SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Tue Dec 18, 2001 5:21 pm

Fantastic! I am over the moon! Competition reigns  Big thumbs up

----

US antitrust officials oppose BA-American plan
By Peter Spiegel in Washington
Published: December 18 2001 00:31 | Last Updated: December 18 2001 01:24



The plan by American Airlines and British Airways to operate as a single airline across the Atlantic was dealt a serious blow on Monday when US antitrust officials recommended that the Bush administration reject it.

However, Justice Department lawyers held out hope that the carriers could gain approval for the alliance if they shed dozens of landing slots at London's Heathrow airport.

American and BA, however, indicated on Monday night they would be unwilling to meet such a condition.

In a recommendation to the US Transportation Department, which has final authority over the deal, Justice Department lawyers argued that the reduced competition on six routes - Heathrow to New York, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles and Dallas - would lead to higher prices and poorer service.

Antitrust officials said they might support the deal if American and BA shed enough take-off and landing slots to allow competitors to offer seven daily round-trips to Heathrow from New York and two from Boston.

The divestiture of 126 weekly slots is at the low end of what American's domestic competitors have called for and is significantly lower than the numbers suggested by regulators in 1996, when the carriers first attempted to join up. But American and BA on Monday described the number as "inappropriate," saying it only established an "outer limit" of potential remedies.

The Justice Department also called on the Transportation Department to "carve out" the Dallas and Chicago markets from the alliance, as even divesting slots would not restore enough competition to the cities, where American has large hubs.

The Transportation Department is not obliged to follow the Justice Department's recommendation, but it is expected to carry great weight in the agency's deliberations, which could conclude as early as next month. Transportation rejected the 1996 application from American and BA largely because of stiff Justice Department objections.

The White House has appeared eager to approve the deal, both because of British assistance in the war in Afghanistan and hopes of gaining a new, liberalised "open skies" aviation treaty with the UK.

Currently, only two US airlines, United and American, can fly into Heathrow. The British government has signalled it is ready to accept most American demands in a new "open skies" deal, but only if American-BA is given immunity from US antitrust laws so it can operate as a single airline.

----
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
The777Man
Posts: 5926
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 1999 4:54 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Tue Dec 18, 2001 7:02 pm

Great News !! I hope DOT come to the same conclusion. I'm still very amazed that they only asked for 126 weekly slots; they should have asked for more. The777Man
Boeing 777s flown: UA, TG, KE, BA, CX, NH, JD, JL, CZ, SQ, EK, NG, CO, AF, SV, KU, DL, AA, MH, OZ, CA, MS, SU, LY, RG, PE, AZ, KL, VN, PK, EY, NZ, AM, BR, AC, DT, UU, OS, AI, 9W, KQ, QR, VA, JJ, ET, TK, PR, BG, T5, CI, MU and LX.. Further to fly.. LH 777
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Tue Dec 18, 2001 7:22 pm

So why haven't they asked for similar divestiture of slots at FRA and CDG where the home carriers are far more dominant than BA at LHR?
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
2cn
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2001 6:30 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Tue Dec 18, 2001 7:35 pm

So why haven't they asked for similar divestiture of slots at FRA and CDG where the home carriers are far more dominant than BA at LHR?

At CDG and FRA you do not have the problems with getting slots that you do at LHR.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Tue Dec 18, 2001 7:40 pm

Of course you do, particularly at FRA. It is one of the most slot constrained airports around.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Tue Dec 18, 2001 7:53 pm

"FRA. It is one of the most slot constrained airports around."

True Banco. But you don't have government supported, legal barriers opposing new airlines starting flying to LHR.

Continental, Northwest and Delta flying directly into LHR from their US Hubs x times a day would turn BA's dominant position from LHR (and high fares) up side down.

They will try to block that by all means. (misleading communication included).


"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4472
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Tue Dec 18, 2001 10:55 pm

The 777Man,
They asked for 126 slots from BOS and NYC plus "many" more from other cities.
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3894
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Tue Dec 18, 2001 11:10 pm

Good for DOJ! This ruling is proof that big campaign contribution$ do not necessAArily overcome the rule of law. BA-AA without massive Heathrow slot divestitures--at least several hundred, by Delta's count--would have been terribly anti-competitive.

Unless DL, NW, CO, and US *all* get enough competitive slots into Heathrow, NO BA/AA!

