OMAAbound
Topic Author
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:43 am

Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:07 am

I may have worded the title not in the best way, but please refrain from passing your opinion on Brexit please.

This is merely a question about the contribution to the U.K. economy after the withdrawal from the EU.

Today, Boris and Donald have agreed to a huge trade deal, but what impact or contribution would this deal have towards the U.K. economy? The transatlantic market for airlines is huge and as was reported the just a few days ago, LON-NYC is the only 1 billion dollar route.

I’d be interested in seeing if such close ties would encourage airlines to open up more transatlantic routes.

OMAA
Last edited by SQ22 on Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Title updated
Right hand seat of a 787. Also can be found eating sandwiches, drinking coffee and attempting to understand Chinese ATC!
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5579
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit

Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:19 am

A deal with the U.S. is not going to offset the loss of EU trade post-Brexit, as is offered as the opinion of many respected economists. One direct example:

Kallum Pickering, senior economist at Berenberg, told CNBC that given the larger impact on GDP from the quantity of trade with the EU in comparison with the U.S., it is “hard to see how leaving the EU could be offset with a trade deal with the U.S.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/23/economi ... amage.html

As a correction, LON-NYC isn't the only $Billion route. It was cited as the only $Billion route for a single carrier.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:19 am

I have updated the title slightly.

Just a reminder in advance to stay on topic and not go too much into politics.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:52 am

Understood...but it's amazing how much politics influence commercial aviation like no other industry.

This is just one trade deal...in fact AFAIR is only the 4th such deal since Article 50 was invoked for the UK to leave the EU.

More flights? Not by new entrants
 
rugeley123
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:52 am

I personally don’t have high hopes for the development of links between the US and the UK on a regional basis at least. United Airlines stated that the UK leaving the EU was part of the reason why they decided to terminate the BHX-EWR service, which happened not long after American Airlines stopped their JFK service (which ran only for a short time, although I think they may have previously flown to Birmingham). As much as both Heathrow and Manchester are used as alternatives, I don’t think that is particularly viable, especially as Birmingham is historically the second city to England, particularly in terms of population (disputed with Manchester). I think services to London will expand, but I wouldn’t directly link that with any sort of trade agreement. Further, links to both Heathrow and Manchester are not really that well supported outside of the respective cities, particularly towards the Midlands, unlike Birmingham Airport in particular. If a trade agreement is going to make any real changes to US aviation here in the UK, I would say it will have to be in the regional airports. I know places such as Newcastle, Bristol and Belfast lost their transatlantic services much sooner, but I think that shows the situation today, and I don’t personally see it improving.

I’ve also heard news about Delta launching a Boston - Manchester service on the 752, which will be serviced daily. Although this is an apparent seat increase, it’s a direct replacement of a VS flight. Making a more frequent service on a smaller plane does sound good, but it also worries me that it has been done so that the frequency can be cut to suit demand much more than expanded.
 
Palop
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:49 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:06 am

What announced trade deal? All that was announced was a vague promise of a huge deal. No specifics. No explanation of how it will pass Congress if Brexit interferes with GFA. Trump has a tendency to promise a lot of things that doesn’t get delivered. It is hard to debate the impact of a deal that is not described at all in what it covers.
 
hinckley
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:20 am

Palop wrote:
What announced trade deal? All that was announced was a vague promise of a huge deal. No specifics. No explanation of how it will pass Congress if Brexit interferes with GFA. Trump has a tendency to promise a lot of things that doesn’t get delivered. It is hard to debate the impact of a deal that is not described at all in what it covers.

Exactly. There's no deal. There have been no formal negotiations. The US President, the UK PM and the US Congress are all staking out hard lines. If a trade deal comes about, it'll be a long way off. So I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is.
 
SCQ83
Posts: 5324
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:32 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:23 am

rugeley123 wrote:
I think services to London will expand, but I wouldn’t directly link that with any sort of trade agreement.


I don't see why or how if a hard Brexit happens.

Many American companies are based in London because 1) they can access the EU from an English-speaking city with the most similar laws, customs, etc. to the US in Europe. 2) those American companies in order to serve the EU can easily hire German-speaking lawyers, French-speaking economists or Italian-speaking Engineers.

If hard Brexit happens, point 1) and 2) are broken. So there is no point for those companies to stay (or expand) in London and they will continue (already started) moving operations to Dublin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris, Brussels, Luxembourg, etc.
 
JibberJim
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:29 am

The only real problem in transatlantic is slots at LHR (discouraging lower tier US cities getting London service), the only way Brexit can change that is if LHR becomes significantly less popular, if that happens the attractiveness of London ends anyway.

Can't see any change on flying.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8872
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:37 am

So if hard Brexit, will there be a Bermuda III, I assume since the EU now does negotiations for air travel and Bermuda II was abolished the UK TATL routes are under EU / USA treaty, unless the dreaded G word was included.
 
User001
Posts: 915
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:43 am

rugeley123 wrote:
IUnited Airlines stated that the UK leaving the EU was part of the reason why they decided to terminate the BHX-EWR service,


Yet brexit and an increased appitite for direct versus one stop travel was one of the reasons the very same airlime increased their Manchester flights, just up the road?

As much as both Heathrow and Manchester are used as alternatives, I don’t think that is particularly viable, especially as Birmingham is historically the second city to England, particularly in terms of population (disputed with Manchester).


'historic' references to what is or isn't a second city doesn't bring in air links. Propensity to fly and yield do

Further, links to both Heathrow and Manchester are not really that well supported outside of the respective cities, particularly towards the Midlands,


Heathrow and Manchester are not well supported outside of their cities? What? London is a hub for a start, the very nature of which means it's well supported outside its city, its also a city of 7 million versus 80 million pax, so clearly not all London pax. Manchester is a similar story, with 29m pax yet about 1.5m in its conurbation. The Midlands on the other hand, had figures that stated nearly 60% of its catchment uses other airports, so, your assertions in the above quote are way, way off.

I’ve also heard news about Delta launching a Boston - Manchester service on the 752, which will be serviced daily. Although this is an apparent seat increase, it’s a direct replacement of a VS flight. Making a more frequent service on a smaller plane does sound good, but it also worries me that it has been done so that the frequency can be cut to suit demand much more than expanded.


So, by adding more seats, more frequency and what we are told an airline that demands higher yield, you can only somehow see a negative in that? Seriously?!

Given your user name and promotion of the Midlands while disparaging Manchester in particular, anyone would think there was an agenda at play!
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:15 pm

Currently, the US trades with the EU under the basic WTO rules, there is no trade agreement between US and the EU. It has been tried but it is difficult to get all countries in the EU to agree. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal their trade with the EU would fall to the same WTO rules. It is my understanding that the UK imports from the other EU nations about 3X what they export to the EU. The exporting to the EU would be hit by the current EU tariffs, which are not small, the UK can decide what tariffs to set for all imports.

For aviation, how parts for Airbus are handled at the border is a significant issue, if smooth things will be fine but if there are significant delays / assessments it could mess Airbus up production wise.

The UK will need to set up an agency like CASA, how long pilots licenses for UK individuals remain in effect as well as certification functions. Again, will it be near seamless, which is the sensible approach not much occurs. If things come crashing down, it could cause big problems if say, the EU basically kills on Nov 1 all existing route approvals between the UK and the EU.

A US-UK trade deal would probably be similar to what Canada has with the USMCA trade deal that still needs approval by Canada and the US legislatures. That is a very beneficial agreement for CA, except it has harsh language with respect to Chinese content. Canada under NAFTA was exporting more steel and aluminum to the US than it produces due to large imports into CA and Mexico of Chinese steel and aluminum. If the UK got a favorable trade deal with the US, it could mitigate any difficulties with the EU trade.

