Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
scotron11
Topic Author
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 5:10 pm

Martin Broughton, BA Chairman, has launched an attack on the US government and its airline industry, and called on the EU to support him in a campaign against the "bald-faced effrontery" of the Americans.

"They put "open sky" negotiations back on the table when virtually half their airline industry is in Chap 11 and then say "let's open up competition on the transatlantic market". That takes some beating.

"If the US had the courage to change their ownership laws and change the "fly-American" rules, we'd welcome that and then it would be time to negotiate genuine open skies".

At the same time, BA wants to fly to as many US cities as possible and has made no secret that an alliance with AA is stll its preferred route to global expansion.(Observer 10/30)

I guess the war of words has started!
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 5:33 pm

I don't get it. This guy is bashing US airlines and at the same time he has made no secret that an alliance with AA is stll its preferred route to global expansion! Just in case he forgot, AA in an American ased airline. Oooh well, BA screwed me out of a good 20000 miles so I'm a little pissed off about them already and I know this has nothing to do with this current issue.
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5387
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:26 pm

Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 1):
I don't get it. This guy is bashing US airlines and at the same time he has made no secret that an alliance with AA is stll its preferred route to global expansion! Just in case he forgot, AA in an American ased airline.

No, I don't think you do get it. AA may well be "American ased" but Broughton is hardly saying that such things shouldn't exist. He's damning Chapter 11 as being effectively protectionist when the US government claims to want completely open skies across the Atlantic. There is indeed a contradiction here. Does Washington really want a free market and a level playing field or not? In any case, American is unique among the big US legacy carriers in that it isn't currently in and has never been in Chapter 11. It seems the ideal partner for BA and hardly undermines Broughton's point.
 
egmcman
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:44 pm

Quoting Scotron11 (Thread starter):
I guess the war of words has started!

It's been going for a while Sir Rod Eddington said it in his last speech a couple of months ago.
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:57 pm

While I'm in support of greater foreign investment, I have a hard time believing even BA, AF/KL, or LH would even want to put up the capital for such ventures. Moreover, US airlines are already finding enough financing from other types of firms. What makes the European airlines think they even have a chance?

Still, can't blame them for trying.

Aaron G.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:22 pm

A new spin on an old topic - the UK (read BA) simply does not want open skies between the UK and US and is very happy with the current situation which limits access to LHR for US carriers and protects BA's dominant position at that very important access.

Now, the US bankruptcy laws are an issue.......until recently, the prime arguement was that UK carriers should have access to the US domestic markets in return for access to LHR. I am certain that they will find yet another reason to justify limited access to LHR next year. Of course, at the same time, BA would like to increased access to the US.

No surprises here - BA likes the status quo.....they dominate on routes out of London to the US, they have a relationship with the biggest US carrier on routes out of London (which just happens to be one of the strongest and largest airlines in the US)......so why would they want their home base opened up to new competition from carriers such as CO (which is not in bankruptcy), NW, US/HP or DL?
 
Gman94
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 2:56 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:59 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 6):
No surprises here - BA likes the status quo.....they dominate on routes out of London to the US, they have a relationship with the biggest US carrier on routes out of London (which just happens to be one of the strongest and largest airlines in the US)......so why would they want their home base opened up to new competition from carriers such as CO (which is not in bankruptcy), NW, US/HP or DL?

Why should BA have or even want their home base opened for what seems to be very little in return. Everyone gets down on BA but the only argument you give is that they dominate the slots at a LHR.

Shock, horror, hold the front page, a British airline is the the dominate carrier at a British airport. Oh my God the world is ending, were all doomed, doomed I say.  boggled 

If NW, DL, US, CO want in, then the US Government is going to have to give the UK airlines something in return. Until then you'll have Broughton and Co criticising the US government.
British Airways - The Way To Fly
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:10 pm

The think he's saying is that the US govenment is too soft on airlines in trouble, they have chapter 11 and 13 ( which UA were in for some time) and it's just a safety net, while BA had to pull itself out of bankrupsy without any money aid whatsoever. After Septerber 11th, allbut a few American airlines were in finantional problems, the US govenment made a huge pay out to keep them going, while BA had no aid. America ( and other countries) need to let go of dying airlines, NW, DL UA and outside of America,Countries in Europe are keeping their airlines going, Alitalia for example

Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:26 pm

As has been said time and time again, the proportion of slots that BA has at Heathrow is far lower than that held by AF at CDG, LH at FRA, CO at EWR, KL at AMS or practically any other major airline at their hub airport...
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:30 pm

BA only have 37% of LHR slots, not enough I think, This is probably due to having 2 other airlines based their aswell ( VS and BD), while at CDG, FRA, AMS etc, there's only the main carier. This is how it should be at LHR. Only BA based there.

Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:42 pm

Personally I think that the US airlines should be allowed to fly into LHR. I and many others will continue to fly with BA or Virgin as:

1. They're our national airlines.
2. They're both vastly superior to my experience of UA, AA, DL and CO

Flying with CO to EWR out of GLA is something to behold. 6 hours in a B752 with lacklustre service and amenities. I think I'll take the shuttle to LHR and fly out with BA or VS in future.

