Cure From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1294 times:
IF it could be decided by a single, supernational european authority, would anybody think it would be an equal exchange/agreement a hypothetical one proposing more slots (no big restrictions for gates and runways) @ FRA/LHR, versus a COMPLETE MUTUAL "open skyes" between the EU and the US, with full cabotage rights for both american airlines in Europe AND european within North America?
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 2740 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1280 times:
Technically, it was not Cabotage then when TW and PA had basically unlimited rights between European countries, de-facto it was.
To answer your question - given the capacity is available at FRA & LHR, why not?
Unfortunately, the USA have no problems when UPS and FEDEX are running "domestic" services in Europe but have big problems with DHL doing the same in the USA. That will likely be the same with European carriers trying to establish domestic services in the US. On the other hand, any Euoprean airline trying to do that, will get itself into problems it really does not want to have. Life is a lot more easy when an alliance partner performs the domestic services nd that situation we do have already today.
The open skies will result in the final consolidation of the European Airlines into 2 or 3 groups. it will give any European Airline the right to operate from any point in Europe to any point in the USA which means, that names like Alitalia, Iberia SAS, KLM may have a chance to continue to exist as part of a group headed by AF/BA/LH. However, more likely, these companies will be incorporated into one of the three majors.
MarkATL From United States, joined Jul 2004, 507 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1192 times:
Quoting Cure (Thread starter): (no big restrictions for gates and runways) @ FRA/LHR
What about the reality of capacity problems at LHR. It wouldn't be right for US carriers to just carpet bomb LHR with capicity when the reality is that the airport is full.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 1): Technically, it was not Cabotage then when TW and PA had basically unlimited rights between European countries, de-facto it was.
True and when BA(BEA) and PA had domestic German services it was because they were established before Germany regained their soverignty after war. It continued after that because of the unique Berlin situation where Berlin was not soverign to Germany until 1990, and LH was IMHO wrongly banned from serving Berlin.
"...left my home in Georgia, 'n headed for the "Frisco" Bay...
Cure From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1160 times:
Quoting MarkATL (Reply 2): What about the reality of capacity problems at LHR
I think capacity of such an important airport as Heathrow (FRA, CDG...) depends on how much one want to increase it: those big entities move such a big amount of money, it is incoherent to keep saying they are restricted for environmental/neighborhood issues.
I agree LHR/FRA as they are now are full, but there can be a bunch of reasons and ways to resolve this problem. And there can be many not to change one single thing......
MarkATL From United States, joined Jul 2004, 507 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1122 times:
Quoting Cure (Reply 3): but there can be a bunch of reasons and ways to resolve this problem.
You can't change a door handle in Germany or the UK without the environmental nuts tying you up with protests and lawsuits for years. Multiply that by 100 if it involves an airport.
"...left my home in Georgia, 'n headed for the "Frisco" Bay...
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 2740 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1104 times:
Quoting MarkATL (Reply 2):
True and when BA(BEA) and PA had domestic German services it was because they were established before Germany regained their soverignty after war. It continued after that because of the unique Berlin situation where Berlin was not soverign to Germany until 1990, and LH was IMHO wrongly banned from serving Berlin.
Yes,but the PA/TW traffic rights in Eruope went far beyond the Berlin traffic. I flew PA and TW many times between FRA and LHR as well as HAM-LHR, PA had virtually unlimited rights out of FRA.
LH was banned from serving Berlin because it did not have rights to fly over east Germany and they would not let them. The three Allied Powers, sovereigns in West Berlin until 1990, would have less problems. LH flew to Leipzig and later to the East German airport Berlin-Schoenefeld (SXF) on a bi-lateral West/East Germany in the 80s.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 15062 posts, RR: 45 Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1086 times:
I love how the modern EU projects itself as some sort of single nation when it sees fit and then expects an actual sovereign nation must change it's rules.
Cabotage in one nation should not be tied to landing rights in another. It's known as economic extortion and it's a dirty suggestion.
Why isn't the EU pushing for domestic Japanese rights, or domestic China rights, or domestic Mexico rights?
You want to fly to smaller cities in the US? Do it? Our carriers do the reverse. Buy the jets that can work for you, and fly the routes.
Please name me a nation where any USA based carrier currently flies a cabotage route? If there are still any, you can count them on one hand. Please tell me where any USA carrier has demanded that right within England or France, for example, as a quid pro quo for AF or BA flying to a USA destination? Both those carriers fly to many, many cities here. Why do they need domestic routes?
All our carriers want is access to LHR. They all already have access to FRA. Sure FRA is slot restricted, but it isn't access restricted like LHR.