Looking at the tea leaves, it appears that it will be a no-deal Brexit.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8413
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:33 pm

As there is nothing known about an UK-US trade deal, apart from it will be the biggest and best deal ever according to Donald Trump, and we do not yet know, how the Brexit will look like, it is difficult to judge how such a deal will impact aviation.
I can hardly see how a UK-US deal should be able to replace lost trade with the EU.

I assume that the UK and USA will be able to conserve the current status quo post Brexit so we will not see new regulatory hurdles for flights between the UK and USA.

After Brexit it can well be that LHR keeps its standing as a long range international transfer hub, but IMO we will look at a reduced importance for LHR as an European hub.
I assume also a reduced O&D for LHR as the status of London as a banking center will be reduced. Companies having had London as their European headquarters will move out.
I see aviation numbers declining all over the UK, with the reduction in business following Brexit and sharp decline of tourism from the UK.
 
VS11
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:43 pm

Boris Johnson was reported to say that he would ask for aviation and shipping cabotage rights for UK companies. If it happens, UK airlines could be doing domestic US routes. I don't see it as a likely scenario but it is not impossible.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9777
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:00 pm

OMAAbound wrote:
I may have worded the title not in the best way, but please refrain from passing your opinion on Brexit please.

This is merely a question about the contribution to the U.K. economy after the withdrawal from the EU.

Today, Boris and Donald have agreed to a huge trade deal, but what impact or contribution would this deal have towards the U.K. economy? The transatlantic market for airlines is huge and as was reported the just a few days ago, LON-NYC is the only 1 billion dollar route.

I’d be interested in seeing if such close ties would encourage airlines to open up more transatlantic routes.

OMAA


There is no trade deal between the UK and US. There can't be, because the UK is still within the EU. So the title is wrong, even after adjusting it.

The devils are in the details, so without an actual agreement, we cannot say anything about it anyway. So could you provide a link to the announcement?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8413
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:03 pm

VS11 wrote:
Boris Johnson was reported to say that he would ask for aviation and shipping cabotage rights for UK companies. If it happens, UK airlines could be doing domestic US routes. I don't see it as a likely scenario but it is not impossible.


Hell freezes over first. Few things has been defended harder in USA aviation than no cabotage rights.

and quote Wikipedia: The Chicago Convention prohibits member states from granting cabotage on an exclusive basis, which has limited the availability of cabotage as a bargaining chip in bilateral aviation agreement negotiations.
Last edited by mjoelnir on Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Galwayman
Posts: 724
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:20 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:04 pm

There’s no way the U.K. will get cabotage rights in the US ... that’s way off the Unicorn-Special Relationship delusional scale

US unions will want Norwegian gone

Favouritism towards Boeing will be encouraged .

U.K. will probably end up under the scrutiny of FAA which is pretty light touch

US airlines to get full 5 th freedoms at Heathrow

US airlines will be allowed to not compensate for delays even if U.K. ones still do

Possible US employment contracts ( zilch rights ) for U.K. based flight attendants

US passengers to be allowed bring comfort dogs / horses on to U.K. flights

The race to the bottom potential is massive
 
VS11
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:24 pm

Galwayman wrote:
There’s no way the U.K. will get cabotage rights in the US ... that’s way off the Unicorn-Special Relationship delusional scale


What if the UK trades the NHS for cabotage rights? Johnson reportedly said the NHS was off-limits.

Here is the quote from the FT:
"He said the UK would also want to see shipping and aviation cabotage liberalised between both countries.
“We are open to cabotage by US-flagged vessels here in the UK; a British shipping company cannot pick up in New York and set down in Boston,” he said."

Johnson says US will need to ‘compromise’ in a trade deal with UK
https://www.ft.com/content/571efd82-c68 ... 69401ba76f
 
Galwayman
Posts: 724
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:20 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:33 pm

There won’t be any cabotage on US soil ... he’s not going get it

I’d imagine US airlines will be given automatic priority on any new take off and landing slots

And U.K. airports will have to stop cleaning public toilets to bring them to the new US public toilet standards

And there’s zero chance of him protecting the NHS from the big 5 pricing practises ( but that’s off topic )
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:36 pm

User001 wrote:
rugeley123 wrote:
As much as both Heathrow and Manchester are used as alternatives, I don’t think that is particularly viable, especially as Birmingham is historically the second city to England, particularly in terms of population (disputed with Manchester).


'historic' references to what is or isn't a second city doesn't bring in air links. Propensity to fly and yield do.


Not to mention the fact that BHX is roughly halfway between LHR and MAN (around 100 miles in either direction), so the market is effectively split three ways.

As for the second city comment, I think it’s fair to say that Manchester has a growing claim to that title nowadays in more ways than just population.
 
Galwayman
Posts: 724
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:20 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:38 pm

The idea that the U.K. would trade the NHS for something as insignificant as cabotage rights is beyond ridiculous ... it’s like trading a nuclear bomb for a Hersey’s bar ...
 
VS11
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:52 pm

Galwayman wrote:
The idea that the U.K. would trade the NHS for something as insignificant as cabotage rights is beyond ridiculous ... it’s like trading a nuclear bomb for a Hersey’s bar ...


It is actually not ridiculous. The annual NHS budget is around $150b - (125b pounds). The operating revenue of US airlines in 2017 was $175b.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/n ... nhs-budget

https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-annua ... ncial-data

I do agree that US cabotage is far fetched at this point but the dust is far from settled.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8682
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:59 pm

All the US trade offers will be done on "bend over, don't complain" conditions.
( About like the ancillary trade conditions forced around the Marshall Plan "gifts".)
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8413
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:07 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Currently, the US trades with the EU under the basic WTO rules, there is no trade agreement between US and the EU. It has been tried but it is difficult to get all countries in the EU to agree. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal their trade with the EU would fall to the same WTO rules. It is my understanding that the UK imports from the other EU nations about 3X what they export to the EU. The exporting to the EU would be hit by the current EU tariffs, which are not small, the UK can decide what tariffs to set for all imports.



The difficulties regarding trade agreements between the USA have little to do with getting all EU countries to agree. The biggest disagreement between the EU and USA are in regards to food safety standards, the USA,as the world biggest exporter of agricultural products, expects for example the EU to lower their standards in regards to genetic modified plants and hormones, antibiotics and chemicals in meat products. The EU has been able to conclude quite a few free trade agreements with other countries and trading blocks.
The USA seems to have difficulties to make such agreements and than abide by them.


Your understanding about the amount of trade from the EU to UK and vice versa is wrong. Yes the countries of the rest of the EU export more to the UK in goods and services, than import from the UK, but that is about a 20% difference.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-7851
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:33 pm

rugeley123 wrote:
I personally don’t have high hopes for the development of links between the US and the UK on a regional basis at least. United Airlines stated that the UK leaving the EU was part of the reason why they decided to terminate the BHX-EWR service, which happened not long after American Airlines stopped their JFK service (which ran only for a short time, although I think they may have previously flown to Birmingham). As much as both Heathrow and Manchester are used as alternatives, I don’t think that is particularly viable, especially as Birmingham is historically the second city to England, particularly in terms of population (disputed with Manchester). I think services to London will expand, but I wouldn’t directly link that with any sort of trade agreement. Further, links to both Heathrow and Manchester are not really that well supported outside of the respective cities, particularly towards the Midlands, unlike Birmingham Airport in particular. If a trade agreement is going to make any real changes to US aviation here in the UK, I would say it will have to be in the regional airports. I know places such as Newcastle, Bristol and Belfast lost their transatlantic services much sooner, but I think that shows the situation today, and I don’t personally see it improving.

