flyer55

Yeah will be interesting to see what they do and especially BA with its Texas routes !

flyer55

Well if it does happen I wonder if BA would swap routes over with routes at LHR and send them down to replace the ones moving over !

barit1

Help me out with something, please:

When jets didn't have the long legs of today, LHR & CDG & FRA etc were the European gateways for onward travel to the ME, Africa etc. I personally preferred LGW if my destination were the British Isles; instant BR connection, somehow an easier operation.

Today many flights from N. America operate non-stop to Eastern Europe, ME, Africa etc. So I don't see the continued need for European hubs - yet the hub operations seem to continue and grow. Is my perception right that LHR has a lot of through traffic, as opposed to LHR as a destination?

Hotel Mode

Same reason Dubai is a hub, you may be able to fly JFK-Prague but you sure cant fly Denver-Prague etc etc.

DONTTELLTHEPAX

There is no reason why a Loco such as FR could not get some B777,B767 or B757 and run then as full fare flights from the US and use them as feeder flights to europe via STN, By doing this they could offer such deals as buy a transatlantic flight get a european one free we all know that FR make there money with onboard sales, what a good idea to flood the UK Loco market with US pax.

jet2_at_blk

That would be a brilliant idea, but FR are strictly no baggae transfer, and point to point airline. Unless they change this, you would have to book seperately. (Would be a 763, T7 well too big!)

EI-BUD

Tradition would have it that LCCs dont do the long haul or flights above 4 hours. And MOL has often said he is not at all interested in anything outside Europe or certainly close to it. However, nothing would surprise me these days.

I believe MOL realises the opportunity in the Longer routes. Aer Lingus is the vehicle that he would use for this. If the EU rules against Ryanair and MOL is told he cannot persue the take over idea, MOL woll certainly try to make life hard for them.

Jetstar are showing that Long range routes can work, where many have not succeeded.

We must wait and see. I could see EZY being much more interested in Longer Routes than Ryanair.

Would Ryanair do NOC USA? Good prices ex the USA to Ireland could do wonders for Tourism , especially in the West ?? NOC SNN or even KIR.

Whether Ryanair or EZY venture into USA operations some lower cost outfit will as there are big opportunities....
EI-BUD

jet2_at_blk

Why would FR have to do a stop over? If they were to use 763s then, the it is not needed. Current FR rules:

1.Point to point flights
2.Pile 'em high, sell 'em low

A 738 would cost FR LOADS more to run per seat on Pond flights. Suitable a/c are needed. The problem is that fuel consumption is a major problem with FR, and the 763 would not be upto standard. Maybe FR will wait for the 787 to arrive before venturing. Unless they could get some 752s?

whoop.whoop

Thats why he is so interested in EI. LHR slots. LHR-JFK.

PAXboy

Reading in The Independent (serious UK newspaper): if it is still the case that this provides access from the US into Euro hubs and then elsewhere within Europe but does NOT provide onward access from US hubs, then it is no progress.

If as is reported this allows the US into Europe but not Europe into the USA, then it is not a good deal. We know from other areas such as food production, that the USA does not have the same understanding of the term 'open markets'.

If it is to be agreed that European carriers can land at JFK and then continue with the same a/c into the mid-west, for example, then we might be getting somewhere.

Also, does this draft allow the US carrier landing at LHR to pick up pax before going on to Prague? If so, then we must be able to pick up pax at JFK before going on to Kansas City (for a pair of towns plucked at random).

akerosid

I think long haul, low cost is the wave of the future; Zoom is already on t/a routes, Jetstar has started in Oz and soon, Fly Air Asia Express (FAX) - and offshoot of Air Asia - will be operating from KUL to Europe.

I think this, along with the loss of its position at LHR, is freaking BA (and VS) out; however, it is absurd that one company - let alone a country - should be in a position whereby it can hold this whole process up for everyone else; we are likely to have 26 countries agreeing and 1 country (read airline) vetoing. Things move on; BA needs to understand that. All of this stuff about picking up in the US and flying on somewhere else is really just dressing; even if it were allowed, I simply cannot see any EU airline wanting to do this, especially when they have alliances; why buy a dog and bark yourself?

It all comes down to moving forward with a process which will involve HUGE economic benefits. My sincere hope is that the US govt makes it very clear to the UK that if it messes this up, Bermuda 2 will fall. The tricky part of the situation is that the prospect of Open Skies being on ice for 2+ years is hardly a disincentive to BA/VS/DFTR; the only thing that is going to concentrate minds is a "negative incentive".

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1466123.ece

pax britanica

Just an ignorant pax but a few things occur to me as regards 'fortress Heathrow'

LHR cannot accept any meaningful number of extra fligts and one small problem-3 hours of fog say -disrupts half the worlds airlines because of delayed aircraxt in Heathrow. I just do not see O Leary and FR wanting to be tangled up in that. And as your man says he hates aircraft and pilots and techies and wants the simplest cheapest model he can get-basic planes -outsourced maintenance no nightstops and he has done well with it.


Would Easy-a pretty marginal but decent operation take these risks ? no chance.

Euro carriers swapping shorthaul slots for complex scedules like AMS-LHR -JFK-LHR AMS. Possible I am sure but do they have the aircraft ? can the Terminal2 (I know KL doesnt go there) gates accomodate bigger aircraft.?Again very complicated and why take the chance

Looking at the other side of the pond Jet Blue is in disarray and Southwest are even less likely than Ryanair for TranAt adventures.All the legacy carriers except CO are a joke in terms of financial strength and quality of service.Who would choose NW over BA or VS?

So this could be largely cosmetic especially in the short term and by that I mean prior a third runway at LHR which is years away. Is 'theoretical access' to LHR going to make any difference at all to BA VS and AA. Whats much more likely to hurt their transat yields is if MaxJet and Co really get going and cream off the J class pax . But theres no votes in that because if BA lose too many business pax Y fares will creep up and up. If they dont and BA lose business across the baord they end up like Untied -is thata good thing??

And there is another lesson which is that unfettered competiton tends to lead pretty much back to the start point. Look at the US Telecoms Industry.Twenty years ago there was one mega carrier, AT&T in its Ma Bell guise. THe monopolywas broken and twenty frantic years later its consolidated back to where it was with 2 mega carriers one in the east one in the west. Is that the way the airline biz is going -maybe 3 big international players all with regional strengths-area monopolies - plus SW?

So the regualtors and polis play with the status quo at their peril-it seldom leads where they intend
PB

akerosid

I had understood from an article in the Independent that unanimity was required for voting on issues such as this, but reading the following opinion (in favour of O/S, as it happens), I'm not quite sure:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...3&targetRule=1

The writer suggests that the UK cannot block this on its own (suggesting Qualified Majority Voting). If true, this would be great, BUT what is the actual position? From what I have read, I'm unfortunately of the view that unanimity will be required, in that one of the several areas which requires unanimity is treaty agreements.

With regard to the points at issue, such as cabotage within the US, this has never been on the table, but more to the point, it is somewhat academic, because I simply cannot see EU airlines availing of it, even if it were available.

HZ123

Let us not forget that last year alone one of the broadsheets stated that 25% of the seats transitiing Europe to the USA and reverse are already empty on each flight. In addition to any start up LOCOs it may well lead to the loss of a few old favourites, which may be the greater effect. Finally, it only takes a serious security incident and the market drys up and that scenario is not unlikely in the present climate.

GAZIN

akerosid.
I find it incredible that the issue of cabotage is not part of these negotiations. I would have thought it should be a key part of any agreement between Europe & the USA.

barit1

The reason the US is skeptical of cabotage is simple geography. BA would love to operate a LAS-JFK segment, for example, and in return AA gets - what - MAN-LGW? It this even remotely equitable?

merlinxx

If this works it means that cabotage (8th Freedom of the Air) will/should be applicable throughout the EU? YES and this INCLUDES FRANCE!!!!

The SSK

Akerosid - the issue *probably* falls under the Maastricht 'second pillar' and therefore requires unanimity. You can bet that the German Presidency, which wants to have this deal signed on their watch, will be working hard to bring the Brits in line.

As for cabotage/5th freedom opportunities - there was a time when Europe was crisscrossed with US 5th, Pan Am then Delta had a huge Frankfurt hub operation, TWA, Pan Am and subsequently United had a number of key routes out of LHR. TWA had a sizable part of the Rome-Athens market. All gone.

The only US 5th in Europe nowadays is express parcels.

Barit1 - 'BA would love to operate a LAS-JFK segment' - you must be joking.

akerosid

Just had a look at this Reuters report this afternoon, which also seems to believe it is Qualified Majority voting; I agree with you, SSK, that it is unfortunately more likely to require unanimity.

http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/...1-ArticlePage2

The Commission wants unanimous support, but if Britain opposes it, for example, it could still go through as such decisions require support only from a "qualified majority" of member states under the EU's complex weighted voting system.

(Under this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_Majority_Voting, all countries have a set amount of votes based roughly on their populations; the four biggest countries, including the UK, have 29 votes. Three key issues have to be satisfied. Firstly, out of a total number of 345 votes, 255 (or 74%) must approve; 91 votes are needed to block it, so the UK would need several other countries to do so). Additionally, however, the countries in favour must include a majority of the member states AND over 62% of the total population of the EU, so if QMV does apply, we're laughing.)

If the latter is the case, then we are much closer to a deal; Reuters also suggests that US Congressional approval is required, which runs counter to comments posted elsehwere, which suggested that since there was no change to US law, no Congress vote would be required. However, even if a vote is needed, I would be less concerned about this than about the EU vote.

If there is unanimity, then the Brits could mess it up; if there is not such a requirement, it doesn't matter if they vote it down. I would be surprised if any other countries came out against it. The economic benefits to virtually every EU economy (including, let it be said, the UK's) are huge.

Even if unanimity is required, I would still not want to put money on Britain rejecting it, although I still think it is by far the most likely outcome. The UK needs to understand that if it rejects Open Skies, it could suffer in other areas of co-operation and since it would be the only country to do so, is it necessarily in its best interests to stand alone in obstructing a deal which every other country wants? Also, if it does stand alone, any remote chance it has of getting what concessions it seeks from the US will be out the window and indeed, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the US could revoke Bermuda II.

akerosid

PaxFlyer's comments get a mention!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d0169358-cb0...b5df10621.html