LHR is artificially restricted for USA based carriers and ONLY USA based carriers, and it is patently unfair. Every international airline in the world can serve LHR except CO, NW, DL, AS and US. And yet for that inequity to be resolved, the USA is supposed to allow BA, LH or AF to operate domestic flights in the USA? Give me a break.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 2740 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1073 times:
@Ikramerica - relax. I don't see that happen even if the US and EU come to an open skies agreement. There may be the one or other extension of a trans atlantic flight which then can carry domestic passenges. like the BA ORD-IAH flight. LA can carry passengers from FRA to MAD vv., not much harm done to IB or LH. Why not let LH carry freight between ORD and HNL, making the RTW more viable and operational again?
I think we should get on even levels, the US usually demands all the rights and does not want to give anything back. I mentioned before, FX and UPS enjoy freedom to operate inside the EU DHL had to overcome big problems to do the same in the US. I understand AC cannot sell tickets form BOS to SEA via YYZ, why, its the consumers choice to do so, not the bureaucrat to forbid. We enjoy this kind of freedom in Europe, connecting through any given point.
When such a bilateral comes into existance, we will not see many domestic services by foreign carriers on either side of the pond. What we may see is more ownership. If a German car manufacturer can buy an American car manufacturer, why should an airline be prevented from the same thing?
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 5892 posts, RR: 71 Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1039 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): LHR is artificially restricted for USA based carriers and ONLY USA based carriers, and it is patently unfair.
Just as the US is artificially restricted for British carriers operating out of London - so it's not just US carriers being artificially restricted...
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): And yet for that inequity to be resolved, the USA is supposed to allow BA, LH or AF to operate domestic flights in the USA? Give me a break.
I fully agree with you there - landing rights and cabotage are simply two completely different agendas.
As long as the EU, unfortunately, cannot really get it's act together, we can have our common aviation market in all regards except regarding traffic that originates or terminates outside of the area. As soon as the common aviation area presents a single entity not only for EU carriers, but all other carriers as well, that's when intra-EU flights (such as LA's MAD-FRA flights) can be put on a similar level as intra-US flights (such as the aforementioned LH ORD-HNL flight).
Until then, the EU, unfortunately, just doesn't have a leg to stand on in this regard: flying FRA-MAD equates to flying ORD-MEX; ORD-HNL would be like flying FRA-MUC, CDG-MRS or LHR-MAN... claiming anything else is, for the time being, just hot air.
Nonetheless, I certainly hope that open skies, i.e. unrestricted access to airports within the US for EU carriers as well as unrestricted access to EU airports for US carriers (including LHR) will happen soon: but tying that agenda to cabotage simply won't work, as - for the time being - the US would simply not accept it.
ANother From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1012 times:
I think we should focus on what the airlines actually want.
1. Do the European airlines want US cabotage? I don't think so - Although some entrapaneurs would like the ability to own & operate (using US citizen employees) their own 'US' airlines - but this isn't the same thing.
2. Do the US airlines want open access to LHR? Well two don't and the rest do. Let's face it, the value of LHR operations will be lost if they all had access. The market might grow a little, but I suspect everyone would lose.
3. Do the US airlines want unlimited 5ths throughout the EU? Well, they already have it with the EU nations where open skies agreements exist - and guess what there are no (that is none, nil, nada, zip, zilch) US 5ths operated. Paris - Frankfurt is open to any / all US airlines (as 5ths).
This whole arguement is a political one. The Eurocrats want to be seen as doing something (when they can't find their own rears even with a detailed map). They also want to push 'the European single market', but the convaluted rules they have serves more to impede a single market. They would be much more successful with giving EU airlines unlimited 5ths rather than the crackerjack 'right of establishment' that not one EU airline has shown any interest in.
How about a little courage on both sides. I propose a multilateral aviation agreement for Canada/Mexico/USA on the one side and EU, EEA +CH on the other. Any airline of any country can fly anywhere without restriction. AC between Mexico and Spain, AM between YVR and YYZ, US between LHR and MEX via YXU!!!! Whatever.
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4564 posts, RR: 22 Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 998 times:
Quoting Leskova (Reply 8): Just as the US is artificially restricted for British carriers operating out of London - so it's not just US carriers being artificially restricted...
Though this is the price the UK paid for restricting access to LHR when they renounced the original Bermuda agreement and negotiated the current bilateral.
Anyway, how would cabotage work in the US? You would be mingling domestic and international passengers in the same aircraft. What alterations to customs and immigration would be necessary for this to function? Would domestic passengers need a passport (& visa for non-citizen residents or visitors) to board and deboard these flights? Or would all passengers from the international segment need to deboard the plane and go through customs, and those going further on the domestic segment reboard along with domestic passengers?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Anyway, how would cabotage work in the US? You would be mingling domestic and international passengers in the same aircraft. What alterations to customs and immigration would be necessary for this to function? Would domestic passengers need a passport (& visa for non-citizen residents or visitors) to board and deboard these flights? Or would all passengers from the international segment need to deboard the plane and go through customs, and those going further on the domestic segment reboard along with domestic passengers?