I’ve also heard news about Delta launching a Boston - Manchester service on the 752, which will be serviced daily. Although this is an apparent seat increase, it’s a direct replacement of a VS flight. Making a more frequent service on a smaller plane does sound good, but it also worries me that it has been done so that the frequency can be cut to suit demand much more than expanded.


Dear lord, what a bunch of rubbish. BHX suffers because it has 2 mega operations 100 miles North and South, thankfully due to some of the population diversity you get AI and EK to help service them. Maybe just maybe if some of the better 321 operators (Primera was not it clearly) you might get some service to the US, but not much.

Let’s see : Birmingham to Heathrow: M42,M40 to M25, Birmingham to Manchester: M6 or M5 to M6 I would hardly call that unsupported. Can even take the train from New Street to MAN if you want to.

There are also many decent one stop options to get to BHX too. Trust me, I grew up in Leicestershire, my parents still live there and I would dearly love a direct BHX-BOS flight as I live in the US now, but DL/KL offer me a great service and a reasonable price via AMS, my parents (who are mid 70’s can pick me and mrs VS up from BHX (because they want to) and don’t have to schlep down to LHR at an ungodly hour in the morning.
I am sure I am not the only one doing this. There’s plenty of reasons why BHX cannot hold on to TATL service. In time maybe...

Now as for DL at MAN, that was done for a number of reasons.
1. VS was doing horribly
2. The 330 was too big an aircraft for the route especially when they didn’t pick up the Pax count when MT left the route, the demand was there as the prior year there were 2 carriers running it. VS dropped the ball or couldn’t get access to the MT passengers and pricing otherwise they would have done a whole lot better.
2a. DL’s 757’s are much more suited to the
Route generally and VS can use its 330 for NYC or something else
3. DL is trying to bolster its position as the preferred carrier/alliance in BOS so having MAN in the route portfolio adds to the LHR, LGW and EDI routes on its own metal.
4. It’s a seasonal service anyway so if it’s successful it could be expanded in the future.
5. VS used terminal E at BOS for departures, DL has everything at A, will allow seamless connections for departing passengers. Sadly for arriving it’s E whether you are on VS or DL, but as DL is US POS, the departing version is probably slightly more important.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
T4thH
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:36 pm

Sorry, but I do not see any free trade deals between US and UK in next time. No back stop, no deal with the US. There is a well known big Irish-American lobby,
https://www.voanews.com/europe/post-brexit-us-uk-trade-deal-under-threatin the US, many Senators and congressmen have Irish roots and they have already stated, no Back stop, no deal. Does someone really believe, that any political party will risk a divorce or high amount of internal stress, for a trade deal with one single small country?

A hard Brexit excludes an open Irish border, it is just impossible.
 
senatorflyer
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:44 pm

OMAAbound wrote:
I may have worded the title not in the best way, but please refrain from passing your opinion on Brexit please.

This is merely a question about the contribution to the U.K. economy after the withdrawal from the EU.

Today, Boris and Donald have agreed to a huge trade deal, but what impact or contribution would this deal have towards the U.K. economy? The transatlantic market for airlines is huge and as was reported the just a few days ago, LON-NYC is the only 1 billion dollar route.

I’d be interested in seeing if such close ties would encourage airlines to open up more transatlantic routes.

OMAA


They have voiced an intention for a deal but there is no deal. So at this point everything is pure speculation and therefore no one knows.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8413
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:46 pm

VS11 wrote:
Galwayman wrote:
The idea that the U.K. would trade the NHS for something as insignificant as cabotage rights is beyond ridiculous ... it’s like trading a nuclear bomb for a Hersey’s bar ...


It is actually not ridiculous. The annual NHS budget is around $150b - (125b pounds). The operating revenue of US airlines in 2017 was $175b.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/n ... nhs-budget

https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-annua ... ncial-data

I do agree that US cabotage is far fetched at this point but the dust is far from settled.


Are people here real? Cabotage for the UK quitting their national health service? It is absurd, ridiculous, crazy and so on. No government in the UK would live through trying to scrap the national health service.
 
VS11
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:05 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Galwayman wrote:
The idea that the U.K. would trade the NHS for something as insignificant as cabotage rights is beyond ridiculous ... it’s like trading a nuclear bomb for a Hersey’s bar ...


It is actually not ridiculous. The annual NHS budget is around $150b - (125b pounds). The operating revenue of US airlines in 2017 was $175b.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/n ... nhs-budget

https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-annua ... ncial-data

I do agree that US cabotage is far fetched at this point but the dust is far from settled.


Are people here real? Cabotage for the UK quitting their national health service? It is absurd, ridiculous, crazy and so on. No government in the UK would live through trying to scrap the national health service.


Maybe you are not understanding - nobody is proposing the UK quit it their NHS - whatever that means. It is about getting a piece of a pie. Johnson talks about US Government procurement which is analogous to doing business with the HNS - access to markets and government spending. That’s all there is to it - question is if both are going to trade one another’s “sacred cow”.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3766
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:36 pm

Palop wrote:
Trump has a tendency to promise a lot of things that doesn’t get delivered. It is hard to debate the impact of a deal that is not described at all in what it covers.

Sounds just like Brexit then . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8413
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:57 pm

VS11 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
VS11 wrote:

It is actually not ridiculous. The annual NHS budget is around $150b - (125b pounds). The operating revenue of US airlines in 2017 was $175b.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/n ... nhs-budget

https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-annua ... ncial-data

I do agree that US cabotage is far fetched at this point but the dust is far from settled.


Are people here real? Cabotage for the UK quitting their national health service? It is absurd, ridiculous, crazy and so on. No government in the UK would live through trying to scrap the national health service.


Maybe you are not understanding - nobody is proposing the UK quit it their NHS - whatever that means. It is about getting a piece of a pie. Johnson talks about US Government procurement which is analogous to doing business with the HNS - access to markets and government spending. That’s all there is to it - question is if both are going to trade one another’s “sacred cow”.


So could you than explain what you are talking about? It seems you have no idea what the NHS is about. If you want to offer a competing health service in the UK you can do that today. There are in the UK any number of private clinics for rich people from all over the world.

But the main stumbling block to offer the UK cabotage is this:

quote Wikipedia: The Chicago Convention prohibits member states from granting cabotage on an exclusive basis, which has limited the availability of cabotage as a bargaining chip in bilateral aviation agreement negotiations.
 
VS11
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 4:02 pm

mjoelnir wrote:

So could you than explain what you are talking about? It seems you have no idea what the NHS is about. If you want to offer a competing health service in the UK you can do that today. There are in the UK any number of private clinics for rich people from all over the world.


More money from NHS going to US businesses - can't explain it better than this. See below:
Trump threatens to use US trade talks to force NHS to pay more for drugs
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... pay-drugs/

mjoelnir wrote:
But the main stumbling block to offer the UK cabotage is this:

quote Wikipedia: The Chicago Convention prohibits member states from granting cabotage on an exclusive basis, which has limited the availability of cabotage as a bargaining chip in bilateral aviation agreement negotiations.


You may want to email this to the office of the UK Prime Minister. It is not my proposal. It is Boris Johnson's.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8413
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:52 pm

VS11 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

So could you than explain what you are talking about? It seems you have no idea what the NHS is about. If you want to offer a competing health service in the UK you can do that today. There are in the UK any number of private clinics for rich people from all over the world.


More money from NHS going to US businesses - can't explain it better than this. See below:
Trump threatens to use US trade talks to force NHS to pay more for drugs
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... pay-drugs/

mjoelnir wrote:
But the main stumbling block to offer the UK cabotage is this:

quote Wikipedia: The Chicago Convention prohibits member states from granting cabotage on an exclusive basis, which has limited the availability of cabotage as a bargaining chip in bilateral aviation agreement negotiations.


