I wonder if all of this talk about access to each other's markets is a red herring?
- Is there a major unserved route in the US that a European airline could justify establishing (given all the costs of marketing, basing aircraft and crews); likewise for a US airline in Europe?
- Short haul flights - in Europe, at any rate - will come to be dominated by low cost carriers. Southwest will ultimately be the US's largest carrier. Assuming that cabotage rights will only be available to airlines flying t/a routes, how will mainline airlines be able to compete against genuine low cost carriers? Even if it takes a few years to go down the low cost route, the investment will take a long time to recoup and it's not going to be a good one if low cost carriers move in within, say, five years.
- Most major carriers in the US are involved in alliances in some form with major European airlines. Won't better use of these alliances be a more cost effective way of getting a better foothold in new markets?
- We've all seen examples of airlines which have fallen because they went into markets they didn't need to be in. Airlines may want a better foothold in more lucrative markets, but perhaps the rights they already have will do this more effectively. The main focus of a US
U bilateral should be flights between the two. A lot of time can be wasted negotiating rights which may never be used. The size of the markets really hasn't a lot to do with it; the competition they would face and the realities of coming face to face with low cost carriers.