Not really. On the BA flight LHR-ORD-IAH Immigration + customs is cleared in Chicago, you can walk landside and re-board the flight, going through TSA security again. It is domestic, but cannot take domestic passengers.
IAH-ORD would be a problem, because passengers cannot leave the a/c in ORD, the have technically left the US at IAH. Since there is no customs inspection leaving the US. this could however be done at ORD as well. Passengers could not buy their "duty"frees in Houstons, they could do that in Chicago however, no big deal and no threat to National security.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 2808 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 913 times:
Quoting MarkATL (Reply 2): True and when BA(BEA) and PA had domestic German services it was because they were established before Germany regained their sovereignty after war. It continued after that because of the unique Berlin situation where Berlin was not sovereign to Germany until 1990, and LH was IMHO wrongly banned from serving Berlin.
This is basically correct. But there was a lot more to it.
After World War 2 Germany and Berlin were occupied by the Allies. There was an American, British, French and Russian zone of Germany occupied by the armed forces of each country. Similarly Berlin was divide but I cannot remember whether or not there was a French zone of Berlin. Berlin was, however, located in the Russian (Soviet) occupied zone of Germany.
Land (rail and road) and air corridors were established to Berlin from cities in the Western Allies occupied zones of Germany to Berlin. On 24 June 1948 - three years after the end of the war - the Soviets blocked the land corridors. The US military's reaction was to propose to send an armoured column from west Germany to Berlin to relieve this blockade. However the politiciands prevailed and an airlift was started.
Over the next 324 days everything consumed in Berlin, including 1.5 million tons of coal, was flown in. The British blockade busting aircraft fleet comprised mainly C-47 Dakotas (about 150) and Avro Yorks (around 40). There were also about a dozen Short Flying Boats that operated to and from the River Elbe.
On one day in April 1949 1,398 flights operated carrying nearly 13,000 tons of goods.
These aircraft were civilian (mainly ex-military) to minimise any reaction from the Soviets. After the Blockade was lifted they formed the basis of a new, non-government airline industry that found it difficult to flourish in the restrictive post-war era.
The British and Americans refused the Soviets the reparations they demanded from the industralised Ruhr area in the British zone of West Germany. In retaliation the Soviets refused to consider German reunification and established the German Democratic Republic, a Soviet puppet. The GDR did not recognise the GFR so only aircraft of the former occupying powers - America, Britain and France - were permitted by them to over fly the GDR from West Germany to West Berlin.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 2740 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 838 times:
@W701 -
a few corrections - the airlift was a Military operation. The Russians would likely have shot down any civilian airliner. The operations included DC4, DC3 , Avro Yorks, Lancaster etc and the Sandringhams.
The operations went through 3 air corridors to Tempelhof, Tegel and Gatow Airfields, plus the Lake Wannsee. It was the first massive cargo operation in history and even today, 13.000 is an impressvive load to handle on a single day in the same "circus", it would take more than 100 747 freighters to ghet this done.
Then - West Germany did not recognize East German citizenship. All residents of East Germany had a right to get a West German Passport the day they arrived here. East Germany would have gladly signed any treaty, including an air treaty if we had recognized them.
History proved us right. Not only us, without General Lucius D. Clay and many others backing this operation, the world might still look different today.
WAH64D From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jan 2005, 868 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 796 times:
Quoting MarkATL (Reply 4): You can't change a door handle in Germany or the UK without the environmental nuts tying you up with protests and lawsuits for years. Multiply that by 100 if it involves an airport.
Cure From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 762 times:
Thanks for the posts and let's go on...
I just wanted to re-focus the hypothesis according to which this thread came to my mind: I was imagining a supranational european authority and this means of course considering the EU as one single national entity for what concerns flight: right this maybe being the point where to start building a currently still embryonic idea of the EU as a single nation. It would be very interesting...
And let's not forget I was speaking of a COMPLETE MUTUAL "open skies" agreement between two equal entities (for what concerns flight): EU and US.
Given this explanation what follows is clearly no point:
1):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): I love how the modern EU projects itself as some sort of single nation when it sees fit and then expects an actual sovereign nation must change it's rules.
2):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): Cabotage in one nation should not be tied to landing rights in another. It's known as economic extortion and it's a dirty suggestion.
3):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): You want to fly to smaller cities in the US? Do it? Our carriers do the reverse. Buy the jets that can work for you, and fly the routes.
4):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): Please name me a nation where any USA based carrier currently flies a cabotage route? If there are still any, you can count them on one hand. Please tell me where any USA carrier has demanded that right within England or France, for example, as a quid pro quo for AF or BA flying to a USA destination? Both those carriers fly to many, many cities here. Why do they need domestic routes?
...and I'd suggest not to light fires, because this was not my intention.
Sponsor Message: 
From Italy, joined Sep 2005, 221 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 2740 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2004, 507 posts, 
From , joined today!, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 2808 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jan 2005, 868 posts,