jimyvr
Posts: 1597
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:08 pm

BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:41 pm

LONDON, March 22 (Reuters) - British Airways (BAY.L: Quote, Profile , Research) would look at operating flights across the United States from New York if the U.S. fully liberalises its aviation industry from 2010, Chief Executive Willie Walsh said on Thursday.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...1-58_WLB6932&type=comktNews&rpc=44

Looks like this will be a minimal domestic US operation if goes ahead.
1000 - 01MAR07 | http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/
 
AirlineFanatic
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 2:21 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:12 pm

minimal but it will impact US carriers where it hurts most - transcons! with BA service... sounds like 2010 and beyond will be a very interesting time in the industry if the plans go forward
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:16 pm

Unless I've missed it, the issue of cabotage was not addressed in the agreement. The position remains the same, no cabotage is allowed.
Fly fast, live slow
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:42 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 2):
Unless I've missed it, the issue of cabotage was not addressed in the agreement. The position remains the same, no cabotage is allowed.

I believe that what you have said is true, however, Willie Walsh didn't actually mention carrying passengers from the USA, but mearly to operate flights within America, most likely as add-ons to their normal USA east coast flights, therefore freeing up aircrafts for other routes and perhaps maximising aircraft use. Much like QF do with their LAX-JFK flight.

"There may be some of the U.S. domestic market that we find interesting," he said. "An opportunity to serve the West Coast from New York could be something BA would look at."
That quote is about as close as he gets to saying BA would like to operate flights carrying USA boarding and departing passengers. However, I doubt BA will be able to get passenger rights for flights within the USA for a while yet.

wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
commavia
Posts: 9649
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 am

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
Looks like this will be a minimal domestic US operation if goes ahead.

If by "minimal," they mean "none," then yes, it will be minimal.

There is less than no chance whatsoever that the U.S. will ever agree to this. Walsh and BA should just save their time and energy, because it's not ever going to happen.

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 3):
I believe that what you have said is true, however, Willie Walsh didn't actually mention carrying passengers from the USA, but mearly to operate flights within America, most likely as add-ons to their normal USA east coast flights

If he is talking about carrying passengers from JFK to the West Coast (see below), that is, indeed, domestic flights, and even if they are add-ons to inbound international flights, that would still involve carrying local domestic customers -- illegal under this new agreement and not soon to change ...

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 3):
"There may be some of the U.S. domestic market that we find interesting," he said. "An opportunity to serve the West Coast from New York could be something BA would look at."
 
Concorde001
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:53 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:47 am

Willie Walsh is referring to the right the British Government has secured from the EU to automatically terminate traffic rights into LHR if ownership and cabotage restrictions are not lifted by 2010.
 
commavia
Posts: 9649
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:53 am

Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 5):
Willie Walsh is referring to the right the British Government has secured from the EU to automatically terminate traffic rights into LHR if ownership and cabotage restrictions are not lifted by 2010.

I suppose I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that is what the E.U. agreed to -- because everyone (including Walsh and the U.K. government) no full-well it will never happen.

From the Times of London:

However, Britain did win a key concession that the deal would be scrapped unless the US began talks within two years to open its domestic air routes to foreign airliners, and to allow greater foreign investment in its domestic carriers, which were both key UK demands.

As I understand it, the E.U. just agreed to revoke the agreement if the U.S. doesn't start talking about cabotage and ownership within a few years. I'm sure the U.S. will have no problem talking until everyone is blue in the face, but they'll never actually agree to that -- not with the politics in the U.S. the way they are right now, and certainly not right before or right after a Presidential election.

In 2007 or 2008 or 2009, seriously discussing allowing foreign companies to compete with such a sacred and badly beaten domestic industry (i.e., airlines) is unthinkable. Americans are already so sensitive to outsourcing and offshoring, and remember how the protectionist-populists in the Congress stupidly reacted to the harmless DPW deal. That will be child's play compared to what would happen if this President, or any other, ever seriously entertained the idea of letting a French, or Italian, or British, or Polish, airline fly from Cincinnati to Des Moines.

Not going to happen.
 
juventus
Posts: 2017
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:12 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:37 am

US airlines connecting LHR with CDG or FRA. European airlines connecting JFK with LAX or SFO. Who wins, who looses???

I must say the tought of a BA 777 flying from JFK to LAX will be a great sight.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:48 am

BA and the UK government are playing their hand by making these public statements as the EU approves the open-skies WITHOUT such provisions. They want to scare the USA into not signing open skies.

BA is the most protected carrier in the western world. It's sad the lengths they will go to to keep it that way.

And if anyone doesn't understand WHY it's bad for BA to fly in the USA, just look at what they would want to do:

-pluck high revenue pax off lucrative routes.

This will have a severely negative impact on smaller USA markets. If foreign airlines are allowed to enter the domestic US market and syphon off pax on a limited number of routes without any obligation to feed smaller markets, it hurts the US consumer. There is not a shortage of options JFK-SFO or LAX-JFK. BA is attacking from the outside and VS is attacking from the inside, but both of their goals is to pillage routes in the USA and damage their USA based competition internationally.

I'm sending a letter to my Senator about this issue right now.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Speedbird2155
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:44 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:08 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
BA is the most protected carrier in the western world. It's sad the lengths they will go to to keep it that way.

And if anyone doesn't understand WHY it's bad for BA to fly in the USA, just look at what they would want to do:

-pluck high revenue pax off lucrative routes.

This will have a severely negative impact on smaller USA markets. If foreign airlines are allowed to enter the domestic US market and syphon off pax on a limited number of routes without any obligation to feed smaller markets, it hurts the US consumer. There is not a shortage of options JFK-SFO or LAX-JFK. BA is attacking from the outside and VS is attacking from the inside, but both of their goals is to pillage routes in the USA and damage their USA based competition internationally.