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
JAL
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 12:37 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Tue Dec 18, 2001 11:32 pm

This is ridiculous! If they approved the United/Lufthansa ; Delta/Air France and NW/KLM alliance they should also allow AA/BA to form an alliance.
Work Hard But Play Harder
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Tue Dec 18, 2001 11:57 pm

Keesje, are you then saying that when open skies comes along, and all legal barriers are removed, that you would then agree that there is no need for BA/AA to divest slots? Because that's exactly what they're saying. When there is open skies all US/UK carriers will have the right to fly from LHR, so it will be the same situation as with FRA, AMS and CDG. None of those agreements have resulted in the home carrier losing slots why should LHR be different?

Don't forget that Bermuda II was agreed by both sides, it isn't a British restriction held over the US.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 12:00 am

Press Releases

AMERICAN AIRLINES AND BRITISH AIRWAYS RESPOND TO DOJ FILING

Washington, DC, December 17, 2001 – American Airlines and British Airways today issued the following statement regarding the Department of Justice (DOJ) filing to the U.S.-U.K. Alliance Case.

"The first round of governmental comment in either the U.S. or Europe, today's U.S. DOJ announcement is not unexpected from an agency that has traditionally taken the hardest line in previous airline competition matters. Importantly, DOJ establishes an outer limit of potential remedies that is far improved from those it advised in the 1996 application. Only an advisory opinion, the DOJ filing also endorses a U.S.-U.K. open skies agreement and recognizes more competition and less consolidation in the transatlantic aviation market since 1996.

However, we believe the DOJ proposed divestiture of 126 weekly slots is inappropriate. DOJ underestimated the commercial availability of slots at Heathrow and the competitive advantages already being enjoyed by other global alliance networks. Most significantly, DOJ did not consider the potential benefits of a new U.S.-U.K. open skies agreement.

The DOJ filing is only an advisory opinion. DOT is the agency with the decision-making authority in the U.S. We are confident that DOT and the decision making authorities in Europe will consider the complete record in reaching a fully informed decision on the application among the most extensively documented and deliberated ever considered.

We intend to file additional materials with DOT later this week that elaborate further on the potential benefits of open skies, the reality of network-to-network competition and the Heathrow slot situation."

Neither American Airlines nor British Airways will comment further beyond this statement.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 3894
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 1:02 am

DOJ's opinion may be officially advisory, but it's death to the deal as-is in practice. This press release is lot of hot air. BA and AA will have to give up lots and lots of Heathrow slots in order to get their deal approved.

Jim
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
User avatar
lindy field
Posts: 2940
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 1:52 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 1:06 am

Some competition reigns in Frankfurt. The EU approved the Lufthansa/Austrian cooperation provided that the two airlines opened slots for competitors to fly between Germany and Austria. This is why Air Alps and Adria are now flying between the two countries.

I'm very pleased by the DOJ ruling. I'm waiting to see Delta, Continental, and British Midland flying transatlantic from LHR.
 
Stormin
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 1:20 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 1:10 am

Slightly off-topic...
I flew into Newark on Monday and saw a Virgin A340 at the gates with a "No Way BA/AA" slogan painted on the fuselage near the tail.

Later
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 1:35 am

"I'm very pleased by the DOJ ruling. I'm waiting to see Delta, Continental, and British Midland flying transatlantic from LHR."

Your be lucky.

You wont get open skies with BA/AA. The two governments do NOT want two airlines going to the wall over this. The uk government will move heaven and earth for British Airways who will argue that open skies will lead to massive job losses by BA.

Read the article, it says the white house seems eager, do you expect them to just sit there and say no, especially since the survivaul of Britains flag carrier is at stake?

BA/AA is the same as unted/bmi, if those two can have an alliance andso can delta/af and klm/northwest then why not BA/AA?

if there is open skies then what are people afraid of, a bit of competition?
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 1:39 am

LHR has a max number of slots. BA/AA/UA own lots because they are the only ones allowed so. Unfair !

Every North Atlantic Carrier is free to start flying to Amsterdam/CDG. The dominant position of KLM/NWA on AMS is market driven, not by protective regulations.

KLM has direct competition on almost all of its long haul flights to US (& Asia). That's healthy. Could BA hold up it's pants in that situation ? I guess they don't want to try out .....

Imagine KLM providing some of their LHR slots to start a LHR-EWR, four times a day B777/747 KLM/CO/NWA codeshare service, that would be healthy for the market ...
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 2:26 am

Look at this!...

Virgin requests slots for charity money
Publicity hungry Virgin Atlantic boss Sir Richard Branson rekindled his debate with British Airways over slots at Heathrow by offering to give £20 million to charity in exchange for 10 pairs of slots at the airport.
In a letter sent to BA chairman Lord Marsall, Branson challenged BA to release some of its unused slots at Heathrow. In typical fashion Branson spiced up the request by offering to donate £2 million to charity for each pair of slots Virgin received.
BA has refused to rise to the challenge, saying: “It is not true that competitors can’t get into Heathrow. United Airlines has massively increased its services out of Heathrow. Virgin Atlantic also now has a very significant service.”
Sir Richard Branson said: “I am saddened but certainly not surprised that, having reached the end of the challenge period, BA has not been able to supply Virgin Atlantic with even one pair of slots at Heathrow.
“Both BA and American Airlines have disingenuously claimed that competitors can easily find slots at Heathrow for services to and from the US,” he continued. “The truth is that slots are not available at Heathrow for transatlantic services. Having failed to rise to this challenge I do not expect to hear BA or AA repeating this claim ever again.”
Published 17 December 2001
---

Think of the charities!
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
Guest

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose

Wed Dec 19, 2001 3:06 am

First of all, the deal will happen.

Political forces, even more powerful than those at the DOJ, have already made the decision. Or, didn't anyone read Novak's article in the Chicago-Sun Times.

The President wants this deal to happen because it is a test of his personal, working relationship with Tony Blair.

The DOJ is simply posturing. They did not want to appear to be acting in collusion with the DOT and the White House. The Novak article made it seem as if they were.

In general, Delta, Continental and Northwest continue to act as if this deal would mean the end of the world to them. When will they stop whining and start competing?

UA and AA gained their rights to fly to Heathrow not through any treaty, but through a commercial transaction involving in each case hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. What galls me is that now Delta, Continental, and Northwest are trying to take advantage of the situation to gain as much access to Heathrow as AA and UA have, all for free. Why should one treaty wipe out years of competitive gains made by these two carriers, AA in particular? Ours is a capitalist economy, not a social welfare system. Someone tell that to Delta, Continental and Northwest.

Unfortunately, the DOT has often reinforced and promoted this kind of thinking. It has, for instance, shown a preference in the past for allocating new service rights and slots to carriers simply on the basis that the carrier has no current rights to operate in those markets. In doing so, it has often compromised our free market system and in particular the competitive actions of carriers like United and AA to gain entry into new markets through acquisition. Why compete, why use any of your own cash to acquire new assets, if you can simply wait till the DOT gets more slots to restricted markets?

In the other sectors of our economy, there is no mechanism, no government agency that exists to undo years of competitive gains. Could you imagine if there were? What would that do to our economy? Let's say Disney wanted to buy a cable company? Could you imagine some agency asking them to divest themselves of some of their Disney properties, like Mickey Mouse or Goofy? It just doesn't happen. Even in the most recent Microsoft vs. the US anti-trust trial in which the US accused Microsoft of acting as a monopolist, the final outcome will not call for Microsoft to divest itself of some of its software products. Against that background, how ridiculous does it seem that in the airline industry the DOT acts to manage competition?

Thankfully, in this deal, it looks like political forces will come out on the side of true capitalism. While that may mean that AA and BA will continue to be dominant at Heathrow, it will also mean that Delta, Continental, and Northwest will finally get the rights to fly to Heathrow. They will also probably get 2-3 flights a day each into Heathrow. Beyond that, they should be expected to use whatever commercial mechanisms at their disposal to acquire any new slots that they desire. Now, that would bring real competition to Heathrow.
 
aussiestu
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 7:32 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 3:13 am

Someone says there is no competition to BA/AA from LHR? What the hell is UA and VS then? Then of course there is AI and NZ but they are small fry compared to UA and VS. Does anybody else have rights thru LHR to the US? There is a long way to go before this is settled and I would like to see it happen.