You may want to email this to the office of the UK Prime Minister. It is not my proposal. It is Boris Johnson's.


Why should I?

The problem is that people take Donald Trump and Boris Johnson seriously, their problem is talking or twittering before engaging the brain or collect information.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23716
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:57 pm

:white: :white:

The UK and US already have a post Brexit air service agreement ready to go. It was announced last November.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-uk-air-transp ... r-28-2018/
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
Number6
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:02 pm

Just a quick note to congratulate everyone here for having a great, rational discussion of the issues without the histrionics that the main ?Brexit debates have taken on.

As for the subject itself, trade deals are always difficult to strike, and the best ones would leave both sides slightly let down. If no one side is entirely happy, it’s probably a good balance. As mentioned above, an aviation deal with the US has been struck, so for the time being, there’s little there that’ll be affected by other Us-U.K. trade talks.
 
rugeley123
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviatio

Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:35 pm

User001 wrote:
rugeley123 wrote:
IUnited Airlines stated that the UK leaving the EU was part of the reason wkhy they decided to terminate the BHX-EWR service,


Yet brexit and an increased appitite for direct versus one stop travel was one of the reasons the very same airlime increased their Manchester flights, just up the road?

As much as both Heathrow and Manchester are used as alternatives, I don’t think that is particularly viable, especially as Birmingham is historically the second city to England, particularly in terms of population (disputed with Manchester).


'historic' references to what is or isn't a second city doesn't bring in air links. Propensity to fly and yield do

Further, links to both Heathrow and Manchester are not really that well supported outside of the respective cities, particularly towards the Midlands,


Heathrow and Manchester are not well supported outside of their cities? What? London is a hub for a start, the very nature of which means it's well supported outside its city, its also a city of 7 million versus 80 million pax, so clearly not all London pax. Manchester is a similar story, with 29m pax yet about 1.5m in its conurbation. The Midlands on the other hand, had figures that stated nearly 60% of its catchment uses other airports, so, your assertions in the above quote are way, way off.

I’ve also heard news about Delta launching a Boston - Manchester service on the 752, which will be serviced daily. Although this is an apparent seat increase, it’s a direct replacement of a VS flight. Making a more frequent service on a smaller plane does sound good, but it also worries me that it has been done so that the frequency can be cut to suit demand much more than expanded.


So, by adding more seats, more frequency and what we are told an airline that demands higher yield, you can only somehow see a negative in that? Seriously?!

Given your user name and promotion of the Midlands while disparaging Manchester in particular, anyone would think there was an agenda at play!


I don’t have an agenda in play at all, in fact I don’t choose to fly out of Birmingham if I can help it, but it is usually the most convenient for my travels, even on two stop itineraries. Granted, I made a mistake with my wording when taking about London airports and Manchester Airport in terms of support. What I meant was with public transport connections, and that cannot be denied. Birmingham Airport does have better connections geographically than Manchester Airport, London Heathrow, and London Gatwick in terms of public transport, that cannot be denied. With the Delta switch, I feel that the move to a smaller aircraft, yes with a higher frequency and more seats currently sounds good, but you can’t deny the fact that moving to the smallest transatlantic aircraft in a fleet is not really an upgrade as such. What I am saying here is that if the frequency was not to be viable, it would look a drastic reduction.

Flying out of Manchester is doable, but not particularly convenient. From where I live it’s about 80 miles, but you’ll spend 20 of them trying to get to the M6 to travel northbound. Plus the fact that it is frequently congested and at a standstill, it’s not reliable. Going via the back roads can mean it’s a 2 hour trip to the airport. I know, I’ve recently had the experience of that following a flight back from Houston. Getting to London is the same, but can easily be a 3 hour journey to get to Heathrow. Yes they’re reasonably close compared to distances between major cities within other countries. But when it comes to it being practical, UK infrastructure is not actually great.

SCQ83 wrote:
rugeley123 wrote:
I think services to London will expand, but I wouldn’t directly link that with any sort of trade agreement.


I don't see why or how if a hard Brexit happens.

Many American companies are based in London because 1) they can access the EU from an English-speaking city with the most similar laws, customs, etc. to the US in Europe. 2) those American companies in order to serve the EU can easily hire German-speaking lawyers, French-speaking economists or Italian-speaking Engineers.

If hard Brexit happens, point 1) and 2) are broken. So there is no point for those companies to stay (or expand) in London and they will continue (already started) moving operations to Dublin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris, Brussels, Luxembourg, etc.


Whatever agreement is sorted out in the future, it’ll be London-centric, and anything aviation wise which does happen I would predict to be London-US based rather than the overall UK (regions) - US based.

VS4ever wrote:
rugeley123 wrote:
I personally don’t have high hopes for the development of links between the US and the UK on a regional basis at least. United Airlines stated that the UK leaving the EU was part of the reason why they decided to terminate the BHX-EWR service, which happened not long after American Airlines stopped their JFK service (which ran only for a short time, although I think they may have previously flown to Birmingham). As much as both Heathrow and Manchester are used as alternatives, I don’t think that is particularly viable, especially as Birmingham is historically the second city to England, particularly in terms of population (disputed with Manchester). I think services to London will expand, but I wouldn’t directly link that with any sort of trade agreement. Further, links to both Heathrow and Manchester are not really that well supported outside of the respective cities, particularly towards the Midlands, unlike Birmingham Airport in particular. If a trade agreement is going to make any real changes to US aviation here in the UK, I would say it will have to be in the regional airports. I know places such as Newcastle, Bristol and Belfast lost their transatlantic services much sooner, but I think that shows the situation today, and I don’t personally see it improving.

I’ve also heard news about Delta launching a Boston - Manchester service on the 752, which will be serviced daily. Although this is an apparent seat increase, it’s a direct replacement of a VS flight. Making a more frequent service on a smaller plane does sound good, but it also worries me that it has been done so that the frequency can be cut to suit demand much more than expanded.


Dear lord, what a bunch of rubbish. BHX suffers because it has 2 mega operations 100 miles North and South, thankfully due to some of the population diversity you get AI and EK to help service them. Maybe just maybe if some of the better 321 operators (Primera was not it clearly) you might get some service to the US, but not much.

Let’s see : Birmingham to Heathrow: M42,M40 to M25, Birmingham to Manchester: M6 or M5 to M6 I would hardly call that unsupported. Can even take the train from New Street to MAN if you want to.

There are also many decent one stop options to get to BHX too. Trust me, I grew up in Leicestershire, my parents still live there and I would dearly love a direct BHX-BOS flight as I live in the US now, but DL/KL offer me a great service and a reasonable price via AMS, my parents (who are mid 70’s can pick me and mrs VS up from BHX (because they want to) and don’t have to schlep down to LHR at an ungodly hour in the morning.
I am sure I am not the only one doing this. There’s plenty of reasons why BHX cannot hold on to TATL service. In time maybe...

Now as for DL at MAN, that was done for a number of reasons.
1. VS was doing horribly
2. The 330 was too big an aircraft for the route especially when they didn’t pick up the Pax count when MT left the route, the demand was there as the prior year there were 2 carriers running it. VS dropped the ball or couldn’t get access to the MT passengers and pricing otherwise they would have done a whole lot better.
2a. DL’s 757’s are much more suited to the
Route generally and VS can use its 330 for NYC or something else
3. DL is trying to bolster its position as the preferred carrier/alliance in BOS so having MAN in the route portfolio adds to the LHR, LGW and EDI routes on its own metal.
4. It’s a seasonal service anyway so if it’s successful it could be expanded in the future.
5. VS used terminal E at BOS for departures, DL has everything at A, will allow seamless connections for departing passengers. Sadly for arriving it’s E whether you are on VS or DL, but as DL is US POS, the departing version is probably slightly more important.


If you can find me a direct train from Birmingham New Street to Manchester Airport without changing trains, go ahead, I’m waiting. The thing is, Birmingham Airport is better connected transport wise to the rest of the UK than both Manchester (which is well connected to the North of England as well as Glasgow and Edinburgh, but lacks direct public transport connections to the Midlands, Mid and South Wales) and Heathrow (which has poor public transport links to the rest of the UK bar London). Gatwick is not served much better either. BHX has managed service in the past rather well. Continental / United served the airport for over 20 years, so it shows it is possible. From my personal experience and having talked to people, many I know choose to connect via Dublin from Birmingham and make use of preclearance rather than travel to London or Manchester to take a transatlantic flight. I think there is demand in Birmingham, like there probably is in Newcastle, Belfast and Bristol, but people don’t necessarily have the choice.


I do have to say this, and sorry if this breaks any rules or upsets people further. In all honesty, I don’t comment much on here as I said on another thread recently. I actually feel rather attacked in this forum, and really regret making my opinion open to you all. I understand you may disagree, and that is perfectly fine, and I’m happy to engage in discussion, but please be respectful with it. I received a similar response a few days ago to something else, and it was in fact rather hurtful in the way it came across. I’ve noticed it when reading the forums too, and it’s happening to other people.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviatio

Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:29 am

VS4ever wrote:
rugeley123 wrote:
I personally don’t have high hopes for the development of links between the US and the UK on a regional basis at least. United Airlines stated that the UK leaving the EU was part of the reason why they decided to terminate the BHX-EWR service, which happened not long after American Airlines stopped their JFK service (which ran only for a short time, although I think they may have previously flown to Birmingham). As much as both Heathrow and Manchester are used as alternatives, I don’t think that is particularly viable, especially as Birmingham is historically the second city to England, particularly in terms of population (disputed with Manchester). I think services to London will expand, but I wouldn’t directly link that with any sort of trade agreement. Further, links to both Heathrow and Manchester are not really that well supported outside of the respective cities, particularly towards the Midlands, unlike Birmingham Airport in particular. If a trade agreement is going to make any real changes to US aviation here in the UK, I would say it will have to be in the regional airports. I know places such as Newcastle, Bristol and Belfast lost their transatlantic services much sooner, but I think that shows the situation today, and I don’t personally see it improving.

I’ve also heard news about Delta launching a Boston - Manchester service on the 752, which will be serviced daily. Although this is an apparent seat increase, it’s a direct replacement of a VS flight. Making a more frequent service on a smaller plane does sound good, but it also worries me that it has been done so that the frequency can be cut to suit demand much more than expanded.


Dear lord, what a bunch of rubbish. BHX suffers because it has 2 mega operations 100 miles North and South, thankfully due to some of the population diversity you get AI and EK to help service them. Maybe just maybe if some of the better 321 operators (Primera was not it clearly) you might get some service to the US, but not much.

Let’s see : Birmingham to Heathrow: M42,M40 to M25, Birmingham to Manchester: M6 or M5 to M6 I would hardly call that unsupported. Can even take the train from New Street to MAN if you want to.

There are also many decent one stop options to get to BHX too. Trust me, I grew up in Leicestershire, my parents still live there and I would dearly love a direct BHX-BOS flight as I live in the US now, but DL/KL offer me a great service and a reasonable price via AMS, my parents (who are mid 70’s can pick me and mrs VS up from BHX (because they want to) and don’t have to schlep down to LHR at an ungodly hour in the morning.
I am sure I am not the only one doing this. There’s plenty of reasons why BHX cannot hold on to TATL service. In time maybe...

Now as for DL at MAN, that was done for a number of reasons.
1. VS was doing horribly
2. The 330 was too big an aircraft for the route especially when they didn’t pick up the Pax count when MT left the route, the demand was there as the prior year there were 2 carriers running it. VS dropped the ball or couldn’t get access to the MT passengers and pricing otherwise they would have done a whole lot better.
2a. DL’s 757’s are much more suited to the
Route generally and VS can use its 330 for NYC or something else
3. DL is trying to bolster its position as the preferred carrier/alliance in BOS so having MAN in the route portfolio adds to the LHR, LGW and EDI routes on its own metal.
4. It’s a seasonal service anyway so if it’s successful it could be expanded in the future.
5. VS used terminal E at BOS for departures, DL has everything at A, will allow seamless connections for departing passengers. Sadly for arriving it’s E whether you are on VS or DL, but as DL is US POS, the departing version is probably slightly more important.


If you can find me a direct train from Birmingham New Street to Manchester Airport without changing trains, go ahead, I’m waiting. The thing is, Birmingham Airport is better connected transport wise to the rest of the UK than both Manchester (which is well connected to the North of England as well as Glasgow and Edinburgh, but lacks direct public transport connections to the Midlands, Mid and South Wales) and Heathrow (which has poor public transport links to the rest of the UK bar London). Gatwick is not served much better either. BHX has managed service in the past rather well. Continental / United served the airport for over 20 years, so it shows it is possible. From my personal experience and having talked to people, many I know choose to connect via Dublin from Birmingham and make use of preclearance rather than travel to London or Manchester to take a transatlantic flight. I think there is demand in Birmingham, like there probably is in Newcastle, Belfast and Bristol, but people don’t necessarily have the choice.


I do have to say this, and sorry if this breaks any rules or upsets people further. In all honesty, I don’t comment much on here as I said on another thread recently. I actually feel rather attacked in this forum, and really regret making my opinion open to you all. I understand you may disagree, and that is perfectly fine, and I’m happy to engage in discussion, but please be respectful with it. I received a similar response a few days ago to something else, and it was in fact rather hurtful in the way it came across. I’ve noticed it when reading the forums too, and it’s happening to other people.[/quote]

Dude, you are going to need a bit thicker skin to play the game on here. Sorry but it’s true, apart from saying your assertions were rubbish, which may have been a bit harsh the rest is factual. Take it for what you will.

Yes BHX has had TATL operations for many years, but they are first to get cut when the going gets tough and you’ve noted some of the reasons why, as have I.
You have MAN to the North, LHR to the South, you have DUB with preclearance as an advantage and trust me it is one. (My parents have used it a number of times) you have great connections to the likes of AMS and CDG as well, all big hubs in their own right. That siphons off a lot of business traffic for a start which tanks the yield and makes the flights unprofitable when fuel prices go up.
You are trying to compare 3 very different airports and their make up to make a point. MAN can now be considered the LHR of the North not in terms of size but in stature to that market.
LHR doesn’t need connections to the outlying places, it has to connect people and focus on London, if you want to get there, you can from the M1,M4,M25,M40, M11, public transport does not and will not ever cover everything.
As for New Street I understand that you can’t get a train direct to MAN (yet) but it’s not really needed if there is a one change option. It’s no different than flying to BOS via AMS, just on a smaller scale. You can of course get to Stansted, East Midlands, Luton (with a bus change) to name but a couple from there.
BHX’s problem is, it’s right in the middle, it’s 2 hours (roughly with no traffic) from MAN and LHR and those will always have the advantage.
Do not get me wrong, would I be delighted if an airline tried BHX- BOS, absolutely, but unless they can make a compelling argument to the business community and gets enough butts on seats to make the hop across the pond direct, economically viable, it’s a tough decision to make.

Sorry if you feel that’s attacking you, it’s not, it’s just pointing out why I feel I disagree with your stance, doesn’t have to make me right either, but there’s enough empirical evidence to support the why and that’s what underpins my comments.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9510
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:47 am

It’s a silly discussion to be having really given what’s known. And the whole concept is silly as well - beyond shortbread cookies and malt vinegar, there’s hardly anything Americans would buy from the UK in large quantities.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4400
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:52 am

LAXintl wrote:
:white: :white:

The UK and US already have a post Brexit air service agreement ready to go. It was announced last November.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-uk-air-transp ... r-28-2018/


Thank you for posting the sole factual response in this entire thread :yes:
mercure f-wtcc
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14233
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:18 am

I do see, even with a US-UK deal in place as noted in a previous post, that with a likely hard Brexit, of several issues that need to be resolved to maintain the levels of service between them.

First of all is the GFA issue, very important to almost all Democrats and a number of Republicans. If a hard border is in place between the ROI and NI, it might cause our Congress to undo the US-UK deal. If no deal, then how can flights operate between the US and UK.

Another problem, how is it going to be operating aircraft to/from the UK and EU. For example, last year I went via BA from JFK-LHR-CDG-AMS-LHR-JFK and the total price was far cheaper than direct flights JFK-CDG and AMS-JFK. Connecting traffic could be cut off or severely reduced. Then their are the flyover rights, even if not making a EU stop, that could be impacted. I would presume some deal is in place, but for BA and other UK based airlines, it could hit them hard.

A hard Brexit could also cause a decline in business travel due to the fear of or actual internal UK problems including potentially violent protests, the transfer of financial services operations to the EU so can't use the UK offices to do EU deals. Tourism could also be affected as discouraged by violence, protest in London and other major cities despite the value of the UK Pound more favorable to US and EU tourists. A declining value of the UK Pound to the USA Dollar or Euro will hurt tourism by UK citizens to the USA and EU.
 
rugeley123
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviatio

Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:16 am

VS4ever wrote:
rugeley123 wrote:
VS4ever wrote:

Dear lord, what a bunch of rubbish. BHX suffers because it has 2 mega operations 100 miles North and South, thankfully due to some of the population diversity you get AI and EK to help service them. Maybe just maybe if some of the better 321 operators (Primera was not it clearly) you might get some service to the US, but not much.

Let’s see : Birmingham to Heathrow: M42,M40 to M25, Birmingham to Manchester: M6 or M5 to M6 I would hardly call that unsupported. Can even take the train from New Street to MAN if you want to.

There are also many decent one stop options to get to BHX too. Trust me, I grew up in Leicestershire, my parents still live there and I would dearly love a direct BHX-BOS flight as I live in the US now, but DL/KL offer me a great service and a reasonable price via AMS, my parents (who are mid 70’s can pick me and mrs VS up from BHX (because they want to) and don’t have to schlep down to LHR at an ungodly hour in the morning.
I am sure I am not the only one doing this. There’s plenty of reasons why BHX cannot hold on to TATL service. In time maybe...

Now as for DL at MAN, that was done for a number of reasons.
1. VS was doing horribly
2. The 330 was too big an aircraft for the route especially when they didn’t pick up the Pax count when MT left the route, the demand was there as the prior year there were 2 carriers running it. VS dropped the ball or couldn’t get access to the MT passengers and pricing otherwise they would have done a whole lot better.
2a. DL’s 757’s are much more suited to the
Route generally and VS can use its 330 for NYC or something else
3. DL is trying to bolster its position as the preferred carrier/alliance in BOS so having MAN in the route portfolio adds to the LHR, LGW and EDI routes on its own metal.
4. It’s a seasonal service anyway so if it’s successful it could be expanded in the future.
5. VS used terminal E at BOS for departures, DL has everything at A, will allow seamless connections for departing passengers. Sadly for arriving it’s E whether you are on VS or DL, but as DL is US POS, the departing version is probably slightly more important.


If you can find me a direct train from Birmingham New Street to Manchester Airport without changing trains, go ahead, I’m waiting. The thing is, Birmingham Airport is better connected transport wise to the rest of the UK than both Manchester (which is well connected to the North of England as well as Glasgow and Edinburgh, but lacks direct public transport connections to the Midlands, Mid and South Wales) and Heathrow (which has poor public transport links to the rest of the UK bar London). Gatwick is not served much better either. BHX has managed service in the past rather well. Continental / United served the airport for over 20 years, so it shows it is possible. From my personal experience and having talked to people, many I know choose to connect via Dublin from Birmingham and make use of preclearance rather than travel to London or Manchester to take a transatlantic flight. I think there is demand in Birmingham, like there probably is in Newcastle, Belfast and Bristol, but people don’t necessarily have the choice.


I do have to say this, and sorry if this breaks any rules or upsets people further. In all honesty, I don’t comment much on here as I said on another thread recently. I actually feel rather attacked in this forum, and really regret making my opinion open to you all. I understand you may disagree, and that is perfectly fine, and I’m happy to engage in discussion, but please be respectful with it. I received a similar response a few days ago to something else, and it was in fact rather hurtful in the way it came across. I’ve noticed it when reading the forums too, and it’s happening to other people.


Dude, you are going to need a bit thicker skin to play the game on here. Sorry but it’s true, apart from saying your assertions were rubbish, which may have been a bit harsh the rest is factual. Take it for what you will.

Yes BHX has had TATL operations for many years, but they are first to get cut when the going gets tough and you’ve noted some of the reasons why, as have I.
You have MAN to the North, LHR to the South, you have DUB with preclearance as an advantage and trust me it is one. (My parents have used it a number of times) you have great connections to the likes of AMS and CDG as well, all big hubs in their own right. That siphons off a lot of business traffic for a start which tanks the yield and makes the flights unprofitable when fuel prices go up.
You are trying to compare 3 very different airports and their make up to make a point. MAN can now be considered the LHR of the North not in terms of size but in stature to that market.
LHR doesn’t need connections to the outlying places, it has to connect people and focus on London, if you want to get there, you can from the M1,M4,M25,M40, M11, public transport does not and will not ever cover everything.
As for New Street I understand that you can’t get a train direct to MAN (yet) but it’s not really needed if there is a one change option. It’s no different than flying to BOS via AMS, just on a smaller scale. You can of course get to Stansted, East Midlands, Luton (with a bus change) to name but a couple from there.
BHX’s problem is, it’s right in the middle, it’s 2 hours (roughly with no traffic) from MAN and LHR and those will always have the advantage.
Do not get me wrong, would I be delighted if an airline tried BHX- BOS, absolutely, but unless they can make a compelling argument to the business community and gets enough butts on seats to make the hop across the pond direct, economically viable, it’s a tough decision to make.

Sorry if you feel that’s attacking you, it’s not, it’s just pointing out why I feel I disagree with your stance, doesn’t have to make me right either, but there’s enough empirical evidence to support the why and that’s what underpins my comments.


