ADXMatt
Topic Author
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:07 pm

Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:51 pm

Hi All,

Continental has already announced 1x daily IAH-LHR next year with open skies.

Are they about to announce 2x daily IAH-LHR and EWR-LHR? Has anyone else heard this?

What would happen to LGW? would LGW only have 1x seasonal service to CLE/EWR? or would LHR be additional lift and LGW remains unchanged? or combination ?

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21478296/

Deals are not finalised yet, but it is understood that of GB Airways' four pairs of slots, two are to be acquired by Continental Airlines of the US, one by British Airways and one by Qatar Airways.

It is understood that Continental is considering opening twice daily services from Heathrow to both Houston and New York Newark with an announcement possibly next week.

The battle for slots has been particularly intense in recent weeks, as airlines prepare for the Toronto conference, which will agree deals in preparation for the start of the next summer season at the end of March.
 
iluv747400
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2000 8:12 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:52 pm

I think Continental would at least keep a daily 757-200 service between Newark and Gatwick.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13501
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:56 pm

I believe I read they'd still keep their existing IAH-LGW/EWR-LGW service, while CLE-LGW would be seasonal.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:00 pm

I believe LGW would still be a CO destination. However, if CO can pick up a few more slots, CO would run CLE-LHR year-round. I highly doubt the traffic is there to run LHR year-round, and a separate LGW as seasonal from CLE. Maybe I'm wrong, with the expansion coming to CLE, but I just can't see it.

Eventually, CLE service to London will be year-round to LHR.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
CALMSP
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:02 pm

EWR-LGW service stays on board with 757 service.
 
User avatar
iahcsr
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:03 pm

Last heard one IAHLHR, one IAHLGW. EWRLHR at some later point.
Working very hard to Fly Right....
 
CALMSP
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:13 pm

2 - IAH-LHR
2 - EWR-LHR

1 - IAH-LGW
2 - EWR-LGW
1 - CLE-LGW
 
VS11
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:57 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
I believe LGW would still be a CO destination

Well, for the first year or so they do not have a choice but to keep LGW as the USA has to do their part of the Open Sky agreement. LHR was conditionally made open sooner but unless the USA delivers their promise LHR may go restricted again.
 
BAOPS777
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 5:31 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:10 pm

I believe the terms of GB airways franchise finishing early is that BA has first refusal of all the LHR slots and I think they will want them as they are taking over some of the GB routes from March 08
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:12 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 6):
2 - IAH-LHR
2 - EWR-LHR

1 - IAH-LGW
2 - EWR-LGW
1 - CLE-LGW

I have heard exactly the same thing.......777s on the Heathrow flights, 752s on the Gatwick flights.
 
VS11
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:16 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 9):
752s on the Gatwick flights

Can a 757 do IAH-LGW non-stop?
 
777gk
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2000 3:04 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:18 pm

EWR-LHR would probably have at least 3-4 daily flights, and IAH-LHR 2-3, before CLE gets LHR service. Both cities have a larger, higher-yielding O/D market that would need to be addressed with greater priority than CLE. While there is no doubt CLE-LHR would be successful, odds are such a flight is likely a few more years down the road, once EWR/IAH frequencies are fully developed.

CO will maintain some degree of LGW service regardless of the situation at Heathrow. As the London market becomes increasingly fragmented, service to multiple airports will be critical. To that end, it is not out of the question to look for a return to STN or new service to LTN in the longer term.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:25 pm

Quoting VS11 (Reply 10):

No  Smile
 
runway23
Posts: 1926
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:12 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:06 am

A little bird (or some intelligent looking at the GDS) tells me IAH-LGW will become a 764. But I may be wrong.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:10 am

Quoting Runway23 (Reply 13):
A little bird (or some intelligent looking at the GDS) tells me IAH-LGW will become a 764. But I may be wrong.

Or a 762.....we could see some routes swapping equipment types.

Quoting VS11 (Reply 10):
Can a 757 do IAH-LGW non-stop?

Nope, sorry, I was unclear......I was talking about the EWR-LGW flights.
 
runway23
Posts: 1926
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:12 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:45 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 14):
Or a 762.....we could see some routes swapping equipment types.

