Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 22 Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1582 times:
UK and US aviation officials met yesterday for talks, the UK proposed a mini deal like the one mentioned in the thread. Now, the US department of transport has to choose which 2 airlines fly in 2003 (Possibly DL and CO) and which 2 fly in 2004, NW and US. But it remains to be seen if the US airlines agree to the terms laid out by the UK government.
I certainly hope something comes out of this, as it's been dragging on for a ridiculous number of years.
OzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4684 posts, RR: 23 Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1546 times:
I hope AA/BA antitrust is included in any mini-deal. They've waited long enough. If UA/BD/LH/SK can have immunity (and between them and the rest of STAR they have a formidable presence at LHR), not to mention Skyteam and "Wings", BA and AA should get their alliance approval.
Go Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1528 times:
bmi must get access to rights if another american carrier has access, it will be totally unfair and against competition if delta and CO get rights and bmi dont.
If northwest are to join in as well, then i think BA/AA should get their alliance, for crying out loud, Bmi-lufthansa-SAS-United have anti-trust as does air france-delta and northwest-klm, its about time BA/AA did.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 22 Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1500 times:
But in order for US airlines to get LHR access, BA/AA must give up some LHR slots so that new entrants have enough flights to viably compete. It is then, that the AA/BA deal will get the go-ahead, but still not certain how many slots have to be given and whether BA/AA are willing to give a reasonable number of slots. This is one way that slots can be created at LHR.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11997 posts, RR: 36 Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1462 times:
Why did Britain propose two extra airlines for each country in 2003, when it has only one other airline able to operate a route from LHR?
Presumably BMI would get an equal number of slots to the combined number for the two US carriers; so if two of CO/NW/DL get, say five each, BMI would get ten?
I think aeropolitical issues such as this only serve to underline the importance of LHR getting a third runway. Airlines are really only interested in LHR, not LGW, STN or Cliffe. Not being in a position to offer extra capacity at LHR will only undermine the ability of British carriers to get extra slots in/routes to other countries.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11997 posts, RR: 36 Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1456 times:
One might also ask if the other US carriers (particularly the one of CO/NW/DL) which DON'T get (more) access to LHR will lobby to either stop or slow down the deal. Will this get bogged down in US politics, so that it's too late for any start on flights in 2003, or will the UK government say that it's up to the US to decide which two of its airlines is allowed to fly to LHR and let them sort it out among themselves.
Hopefully sense will prevail as far as access to New York is concerned; there's more than enough already. Certainly DL will want to fly to JFK and obviously CO to EWR, but let's hope IAH, ATL and CVG (among others) get a look in.
Also, what's going to happen about cities like DFW, for example, which have hitherto only been served from LGW? It hardly seems fair if they're stuck with LGW while ATL, CVG, IAH, etc, can now be served directly?
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1415 times:
AA/ BA should *only* be approved if *all four* of the remaining USA Cartel-network carriers are allowed competitive access into Heathrow, along with BMI into the US. A third runway at Heathrow would need to run years of gauntlet through NIMBY and environmental-extremist lunacy before it could even be approved, let alone built. It's long past time for BAA to abandon the "alternating runway use" policy and use *both* LHR runways simultaneously, during *all* operating hours.
That way, all four of the other USA network carriers could be granted competitive access, and AA/ BA wouldn't have to abandon so many slots that Don Carty would cry crocodile tears again about an alliance not being worth it. Again, Europe is generally in thrall to environmental-extremist lunacy, and jobs for families and connections to major cultural and trading partners aren't seen as a priority. But if the British can overcome such thinking, the Heathrow mess can be untangled and a vital economic link to the rest of the world, strengthened.
Qantas744 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 246 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1380 times:
Unfortunately John Prescott has reversed his decision for projects of strategic national importance not to be subject to normal planning laws so that they can be authorised by the Government instead of public inquiries-so the third runway at Heathrow is in the same place that T5 was ten years ago.
So any talk of the third runway freeing up enough slots for BA/AA to go ahead is a waste of time.
you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll