Despite Hobie's inexplicable
doubts about the gravity of the Shannon stop, I'll pass over that and focus on what baffles me about the current position.
Originally, we started with the idea that any airline from either the US or EU could fly transatlantic between any two points. Now I know LHR is a big issue, but I don't think cabotage is on the table; indeed, I'm surprised (a) that the Americans have granted as much as they've granted and (b) worse still, that the Europeans should even want to fly domestically in the US. I mean, the fight against low costs is not much different in the US than it is here; the big airlines are being hit left, right and centre by low cost carriers like Air Tran, Spirit, JetBlue and that lot from Texas. If European carriers were to be thick enough to wade through all the formalities of getting into the US, they'd be setting up a full service airline, marketing to get their names better known and then, the low cost carriers, which can move a lot faster than the big boys, would cut the two feet from under them. Why would they possibly WANT to do this? Wouldn't they be far better advised to focus on the fight they're currently involved in, rather than opening up a new front?
So, this raises a question about what the hell Loyola and the Brussels lot are playing at? Yes, US carriers want more access to LHR; yes, it's slot restricted, but if they want this, why not trade like for like; give bmi its coveted routes, allow access to more US cities from LHR (such as those like DFW, CVG, ATL and IAH currently only served from LGW) and focus on transatlantic flying. The second biggest tragedy of this silliness is that the chance of building the world's biggest open aviation area is being impeded by something that even if won, may never be used. The biggest tragedy would be that some airline might actually use and lose thousands of jobs and have to shut down as a result. So, stop arsing around and get the deal done.