IAH-LGW has always performed extremely well in terms of freight and businessfirst. Obviously the key here is how much of the freight will be transferred to Heathrow and how many customers will decide to favour Heathrow instead of Gatwick. It's a given that IAH-LGW will still be able to maintain at least 35 paying customers in BF however whether that makes more sense than 25 at higher yields or placing that same aircraft on another route is something only CO knows for sure.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:50 am

Quoting Runway23 (Reply 15):
It's a given that IAH-LGW will still be able to maintain at least 35 paying customers in BF

Thats the key question: is it a ""given"" that the 35 pax BF cabin into Gatwick will remain fully booked if flights into LHR are also avaiable? The 2 772ER flights on the IAH-LHR route results in 100 Biz First seats......are their 35 more Biz First passengers interested in flying to Gatwick?
 
runway23
Posts: 1926
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:12 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:08 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16):
Thats the key question: is it a ""given"" that the 35 pax BF cabin into Gatwick will remain fully booked if flights into LHR are also avaiable? The 2 772ER flights on the IAH-LHR route results in 100 Biz First seats......are their 35 more Biz First passengers interested in flying to Gatwick?

Well the fact that IAH-LGW is continuing suggests that whatever the case there are at least 25 BF (extra) customers willing to fly to London. Can CO fill the extra 10 BF seats and 50ish Y seats on a 764 vs 762 without affecting their yield and losing potential revenue on other routes...
 
CALMSP
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:52 am

i'm concerned how much traffic we will lose to EK once they start the non-stop to DXB. The amount of traffic that we send on our IAH-LGW connecting to EK is astounding.
 
COIAHLGW
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:11 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:43 am

It's amazing to see all of the bags at the carousel at IAH that have the EK DXB codeshare on them. I'll believe the 2x IAH-LHR and 1x IAH-LGW when I see it, especially as the EK flight starts soon.
 
BCALBOY
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:25 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:25 am

Quoting VS11 (Reply 7):
Well, for the first year or so they do not have a choice but to keep LGW as the USA has to do their part of the Open Sky agreement. LHR was conditionally made open sooner but unless the USA delivers their promise LHR may go restricted again.

Sounds a very expensive way to keep the option of LGW open.
I really doubt if CO would maintain LGW for no other reason than in case the agreement gets torn up.
Its an unlikely scenario.

Quoting BAOPS777 (Reply 8):
I believe the terms of GB airways franchise finishing early is that BA has first refusal of all the LHR slots and I think they will want them as they are taking over some of the GB routes from March 08

Don-t think this is the case otherwise I-m sure BA would have snapped up the slots and this would have been
announced at the same time as the Easyjet take-over unless the price was so high that BA passed on the
option.
The original press release from GB stated that the 4 pairs of LHR slots were the subject of 3 separate deals.

Quoting Runway23 (Reply 15):
It's a given that IAH-LGW will still be able to maintain at least 35 paying customers in BF

How can you be so sure of such a figure.
There is significant connecting traffic to/from IAH over LON and LHR offers more of the key destinations and better frequencies.I can-t think of many significant points which are served only via LGW.
The majority of point to point traffic is also likely to favour LHR.
I would be surprised if CO continue to operate IAH/LGW if they can get twice daily at LHR.If they only get 1 daily
at LHR they will maintain 1 daily at LGW until they get more slots at LHR.


EWR is different .I am sure they will operate both LGW and LHR especially if they can us 752s on LGW.




Note that the GB slot times are far from ideal especially for IAH.

They have departure slots at 0650 days 2/5 , 0730 daily exc 2/5 , 0755 daily , 1540 daily , 1600 daily

These look fine for EWR but are very early, very late for the traditional IAH services.


The arrival slots are even more problematic....

1430 daily , 1435 daily...these both require a departure from IAH at 2325 ( very late ) , and 0230 from EWR !!

2215 , 2220 daily.....these would require a departure from EWR at around 1030 lcl , later than other carriers
daylight services and the arr in LON would offer no onward sameday cnnex and too late for tubes etc fm LHR.depart
On IAH/LHR these late slots would require a daylight departure at around 0700 , so would offer very few connections at either end of the route.

Unless CO has a swap lined up with another carrier , I think the GB slots will only serve EWR and they-ll have to find slots for IAH elsewhere .
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:39 am

Quoting VS11 (Reply 7):
Well, for the first year or so they do not have a choice but to keep LGW as the USA has to do their part of the Open Sky agreement. LHR was conditionally made open sooner but unless the USA delivers their promise LHR may go restricted again.

Never gonna happen. The UK government can push for cabotage rights and mergers with USA carriers all it wants, but LHR is going to stay open, and as soon as VS and BA start mainland EU to USA flights, the support for the UK position within the EU is going to dwindle.

Just my opinion, but the whole conditional thing was done to save face, nothing more.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
commavia
Posts: 9803
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:48 am

Quoting VS11 (Reply 7):
Well, for the first year or so they do not have a choice but to keep LGW as the USA has to do their part of the Open Sky agreement.

Huh?

From March 2008, every single airport within the European Union (and yes, that includes the U.K., for those playing at home) will be open to any U.S. carrier to fly from anywhere in the U.S. at any price, with any schedule and aircraft, assuming they can get requisite slots. The agreement makes absolutely no distinction between the U.K. and the continent, or Gatwick and Heathrow. Everything is open ... everything.

Quoting VS11 (Reply 7):
LHR was conditionally made open sooner but unless the USA delivers their promise LHR may go restricted again.

As others said, dream on.

It's never going to happen, and I don't know why some in the U.K. still think there's a chance. Let me make it as clear as possible: there is absolutely 0 chance whatsoever of the U.S. ever allowing foreign airlines on domestic routes. It is just simply not going to happen, at least not in any of our lifetimes.

The agreement signed between the U.S. and U.K. liberalized the U.S.-E.U. aviation market (again, yes, that includes the U.K. and Heathrow) and the only "condition" placed on was that the U.S. start talking about further liberalization within the next year. Again, as I and others have said here on A.net repeatedly, that is basically meaningless, and was thrown in by the continent to shut the Brits up, but it has absolutely no teeth and means absolutely nothing. I'm sure the U.S. will be all to happy to "talk" about further liberalization until the end of time, but it's never going to happen. Th U.S. knows it, the E.U. knows it and, hard as it may be, the U.K. knows it, too.

Now, if the U.K. wants to get tough and basically stick by the position that if BA can't fly DFW-IAH, then CO can't fly IAH-LHR, that's fine. But now, they won't only have the E.U. to deal with - all of the rest of which is perfectly fine with the agreement as-is, but they'll also find that BA and Virgin will lose every single one of their landing rights at every airport in the United States overnight. I doubt that's a road they are prepared to go down since they know full-well what the ramifications would be.
 
basrabob
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:54 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:52 am

Well after reading Commavia's post , just about sums up the whole American position , I'm alright Jack ......They behave like spoilt brats! The EU should definitely pull the plug on the whole deal . The US is one of the most protectionist countries in the world , please can anyone explain to me why it is not ok for foreign airlines to be operating in the US , yet the US expects everybody else in the world to dance to their tune & to be able to do what they want . The phrase which comes to mind is Porkbarrel politics!
 
commavia
Posts: 9803
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:57 am

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
They behave like spoilt brats!

I see, so not agreeing to give foreigners access to your market when you won't get access to their markets is considered "spoiled." That's interesting. Where I'm from, that's called unfair, and not agreeing to it is called being smart. But hey, maybe that's just where I'm from (you know, the land of "spoiled brats").

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
The EU should definitely pull the plug on the whole deal

Have fun with that. Respectfully, the E.U. carriers need the U.S. market far more than the other way around.

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
The US is one of the most protectionist countries in the world

Coming from a Briton, after the pathetic display that the U.K. government did to protect BA's sacred cow on Heathrow-U.S. flights, that is truly comical.

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
please can anyone explain to me why it is not ok for foreign airlines to be operating in the US , yet the US expects everybody else in the world to dance to their tune & to be able to do what they want

Wow, that argument might actual have some rational bearing on reality, as soon as the U.S. actually asks another country to give U.S. carriers access to their domestic market. To my knowledge, that's never happened. But when it does, make sure to let me know, and then we can discuss the above quote.

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
The phrase which comes to mind is Porkbarrel politics!

Actually, if that was your attempt at trying to use an American political term, it was used completely incorrectly. Porkbarrel politics has nothing to do with this: porkbarreling is when you hand out goodies to political constituencies to secure their political support in the next election. Outside the U.S., it might be called patronage or, if we're being honest, vote-buying. That is absolutely not what is happening here, where the U.S. is simply being prudent and not handing other countries access to a vital and strategic national industry without getting anything in return.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24598
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:55 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 22):
Let me make it as clear as possible: there is absolutely 0 chance whatsoever of the U.S. ever allowing foreign airlines on domestic routes.

I disagree. It's not going to happen soon, but I think that within 10-15 years, the U.S. will open the domestic market to foreign airlines, as they should.

I really don't think that opening domestic routes to foreign airlines is going to be a bad thing, or hurt anybody. The biggest effect is that European airlines will likely invest in U.S. airlines, possibly by merger, which will be a win-win for travelers and airlines alike.
a.
 
avek00
Posts: 3159
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:06 pm

The EU Open Skies agreement specifically provides for a subsequent arrangement for EU carriers to operate US domestic flights --- if the two sides can't come to such an arrangement within the next few years, the Open Skies agreement can be unilaterally tossed.
Live life to the fullest.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13223
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:07 pm

Quoting 777gk (Reply 11):
To that end, it is not out of the question to look for a return to STN or new service to LTN in the longer term.

With Silver Jet going twice daily EWR-Luton, EOS launching EWR-Stansted and AA launching JFK-Stansted, I can see CO launching EWR-LTN/STN to "keep them honest".

BTW..

Who would have thought 6-7 years ago when CO decided to drop EWR-STN that there would be a time when there would four airlines operating 10 daily flights between NYC and Stansted and Luton.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:35 pm

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 26):
if the two sides can't come to such an arrangement within the next few years, the Open Skies agreement can be unilaterally tossed

But it's lip service.

When BA has set up their JFK operation flying to all different EU cities, and AF is flying LHR to LAX, SFO, etc., and LH opens up CDG to the USA, scrapping the agreement would harm them. So it won't happen.

What I find hilarious is that in this agreement, the USA gets NOTHING other than opening an airport that was illegally closed (under EU law) in the first place. The EU gets much more out of the whole deal, and yet some in the EU claim it's unbalanced in favor of the USA.

It's laughable.

Opening up LHR should not have required an open skies agreement in the first place. Bermuda II was an outmoded protectionist treaty that was created to protect the British airlines from bankruptcy, and now that they are stronger than the USA carriers, methinks it's worked, no?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
IADCA
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:30 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 28):
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 26):
if the two sides can't come to such an arrangement within the next few years, the Open Skies agreement can be unilaterally tossed

But it's lip service.

When BA has set up their JFK operation flying to all different EU cities, and AF is flying LHR to LAX, SFO, etc., and LH opens up CDG to the USA, scrapping the agreement would harm them. So it won't happen.

I'm not sure about them not being willing to go back. The big obstacle would be BA at JFK, if it works. I'm not sure AF wouldn't give back successful routes from LHR in order to get rid of BA and LH from CDG.

Everyone seems to be taking for granted the success of the new services being opened (not referring to anyone specifically here, but it seems like a general mood). That remains to be seen.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 28):
What I find hilarious is that in this agreement, the USA gets NOTHING other than opening an airport that was illegally closed (under EU law) in the first place. The EU gets much more out of the whole deal, and yet some in the EU claim it's unbalanced in favor of the USA.

What I think some aren't seeing is how much of a disaster this could be for some of the American carriers' international revenues. If LH starts CDG-IAD for example, the parties harmed there are AF (which has such strong feed that it shouldn't be an issue except in terms of maybe yield) and UA, which now suddenly would a second strong competitor on the route and an intra-alliance rivalry. Once the European carriers start flying from each other's hubs, it's going to give passengers on this side of the pond that many good options to get to the major European destinations.

Another thing that will be interesting to see is how the European carriers handle some of the other markets such as BRU, MXP, FCO, which lack a top-tier home airline (perception of many, fairly or not, although in the case of AZ it's pretty fair) and others in the northern part of the EU that are within 757 range of the US East Coast. It would seem many of them lack planes in the size range US airlines are using to launch markets (762, 752) and the closest most have is in the 330 size. I've heard BA is trying to get some 757s to take care of this gap, but that leaves the others trying to fight back with 330s, which may be a bit large for some markets to go P2P to the States, particularly the ones that US airlines are getting to with 757s now.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 24):
Wow, that argument might actual have some rational bearing on reality, as soon as the U.S. actually asks another country to give U.S. carriers access to their domestic market. To my knowledge, that's never happened. But when it does, make sure to let me know, and then we can discuss the above quote.

True, but there's a difference between 5th and 8th freedoms, as I'm sure you are very familiar with. What's in play here is the ambiguous conception of where exactly the EU stands on "nationhood." We all know where it is strictly legally, but it's also true that the evolution of law follows the evolution of reality. Something eventually will have to be done to deal with where the EU's rights as an economic union intersect with the rights of the individual nations as it comes to aviation rights. The argument advanced by the EU is that for the purpose of air transport, EU nations function more like US states than they do separate nations.

With the customs and visa arrangements being as they are, that argument has some merit. Therefore, while what US airlines would be asking for to operate between European countries (as PA did in the past) has effectively been reduced from an extremely rare 8th/9th freedom arrangement to a more mundane 5th. Considering US airlines have done this in the past, I don't think it's unreasonable for the EU carriers to at least TRY for something similar.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 25):
Quoting Commavia (Reply 22):
Let me make it as clear as possible: there is absolutely 0 chance whatsoever of the U.S. ever allowing foreign airlines on domestic routes.

I wouldn't be so sure. Ninth freedom is an absolute no-chancer, as you said. Eighth is slightly more likely though. I could see the US allowing someone to do it as long as it didn't involve the biggest markets on either coast, something along the lines of SLC-BOS-Europe with a 757. Such a thing would be a nice bargaining chip to hand to the EU in negotiations and wouldn't have much practical effect. Fifth freedom with beyond rights will likely happen, although whether it will be an EU carrier is pretty hard to guess.
 
toltommy
Posts: 2497
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:02 pm

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
The US is one of the most protectionist countries in the world , please can anyone explain to me why it is not ok for foreign airlines to be operating in the US

Actually, we have one of the most open markets in the world. So much so that while our own citizens have a choice of the best products from around the world, they find themselves losing jobs over it. Perhaps we should be more protectionist. Nationalizing major industries worked well in the UK 30 years ago, right? Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.

As for the second part of your question, I guess we just had the better negotiating team. Nobody pointed a gun at the EU negotiators and said "sign here". They agreed to the terms. On principal, I agree with you. But its not up to the US to give the EU something that they obviously didn't want badly enough.
 
FlyOakland2IAH
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:56 am

Moving back more to the original topic...

What will be the status of IAH-LGW after March? A lot of oil related businesses have offices near Gatwick, since it is convenient to non-stop flights to Houston. Specifically, Schlumberger has an office at Gatwick, and another nearby in Crawley. Does this mean employees traveling between Houston and London will now have to fly to LHR and take a bus, adding 1-3 hours to their journey (not to mention the LHR stress factor!)?
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting FlyOakland2IAH (Reply 31):
Moving back more to the original topic...

What will be the status of IAH-LGW after March? A lot of oil related businesses have offices near Gatwick, since it is convenient to non-stop flights to Houston. Specifically, Schlumberger has an office at Gatwick, and another nearby in Crawley. Does this mean employees traveling between Houston and London will now have to fly to LHR and take a bus, adding 1-3 hours to their journey (not to mention the LHR stress factor!)?

They still are going to retain IAH-LGW.
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:10 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
Never gonna happen. The UK government can push for cabotage rights and mergers with USA carriers all it wants, but LHR is going to stay open, and as soon as VS and BA start mainland EU to USA flights, the support for the UK position within the EU is going to dwindle.



Quoting Basrabob (Reply 23):
Well after reading Commavia's post , just about sums up the whole American position , I'm alright Jack ......They behave like spoilt brats! The EU should definitely pull the plug on the whole deal . The US is one of the most protectionist countries in the world , please can anyone explain to me why it is not ok for foreign airlines to be operating in the US , yet the US expects everybody else in the world to dance to their tune & to be able to do what they want . The phrase which comes to mind is Porkbarrel politics!

Excuse me, the US was the one tolerating assymetrical competition from UK airlines. US airlines were shutout of the primary UK gateway while seeing UK airlines fly into their hubs from that gateway.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 29):
Something eventually will have to be done to deal with where the EU's rights as an economic union intersect with the rights of the individual nations as it comes to aviation rights. The argument advanced by the EU is that for the purpose of air transport, EU nations function more like US states than they do separate nations.

As long as EU countries continue to negotiate bilaterals individually with other countries and continue to maintain separate representation in the ICAO they behave like separate nations and should be treated as such. See the Spain-UAE agreement for one of many recent examples. Frankly, the EU is lucky that the US even granted them recognition as a negotiating partner with regards to aviation service agreements.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 4720
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:28 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 25):
I disagree. It's not going to happen soon, but I think that within 10-15 years, the U.S. will open the domestic market to foreign airlines, as they should.

I really don't think that opening domestic routes to foreign airlines is going to be a bad thing, or hurt anybody. The biggest effect is that European airlines will likely invest in U.S. airlines, possibly by merger, which will be a win-win for travelers and airlines alike.

see it wont ever happen all it will do is kill the US airlines.......i would like it if i need to fly ATL-MCO and have to fly BA,AF or LH or fly to TPA on VS,BA and KL. Also dont say well they can do it like AF/KL because its still AF. Then ever one would by ever one else and we would have like 3 or 4 airlines in the world nope bad idea and that is how the government looks at it and will as long as there is a USA
New airliners.net web site sucks.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24598
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:31 am

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 34):
see it wont ever happen all it will do is kill the US airlines.......i would like it if i need to fly ATL-MCO and have to fly BA,AF or LH or fly to TPA on VS,BA and KL.

No, it won't kill U.S. airlines because the last thing British Airways cares about is flying TPA-ATL. You won't suddenly see European airlines running into all but a small handful of domestic markets. A very small handful.
a.
 
commavia
Posts: 9803
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:01 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 35):
You won't suddenly see European airlines running into all but a small handful of domestic markets. A very small handful.

...yeah, a very small handfull of the most profitably and highest-yielding markets. They'll come in and cherry-pick the best markets in the U.S. to operate in and maximize profit, while U.S. carriers will remain - as they are now - completely shut-out of virtually every single major intra-Europe market.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24598
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:09 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 36):
They'll come in and cherry-pick the best markets in the U.S. to operate in and maximize profit, while U.S. carriers will remain - as they are now - completely shut-out of virtually every single major intra-Europe market.

Maybe I'm a little confused as to what European carriers want, but I was assuming that opening the U.S. domestic market to European airlines would de facto open the EU market to U.S. carriers. If that's not the case, than there is obviously no justification to let European carriers fly domestic U.S. routes. Though I fully support opening the U.S. domestic market to E.U. airlines given that U.S. airlines have the same rights in the E.U.
a.
 
Analog
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:24 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:08 pm

Quoting VS11 (Reply 10):
Can a 757 do IAH-LGW non-stop?



Quoting CALMSP (Reply 12):

No

Well, it can do ABZ-IAH non-stop (4017nm), so LGW-IAH (4218nm) is possible, just not in CO's 752 config.
http://www.citystarairlines.com/content/view/93/92/lang,en/ City Star Go Longhaul: ABZ-IAH Announced! (by Nighthawk Sep 3 2007 in Civil Aviation)
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:19 pm

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 37):
Though I fully support opening the U.S. domestic market to E.U. airlines given that U.S. airlines have the same rights in the E.U.

NO THEY DON'T. This is the biggest lie on a.net. USA carriers do not have cabotage rights in any EU nation. You are a body of sovereign nations, not a confederation of states. And unless you are trying to claim that Belgium is no different in worldwide importance than Rhode Island, you can't make the argument.

Further, the USA inter-EU rights are LEGACY rights, VESTIGES of a different time, not used in the 21st century, and there are no plans to use them. The intra-german rights were out of political necessity during a time of world conflict. To somehow equate this route in any way to flying LAX-JFK with domestic rights in the year 2010 is purposely distorting reality at worst, or just complete confusion at best.

No other bilateral or open skies agreement negotiated between the USA and any other nation in the world has ever granted unlimited cabotage rights in either nation. Why the EU (and specifically the UK) believes this is their right within the USA or that the USA is being protectionist by not allowing it is something only they know. But honestly, it is just a play by the UK to try to justify their continued illegal protection of LHR (by EU law) that opened the airport to any other airline in the world except CO, DL, NW, US, etc.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24598
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:38 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 39):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 37):
Though I fully support opening the U.S. domestic market to E.U. airlines given that U.S. airlines have the same rights in the E.U.

NO THEY DON'T. This is the biggest lie on a.net. USA carriers do not have cabotage rights in any EU nation. You are a body of sovereign nations, not a confederation of states. And unless you are trying to claim that Belgium is no different in worldwide importance than Rhode Island, you can't make the argument.

While I understand what I said was poorly worded, I never meant to imply that U.S. airlines currently have cabotage rights in Europe. They don't, and I know that. I mean that I fully support European carriers getting cabotage in the U.S. if U.S. carriers get the same cabotage rights within the EU.
a.
 
EI564
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 9:05 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:13 pm

And the protectionist angle comes from the resistance in the US to allow increased control of US airlines by foreign concerns (at the moment they can control 25%, although own up to 49%).

I think the whole cabotage thing is a complete red herring as there is little interest in that (without a major change in the above).
 
masseybrown
Posts: 4444
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:47 pm

Quoting EI564 (Reply 41):
And the protectionist angle comes from the resistance in the US to allow increased control of US airlines by foreign concerns (at the moment they can control 25%, although own up to 49%).

With the dollar and airline shares at their current levels, it's an ideal time to buy US assets. I believe if ownership were unrestricted, you would see 4 or 5 major US carriers bought by foreign carriers immediately.
 
HanginOut
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:26 pm

Quoting EI564 (Reply 41):
And the protectionist angle comes from the resistance in the US to allow increased control of US airlines by foreign concerns (at the moment they can control 25%, although own up to 49%).

I think the whole cabotage thing is a complete red herring as there is little interest in that (without a major change in the above).



Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 42):
I believe if ownership were unrestricted, you would see 4 or 5 major US carriers bought by foreign carriers immediately.

I agree with EI564 and MasseyBrown. I think that the cabotage issue is simply a negotiating tactic for what the EU really wants. They want the (outdated) ownership restrictions lifted, so that BA, LH and AF KLM can buy/merge with their US partners. Personally, I think it would be great if we could have some truly international mergers occurring. I think that a combine BA/AA would be a juggernaut airline, as would a DL,NW, AF KLM join up (assuming this combination could get by the regulatory agencies). The economies of scale and the discounts that they could command for massive aircraft purchases would be great, as long as they follow the AF KLM and LH LX models of continuing to operate as separate airlines on the public side, but as combined airlines in the back of the shop.
Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24598
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Continental And LHR

Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:29 pm

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 43):
he economies of scale and the discounts that they could command for massive aircraft purchases would be great, as long as they follow the AF KLM and LH LX models of continuing to operate as separate airlines on the public side, but as combined airlines in the back of the shop.

Agreed. Foreign airlines should be allowed to merge and/or purchase U.S. airlines. In the end, it will greatly benefit the traveling public. Look how well some of the recent mergers/takeovers in Europe have turned out. Imagine a merger of AA/BA. It would be great.
a.
 
commavia
Posts: 9803
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: Continental And LHR

Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:41 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 37):
I was assuming that opening the U.S. domestic market to European airlines would de facto open the EU market to U.S. carriers.

Wrong. Because de facto goes absolutely nowhere when it comes time to actually start operating flights. Sort of like back in '97 when the Japanese were all too happy to give U.S. carriers tons of new rights to fly to Narita: but then, of course, those rights basically weren't worth the paper they were printed on because without slots to land the plane at Narita, the whole endeavor of, say, a new AA flight BOS-NRT would have pretty much been a sight-seeing tour of northern Tokyo, without anywhere to land. The same is true of the E.U.: they may be willing to give U.S. carriers access to the intra-E.U. market, but that's worth absolutely nothing, as the E.U. is a relatively small air market by comparison to the U.S. and, even if it was huge, all of the good slots are already long-since taken.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 40):
I mean that I fully support European carriers getting cabotage in the U.S. if U.S. carriers get the same cabotage rights within the EU.

As do I, except that - barring some humungous runway/terminal-building binge within the E.U., U.S. carriers will never get acecss to the E.U. market like E.U. carriers will get in the U.S., where you can pretty much count on two hands the number of airports with significant capacity/slot restrictions. In Europe, every single airport of consequence - without a single exception, to my knowledge - is slot-restricted and/or capacity constrained.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 44):
Imagine a merger of AA/BA. It would be great.

Well, it would certainly change the entire global competitive landscape dramatically!