If the US airlines think they'll be successful out of LHR providing this sort of service, let them in. UA and AA offer a good service from LHR although still not up to BAs standards in my opinion.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5387
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:46 pm

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 10):
This is how it should be at LHR. Only BA based there.

"...how it should be..."??? On the contrary. The UK has the healthiest and most dynamic airline sector in Europe. If BA doesn't have things all its own way, all the better. Compare it with France where the whole industry suffers under the dead hand of AF. Show me a French VS, a French LCC or even a French BD. Yes, BA has to work harder at LHR than LH does at FRA or AF at CDG but it hasn't stopped them being a leading and profitable airline.
 
art
Posts: 4065
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:35 pm

Quoting Scotron11 (Thread starter):
"If the US had the courage to change their ownership laws and change the "fly-American" rules...

I'm ignorant. What are these "fly-American rules", please?
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:55 pm

Quoting Art (Reply 13):

I'm ignorant. What are these "fly-American rules", please?

I was curious about that myself.

This is always such a difficult and odd situation - could you imagine how people would react if the US said that in order for BA to have access to JFK, a condition would be that US carriers must have access to the UK domestic market? People would be outraged - it would be the big bad America thing. But somehow its acceptable that UK is demanding access to the US domestic market in return for increased service by US carriers into LHR. Now, the UK wants changes to US bankruptcy laws in return for LHR access. Why doesnt anyone just keep it simple - BA likes its very protected position at LHR and does not want to give it up. Also consider that BMI is a big loser in this political mess - as long as the UK and BA refuse to open LHR up, BMI cannot start flights from LHR to the US.
 
art
Posts: 4065
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:40 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 14):
This is always such a difficult and odd situation - could you imagine how people would react if the US said that in order for BA to have access to JFK, a condition would be that US carriers must have access to the UK domestic market?

You mean: if you want the opportunity to compete for more trade, we want the opportunity to compete for more trade?

I'm a consumer of air transportation. I would welcome such a proposal if it were bilateral. Providing the US modified its bankruptcy laws. I don't think the financial and social chaos these cause should be inflicted on other markets.
 
tymnbalewne
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:06 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:48 pm

"Fly America" rules state that USA Gov't travellers, (and I believe contractors doing USA Gov't business) must use a USA carrier wherever possible. This means that a gov't person going from, say, DEN-DXB would have to fly a USA carrier at least as far as across the atlantic. They could go DEN UA ORD LHR BA DXB, but they couldn't use the BA DEN LHR service.

I also think (but am not 100% sure) that codeshare is okay. I seem to recall that EI from BWI could carry "Fly America" traffic because that flight also carried an AA flight number.

C.
Dewmanair...begins with Dew
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:07 pm

There are a few pretty laughable points to be made about this ridiculous quote.

Quoting Scotron11 (Thread starter):
"They put "open sky" negotiations back on the table when virtually half their airline industry is in Chap 11 and then say "let's open up competition on the transatlantic market". That takes some beating.

Honestly, I'm sure you could get much the same level of anger and frustration in a quote from someone at Continental or Delta, somewhere along the lines of:

"They want to have cabotage within the U.S., when they they know their market is smaller and more congested, and their airlines have all the good slots."

Trust me, the U.S. and E.U. both have their own interests clearly at play in this. Furthermore, I highly doubt that the U.S. government agreed to this new negotiation meeting at the end of the last meetings in 2002-2003 with the thinking if we just wait a few years longer, almost all our airlines will be in bankruptcy, then we'll really get the advantage! Yeah, right.

Quoting Scotron11 (Thread starter):
"If the US had the courage to change their ownership laws and change the "fly-American" rules, we'd welcome that and then it would be time to negotiate genuine open skies".

"If the E.U. had the courage to build more f-ing runways, and thus provide more slots that could be made available to new entrants and useful times, we'd welcome that and then it would be time to negotiate genuine open skies."

Isn't reciprocity fun?
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:23 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 17):
"If the E.U. had the courage to build more f-ing runways, and thus provide more slots that could be made available to new entrants and useful times, we'd welcome that and then it would be time to negotiate genuine open skies."

We do just fine with the runways we have thanks. Why would BA want access to the US domestic market anyway? Fat lot of good its done DL, UA and NW.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
panamair
Posts: 4417
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 2:24 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:44 am

More red herring with using Ch.11 as an excuse, as usual. The Ch.11 laws have been there for a LONG LONG time. And only now, they start criticising? BTW, it's not just the U.S. that has this law. Canada has a similar version (how do you think AC managed to dump a bunch of liabilities?), and I believe that Brazil has something similar also (putting RG into 'receivership'). Ch.11 is not a guarantee of continued success for a company; many companies have never emerged successfully from it, such as Pan Am, Braniff, etc.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:53 am

Quoting HS748 (Reply 3):
Washington wants a free market in absolutely nothing. All American trade policies are aimed at protecting Americans at the expense of everyone else in the world. Can't blame them for that I suppose, but their hypocrisy is mind boggling (and wholly typical).