Does KLM have another Dutch airline to compete on US routes and does LH have another German airline to compete on US routes and is there another French airline flying to the US against AF? BA has VS and if this happens then BM. 3 British carriers serving the same routes. Now that is competition. And then we will have all the US carriers there also if it happens. Does DL, US, CO, NW as well as AA and UA fly to KLM, AF and LH hubs? Thats 6 US carriers serving their hubs which is what will happen at LHR if open skies happens. True competition!
 
azjubilee
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2000 5:26 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose

Wed Dec 19, 2001 3:18 am

Northwest, Continental, Delta and USAirways aren't against open skies. They're for open skies if it can be an equal playing field, and right now it isn't. If open skies were approved with out divesture of slots and facilities the above mentioned airlines wouldn't be able to provide service, therefore gaining nothing. This open skies agreement is different, when compared to AMS and FRA. AMS and FRA aren't dominated like LHR is. AA and BA combined would have 70% or more of the traffic in LHR with nobody else ALLOWED to compete, other than UA/BMI.

Ladevale says that NW etc... should sack up and spend the money to get to LHR? They can't. They aren't allowed at LHR per the treaty. Which by the way, the only reason why UA and AA are at LHR in such a great size, is that AA bought TWs LHR routes years ago and US bought Pan Ams routes, years ago. NW and company can spend all the money in the world to attempt to provide equal competing service to London via LGW, but it is obviously a mute point. They probably aren't doing too bad going into LGW, but could do way better at LHR financially and provide better service for the consumer.

I wouldn't call the deal dead all together, so wait and see what happens. We might be surprised. And, I would take all media articles written by reporters uneducated in the industry with a grain of salt.

AZJ
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4472
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 4:55 am

Aussiestu,
Yes DL,US,CO,AA,NW,and UA all fly from the U.S. to AMS,FRA,And CDG. Whats your point? DL,US,CO,and NW are not allowed to fly to LHR
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 5:11 am

The advantage of flying into LHR instead of LGW is not as great as some of the companies make out.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 5:14 am

I think the possibility of other US-based airlines flying into LHR really depends on the status of LHR's Terminal 5.

If T5 is built (even with the slot restrictions in place), this will allow BA to move all of their operations into a single terminal, which will free up space in the older LHR terminals. This will allow airlines like AA, CO, DL, NW, UA and US to fly into LHR (probably into one of the older LHR terminals dedicated to US based airlines only), and because of slot restrictions you'll likely see:

AA flying 777-200ER's from DFW, ORD, MIA and JFK
CO flying 777-200ER's and 767-400ER's from IAH and EWR
DL flying 777-200ER's and 767-400ER's from ATL and JFK
NW flying 747-400's and A330-300's from MSP and DTW
UA flying 747-400's from SFO, LAX, ORD, IAD and JFK
US flying A330-300's from CLT, PIT and PHL

I think the primary concern at LHR currently is not enough gates to accommodate everyone. With T5, that issue is mostly alleviated.
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 5:15 am

Raychung,
DL cant fly 767-400's across the Atlantic.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 6:15 am

excellent points Ladevale!
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
blink182
Posts: 5278
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 1999 3:09 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 7:58 am

UA/LH, DL/AF(likely to get immunity), KL/NW, why no BA/AA?
If I were on a neutral side, I would admit that BA/AA's arguments are pretty valid.
According to Airliner World(forgot which month) Oneworld owned around 47% of LHR slots, while Star owned a healthy 27% of LHR slots.

Go AA/BA!!
rgds,
blink182
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 5:25 pm

US move gives BA hope for AA venture
By Kevin Done, Aerospace Correspondent, in London
Published: December 18 2001 22:03 | Last Updated: December 19 2001 03:56

British Airways' share price rose sharply on Tuesday in response to regulatory moves in the US, which could help to clear the way for the airline's proposed transatlantic joint venture with American Airlines.

The conditions recommended by the US Department of Justice for approval of the deal were less onerous than those demanded 3½ years ago, when US antitrust officials examined the two carriers' earlier application for immunity for a joint venture across the North Atlantic.

In 1998 the Justice Department recommended that BA and American should relinquish 196 weekly take-off and landing slots at London's Heathrow airport, enough for 14 new daily services to the US, to offset the reduction in competition of the proposed alliance.

It also called for a further 20 weekly slots to be made available to US carriers.

In its recommendation on Monday to the US Department of Transportation, which has final authority over the deal, the Justice Department officials proposed the divestiture of 126 slots, enough for nine daily services, seven from New York and two from Boston to Heathrow.

BA on Tuesday refused to give any ground publicly, and repeated its argument that changes in the competitive environment in the past five years and the prospect of an "open skies" deal between the US and the UK meant that it should not have to give up any slots at all.

BA and American said they would submit further evidence to the Transportation Department later this week. They claimed that the Justice Department had underestimated the commercial availability of slots at Heathrow.

Aviation analysts in London said on Tuesday that the Justice stance provided some grounds for optimism that a final deal could be struck, however, at a price that would be acceptable for the two airlines.

"You can see where a compromise is going to come from. They [the two airlines and the Justice Department] are in the same ball park," said Chris Avery, aviation analyst at JP Morgan.

Analysts have speculated that BA could be prepared to give up around 100 weekly slots, sufficient for seven daily services.

The BA share price rose on Tuesday by 13½p or 6.9 per cent to close at 208p. In the US, the share price of AMR Corporation, the parent company of American Airlines, was little changed in midday trading at $22.40, down from the Monday close of $22.50.

The Justice Department recommendation fell far short of the more extreme demands that had been voiced by rival US airlines. They have called for BA and American to give up more than 500 weekly slots at Heathrow to allow new entrants to compete on a commercial basis.

BA and American have received additional political support for their proposed deal, which is regarded as a vital precondition for Washington and London agreeing the long-awaited "open skies" accord

Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
2cn
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2001 6:30 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 6:21 pm

This is ridiculous! If they approved the United/Lufthansa ; Delta/Air France and NW/KLM alliance they should also allow AA/BA to form an alliance.

None of those mergers created a large monopoly such as the AA/BA would create- over 60% of the flights would be flown by AA/BA with out any possibility for other US airlines such as DL, CO, US getting slots. Right now the agreement between the US and UK limit it to two airlines- which is United and American... so slots are not available as AA and BA make it out to be.
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 9:36 pm

If Bermuda 2 is removed then shouldnt UA and AA be given compensation as they paid for the right to fly into LHR?An alternative way of looking at it.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Wed Dec 19, 2001 10:02 pm

2cn,

As opposed to FRA for example where LH/UA have got the transatlantic market totally sewn up, with bugger all slots for others to get hold of and no other domestic competition. Same with CDG.

At least out of London you already have VS, you would also have BD, plus all the US carriers. Seems to me that just because more Brits and Americans travel to each others countries some think the other hubs should get an additional advantage.

Name one other European airport where there is (or will be) meaningful transatlantic competition from another alliance?
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
aussiestu
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 7:32 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Thu Dec 20, 2001 1:13 am


Bobnwa

There was no point. I was asking a question. If and when Openskies happens and these carriers all move to LHR then the competition will begin.
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Thu Dec 20, 2001 1:18 am

London has the most flights to the US than any other Euro City-that is competition
 
redraider
Posts: 515
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 3:40 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Thu Dec 20, 2001 1:22 am

60% is not a monopoly
My wife can't wrestle, but you should see her box.
 
Tango-Bravo
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 1:04 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Thu Dec 20, 2001 1:33 am

Some honest questions of mine, to which knowledgeable replies will be appreciated:

1) Why is it that access to London Heathrow seems to be the focal point of opposition to the proposed BA/AA alliance? Seems, from what I have read that that their proposed partnership otherwise is neither more nor less than we already have with Star Alliance, Skyteam, One World, NW/KL et al.

2) What is so special about slots into heavily congested LHR vs. flying into LGW or even Stansted or Luton? If it's an issue of connecting flights, it seems like British Midland (Star Alliance) and British Airways have a virtual lock on current (UA/BD) and potential (AA/BA) alliance partner codeshare connections at LHR.

Like many who have replied to this topic, I oppose the AA/BA alliance; however, I cannot help but question why broader access to LHR (vs. the other London area airports) seems to be so frequently raised as the main issue.

Please help me understand.
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3779
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

Tango-Bravo

Sun Dec 23, 2001 2:26 pm

To answer you first question, DL, CO, US, NW are not asking for broader access to LHR. They are asking for access, plain and simple, as none of these carriers is currently allowed to serve the airport. You are right in stating that AA/BA do not control any more slots than NW/KL, UA/LH, and DL/AF. In fact, AA/BA would control fewer slots at LHR than all of the other alliances control at their respective European hub. But, the point is that all the other hubs are open to any airline that wants to serve them. This is obviously not true of LHR and is the reason behind the call for greater access.

To answer your second question, it is not a matter of the connecting market, but a matter of yields. Yields at LHR are significantly higher than they are at LGW. Thus, US airlines are desperate to gain access to the airport despite its congested nature.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3779
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

Ladevale

Sun Dec 23, 2001 2:47 pm

You are not seriously arguing that the deal will go through because Bob Novak said so are you? Last I checked Novak does not have final say in the crafting of international aviation agreements. Besides have you not read the countless reports of those in the know, who are certain that deal will not go through in its present form.

Anyway, regardless of the political forces mentioned by Novak, the DOJ can, and will, block an alliance between AA and BA if it sees that it will ultimately stifle competition between the US and London. Arm-twisting of the DOJ by high level government officials is beyond unethical. It is downright contemptible. Besides, if I remember correctly, there is a little body headquartered in Brussels called the EU that may see things vis-a-vis competition just a little bit differently than Pres. Bush and Prime Minister Blair do.





Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
LJ
Posts: 4127
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Sun Dec 23, 2001 9:51 pm

In fact, the EU Commission is currently looking into all "open skies" agreements except for the "open skies" agreemement between the USA and The Netherlands. The EU wants to see these "open skies" agreements to be declared void as EU Commission claims its their jurisdiction (the reason why the "open skies" policy between the USA and The Netherlands isn't included is becaause this agreement has been signed before the Maastricht treaty which, according to the EU, gives the EU the authority).

Anyway not don't AA and BA just give up 9 daily slots (that's what the DOJ asks for)? It's much less than the 20 daily slots the DOJ previously demanded.

Regards
Laurens
 
AIR MALTA
Posts: 1733
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:45 am

I'm Fed Up With Usa!

Sun Dec 23, 2001 10:13 pm

Well , I have to say this decision amazed ... Why is it not possible for BA and AA to ally... Why did they allow UA and LH to cooperate on the US and German market.. Why KL and NW and not BA and AA... I mean LH and UA are strong in the US/German market amd no one complaims at all about that ... This is not fair at all !
Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Mon Dec 24, 2001 12:08 am

so people on here cat seem to accept that routes between london and america do have other carriers except for BA/AA.

They dont seem to accept that the advantages of lfying from heathorw arent that great.

they dont accept that allowing a Delta/AF, an KLM/Northwest and United/bmi/lufthansa isnt fair if you dont allow a BA/AA...

This thread smacks of hypocrisy..the reason being is BA and AA are excellent airlines and the world cant except it...if you say that they arent that great then you shouldnt have to worry about competiton for if BA/AA are bad airlines then nobody would fly with them would they?

if BA goes bankrupt people will be happy..if air france goes it would be a tradgery..i am sick of this anti-BA spin.

ps...do you really expect BA to sit there and take this from the DoJ...this deal will pass by hook or by crook.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Mon Dec 24, 2001 1:11 am

"if BA goes bankrupt people will be happy..if air france goes it would be a tradgery..i am sick of this anti-BA spin" - Get used to it. I know I have!

I think the point some people are trying to make is that BAAA will be much bigger than DL/AF, LH/UA.

In addition, I think we all know that LHR is bigger and arguably better in passenger numbers sense than FRA / CDG.

Let us continue with enlightenment and calm...
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
blink182
Posts: 5278
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 1999 3:09 am

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Mon Dec 24, 2001 2:52 am

Redraider said it pretty well
"60 percent is not a monopoly". I would love to see the percentage of LH/UA on FRA-USA routes, DL/AF CDG-USA, KL/NW AMS-USA routes.

American paid 150 million(i believe) for the LHR slots. The other airlines didn't pay, therefor AA got them. AA and BA want to make an alliance out of LHR with each other. Instead of AA having the LHR slots, it could have very well been Delta, or United having all of them.

The point is, American paid for those slots, and any airline around during the time the slots were sold, could have bought them, but they didn't.

Not only that, but American and British Airways are great carriers, shouldn't you reward them by letting them work together?

rgds,
blink182
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24599
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: BA/AA Alliance: US Antitrust Officials Oppose Deal

Mon Dec 24, 2001 3:17 am

This is ridiculous. All AA and BA want is a joint-operation similar to NW/KL, DL/AF, and UA/LH. If the other airlines don't like the fact that AA/BA will happen to make use of the premier European hub - LHR, tough. They're problem, not AA/BA. Go AA/BA! And I hope, and think, that this will be over with in January, and AA/BA will come out on top.
a.