I'm sending a letter to my Senator about this issue right now.

Interesting, US carriers get open access to the EU, but the thought of EU carriers getting the same rights in the US is an issue. This is the basic reason why the EU should never have agreed to this plan. It does not treat all carriers equally and is very heavily in favour of US carriers. BA and VS are right to condemn it.

As for BA being the most protected carrier in the western world, you should look first at which carriers benefit from bankruptcy protection, before making such statements. BA has fought on its own to survive in recent years with no help from the UK government. The strong position BA is in today is all down to its management and staff who have done what was needed to ensure the carrier's survival. We've been through a lot and I am proud to work for a carrier that has staff with such a high level of team spirit and pride (even during the most difficult periods that we have seen).
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:21 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
without any obligation to feed smaller markets

Do US airlines really have any obligation to serve smaller markets?
How is this regulated?
Do they get fined for pulling off money losing routes?
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:32 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
BA and the UK government are playing their hand by making these public statements as the EU approves the open-skies WITHOUT such provisions. They want to scare the USA into not signing open skies.

BA is the most protected carrier in the western world. It's sad the lengths they will go to to keep it that way.

And if anyone doesn't understand WHY it's bad for BA to fly in the USA, just look at what they would want to do:



Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
Interesting, US carriers get open access to the EU, but the thought of EU carriers getting the same rights in the US is an issue. This is the basic reason why the EU should never have agreed to this plan. It does not treat all carriers equally and is very heavily in favour of US carriers. BA and VS are right to condemn it.

 checkmark ...exactly...if U.S. carriers for all intents and purposes get cabotage rights, then European carriers should also.....and as mentioned above, flying transcon on BA would be quite interesting..especially if I can get AA miles.. yes ...

Fair is fair....
"Up the Irons!"
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:33 am

I dropped a letter to Clinton, McCain and Feinstein (2 presidential candidates and my state Senator). They're all involved in this fake scandal right now, but we'll see if they respond.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
Interesting, US carriers get open access to the EU, but the thought of EU carriers getting the same rights in the US is an issue.

No, we don't. We can't fly inter-france, inter-england etc. under this agreement.

You are redefining the EU to be equal to the USA. Fine, believe that. But you are sovereign nations in a trading pact. The USA is ONE nation of non-sovereign states.

Open Skies doesn't grant us the right to fly LHR-MAN, for example. The few "domestic" routes in the EU we have are legacy routes, like the Berlin Airlift route, the inter-Ireland route that was mandated by Ireland, etc.

BA's red herring cabotage argument is just that. Not relevant. But they know it will play well with anti-USA minded EU citizens who want to believe we are being unfair because it is in their mindset to think of the USA as a big bully.

And yet, the same outrage isn't leveled against France for making it nearly impossible for other EU airlines to operate flights solely within France. Go figure...

Nor do some people seem to care that this change is being made to the agreement AFTER it was already negotiated. That is a bad faith negotiating tactic, and basically means the USA can't trust any treaty they work out with the EU because they'll just change it later. Does that sit well with you?

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 10):
Do US airlines really have any obligation to serve smaller markets?
How is this regulated?

Not anymore. But they have built a "system" model that comes from the days of regulation. AA, DL, CO, UA and US all still have a strong commitment to serving the whole country, but they can do so because they can count on certain revenue streams.

If you destroy high revenue yields on key markets though, you damage these airlines. BA has no intention of flying these routes. They want F traffic from JFK-LAX. They don't want to serve Y passengers from CLE-STL.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
commavia
Posts: 9649
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:34 am

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
Interesting, US carriers get open access to the EU, but the thought of EU carriers getting the same rights in the US is an issue.

U.S. carriers will get open access to fly to points within the E.U. from the U.S., and E.U. carriers will get open access to fly to points in the U.S. from the E.U. In addition, U.S. carriers will retain the right to fly between sovereign nations that exist within the E.U., even though the odds of any U.S. carrier actually using any of those rights anytime soon is slim.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
It does not treat all carriers equally and is very heavily in favour of US carriers.

How so?

What do U.S. carriers get that E.U. carriers don't? The E.U. is not a sovereign nation, and as such, a hypothetical U.S. flag carrier flying between two different E.U. countries (again, quite far-fetched for 2007) is not cabotage. On the other hand, BA contemplating flying from JFK to LAX is absolutely, unequivically, undeniably the definition of cabotage -- transporting local passengers on a domestic internal sector within a foreign country. That is not what U.S. carriers have, as no U.S. carrier could, before or after this agreement comes into effect, start flying from London to Manchester or Frankfurt to Munich. Either the E.U. is a sovereign nation or it's not. You can't pick and choose which one you want depending on which is more convenient at the time.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:39 am

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
As for BA being the most protected carrier in the western world, you should look first at which carriers benefit from bankruptcy protection, before making such statements. BA has fought on its own to survive in recent years with no help from the UK government. The strong position BA is in today is all down to its management and staff who have done what was needed to ensure the carrier's survival. We've been through a lot and I am proud to work for a carrier that has staff with such a high level of team spirit and pride (even during the most difficult periods that we have seen).

Bankruptcy laws in the US aren't specifically for airlines. On the other hand Bermuda 2 provisisions specifically protect UK airlines from competition.

Anyway, I wonder if BA could have filed for bankruptcy in the US if it wanted to. Avianca did so.

Quoting Speedbird2155 (Reply 9):
Interesting, US carriers get open access to the EU, but the thought of EU carriers getting the same rights in the US is an issue

Has it occurred to you that there is no route equivalent to a US transcontinental in the EU in terms of revenue passenger miles? These high RPM routes are the only ones that would be worthwhile for EU carriers to try and fly using the big long haul birds they use to fly to the US.

NYC (40°43'N 74°01'W) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 273° (W) 2139 nm
NYC (40°43'N 74°01'W) SFO (37°37'08"N 122°22'30"W) 281° (W) 2236 nm
NYC (40°43'N 74°01'W) SEA (47°26'56"N 122°18'34"W) 297° (NW) 2092 nm
IAD (38°56'40"N 77°27'21"W) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 274° (W) 1988 nm
IAD (38°56'40"N 77°27'21"W) SFO (37°37'08"N 122°22'30"W) 282° (W) 2102 nm
IAD (38°56'40"N 77°27'21"W) SEA (47°26'56"N 122°18'34"W) 299° (NW) 2004 nm
LHR (51°28'39"N 00°27'41"W) FRA (50°01'35"N 08°32'35"E) 100° (E) 354 nm
LHR (51°28'39"N 00°27'41"W) CDG (49°00'35"N 02°32'52"E) 140° (SE) 188 nm
CDG (49°00'35"N 02°32'52"E) FRA (50°01'35"N 08°32'35"E) 73° (E) 242 nm
DUB (53°25'17"N 06°16'12"W) ATH (37°56'11"N 23°56'40"E) 114° (SE) 1555 nm
LHR (51°28'39"N 00°27'41"W) ATH (37°56'11"N 23°56'40"E) 118° (SE) 1312 nm
LIS (38°46'53"N 09°08'09"W) HEL (60°19'02"N 24°57'48"E) 33° (NE) 1819 nm
MAD (40°29'37"N 03°34'00"W) HEL (60°19'02"N 24°57'48"E) 32° (NE) 1593 nm
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 20

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:45 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):

Open Skies doesn't grant us the right to fly LHR-MAN, for example. The few "domestic" routes in the EU we have are legacy routes, like the Berlin Airlift route, the inter-Ireland route that was mandated by Ireland, etc.

...its a moot point as U.S. carriers wouldn't have a chance against the incumbents (especially the LCC's)

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 14):
Bankruptcy laws in the US aren't specifically for airlines. On the other hand Bermuda 2 provisisions specifically protect UK airlines from competition.

...which is now basically ending...

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 14):
Has it occurred to you that there is no route equivalent to a US transcontinental in the EU in terms of revenue passenger miles? These high RPM routes are the only ones that would be worthwhile for EU carriers to try and fly using the big long haul birds they use to fly to the US.

Its the long-haul flights for the European carriers such as BD and BA which are profitable for them too..this is something which US carriers can take advantage of..

For example, I would prefer to fly on AA SJC-ORD-LHR-DXB..rather than either flying BA SFO-LHR-DXB or switching terminals, etc.......with Open Skies, it is now possible...

[Edited 2007-03-22 19:57:25]
"Up the Irons!"
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:46 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
illegal under this new agreement

Have you read the agreement? If you have could you please point out this clause, I must have misread it.
 
commavia
Posts: 9649
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:52 am

Quoting ANother (Reply 16):
Have you read the agreement?

Have you?

While I don't have it in front of me, I invite you to show me a single statement, article, release, or -- if possible -- the text itself, stating that this agreement permits cabotage within the U.S. by E.U. carriers. Until then, I feel quite confident that it is, indeed, illegal -- as it has been for decades -- for a European (or any foreign) carrier to carry local passengers within the United States.
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:57 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
That is a bad faith negotiating tactic, and basically means the USA can't trust any treaty they work out with the EU because they'll just change it later. Does that sit well with you?

Gee I wonder where the EU learned that tactic from? But I will stay on topic here.

This isn't a EU vs US matter - this is a matter that the ownership and control provisions and restrictions on where an airline (US, EU or any other nation) can operate is bad for our industry. Regulation should be limited to one thing - safety.
 
Humberside
Posts: 3223
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:44 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:07 am

Would BA really fly on US domestic routes when its an aliance with AA? And especially on routes like JFK-West Coast, which are served by AA

I just can't see this ever happenning unless BA/AA merged and became one
Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:10 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 15):

..and your point is Atmx2000? Its the long-haul flights for the European carriers such as BD and BA which are profitable for them too..this is something which US carriers can take advantage of..

My point is there is a reason why BA is particularly interested in flying NYC-LAX or other transcontinental routes instead of say NYC-ORD. The EU doesn't offer any routes of similar revenue generation potential.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:17 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 20):
My point is there is a reason why BA is particularly interested in flying NYC-LAX or other transcontinental routes instead of say NYC-ORD. The EU doesn't offer any routes of similar revenue generation potential.

1)Apologies for being rude (hence I edited my comment)
2)Of course BA will be interested in NYC-LAX (even though with the probability of Virgin America coming online, the route will start suffering from over-exposure)....but as I stated before, the EU certainly does offer routes of similar revenue generation....

Cheers.. Smile
"Up the Irons!"
 
mutu
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:04 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:19 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
BA is the most protected carrier in the western world. It's sad the lengths they will go to to keep it that way.

And here you go again with more factless trash. DO you kiss your momma with that mouth? BA is NOT protected. It faces more competition at its home market than most carriers. We do not have to fly BA from LHR when we can fly EOS, SIlverjet or MAxjet from alternate London airports where the whole experience (airport and in the air) is pretty close to BA but for about half the fare. THats why those carriers are doing so well.

Dont make wild statements without any knowledge or factual basis.
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:24 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
There is less than no chance whatsoever that the U.S. will ever agree to this. Walsh and BA should just save their time and energy, because it's not ever going to happen.

Is there any argument at all that can support the continued operation of flights like UA934 (HNL-LAX-LHR) but prevents any EU airline operating in direct competition with them.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 14):
Bankruptcy laws in the US aren't specifically for airlines. On the other hand Bermuda 2 provisisions specifically protect UK airlines from competition.