I get your reasoning, but I don't think you are getting the point of my original full argument but instead are focusing on the fact I said Birmingham in particular. Any US - UK trade agreement post-Brexit should be looking to the regions, and not necessarily London-centric, because that, along with other issues, was part of a reason people voted to leave the EU in the first place. I get Heathrow is a hub, and that London is the capital, etc., but the reality of the situation in the UK currently is that everything is focused on London, and the rest of the UK is forgotten. That's how people see projects like HS2 (and Crossrail, although that is of course a London / South East project). If any announced deal is going to make a difference, I think the regions will want to see this change. I get my argument is focused around Birmingham, and I like you would like to see more transatlantic options, and I agree that I don't think it is likely to change. The thing is, however, that people want change. Boston - Birmingham would make more sense to me than other options, because of the business links between Boston firms and the West Midlands (such as Bains Capital's influence in the area), but I don't see it happening anytime soon. My point is that unless places like Bristol, Newcastle, and Belfast see new transatlantic options again, I don't think there will be any positive impact at all by a trade deal between the US and the UK, regardless of how Manchester and London progress. I even think Manchester could lose some of its transatlantic links, such as the announced Boston - Manchester service on Delta. Personally, the one I think that would most likely be dropped is the Singapore Airlines MAN - IAH service, particularly as the original Singapore - Houston service has already moved once before, I think from Moscow. I could see its stopping point changing again from Manchester, and the link being dropped. When I flew back on it in May, it did not seem particularly busy, and most passengers were connecting through rather than getting off in Manchester. I don't know the loads of either the IAH or the Singapore leg, but what I did witness was all of about 10 people, including myself a friend I was travelling back with, collecting baggage. Yes, not everyone puts stuff into the hold, but the number did not seem great to me.

My point with the transport links was that Birmingham is much better connected, again public transport wise, than Heathrow or Manchester, by far. One change from New Street is great, but many people are not originating or ending their travels there, so you are looking at 2 or three changes before even reaching the airport. Heathrow is probably worse than Manchester connection wise, and with the prospects of Crossrail currently (talks about the Heathrow Express not running at all and being replaced fully by the stopping service), I don't think Heathrow's connections are getting much better. I get that there are Coach links (National Express), but I do not think the sale of a Greyhound-like service is going to excite North American business travellers potentially heading out to the regions, if that is the way a US - UK trade deal is going to go. From Birmingham, there are direct links from mid and north Wales, the South of England, London, the North of England, and both Glasgow and Edinburgh, without the need to change trains to many destinations. For people who have got to travel from North America, who may not want to drive (remember, our roads are much different, let alone our driving), there are much better options for regional links, where a Taxi or other private transport is not viable. Sadly, the same cannot really be said for my other examples (there are links to the major rail stations of many regional airports, but buses and then trains are not particularly what people are after).

I think what people are reading into my opinion is that Birmingham, and only Birmingham, is suffering, when actually that is not what I am trying to say. For a positive impact on people, I think the populations in the regions want to be able to boast about a non-stop US service, especially following Brexit and with any trade deals that are to follow. The Brexit that people see is one which benefits their local communities, and not one which focuses on London or Manchester. Any positive impact must focus on the regions. People in Newcastle would much rather travel from Newcastle than Manchester or Edinburgh. People in Bristol would much rather travel from Bristol than London. And as for Belfast, any hard border could potentially cut Northern Ireland off from any potential trade agreements with the US if travellers have to fly to England before making their transatlantic flights. That is why I am saying I hope that any effects on aviation following a deal are not London-centric, because that is what people currently see. I live in a constituency that voted to leave the EU, and the reasons why people want to leave around here is because they do not see their local community prospering compared to London. Apparently, we are out of the 2008 recession, but people here have not seen any change, just further decline. People want their local communities to be noticed and to prosper, and that is why I do not see any benefits of a US - UK trade deal on aviation here unless it serves those communities that currently feel disowned.
 
User001
Posts: 915
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:22 pm

Rugeley.

Firstly, as others have commented, you need thicker skin. No was was attacking you personally, they are debating your argument, which I’m sorry, lacks cohesion and substance. I’ve had the pee ripped out of me on here more times than I can remember but you just crack on as it’s just part of the ingrained culture on here.

In terms of your arguments, there are so many holes in them that I genuinely don’t have enough hours in the day to counter the nonsense, but, I’m genuinely intrigued by one reoccurring argument.

You keep asserting that Delta taking over the VS route from Manchester to Boston is purely bad news, and, I’m still at a loss as to how you keep coming to this conclusion?

Currently, the flight is 3 weekly on an A332. Now, A 3 weekly schedule on this flight is always going to artificially limit what it can attract as a low frequency Schedule is hard for business folk and leisure travellers alike to work around, thus, they will try and find alternative options.

The solution o the above, is, increase frequency.
Now, had VS had a fleet that could sustain it, yes, the flight could have gone up to Daily on VS metal. However, on the A332 capacity, that would have put 3,724 seats on the route weekly, which would have added 2128 seats in one go, an increase of almost 134%. That was just going to end in tears. Now, the A332 is the smallest aircraft VS have, so, as you are a partner with them and they pretty much call the shots, you look at DL.

DL only base certain AC types at BOS, so already, your scope is limited. By putting a B757 daily gives you 2352 seats per week versus the 1596, which is a very respectable 47% increase in seats, not to mention the greater flexibility of the daily schedule, a lot of US pax prefer DL and we are told the DL costs are higher so MAN will need to have convinced DL that it could command the required yield to make it worth while. Putting a standard B763 on the route (which I believe is the only other long haul aircraft DL base at BOS but open to correction) would have given 3164 seats which is an increase of 98%, does that sound feasible to you?

Therefore, as it is all positive, and I’m genuinely at a loss as to why you think it is only bad news and can only result in the flight being cut? Is your argument solely based on the fact that you are seeing A332 changed to B757 and ignoring the facts around it? You also seem to think Brexit will play its part in the flight being canned, yet, Brexit will (supposedly) happen on 31st October 2019 and the increase will take place on 22nd May 2020, so, clearly Brexit hasn’t scuppered the efforts there?

And as said, the rest of your arguments also lack any substance and has many contradictory points. One such contradictory point is saying you don’t have a BHX agenda and prefer not to use BHX, yet later state how you and others do actually prefer to use BHX even if you require 2 transit stops along the way or go via DUB.

believe me, if I had the time I’d happily debate each of your points, but frankly, there is so much to counter I’d be here all night as just those 2 points alone took time to recover from the huge face palm reading your posts. Adios and again, don’t take it personally, but, if your going to post to the extent you have done so far, you need to bring a better game than that.
 
rugeley123
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:09 pm

User001 wrote:
Rugeley.

Firstly, as others have commented, you need thicker skin. No was was attacking you personally, they are debating your argument, which I’m sorry, lacks cohesion and substance. I’ve had the pee ripped out of me on here more times than I can remember but you just crack on as it’s just part of the ingrained culture on here.

In terms of your arguments, there are so many holes in them that I genuinely don’t have enough hours in the day to counter the nonsense, but, I’m genuinely intrigued by one reoccurring argument.

You keep asserting that Delta taking over the VS route from Manchester to Boston is purely bad news, and, I’m still at a loss as to how you keep coming to this conclusion?

Currently, the flight is 3 weekly on an A332. Now, A 3 weekly schedule on this flight is always going to artificially limit what it can attract as a low frequency Schedule is hard for business folk and leisure travellers alike to work around, thus, they will try and find alternative options.

The solution o the above, is, increase frequency.
Now, had VS had a fleet that could sustain it, yes, the flight could have gone up to Daily on VS metal. However, on the A332 capacity, that would have put 3,724 seats on the route weekly, which would have added 2128 seats in one go, an increase of almost 134%. That was just going to end in tears. Now, the A332 is the smallest aircraft VS have, so, as you are a partner with them and they pretty much call the shots, you look at DL.

DL only base certain AC types at BOS, so already, your scope is limited. By putting a B757 daily gives you 2352 seats per week versus the 1596, which is a very respectable 47% increase in seats, not to mention the greater flexibility of the daily schedule, a lot of US pax prefer DL and we are told the DL costs are higher so MAN will need to have convinced DL that it could command the required yield to make it worth while. Putting a standard B763 on the route (which I believe is the only other long haul aircraft DL base at BOS but open to correction) would have given 3164 seats which is an increase of 98%, does that sound feasible to you?

