of breaking the promises of one country two system which will affect the HK people's confident towards the Chinese rule.

User currently offlineJiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3104 times:

Hong Kong 's case is different from Taiwan, as Hong Kong belongs to China, so it's nonsense for the Chinese government to do "WHATEVER" they want, just simply to show their powers in Hong Kong. They don't have to do that.

Although the case is different, but Chinese Government treats both sides the SAME.

There's almost no big difference in China's point of view about who is who, as long as HK/Taiwan are positioned as a "Province" to China.

I keep saying HK is now like a "Province" not a "Territory" is because China has intervene HK's political and economical business too much. This will be hard to get "One Country, Two Systems" policy continues.

User currently offlineUPS Pilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 871 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3099 times:

I get a kick out of some where they don't know what they are taking about. Hong Kong is just ONE city. Thats it!!!! IT isn't a case of were the U.S. wants to set up hub and spokes all over China. Now on the other hand China wants to fly to more than ONE CITY in the U.S. Why can't China just fly to say LAX or Chicago and do a code share with a U.S. carrier????

UPS tried to get additional slots into HKG for intra-asian flight and was unsucessful. Did UPS lose?? No, the Clark hub opened up in the Phillipines along with the existing Asian hub. UPS uses a contracted A300 into HKG from the intra asian hub.

Also on another note for those of you who think the U.S. wants all or nothing in these open skies talks read this!!!

"Reuters Company News
Chinese express post stand-off set to drag on -FedEx

By Edwin Chan

SHANGHAI, June 17 (Reuters) - The deadline for resolving a months-long dispute pitting China's postal monopoly against foreign express delivery giants has been extended to mid-August, the world's biggest express carrier FedEx (NYSE:FDX - News) said on Monday.

The spat, centred around proposed restrictions on express services that would hand the state monopoly a competitive edge during China's first year in the WTO, previously faced a June 15 deadline, when the thorny new rules were to have taken effect.

"I understand from unofficial sources that the submission date has been extended to mid-August," a Fedex spokeswoman said in a statement to Reuters. "We remain confident that this issue will be resolved to the benefit of our customers in China."

The stakes are high in a market state media has estimated at some $1.8 billion annually. Express firms have experienced 30 percent sales growth in recent years, the China Daily Business Weekly reported.

State media quoted some foreign firms as threatening to pull out of the country, protesting that the new restrictions would affect more than half their business in China.

The dispute flared up over a February China Post directive that proposed to restrict foreign express delivery firms from handling shipments weighing 500 grammes (1.1 pounds) or less.

The directive also required all delivery firms to obtain operating certificates from the postal bureau or lose their licences.

And it proposed to bar express firms from transporting documents carrying individuals' names, and prohibit them from accepting documents from government or Communist Party bodies.


Industry executives said China Post faced an obvious conflict of interest by being both industry regulator and competitor.

In April, FedEx, UPS (NYSE:UPS - News), DHL and TNT International Express drew up a letter for China's trade ministry to protest against the plans, complaining they would only bolster the bureau's monopoly.

FedEx said in May it was confident the spat would be settled by June 15, a second deadline extension for implementation of the new rules after the original May 6.

An industry group that represents both foreign and domestic express firms in the tussle -- between the post bureau and hundreds of express delivery firms -- said it would be settled in a manner acceptable to all parties.

"A settlement will come very soon. We won't be waiting weeks," said Li Limou, the secretary-general of the China International Freight Forwarder's Association.

"As long as we are still in discussions nobody will do anything. It's certainly been a really long time, but there will be a decision that both sides will accept," he said.

The postal authority at present controls about one-third of the market, Li said.

"We hope that we can proceed with our original business and operate normally. But the postal bureau has other opinions," he told Reuters from Beijing.

User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3063 times:

Is the Fifth Freedom Rights considered as diplomatic affairs? If it is, then China government has the legitimate right to intervence the talk, under the Basic Law. But myself, I am not sure about this though.

Well, for the political thing, I agree with some of you guys above. In theory, Öne Country Two Systems"works; in practice, there may be only one system. To all theorists, there is something called the political pressure. There may be some sub-rules behind the One Country Two systems. Top officials will do things based on the implicit rules, rather than the explicit ones.

just my views
r panda

User currently offlineOxygen From Hong Kong, joined Sep 1999, 675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3026 times:

The Big problem in Hong Kong is that some of the BIG PEOPLE here tries to guess what Beijing wants us to do, and then THINK that Beijing would be very satisfied with them. However, and unfortunately, these people seem to think that Beijing would be very happy when they see Hong Kong turning more and more like just another Mainland City.

That's so pathetic. By the way, do you guys remember the 'Support C.H. Tung for the next election (whatever) meeting' ? THAT WAS SO UGLY, HORRIBLE, YUCK !!!! I wonder how C.H.Tung has a face 'thick enough' to do something like that.

As for the Open Skies agreement, I don't see why the Hk government should by any means protect Cathay to such an extent, Cathay is mainly a British owned airline anyway. (though I am a CX fan) And I really can't understand this- after the handover, the government is trying so hard to get rid of things that remind them of the British past, such as painting the mailboxes green, speaking Putonghua, creating Chinese version of laws, renaming the governer's house....etc, and now they are having a fight with the Americans for the sake of a British owned company.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3006 times:

Does anyone care to elaborate on why open-skies would be unfair to Hong Kong? The rights are reciprocal.

User currently offlineN949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3003 times:

Dragonair is having major aspirations of growing beyond their current "regional" role in the HK aviation market, and the huge increase in competitive pressure from an Open-skies deal with the US could wreck their plans. No surprises in them (and their major shareholder) raising objections. In addition, UA purportedly also threw a monkey-wrench into the negotiations by actively objecting any CX/AA codeshare proposals. So, naysayers abound on both sides of the Pacific.

Oxygen, you're so right about "Lo Mung Tung"! As if what he's done in the last 5 years isn't bad enough, he's about to nominate a whole bunch of his cronies and yes-man to head the HK Gov. for the next 5. Rumour has it that there will be some questionable characters on that list (including some notorious local corporate raider as financial sec.). There's no end to the long-term damage that this joker is doing to HK's competitiveness. If I were you, I'll start looking for some "insurance" or a "Plan B"......if you get what I meant.


25 Post contains images Hkg82 : You have to consider the fact that Cathay is one of HK's largest employers, and the government would want to safeguard those jobs & ensure more jobs a
26 Post contains links N79969 : This is an interesting development: http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/020622/200206220046000002_1.html
27 Post contains images Hkg82 : Cool, looks like I was right about the HK-US air services talks (that they should secure a deal in the next round of talks). I'm also glad that HK & T
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...
EU And US To Begin Open Skies Talks posted Sun Sep 28 2003 22:52:51 by Kl911
EU-US Open Skies Talks posted Fri Apr 2 2004 16:50:55 by FlyPIJets
Current US Position On Open Skies? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 20:58:05 by Kaitak
U.S., Canada To Start New Open Skies Talks posted Wed Oct 19 2005 00:51:36 by Searpqx
US Offers EU Open-Skies Concessions posted Thu Jan 23 2003 19:01:28 by N79969
US-Hong Kong Bilateral posted Sat Jul 22 2000 23:44:56 by Purdue Arrow
US And UK Open Skies. What Is It? posted Wed Jun 28 2000 13:06:53 by Dellatorre
US Move "kills" Open Skies ... For Now! posted Tue Dec 5 2006 20:37:39 by Kaitak
US-EU Open Skies Delayed Again posted Wed Aug 16 2006 06:56:27 by MasseyBrown
Australia Seeks "Open Skies" Agreement With US posted Thu Aug 10 2006 08:21:19 by Biddleonia007