Bermuda 2 does not specifically protect UK airlines from competition. While it limits the competition that AA, BA, UA and VS experience on LHR-USA routes it prevents other airlines like BD and CO from operating to the USA out of LHR and be assured that BD is a UK airline just as much as CO is an American airline.

The most important of these LHR-USA routes is LHR-JFK which last summer was operated by no less than six airlines. While this is a high density route that can certainly cater for more than six competitors it is worth pointing out that in world wide commercial aviation there were relatively few routes where there was more competition than on this route (measured by the number of alternative carriers).
 
bastew
Posts: 740
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:21 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:29 am

Did the US government not make several financial contributions to the US legacy carriers after 9/11 to assist them in increased costs for security/insurance etc?
 
commavia
Posts: 9649
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:29 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 23):
Is there any argument at all that can support the continued operation of flights like UA934 (HNL-LAX-LHR) but prevents any EU airline operating in direct competition with them.

I still, honestly, don't get why this is so difficult to understand.

UA934 operates HNL-LAX-LHR, and can carrying local passengers on either or both of those sectors, because that is a flight operated by a carrier from one country, originating within that country, flying to a second stop in that country, and thing continuing as the same flight number of a third point in a different country.

That would be no different than if BA wanted to make BA207 operate GLA-LHR-MIA with a single flight number but change of plane at Heathrow. If BA wanted to do that, the U.S. would have no objection, nor should it. Similarly, if Lufthansa wanted to make LH458 operate TXL-MUC-SFO with a single flight number but change of plane at Munich. If Lufthansa wanted to do that, once again, the U.S. would have no objection, nor should it. These are appropriate examples of what E.U. carriers could do if they chose -- namely, linking their intercontinental flights from their hubs to intercontinental markets with domestic sectors.

On the other hand, if BA were to, say, make BA283 fly LHR-LAX, stop, pick up domestic U.S. passengers, and then carry them on to HNL, they would be transporting passengers within the United States. That is illegal and not allowed, and it never will be.

Again, for the millionth time, a flight within the United States is not the same as a flight within the European Union. The United States is a sovereign nation. The European Union is, well, whatever it decides to call itself on any given week, but it is most certainly not a sovereign nation. If the European Union asserts its sovereign authority over the independent member states of the E.U., then you might have a point, but until then, your comparison is erroneous.

Again: why should any E.U. airline be able to carry local passengers within the United States while a U.S. carrier isn't allowed to carry local passengers within France, or within Germany, or within Britain?

Quoting BAStew (Reply 24):
Did the US government not make several financial contributions to the US legacy carriers after 9/11 to assist them in increased costs for security/insurance etc?

The U.S. carriers were reimbursed for being grounded for nearly a week by the federal government. The reimbursements they received didn't even come close to covering the billions lost as a result of that grounding. In addition to that, several U.S. carriers did receive loans that the government agreed to guarantee. To my knowledge, however, none of the airlines that received government-guaranteed loans are competing across the Atlantic. The closest would be America West, which has since merged with USAirways, but they received they paid back their loan -- in full -- before they merged.
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:40 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 13):
Either the E.U. is a sovereign nation or it's not. You can't pick and choose which one you want depending on which is more convenient at the time.

Absolutely agree. Hell, if the EU is one country now, let's combine the UK and France's seat on the UN Security Council.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 25):
Again, for the millionth time, a flight within the United States is not the same as a flight within the European Union. The United States is a sovereign nation. The European Union is, well, whatever it decides to call itself on any given week, but it is most certainly not a sovereign nation. If the European Union asserts its sovereign authority over the independent member states of the E.U., then you might have a point, but until then, your comparison is erroneous.

I'm not sure why others are having such a difficult time understanding the concept of cabotage, but I share your frustration Commavia.
 
mush
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:01 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:01 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 25):

Again: why should any E.U. airline be able to carry local passengers within the United States while a U.S. carrier isn't allowed to carry local passengers within France, or within Germany, or within Britain?

Exactly! It would be just plain stupid for the US to allow a foreign airline cabotage rights. No US airline is able to, or wants to, fly NCE to CDG, or MAN to LHR, or Madrid to Barcelona, or Frankfurt to Berlin. Why should a European airline be given the right to fly JFK to LAX?

Last time I checked France was it's own separate country and so was Spain and so is every other COUNTRY in Europe.

When someone asks you where you're from what do you say? I'll bet $$$$ that no one says "I'm from Europe". Instead saying I'm from Scotland, or I'm from Luxembourg, or I'm from Romania.

I don't understand why people can't understand this.

I've been across the pond a few times and love Europe. Also, I'm a firm believer in free trade. But cabotage rights for Spanish airlines in the US when US airlines DON'T HAVE cabotage rights in Spain is just plain stupid.

Thanks,
mush
Sprung from cages out on highway 9
 
JRDC930
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:36 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:09 am

I think it would be great if this happened, let airlines who are competently run have the opportunity to compete in the US. The US consumer will finaly have the opportunity to fly transcon on airlines that are competantly run and can provide both decent service at reasonable fares , as opposed to the crap offered by U.S. carriers. Id love to see how U.S. airlines react to the drastic gap in service levels, cut more amenities? Likely. If some U.S. carriers have to die because they cant compete let them. Its their own fault for being incompetantly run into the ground. there will always be enough competition even if foreign owned that can replace them and be run competently without treating passengers like cattle. Unfortunately i dont think this will happen. A certain political party that recently came to power in congress is unlikely to allow this. And most of Joe Public wont be able to see the benefits that competantly fun foreign airlines would have on U.S. air travel.

One can hope though...
U.S. Legacy carriers,STILL leaders in lowering industry standards...
 
mush
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:01 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 20

Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:19 am

One last thing...for those that are holding out hope that cabotage will one day be granted in the US...don't hold your breath. Any treaty that the US enters into must be approved by the United States Senate. There are a number of Senators from New Jersey, New York, Georgia, California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Florida, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, Colorado, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Arizona, and any other state that has a hub for a legacy carrier that will be lobbied relentlessly by the big six to nix the deal. Or do y'all think the big six are going to drive nails into their own coffins and say nothing while this is happening?

Also, I'm sure the unions will have something to say when 10s of thousands of their rank-and-file are facing job termination because Alitalia is now flying the BOS-NYC-DC shuttle.

How many politicians in the US are going to choose to get voted out of office for supporting American job losses? My guess is zero.

Thanks,
mush

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 26):

Absolutely agree. Hell, if the EU is one country now, let's combine the UK and France's seat on the UN Security Council.

haha...we can call it the EU seat.
Sprung from cages out on highway 9
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:21 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 17):
Have you?

While I don't have it in front of me, I invite you to show me a single statement, article, release, or -- if possible -- the text itself, stating that this agreement permits cabotage within the U.S. by E.U. carriers. Until then, I feel quite confident that it is, indeed, illegal -- as it has been for decades -- for a European (or any foreign) carrier to carry local passengers within the United States.

Of course I have. Follow this link and you will find the council regulation that was voted. The text of the agreement is at the end. I invite you to show me where it says it is 'illegal' for an EU airline to fly a domestic sector in the US.

Also - how do you interpret this: (In particular 2c, 2h and 2i)?

2. Each airline may on any or all flights and at its option:
a. operate flights in either or both directions;
b. combine different flight numbers within one aircraft operation;
c. serve behind, intermediate, and beyond points and points in the territories of the Parties in any combination and in any order;
d. omit stops at any point or points;
e. transfer traffic from any of its aircraft to any of its other aircraft at any point;
f. serve points behind any point in its territory with or without change of aircraft or flight number and hold out and advertise such services to the public as through services;
g. make stopovers at any points whether within or outside the territory of either Party;
h. carry transit traffic through the other Party’s territory; and
i. combine traffic on the same aircraft regardless of where such traffic originates;
without directional or geographic limitation and without loss of any right to carry traffic otherwise permissible under this Agreement.
 
commavia
Posts: 9649
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 20

Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:44 am

Quoting ANother (Reply 30):
Of course I have.

First off, thank you for finding the text and providing us all with it.

But after reading the text, there is absolutely nowhere where cabotage is expressly or implicitly allowed. Indeed, the lack of mention of it points to its complete illegality and disapproval.

Quoting ANother (Reply 30):
c. serve behind, intermediate, and beyond points and points in the territories of the Parties in any combination and in any order;

Airlines from one side can serve "behind, intermediate, and beyond points" -- one thought -- and "points in the territories of the Parties in any combination and in any order" -- another seperate thought.

This means (first thought) that Lufthansa can fly FRA-MIA-MEX, and carry local passengers between MIA and MEX and (second thought) that Air France can fly from CDG to JFK, ORD, DSM or any other U.S. city.

Quoting ANother (Reply 30):
carry transit traffic through the other Party�s territory;

This means that BA could carry UK-originating passengers on a continuing LHR-JFK-YYZ route and still land the plane in JFK to pick up local passengers heading up to Canada.

Quoting ANother (Reply 30):
combine traffic on the same aircraft regardless of where such traffic originates

This means that KLM can put passengers from India, Pakistan, Dubai, Johannesburg and Luxembourg onto the same flight leaving AMS for EWR.
 
ANother
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:47 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:57 am

I'm not going to argue the point. My original post was intended to point out that you were making rash statements, without having read the text. I am glad you now have had the opportunity to have read it.

My point is that ownership and control rules, traffic right restictions are bad for OUR industry. US airlines, as well as EU (and Swiss) airlines are inhibited by these archaic rules that date back to Bermuda I (1946).

We a.nutters have to throw away our chauvanistic approach and forget what might be good for the USA, EU or even Leictenstien and forcus on what's good for our biggest love - aviation.
 
jfk777
Posts: 5828
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:57 am

BA only wants the "Prime Cuts", JFK to California. I wonder why, aren't these the only routres in the USA with 3 class international type service ? BA should try JFk to San Juan and Santo Domingo, they would probably not like those so much.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:09 am

I think all of you have missed the positioning behind British Airways Statement.

With the conclusion of an Open Skies Agreement and the ability of US Carriers to access Heathrow, there is now no logical argument against the BA/AA pact because any EU and any US airline can now compete against them. More to the point, British Airways would want the ownership restrictions relaxed so it can but a substantial stake in AA and cement the alliance further.

The CFO of United, Jake Brace, has already stated, "Heathrow will face more competition and we accept that,'' said Chief Financial Officer Jake Brace in a conference yesterday. ''The real benefit of open skies is the opportunity to work more closely with international carriers and explore combinations of carriers.'' http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...20601102&sid=a23sPchty4nU&refer=uk

Air France has also made its position clear, "''This agreement will also allow EU and U.S. antitrust authorities to approve more commercial integration inside alliances,'' said Air France in a statement. ''This will benefit global alliances like SkyTeam, which will be in a position to deliver a seamless worldwide product to customers.'' (Again from the Bloomberg article)

This is exactly where all of this is heading!!! Star, Oneworld Carriers and Skyteam carriers can and will co-ordinate schedules and expand alliances throughout all the major European Capitals. BA wouldn't want to fly domestically within the US but they would want the right to buy chunk of AA if they wanted to. The stick would be the threat of withdrawing access to Heathrow to the non-Bermuda 2 airlines. Given that the US & UK would want to avoid that, I'd have thought a loosening of the ownership restrictions, by say a lifting of the cap on foreign investment, would be the obvious compromise. That could actually be good for US Airlines because it would give them access to more capital plus it cements alliances further. The current laws regarding exercising control etc could remain in place to assuage Politicians concerns of foreign control. Unless of course EK/Ethiad/Qatar Airways/Gulf Air/Saudi Arabian/Royal Jordanian/Egypt Air etc tried to buy a stake. Just like Dubai World Ports I'm sure ridiculous paranoia's can be found to block them from owning stakes. I'll bet El AL could be a successful bidder though. (Too cynical???)
 
bastew
Posts: 740
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:21 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:39 am

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 33):
BA only wants the "Prime Cuts", JFK to California. I wonder why, aren't these the only routres in the USA with 3 class international type service ? BA should try JFk to San Juan and Santo Domingo, they would probably not like those so much.

Of course! We are a business not a charity.
 
Aisak
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:56 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:57 am

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
British Airways (BAY.L: Quote, Profile , Research) would look at operating flights across the United States from New York

It's not a big deal..... They haven't said they will fly people with origin New York and destination LA.... They have said "flights across the United States from New York". They haven't said "to Canada" "to Argentina" or "to Los Angeles"

If they want to fly LHR-JFK-LAX, sure they can. As they currently do LHR-DTW-IAH or did LHR-ORD-IAH in the past. Or just like Qantas do SYD-LAX-JFK. Or Delta did JFK-BCN-MAD-JFK or Avianca BOG-ALC-BCN-BOG

That's not cabotage... That's flying an internationalized domestic sector. They can't carry local passengers but that's it.


And this is what allows them to do so:

Quoting ANother (Reply 30):
g. make stopovers at any points whether within or outside the territory of either Party;

They could even fly LHR-JFK-LAX allowing MAN-JFK passenger to "jump in" the JFK-LAX leg. Just like Qantas do with MEL and still won't be 8th freedom or cabotage. They could even market MAN-JFK-LAX with one flight code even if passengers have to switch planes to the one doing the LHR-JFK-LAX
 
multimark
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:53 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:08 am

Quoting Mush (Reply 29):
Also, I'm sure the unions will have something to say when 10s of thousands of their rank-and-file are facing job termination because Alitalia is now flying the BOS-NYC-DC shuttle.

I must have missed where unions and politicians lobbied so effectively to prevent manufacturing jobs going to China, or Big 3 automaker jobs going to Japanese-owned companies.

Quoting ANother (Reply 32):
My point is that ownership and control rules, traffic right restictions are bad for OUR industry.

You're right. There is absolutely no good readon why US airlines couldn't have a majority foreign ownership. Perhaps the resident xenophobes are expecting Italy to declare war on the USA and jeopardize the mythical Alitalia BOS-NYC-DC shuttle
 sarcastic 
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:23 am

Quoting Aisak (Reply 36):
If they want to fly LHR-JFK-LAX, sure they can.

Why would BA want to fly LHR-JFK-LAX without picking up local passengers? They already have 3x non-stops per day LHR-LAX in the Summer. Don't they also codeshare with AA on LAX-JFK flights?

Who in their right mind would fly LHR-JFK-LAX when there are 7-8 non-stops per DAY on LHR-LAX?
 
gkirk
Posts: 23345
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 20

Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:38 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
BA is the most protected carrier in the western world. It's sad the lengths they will go to to keep it that way.

Whilst not being a BA fan, that is bollocks. Lufthansa and Air France are more protected than BA.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:45 am

Not letting foreign carriers invest in US airlines, or fly within the US, is stupid and irrational on our part. It also flies in the face of the foundations of capitalism, which we try to expouse around the world.

Investment of foreign carriers in US ones is clearly the stupidest part. Such finances would surely shore up the industry and cause a spate of innovation in product which we are SORELY in need of. Who cares who owns the damn things, when clearly American labor will be absolutely required to operate them? Foreign investment is GOOD for the economy, not bad.

Secondly, we allow competition in practically every other market. Aviation is a holdout, and a ludicrous one. If an airline goes out of business as a result of competition, then the winners in those markets will still require the services of those skilled employees to bolster their same services on that route and others. Further, by allowing foreign airlines to operate within the US we give those men and women who have been asked to leave domestic airlines opportunities to re-enter the market with those carriers and continue to use the skills they have, rather than moving on to illustrious careers as waiters, busboys, and cab drivers.

Its short-sighted, and US citizens are the ones who ultimately suffer as a result of that short-sightedness. Market forces are USUALLY RIGHT and governments are FREQUENTLY WRONG.

End.

NS
 
Aisak
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:56 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:48 am

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 38):
Why would BA want to fly LHR-JFK-LAX without picking up local passengers? They already have 3x non-stops per day LHR-LAX in the Summer. Don't they also codeshare with AA on LAX-JFK flights?

Who in their right mind would fly LHR-JFK-LAX when there are 7-8 non-stops per DAY on LHR-LAX?

I didn't say that was sensible. Nor the US domestic venture....

I also don't understand why would they want to fly JFK-LAX even if they could carry local passengers when there are 11x AA, 7x UA, 5x DL..... They would face the competition, not only from legacies, but also LCC's. Even if it's that great BA service, i find US domestic with 8th freedom for BA as logical as flying LHR-JFK-LAX. Interest: 0 (just like domestic in Canada, Spain, Argentina or Australia for that matter)

But if they say they want to "fly across the USA" they would have seen something I obviously don't
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15218
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:50 am

I don't think BA has any desire whatsoever to fly domestically in the US; it's just a ruse to support the 2010 expiration of the deal if US cabotage isn't approved. We should hold BA to their word on operating domestic US services....why would anyone want to operate in the US domestic market? Particularly "legacy" carriers? Make 'em fly JFK-MCO Silly
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:09 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 40):
Not letting foreign carriers invest in US airlines, or fly within the US, is stupid and irrational on our part. It also flies in the face of the foundations of capitalism, which we try to expouse around the world.

...while I completely agree with your points 100%, our congress believes that there should be some sort of protection from the aviation sector in terms of war and/or conflict and their ability to choose a particular carrier...if its foreign owned, our govt. claims this might lead to some sort of compromise in operations or a conflict of interest.....

...well..that's their rational anyway.....

cheers..
"Up the Irons!"
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:41 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 25):
Quoting VV701 (Reply 23):
Is there any argument at all that can support the continued operation of flights like UA934 (HNL-LAX-LHR) but prevents any EU airline operating in direct competition with them.

I still, honestly, don't get why this is so difficult to understand.

Let me try to explain. 'Open Skies' means, well, 'Open Skies'. It requires equal opportunities for the airlines of both the EU and the USA. But if US airlines are allowed to operate services that EU airlines cannot it is neither an 'Open Skies' agreement nor does it offer equal opportunities. And we are not talking here about something that might happen. We are talking about something that has been going on for years. Is this so difficult to understand?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 25):
That would be no different than if BA wanted to make BA207 operate GLA-LHR-MIA

Actually HNL-LAX-LHR is very significantly different to GLA-LHR-MIA. The HNL-LAX leg is 2553 miles and GLA-LHR is only 345 miles. Let me give you an actual example to illustrate the significance of stage length. BA has tried to operate a SAN-LHR 772 flight. But the flight distance of 5517 miles coupled with the short runway at SAN means that the 772 (or, indeed the 744) cannot carry both sufficient fuel for the flight and a full load of passengers and cargo. So it has had to give up the route. But if you are a US airline you can fly a domestic leg to, say ORD and then on to LHR with a 772 or a 744. This is why BA CEO Willie Walsh says that his airline is interested in certain eastern seaboard to western US flights.

The argument that something - in this case cabotage in the USA for EU airlines - is 'illegal' so will never happen is clearly totally fallacious. Bermuda 2 is (or was) a legal agreement. Does that mean it cannot be changed or superseded? Of course not. After all any government could make anything it liked 'illegal'. But if the UK government made the issue of new LHR slots or the sale or lease of existing LHR slots to non-EU airlines 'illegal' - as they could, at least in theory - the howl from our American friends would be justifiably loud. If you sign an Open Skies agreement but have a law that makes it partly ineffective and continues to allow your airlines to operate on certain routes either at an economic advantage or protected from any foreign competition then you have some law changing to do before you can implement the agreement. This is exactly what you do if you sign an 'Open Skies' agreement to replace a restrictive bilateral agreement.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:07 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
But if US airlines are allowed to operate services that EU airlines cannot it is neither an 'Open Skies' agreement nor does it offer equal opportunities.

The point I think continues to be missed that US airlines aren't allowed to operate services that EU airlines cannot. A US airline, under this accord, cannot fly JFK-LHR-MAN, and no EU airline can fly LHR-LAX-HNL.

They are precisely the same thing.

What they are all getting is the ability to fly LHR-JFK-YVR, if they so chose. Perhaps WAW-MIA-MEX. How about TLS-IAD-SCL? These are all possibilities for them, assuming of course the third country agreed.

It doesn't matter how far LAX-HNL is or how nearby LHR-MAN is. The point is that they are in the same country, and under the terms of this specific agreement neither side gets that.

NS
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:18 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 45):
The point I think continues to be missed that US airlines aren't allowed to operate services that EU airlines cannot.

To borrow much of what you have said 'The point I think continues to be missed that US airlines ARE and DO operate services that EU airlines cannot.' These include:

UA920 DEN-IAD-LHR
UA924 LAX-IAD-LHR
UA928 PDX-ORD-LHR
UA930 LAX-SFO-LHR
UA934 HNL-LAX-LHR
UA938 SEA-ORD-LHR
UA958 DEN-ORD-LHR

One solution to ensure that these routes do not continue to be totally monopolised by a US airline and to introduce the possibility of competition is to change US law and allow EU airlines to operate any route to the EU that any US airline operates.

Another equally acceptable solution would be to make it illegal (or withdraw DoT authority) for any route flown or applied for by a US airline to an EU destination that existing US law would forbid an EU airline from operating.

Whichever, it is clear that no true Open Skies agreement can, for example, allow UA to operate HNL-LAX-LHR and not allow any EU airline to compete on the same route.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:23 am

Quoting Mush (Reply 29):
Or do y'all think the big six are going to drive nails into their own coffins and say nothing while this is happening?

You say it like some members of the Big Six don't have something to gain from Open Skies.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
commavia
Posts: 9649
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:44 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
Let me try to explain. 'Open Skies' means, well, 'Open Skies'.

First off, nobody signed an "Open Skies" agreement. The United States of America and the European Union (or, more precisely, 27 independent and sovereign nations) signed a bilateral civil aviation treaty, the "Air Transport Agreement" as the link provided earlier in the thread states. "Open Skies" is a made-up phrase used euphemistically by reporters and pundits, and has absolutely no bearing -- regardless of your definition or mine -- on any actual agreement.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
It requires equal opportunities for the airlines of both the EU and the USA.

No, it requires both sides to agree on something, and then sign off on it. And while I still fail to see how U.S. versus E.U. carriers don't have "equal opportunities," this equality is hardly requisite.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
But if US airlines are allowed to operate services that EU airlines cannot it is neither an 'Open Skies' agreement nor does it offer equal opportunities.

Once again, you still have failed to illustrate for me a right that U.S. carrier has than an E.U. carrier doesn't. I truly don't understand another way of saying this -- the United States is not the same as the European Union. One is a sovereign nation, the other is not. Thus, a U.S. carrier flying from Heathrow to Linate is like BA flying from Boston to Toronto. It is an international flight -- as defined by the international definition of a recognized, sovereign nation -- between two points in two different countries.

As I and others have said repeatedly, when the E.U. establishes itself as a single, independent and superior governing body and is recognized by other nations and the U.N., then your argument will hold water. Until then, it is just simply not founded on sound legal reasoning, as I understand the definition of a sovereign "country."

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
Actually HNL-LAX-LHR is very significantly different to GLA-LHR-MIA. The HNL-LAX leg is 2553 miles and GLA-LHR is only 345 miles.

The stage length means nothing -- a domestic flight is a domestic flight and an international flight is an international flight.

How about this:

BA can fly a 747 from Gibraltar to Bermuda, a length of 3353 miles, and then onward to Honolulu, a length of 5631 miles. Both Gibraltar and Bermuda are British possessions, and a flight between the two would undisputably be a domestic sector, and that routing GIB-BDA-HNL would be almost 1,000 miles longer than LHR-LAX-HNL.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
Let me give you an actual example to illustrate the significance of stage length. BA has tried to operate a SAN-LHR 772 flight. But the flight distance of 5517 miles coupled with the short runway at SAN means that the 772 (or, indeed the 744) cannot carry both sufficient fuel for the flight and a full load of passengers and cargo. So it has had to give up the route.

Life's not fair.

I'm sure that Qantas hates the fact that because they are so far away from everything way down there in Australia, they are forced to make intermediate stops in cities like Singapore or compete with hubs in places like Dubai and Qatar, where dominant local airlines can use powerful connecting complexes to drive stronger yields.

But you know what, that's life. The fact that the entire nation of the United Kingdom is the size of Minnesota is nobody's fault and nobody's problem, but it is also not a reason for a British carrier to get to fly domestic sectors within the United States.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
The argument that something - in this case cabotage in the USA for EU airlines - is 'illegal' so will never happen is clearly totally fallacious.

Are you aware of what American politics are like today? As I have said several times on this thread and others, even those of us (and I could myself in this group) who may be at least partly ideologically or theoretically inclined towards a completely open-market aviation area recognize there is no chance of it happening anytime soon. Politicians flipped out when a few U.S. ports were harmlessly going to outsource dock management to a Dubai company -- and Dubai is a U.S. ally! And then they flipped out when Bush proposed raising the ownership cap from 25% to 49% -- still a minority, non-controlling level -- and threatened to shut down the Department of Transportation if the rule was insituted. With Democrats in control on the Hill, many swept into power on protectionist-populist pledges to slow globalization and "protect American jobs," and even pro-free-trade Congressman and Senators hiding under their desks, do you honestly think the Democratic House and/or Senate would ever approve allowing foreign carriers -- owned by foreign investors (and in some cases foreign governments) to transport U.S. passengers wholly within the U.S.? No way, not going to happen.

Cabotage within the U.S. is illegal, has been illegal and, barring a complete 180-degree reversal of the political headwinds today in Washington, will remain completely and totally illegal well into the future, regardless of what Willie Walsh or Doug Alexander say.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
But if the UK government made the issue of new LHR slots or the sale or lease of existing LHR slots to non-EU airlines 'illegal' - as they could, at least in theory - the howl from our American friends would be justifiably loud.

If the U.K. government ever attempted to revoke the rights of U.S. carriers to land at Heathrow, the reaction from Washington would be swift and stinging -- as others have said, British carriers would instantly lose all landing rights at U.S. airports. I doubt the U.K. will ever pull something that stupid knowing full well that it will only embolden the Americans more and, further, knowing full well that the impact -- in the aggregate -- on its carriers will be far, far more financially punishing than anything experienced by their U.S. counterparts.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 44):
If you sign an Open Skies agreement but have a law that makes it partly ineffective and continues to allow your airlines to operate on certain routes either at an economic advantage or protected from any foreign competition then you have some law changing to do before you can implement the agreement.

First off, once again, this is not an "Open Skies agreement," but rather a bilateral aviation treaty.

Secondly, there is no part of this agreement that invalidates or "makes it partly ineffective" nor "continues to allow [our] airlines to operate on certain routes either at an economic advantage or protected from any foreign competition." You still have failed to show us what U.K. (or other E.U.) carriers will not be allowed to do that U.S. carriers will be permitted to do.

And, frankly, with due respect to a country I absolutely adore, I find it laughable that you would be saying that U.S. carriers are operating on routes "at an economic advantage or protected from any foreign competition" given Britain's posturing in the last few weeks to protect BA. As others have said, BA is one of the most protected airlines on earth, and has benefitted for years from the U.K.'s insistence on protecting BA's turf. Witness how they reacted to even the thought of continental European airlines competing with BA on transatlantic sectors from Heathrow. If that is how the U.K. wants to behave, and if protecting BA is their priority, that is completely fine and I respect and understand it, but then please don't criticize the U.S. for doing nothing of the sort.
 
jetdeltamsy
Posts: 2688
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2000 11:51 am

RE: BA Eyes US Domestic Routes As Soon As Early 2010

Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:40 am

Quoting AirlineFanatic (Reply 1):
it will impact US carriers where it hurts most - transcons!

Transcons are operated more for pretige than for anything else. With the exception of business class fares paid, economy class is a fairly low yield opeation for most Califoria to/from New York routes.

United may have found a niche with its p.s. service, but so far there is no other airline offering such a product.
Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.

Who is online