If American trade policies were aimed at protecting Americans at the expense of everyone else in the world, the US wouldn't have a $700 billion trade deficit.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:58 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 18):
Why would BA want access to the US domestic market anyway?

H*ll if I know, which is why I suspect the Europeans have finally dropped that laughingly one-sided demand. Europeans have been very crafty in trying to frame the Americans as the greedy ones, the Americans as the hypocrites, etc. The reality is that the Europeans are just as bad.

The only reason why they are playing up the whole "we're so into liberalization ... let's set the market free" stuff (which, ironically, runs 180 degrees counter to the way many European economies are functioning today) is because they know full well that they would be getting a vastly better deal. As I have repeated many, many times, the U.S. would essentially be trading away access to the world's largest air market, with virtually no barriers to entry or exit in 99% of the airports throughout the U.S., while American carriers would have virtually no chance of ever getting any meaningful access to the internal European market (which, by the way, I doubt they would ever want or need).

I think it is quite fair to say that both sides are doing exactly what they should -- they are selfishly looking out for the interests of their airlines. That's fine, that is the prerogative of both sides, and I respect it. But the E.U. (and Europeans) trying to stake out the moral high ground and use the completely meaningless red herring of Chapter 11 is just a joke.

Cheers.
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1658
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:36 am

Quoting Egmcman (Reply 4):
but their hypocrisy is mind boggling (and wholly typical).

Wholly typical for most every country I may add.
 
scotron11
Topic Author
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:35 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 17):

Isn't reciprocity fun?

It certainly is! I think Broughton is putting his 2 cents where his mouth is because he probably knows there is a good chance of this "open skies" deal finally happening. If they do strike some sort of accord, I hope Bermuda II is part of it. Maybe not all at once, but some sort of phase in for an orderly transition, instead of a "free for all".

Of course, if Bermuda II is scrapped, then ATI for AA/BA would be a formality, don't you think? Then we can watch the sparks fly!
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:39 am

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 16):
"Fly America" rules state that USA Gov't travellers, (and I believe contractors doing USA Gov't business) must use a USA carrier wherever possible. This means that a gov't person going from, say, DEN-DXB would have to fly a USA carrier at least as far as across the atlantic. They could go DEN UA ORD LHR BA DXB, but they couldn't use the BA DEN LHR service.

Imagine that. I hope British goverment employees use BMI, Virgin or British Airways.

AAndrew
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:49 am

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 24):
Imagine that. I hope British goverment employees use BMI, Virgin or British Airways.

We do.

My personal feeling is that if your government's policy isn't to "Look after Number 1", you have the wrong people in government.

[Edited 2005-10-30 21:51:29]
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:06 am

Quoting Panamair (Reply 19):
BTW, it's not just the U.S. that has this law. Canada has a similar version (how do you think AC managed to dump a bunch of liabilities?), and I believe that Brazil has something similar also (putting RG into 'receivership'). Ch.11 is not a guarantee of continued success for a company;

Nice post, Panamair. Sad that it's been ignored so far.

Ch 11 has been around for a long time, and not only in the U.S.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:15 am

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 23):
Of course, if Bermuda II is scrapped, then ATI for AA/BA would be a formality, don't you think?

Yes, I agree. If B2 goes away as part of a larger U.S.-E.U. 'Open Skies' accord (which I think has a much higher chance of happening now than 2 or 3 years ago) than yes, I do think that AA/BA ATI would not be far behind. Once the U.S. and E.U. agree on Open Skies, ATI is just a formality, as you say, and would be granted. Then, CO, DL, NW and US would have to do their best on the open market to buy slots at LHR (as I doubt the U.K. government will see more created just for them).

There was in interesting discussion on this in this month's Airline Business. The article concludes that, "it seems likely that the US side will have to accept that extra slots at Heathrow will not be part of the deal and carriers will have to take their chances in the grey market." It also quotes Andrew Canh, BA's director of government and industry affairs, as saying, "I draw a parallel with the UK bilateral with India. They [India] began by saying we have got to have slots. This was eventually dropped, yet Jet Airways has managed to get four daily slots at Heathrow."

An interesting perspective, in my opinion, and very interesting. While I think that the U.S. government will be under intense pressure from the non-Heathrow U.S. airlines -- especially Continental and Delta -- not to make a deal unless actual slots at LHR (not just rights) are guaranteed, I do think the U.S. might be willing to make a deal that granted all U.S. carriers the right to fly to LHR, but not the slots to land there. The U.S. airlines (including American and United) would then be left to fight for slots and buy them up on the open market, with the ultimate winners being the highest bidders.

One thing is for sure -- if this system is what ultimately materializes, and the U.S. carriers are left to buy slots at Heathrow on the open market, we are going to see the accountable value of Heathrow slots reach the stratosphere, as airlines like Continental and Delta are going to be paying top-dollar for slots. In addition, I think American is going to be very interested to get at least 2-3 daily slots to shift its DFW flights to Heathrow.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:57 am

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 16):
I also think (but am not 100% sure) that codeshare is okay.

You are correct. We can fly a foreign carrier if it is a codeshare flight.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
DCAYOW
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:24 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:07 am

Quoting PM (Reply 2):
No, I don't think you do get it. AA may well be "American ased" but Broughton is hardly saying that such things shouldn't exist. He's damning Chapter 11 as being effectively protectionist when the US government claims to want completely open skies across the Atlantic. There is indeed a contradiction here. Does Washington really want a free market and a level playing field or not?

How is our Chap. 11 any different than Olympic Airways getting Greek infusions or Alitalia getting Italian infusions, we call it Chap. 11 you call it state aid. What's the difference?
Retorne ao céu...
 
art
Posts: 4065
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:25 am

Quoting Panamair (Reply 19):
More red herring with using Ch.11 as an excuse, as usual.

I would criticise bankruptcy laws just as vehemently as I criticise those of the US if such stupid laws existed where I lived. There are many things in Europe that I perceive to be stupid; there are less in the USA since I am not as aware of the what exists there. I am aware of the effects of chapter 11 reported on this site. In my estimation the US bankruptcy laws are damaging. (And if you think about it, the most damage caused is to US industry).

Call references to Chapter 11 red herrings and excuses if you will. But please try to muster some reasoning to support your position. The fact that bankruptcy laws exist elsewhere does not preclude the US ones being subjected to scrutiny and condemned if they are condemnable.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:30 am

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 29):

How is our Chap. 11 any different than Olympic Airways getting Greek infusions or Alitalia getting Italian infusions, we call it Chap. 11 you call it state aid. What's the difference?

The difference in this case is in favor of the US carriers on chapter 11 - under chapter 11, the company does not get aid or an infusion of money, there is no direct cash forthcoming. Chapter 11 allows a company to reschedule its debt, renegotiate contracts, and work out its finances. The unsecured creditors (other businesses) usually only end up collecting a portion of the monies owed to them (sometime a very small portion) and the equity of the owners of the company is generally wiped out, with the new investors in the company taking over ownership. There is no aid, and no contributions by the government pursuant to a Chapter 11 proceeding. The creditors, owners and sometimes the employees of the bankrupt company take the hit in a bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy laws are not unique to the US, as pointed out, the UK also has receivership proceedings which are similiar in some respects. Bankruptcy laws allow companies and individuals a second chance when getting into financial trouble, and there is nothing wrong with them. The UK now claiming that US carriers should not have access to LHR because some US carriers are or have operated under the protection of the bankruptcy laws is not a fair arguement. Many money losing state owned airlines fly in and out of LHR - maybe those airlines should now be denied access to LHR because they are not profitable?
 
art
Posts: 4065
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:44 am

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 29):
How is our Chap. 11 any different than Olympic Airways getting Greek infusions or Alitalia getting Italian infusions, we call it Chap. 11 you call it state aid.

It's not bankruptcy in these cases - it's the respective governments flouting the law of the European Union which would deny them such infusions. The EU appears to lack the political will to enforce its own laws. That's to be condemned. Collective law is nothing if members are free to ignore it if they want to.
 
positiverate
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:35 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:01 am

Quoting HS748 (Reply 3):
Washington wants a free market in absolutely nothing. All American trade policies are aimed at protecting Americans at the expense of everyone else in the world. Can't blame them for that I suppose, but their hypocrisy is mind boggling (and wholly typical).

Pretty bold statement, especially in light of an almost quarter TRILLION dollar trade deficit. Please provide some examples (if you can). Otherwise, we can only assume you are stirring the pot.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:22 am

I must say Dutchjet does appear to have a fair point here.
BA is really the only one screaming loud... we don't hear similar things out of
Virgin, KLM, Lufthansa or SAS do we? And why not? Maybe because
they don't have london heathrow as a major compeititive advantage.

There could be a fair point here, if, whilest not paying the creditors US carriers priced flights at levels simply to gain cash flow (knowing all to well certain creditors may be 'forced' to forgive a certain amount of debt), but to my knoweledge there are controls on these things because i believe very little room to move is afforded without court approval.

Quoting Art (Reply 32):
It's not bankruptcy in these cases - it's the respective governments flouting the law of the European Union which would deny them such infusions. The EU appears to lack the political will to enforce its own laws

I couldn't agree more... BUT do you honestly think certain countries would still be members if certain laws where enforced? Big job losses in say, Athens or Rome may just stirr up nationalistic ideas? Do it on many fronts over many different issues, and you may have the end of the whole thing. The idea that there is one single European ethos is absurd. To tell me that somebody who lives in Lulea, Sweden lives a very similar life, has very similar values, ideas, expectations etc etc as somebody who lives in say, Saville, or Cyprus is delusional. So what is the answer?

[Edited 2005-10-31 02:27:14]
 
chgoflyer
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 11:16 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:24 am

Quoting HS748 (Reply 3):
Washington wants a free market in absolutely nothing. All American trade policies are aimed at protecting Americans at the expense of everyone else in the world. Can't blame them for that I suppose, but their hypocrisy is mind boggling (and wholly typical

I keep asking myself what part of American trade policy say with China protected Americans or our companys. When I call Delta reservations and reach a call center in India is that at the expense of the rest of the world?

Your comment is just British hot air and it went out of fashion in the 1960's bout the same time as your nations economy became meaningless.
Will someone please wake me up in 4 years
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:47 am

Quoting Positiverate (Reply 33):
Please provide some examples (if you can).

Of course. About eighteen months ago the US government imposed new and significant import duties on steel to protect the US steel industry from competition.

Of course the EU that also professes to believe in free trade is actually just as bad. Our western governments all raise the issue of the poor third world and how we must eliminate poverty. But the third world is a sector of the global economy that is primarily agricultural. The EU that basically consists of appointees of these our governments then puts up tariff barriers (just as the USA does) to protect its farmers from low cost third world competition.

So our politicians' solution is not for us to buy third world produce thus letting them earn a crust from a hard days work. It is to cancel their debt. This allows the wives of dictators to shop in Bond Street, Champs Elysee and 5th Avenue (to our economic benefit), it allows state owned airlines of totally destitute African countries to order a fleet of B787s (to our economic benefit) and it ensures the vast majority of the populations of these countries starve.
 
positiverate
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:35 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:55 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 36):
Of course. About eighteen months ago the US government imposed new and significant import duties on steel to protect the US steel industry from competition.

You mean the steel tariff that ENDED in December of 2003? The one that was put in place in March 2002? Wow, yeah, you really got us there. A whole 21 months of steel tariffs; boy I guess we really are protectionist, and that NAFTA, China PNTR, and CAFTA are just shams.

Again, pretty bold from a country that won't even open up Heathrow or negotiate an open skies agreement.
 
Amy
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:48 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:16 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 17):
If the E.U. had the courage to build more f-ing runways

You obviously have little conception of how airport expansion works here. Unlike certain US airports that are located miles outside of town, the BAA would have to spend billions relocating the inhabitants around LHR to get the room for new runways. You don't think we want to expand? You don't think the Million pounds plus PER HOUR that is involved in Heathrow's Terminal Five expansion is enough? Is it not sufficient that we build the biggest newest most hi-tech airport terminal in the world to free up more slots for your and other airlines to access heathrow? New Flash. In a few years when T5 is complete, T4 which currently operates the Long Haul services for arguably the world's most successful airline will be open for the taking.

If you were in the slightest bit familiar with Heathrow's expansion plans you would have seen the proposals for a third parallel runway and domestic terminal above the current north runway.

With the state the industry is in in your country i find it laughable that you can try to debase the most successful airline in the world and the largest international airport (in terms of passengers carried) in the world.

I suggest you sort out your own problems rather than point the finger at us. That's exactly what Broughton is suggesting.
A340-300 - slow, but awesome!
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:09 pm

Quoting Amy (Reply 38):
You obviously have little conception of how airport expansion works here.

Sadly, no, I have a very good conception of how it works, which is why I find the whole thing so sad for such a wonderful country.

Quoting Amy (Reply 38):
Unlike certain US airports that are located miles outside of town, the BAA would have to spend billions relocating the inhabitants around LHR to get the room for new runways.

Yeah, and the point is? These people's houses need to be bulldozed, and they need to be compensated. Why should a few hundred houses hold up the economic standing and aviation prominance of an entire nation, which is slowly seeing is significance within the industry diminished because it's #1 hub -- Heathrow -- can't keep up with continental competing hubs?

Quoting Amy (Reply 38):
You don't think we want to expand?

I have no doubt that the majority of Britons understand that expansion is the answer. My problem is that it takes F-O-R-E-V-E-R. Decades, upon decades, of discussions, forums, talks, chats, political speeches, debates, white papers, environmental impact studies, economic studies, and on and on and on, et al. At some point, England is going to just have to bite the bullet and tell these people living near Heathrow the reality -- the land their houses are on is worth far more than the houses on it, and that they are single-handedly holding up the economy of England to some extent. Pay them off and knock their houses down. End of story.

Quoting Amy (Reply 38):
Is it not sufficient that we build the biggest newest most hi-tech airport terminal in the world to free up more slots for your and other airlines to access heathrow?

Frankly, no, it's not, and it's quite scary that you think it is. Don't you get it? LHR is slowly but surely losing out to CDG, AMS and FRA as they are less congested, and have room to grow with more runways and more terminals. Building T5 is not going to cut, nor will the subsequent opening of gates in the existing terminals. Without the runways for the planes to land, the fact that the planes will have terminals to pull up to is fairly meaningless.

Quoting Amy (Reply 38):
With the state the industry is in in your country i find it laughable that you can try to debase the most successful airline in the world and the largest international airport (in terms of passengers carried) in the world.

I sure hope you don't fall out of the saddle of that high horse you are riding on. Newsflash, Amy, I never "debased" any airline or airport. In fact, I have said many times on this board that I absolutely love England, love the people, the history, the country. I just find it quite sad that it takes about thirty years (exaggeration, of course, but not by much) to begin even discussing the possibility of expansion of Heathrow.

Quoting Amy (Reply 38):
I suggest you sort out your own problems rather than point the finger at us.

Honestly, if I was living anywhere in the E.U., economic prowess and aviation infrastructure expansion would probably be one of the last issues I would want to brag about.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3314
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:46 pm

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 29):
How is our Chap. 11 any different than Olympic Airways getting Greek infusions or Alitalia getting Italian infusions, we call it Chap. 11 you call it state aid. What's the difference?

Regardless of what it is, it's the biggest matter of "what have you done for me lately" that I've ever seen.

Without non-free market intervention, BA wouldn't even exist today. Yes, they've done a wonderful turnaround, and I salute them for that, but it's outright silly to effectively start the "aid clock" at, say January 1, 2000.

As far as Heathrow slots, the United States will never detach Heathrow slots from any kind of Open Skies deal. Just won't happen -- because without a LOT of slots at LHR, what's in it for the Americans?

Even without the cabotage issue (which has clearly been dropped from what I've read), trading Open Skies for the hope of US-based airlines getting enough slots at Heathrow would be foolish at best.

Steve
 
KensukeAida
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:37 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 pm

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 25):

My personal feeling is that if your government's policy isn't to "Look after Number 1", you have the wrong people in government.

I think you just hit the nail on the head.

I personally feel no shame that the US encourages its own employees to contribute to the domestic economy by flying domestic based carriers. And I fully expect the British government to do the same. If they don't, the British Government doesn't have its priorities in order (a point that has been made to me time and again by a British friend of mine who left the UK for the US because of economic stagnation...so temper your flames please). BA needs to stop trying to blame us.

When you speak of the "free market" you usually speak of the private sector. Not the public one. The *average* American is stil able to pick any airline he wants (including BA, VS, ect.).

- John

P.S. I think the bankruptcy laws in my country are a trite stupid too, but no matter how much Broughton wants to make it such; it's really a separate issue.
 
positiverate
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:35 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:07 pm

Quoting Amy (Reply 38):
With the state the industry is in in your country i find it laughable that you can try to debase the most successful airline in the world and the largest international airport (in terms of passengers carried) in the world.

If by the "most successful airline in the world" you mean Southwest, I don't think anyone was "debasing" them. And furthermore, ATL is the world's busiest airport in terms of passengers: http://www.airports.org/cda/aci/disp...ci_content.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5_9_2__
 
positiverate
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:35 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:17 pm

Quoting Amy (Reply 38):
You obviously have little conception of how airport expansion works here. Unlike certain US airports that are located miles outside of town, the BAA would have to spend billions relocating the inhabitants around LHR to get the room for new runways. You don't think we want to expand? You don't think the Million pounds plus PER HOUR that is involved in Heathrow's Terminal Five expansion is enough? Is it not sufficient that we build the biggest newest most hi-tech airport terminal in the world to free up more slots for your and other airlines to access heathrow? New Flash. In a few years when T5 is complete, T4 which currently operates the Long Haul services for arguably the world's most successful airline will be open for the taking.

Excuses, excuses. Commavia is right: building a new terminal does NOTHING if you don't build the runways to go with it. Take ATL for example; they bit the bullet, bought a bunch of people's houses, planned and built the 5th runway, and the new terminal to go with it. The BAA could do the exact same thing if it wanted to, but let's face it, it doesn't really want to because the current congestion situation gives them a convenient excuse not to open up LHR to other competition.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5387
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:26 pm

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 29):
How is our Chap. 11 any different than Olympic Airways getting Greek infusions or Alitalia getting Italian infusions, we call it Chap. 11 you call it state aid. What's the difference?

You're making the common mistake of assuming that all European governments and airlines have the same priorities and strategies. Broughton has also argued strenuously against the subsidies given to ailing European carriers. His position is completely consistent. He isn't in favour of Chapter 11 in the US or of state hand-outs in some European countries.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:39 pm

Quoting PM (Reply 43):

You're making the common mistake of assuming that all European governments and airlines have the same priorities and strategies. Broughton has also argued strenuously against the subsidies given to ailing European carriers. His position is completely consistent. He isn't in favour of Chapter 11 in the US or of state hand-outs in some European countries.

He is certainly entitled to his opinion and position......no discussion. But are his opinions concerning the laws and procedures of other nations a basis to keep LHR closed to additional US carriers? I think not. Since when is an airline's financial situation a factor in allowing access to an airport? For example, SwissAir and Sabena both failed, under Broughtons theory, then Swiss and SN Brussels should be denied access to LHR. Some African and Asian airlines are heavily subsidized by their governments, should those airlines also be denied access to LHR? Air France was once government owned, maybe they should leave LHR also? Where does it end? Maybe only BA should be able to serve LHR?

I will say it again, BA very much likes the status quo at LHR, and therefore polticians are looking for any excuse to counter movement to open skies and increased access to LHR.
 
Concorde001
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:53 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:50 pm

Quoting Positiverate (Reply 43):
Excuses, excuses. Commavia is right: building a new terminal does NOTHING if you don't build the runways to go with it. Take ATL for example; they bit the bullet, bought a bunch of people's houses, planned and built the 5th runway, and the new terminal to go with it. The BAA could do the exact same thing if it wanted to, but let's face it, it doesn't really want to because the current congestion situation gives them a convenient excuse not to open up LHR to other competition

I am afraid this is a rather simplified, if not silly view of why LHR hasn't expanded.
BAA is a private company, consequently it must comply with British and European laws when running its business at LHR. BAA cannot build another runway at LHR if it does not comply with European Union laws on pollution, and other criterion laid down by the British Government. Let me remind you BAA are the champions of expansion at LHR - the fact that LHR is unable to at the moment = loss of potential earnings for BAA. BAA has nothing to fear about expansion - it has so much to gain from it - BAA are well aware of the £££s to made from all those airlines knocking at the door to operate from LHR.
Finally, the eloquence with which you described ATL buying 'a buch of people's houses' to expand, reflects upon your one-sided understanding of this issue. Let me remind you that we are not talking about 'houses' but homes and communities. I am all for expansion at LHR - I think it is vital, however that does not mean we brush away those who will suffer as a consequence. By 'those' I refer to the many who will lose their homes. LHR has to expand and in the process of expansion I hope those 'bunch of people' are fairly compensated and given the full help of the British Government and BAA. In the pursuit of economic progress, we must not be ruthless.
That is my rant over! hissyfit 
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5387
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:06 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 44):
Since when is an airline's financial situation a factor in allowing access to an airport? For example, SwissAir and Sabena both failed, under Broughtons theory, then Swiss and SN Brussels should be denied access to LHR.

You've lost me. I thought Broughton's complaint was with Chapter 11 (or the Greek and Italian governments) keeping airlines going when the chill wind of economic reality should really have killed them off. BA (or any other private airline) can't really compete if it has to balance its books while its competitors don't.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:36 pm

Quoting Positiverate (Reply 36):
boy I guess we really are protectionist, and that NAFTA, China PNTR, and CAFTA are just shams.

Indeed they are -- especially NAFTA. Nafta has ordered the US on umpteen occassions to lift crippling duties on Canadian lumber, but the US defies the law and refuses to do so. Commerce department has collected $5 billion in duties over three years, illegally, from Canadian lumber producers. It has caused a major, major rift between the two normally friendly countries.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
positiverate
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:35 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:01 am

Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 45):
I am afraid this is a rather simplified, if not silly view of why LHR hasn't expanded. BAA is a private company, consequently it must comply with British and European laws when running its business at LHR. BAA cannot build another runway at LHR if it does not comply with European Union laws on pollution, and other criterion laid down by the British Government. Let me remind you BAA are the champions of expansion at LHR - the fact that LHR is unable to at the moment = loss of potential earnings for BAA. BAA has nothing to fear about expansion - it has so much to gain from it - BAA are well aware of the £££s to made from all those airlines knocking at the door to operate from LHR.

Boy you sure told me. But, before you go talking down to us "simplified" Americans, let me clue you in to our process here in the US. ATL also had to meet US laws on pollution and other criterion laid down by the US Government. The airport must have a layout plan which is subject to FAA approval. The airport layout plan (ALP) shows the layout of the existing airport and the new runway and the FAA evaluates this plan to make sure, for example, that the controllers would be able to see the runway from their tower and that the terminal building or other structures would not block their line of sight. The FAA also takes into consideration airspace issues which include making sure that there are no hills, buildings, towers or other structures at the ends of the proposed runway that would pose a hazard to aircraft. The FAA also has to make sure that the runway is not pointed in a direction that would lead aircraft into traffic that is landing or taking off from a close by airport.

Airports are expected to do a benefit/cost analysis of a new runway and update their Airport Capital Investment Plan which ensures that the airport has a financing plan in place. And they are also expected to do an alternatives analysis.

Here in the US environmental requirements create the biggest obstacles to a proposed new runway. The airport must conduct an environmental assessment for a major runway project. The FAA uses this to decide whether to proceed with a full Enviornmental Impact Study (EIS). According to the FAA, the average EIS takes 3 1/2 years to complete but there are a number of other Federal environmental planning and permitting requirements outside of the EIS process that can add significant delays. Most States have additional environmental and planning requirements of their own. Additional delay in runway construction projects is often caused by legal challenges to an EIS.

The following is a summary of applicable Federal environmental laws:

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): NEPA requires Federal agencies to analyze the environmental impact of major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. At the core of NEPA is a requirement to analyze the environmental impacts of potential project alternatives. Generally, projects that have significant environmental impacts require consideration of a wider range of alternatives to avoid or minimize the impacts. The process of defining the appropriate range of alternatives can often be difficult.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): NHPA requires consultation with state and Federal historic preservation agencies before historic or archeological resources can be affected.

Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA): FPPA requires consideration of conversion of “prime or unique” farmland to non-agricultural purposes, and encourages efforts to minimize such conversions, but does not prohibit the conversion.

Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f): 4(f) protects publicly-owned park area, recreation area or wildlife or waterfowl refuge. It also protects land of a historic value regardless of ownership. The Secretary of Transportation cannot approve a project that “uses” a 4(f) resource unless there is no prudent or feasible alternative. The project must also provide all possible planning to minimize the harm to the 4(f) resource.

Clean Water Act Section 401 (certification): Section 401 requires States to certify that a project does not impair water quality standards. Section 401 certification is a precondition for an Army Corp of Engineers wetlands permit.
Clean Water Act Section 404 (wetlands): Section 404 regulates filling in wetlands and other waters of the United States. Wetlands must be protected if there is a practical alternative to their destruction by the project. Wetland destruction can be mitigated.

Clean Air Act (conformity): The Clean Air Act prohibits the FAA from approving a project that will interfere with a region’s ability to achieve conformity with air quality standards.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): ESA prohibits the destruction of endangered plants or animals or their habitat.

Airport and Airways Improvement Act (AIAA): For FAA to make a grant under the Airport Improvement Program, a project must be consistent with the plans of public agencies authorized by the state to plan for the development of the area surrounding the airport, and fair consideration must be given to the interest of communities located near the project.

When all added up, the current runway planning and approval process routinely takes ten years and can take much longer. To build a runway, an airport must comply with dozens of Federal, state and local laws and must coordinate with numerous agencies, including the FAA, the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, state Historical preservation officers and state air and water pollution agencies.

Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 45):
Finally, the eloquence with which you described ATL buying 'a buch of people's houses' to expand, reflects upon your one-sided understanding of this issue. Let me remind you that we are not talking about 'houses' but homes and communities.

And the elopquence through which you show your obvious lack of information about the ATL process reflects upon your elementary understanding of the situation. In some cases, people were willing to moce their businesses and homes. In fact as I recall, in the period from 1997 to 2002 ATL moved 130 businesses at a cost of more than $259 million, paid for with federal grants and airline ticket fees. However, this was a decision that took into great consideration community input. Obviosuly some folks did not want to leave, but by and large the community was involved every step of the way.
 
positiverate
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:35 pm

RE: BA's Broughton Attacks US "effrontery"!

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:23 am

Quoting Arrow (Reply 47):
Indeed they are -- especially NAFTA. Nafta has ordered the US on umpteen occassions to lift crippling duties on Canadian lumber, but the US defies the law and refuses to do so. Commerce department has collected $5 billion in duties over three years, illegally, from Canadian lumber producers. It has caused a major, major rift between the two normally friendly countries.

We're for FREE trade but also FAIR trade, something in this case the Canadians do not agree with.

Subsidies to Canadian producers give them an unfair advantage in supplying the U.S. market and that this has injured U.S. producers. These two issues -- subsidies and injury -- are the basis in U.S. trade law for determining if a CVD is warranted. In addition, critical circumstances -- which allow for retroactive duties -- are deemed to exist, if imports rise significantly after ending import restrictions. Finally, dumping -- selling imports at less than the cost of their production -- can lead to additional duties.

Stumpage fees charged by the Canadian provinces are less than the market price of the timber would be and are therefore a subsidy to Canadian producers. About 90% of the timberlands in the 10 provinces are owned by the provinces. The provinces require management plans for forested areas and allocate the timber harvests through a variety of agreements or leases, often for 5 or more years with renewal options. Stumpage fees for the timber are determined administratively, often with adjustments to reflect changes in market prices for lumber. This contrasts with the U.S. situation, where 42% of the forests are publicly owned and where public timber is typically sold in competitive auctions; thus, much of the timber in the United States is sold by public and private landowners at market prices.

The use of administered fees in Canada opens the possibility that the Canadian system results in transfers to the private sector at less than their fair market value.

Export restrictions by British Columbia (BC) were identified as a subsidy to BC lumber producers by the ITA in its 1992 CVD investigation. BC generally prohibits the export of logs from provincial lands, to assure domestic production, provide jobs, and encourage economic development. Export restrictions on public timber in the United States indicate substantially higher prices for export logs than for comparable logs sold domestically. Most economists would consider restrictions that reduce domestic prices below the world market price to be subsidies, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) generally prohibits export restrictions. In addition, current U.S. trade law allows the DOC to consider an export restraint on a product to be a subsidy if the private parties who would be exporting the product provide the restrained good to domestic purchasers for less than adequate remuneration.

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