Therefore, as it is all positive, and I’m genuinely at a loss as to why you think it is only bad news and can only result in the flight being cut? Is your argument solely based on the fact that you are seeing A332 changed to B757 and ignoring the facts around it? You also seem to think Brexit will play its part in the flight being canned, yet, Brexit will (supposedly) happen on 31st October 2019 and the increase will take place on 22nd May 2020, so, clearly Brexit hasn’t scuppered the efforts there?

And as said, the rest of your arguments also lack any substance and has many contradictory points. One such contradictory point is saying you don’t have a BHX agenda and prefer not to use BHX, yet later state how you and others do actually prefer to use BHX even if you require 2 transit stops along the way or go via DUB.

believe me, if I had the time I’d happily debate each of your points, but frankly, there is so much to counter I’d be here all night as just those 2 points alone took time to recover from the huge face palm reading your posts. Adios and again, don’t take it personally, but, if your going to post to the extent you have done so far, you need to bring a better game than that.


Again, you’re lacking in understanding the substance of the argument I have presented. I’m not just talking about Birmingham but other regional airports such as Bristol, Belfast and Newcastle, but it just happens that Birmingham is my closest regional airport when I’m at home. When I’m studying, my closest airports depend on my location, and usually vary between Cardiff and Houston / Hobby. This thread is about an agreement between the US and UK post Brexit, and subsequent effects that a trade deal will have on aviation. My opinion is that if there is going to be any positive impact of a trade agreement, it will affect the regional airports like Birmingham, Bristol and Newcastle, rather than just affect flights into London Heathrow / Gatwick as well as Manchester. That is because people want their communities to gain here, not our “hubs” or aviation centres. You did not make a comment about how you think aviation will be affected, but just came on here to say that you think I’m completely wrong. If transatlantic aviation is going to have a positive impact post Brexit, it must serve those regions, and those communities. Otherwise, people will see it as just focusing on the rich and wealthy, and again being London-centric.

To quickly address the ‘contradiction’ you expressed. I think you failed to understand what I am saying. I don’t like to personally fly out of Birmingham as I there are other airports I prefer to fly out of. But, for convenience, Birmingham is much easier for me and many other people than travelling to Manchester or London, even on a two stop itinerary. I live about 80 miles from Manchester and about 130 miles from Heathrow. Manchester, on a good run, is still a 2 hour drive, without traffic, as it is around a 20 mile drive from here, in the direction of Manchester, before you join the M6. The M6 is frequently chaos, and many travellers in this area have to allow 3-4 hours to get to Manchester airport from here, and that’s with a car or taxi. Heathrow can easily be a 4 hour drive, and is currently showing as over 2 and a half hours away in current traffic from my location, including travelling on both the M4 and M25, which are notorious for being congested. Two major airports within a 100 mile radius of a major city sounds excellent, but to actually drive that in the practical world is far different. Two miles down the road, we have a huge company with US ownership and operations. I get that one standalone business would not likely support a US flight from a regional airport, but it’s not the only one.

My point about public transport connections to Birmingham, however, is pretty important. Birmingham is much better connected to the rest of the country via these means than Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester. HS2, if it doesn’t get scrapped, will serve Birmingham Airport, and it will be the first and only airport in the United Kingdom to be served during the time that Phase 1 is complete. The two parts of phase 2 are in increased jeopardy at this point, and Manchester Airport may never be connected. With Heathrow Express services also facing potential termination, Birmingham Airport to Central London via HS2 will be quicker than Crossrail services to Central London, especially for many areas of East London. But that is not my main point either. The smaller communities are much better connected, and many of these are the communities that voted to leave the EU in the first place. It’s those places that want to see the benefits of trade agreements, and TATL services to these regional places will be much more effective at showing this than flights to London or Manchester. If a US-UK agreement is going to have any positive impact on aviation, it must serve those communities.

I will talk about why I don’t think this Delta flight is possibly the best news. Yes, seats have increased on the service by 47% due to the increased frequency from a 3x weekly 332 to a daily 752. But we have seen on numerous occasions in the UK when frequency has initially been increased, or there has been a major aircraft change like this, we eventually see downgrades, loss in frequencies and even the potential termination of the service completely as time progresses. Continental used to fly the DC10 and 777 to Manchester, and most flights today are down to 757s on United. I know I’m going back to using Birmingham as an example, but before the cancellation of the United flight to Newark, the service had been cut from daily to 5x weekly, as well as the aircraft being downgraded further over time. I worry that this will be the next step for Delta; cutting the 757 run from daily to 5x weekly, and then lower until eventual termination of flights. News reports at the time of both United and American terminating services at Birmingham, although I am unable to find them on a quick search today, cited Brexit as being a major contributing factor. Could Delta do the same in the future?

Can I ask here whether you live in the United States or Canada? The reason I ask this is because your perception of airports being within a reasonable drive sounds very different to that of a person who lives in the UK. My uncle used to live in Colorado and once had a friend come over here and plan to visit him. This friend said he’d meet him an hour after picking up his hire car at Manchester Airport (80 miles away). He didn’t make it on time at all, and was 90 minutes late. The flight actually arrived in early, and he picked up the hire car earlier than expected. But he had the perception that he could travel an 80 mile distance in around an hour, but had no idea about how our road infrastructure greatly differs from the US, and realised an 80 mile drive here can be a long drive.

The personal attacks are not people’s own opinions, but by the way that people conduct themselves on this website with their language and sentence construction. I’ll point to the fact that forum rules say that criticism is to be constructive rather than just completely dismissive, and not to use comments such as “completely rubbish” or “you have an agenda.” There is a difference between having thicker skin and people just being dismissive.
 
SanDiegoLover
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:24 am

Re: Transatlantic & Brexit - Impact of the announced US-UK trade deal on aviation

Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:18 pm

Brexit is an awful idea, period, from a sheer economic point of view. Global supply chains are extremely complex, organic, and slow to change. We’ve seen first hand what that looks like within the aviation business and the huge issues the 787 had regarding a wholesale change in a supply chain. (And that’s just for one product, for one company.)

Due to Trump’s inane Tweet the other week about “hereby order businesses out of China”, Apple stated that it would take them 5 years to move just 50% of their supply chain in China to other locales. They also stated it would come at a large $$$$ investment. Now replicate one company’s supply chain to the UK economy writ large.

I work for a US based marketing firm, and we have 3,500 employees outside the USA, 1,150 in Europe/UK. We moved our UK operations (350 employees) to the NL as our new European center of operations specifically because of Brexit. Again, this is just one company in one industry. I don’t see the value of moving anything Europe related to the UK, personally from a business investment point of view.

In my opinion, if the UK crashes out of the EU, the brain drain will be irreversible. I would regroup ops by moving the UK into our North American realm of business thought. I would treat it like an outpost, like we do with Puerto Rico. ( Not trying to be demeaning.). My point is my investment would be limited to only what economic value the UK has by itself, and only itself. The UK is a mature economy, so it will be hard pressed to argue for return on investment dollars, vs Asia, South America, and Africa. Existing business will still be supported but no need to invest new and additional resources into the UK given the returns elsewhere are much higher.

It will not surprise me to see Scotland cleve itself off from the UK.

All of this said, UK aviation looks like a particularly awful place to be in. Americans will bypass London and the UK more and more. Long term holiday travels will probably remain stable, but short term (1 to 3 years) many Americans will avoid the UK. Likewise, with all of the uncertainties of Brexit, UK travelers will likely postpone holidays, or take them closer to home. I see no upside for UK aviation with Brexit.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 45 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos