EU / USA open skies negotiations

[Diesel8]

First off, the thought that americans have no clue about EU land is getting a bit tiresome and secondly, I was born and raised over there.

Yes, Delta et al serves a decent amount of EU destinations. However, due to travel patterns, for every one destination a US carrier serves in europe, that corresponding country's carrier serves 2-4 in the US. Case in point, SAS serves three US destinations, where as no US carrier serves Copnhagen. Not because of lack of access, at least that I know of, but lack of passengers. I know, that UAL, a member of the star alliance, wanted to serve CPH from Dulles, but apparently that was opposed strongly by SAS. SAS of course being a partnership
of Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

The point here being, that while many US carriers do have atlantic flights, it is not the lifeblood of the airlines, the domestic US market is more important.

LHR is not the only airport in the UK, but I think we can agree, that it is the most desireable in terms of getting access. As we have seen, it does command a fare premium. So, one could say, that not getting meaningful access, would indeed be a advantage to BA. Not only on the atlantic portion, but even domestically.

Carnage says:"I think you're right, but equally if anyone thinks that the UK/EU are going to permit Uncle Sams state-subsidised hordes to descend on LHR and wipe out the home market of the UKs longhaul carriers in return for the right to fly unrestricted , unprofitable point-to-point routes to the US then they are just as mistaken."

As far as state subsidies goes, I am curious what US airlines we are talking about and whether we are talking post 9/11? The US is not in the habit of subsidizing airlines, owning them or having shares in them. The list of airlines in the EU that recently have been or still is subsidized, owned or in part held by the repsective goverment is rather long. So, while I do not think UAL should be granted a loan guarantee, I also feel that vis a vis EU airlines, that it is a moot point and in the case of the vast majority of US carriers, it was a direct result of 9/11, not an ongoing thing.

So my question is again, why should the US airlines push for open skies? What advantages would they gain? It is notable, that the big push is coming from EU airlines, not the US ones, so something tells me, that companies like BA sees an advantage, where as DAL does not.