EU / USA open skies negotiations
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just about to say much the same myself, Techman.
Back to the topic, it will be interesting to see what transpires next week. Personally, I don't think access to the US market is a real runner. Although low cost carriers seem to have "levelled out", they still pose a major threat to the majors and consequently, their efforts would probably be best focused on their European operations, rather than opening a whole new front.
Open Skies between the US and Europe would be an extremely positive development for both economies and a major job creator - for airlines as well. There will be downsides, but I think the upside far outweighs it.
Back to the topic, it will be interesting to see what transpires next week. Personally, I don't think access to the US market is a real runner. Although low cost carriers seem to have "levelled out", they still pose a major threat to the majors and consequently, their efforts would probably be best focused on their European operations, rather than opening a whole new front.
Open Skies between the US and Europe would be an extremely positive development for both economies and a major job creator - for airlines as well. There will be downsides, but I think the upside far outweighs it.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to have 5 years of residence in country and a 10 year FBI background check to go to work, but a flag carrier from any EU country is going to fly the same domestic routes as I? I don't think Tom Ridge is going to sign off on this....
Note that the lawyers on both sides working on this have THE most protectionist profession in the business. Just see what it would take for an EU lawyer to practice in the states!
Note that the lawyers on both sides working on this have THE most protectionist profession in the business. Just see what it would take for an EU lawyer to practice in the states!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would Tom Ridge not sign of on it and how much longer will he be making the decisions?
EU carriers are already flying into the largest cities in the US, from a security point of view, there really is no harm in allowing them to fly onwards domestically, after all, the pax would be screened by the TSA just like today. As a matter of fact, one could argue, that since the US gov is doing the screening, that its as safe. Secondly, it has been a while since a EU airline was hijacked, terrorist prefer US air carriers, since most of their ire is with the US.
Nope, I do not think it is a security issue, otherwise, why did we allow cabotage in ANC. Where was Tom Ridge then?
I think it will be a monetary issue and it will be interesting to see what happens in Euroland, once the accession countries makes it into the EU. They have much lower pay and worse working conditions. Already we have seen issues with regards to Ryan Air and the relatively lax rules from the Irish CAA.
EU carriers are already flying into the largest cities in the US, from a security point of view, there really is no harm in allowing them to fly onwards domestically, after all, the pax would be screened by the TSA just like today. As a matter of fact, one could argue, that since the US gov is doing the screening, that its as safe. Secondly, it has been a while since a EU airline was hijacked, terrorist prefer US air carriers, since most of their ire is with the US.
Nope, I do not think it is a security issue, otherwise, why did we allow cabotage in ANC. Where was Tom Ridge then?
I think it will be a monetary issue and it will be interesting to see what happens in Euroland, once the accession countries makes it into the EU. They have much lower pay and worse working conditions. Already we have seen issues with regards to Ryan Air and the relatively lax rules from the Irish CAA.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diesel8 et al,
The land of the free. Home of capitalism.
Scared of some competition?
Afraid you might be bested by some "johnny foreigner" airline?
You asked about "benefits to the US" but you seem to mean "benefits to the US airline industry". The benefits to the US will be in a better product. I am not saying that the US product is inferior to that in the EU. I am saying that in this industry competition breeds a better product. I also believe the product in the EU will improve greatly as well.
The only ones to lose out will be those companies who cannot compete and to be honest that is no bad thing on either side of the pond.
On a seperate thread I expressed a preference for travelling with BA as opposed to Ryanair. I am in the minority though. Whatever else is said about the low cost carriers , they know how to move with the times and they make money. Surely that can only be a good thing in the long run.
Or is this another of those "special" US things? Like the winners of the Superbowl are "World Champions" and in baseball it is the World Series despite in one case no non-US team can participate and in the other they let the odd Canadian team in IIRC.
Cheers
BHR
The land of the free. Home of capitalism.
Scared of some competition?
Afraid you might be bested by some "johnny foreigner" airline?
You asked about "benefits to the US" but you seem to mean "benefits to the US airline industry". The benefits to the US will be in a better product. I am not saying that the US product is inferior to that in the EU. I am saying that in this industry competition breeds a better product. I also believe the product in the EU will improve greatly as well.
The only ones to lose out will be those companies who cannot compete and to be honest that is no bad thing on either side of the pond.
On a seperate thread I expressed a preference for travelling with BA as opposed to Ryanair. I am in the minority though. Whatever else is said about the low cost carriers , they know how to move with the times and they make money. Surely that can only be a good thing in the long run.
Or is this another of those "special" US things? Like the winners of the Superbowl are "World Champions" and in baseball it is the World Series despite in one case no non-US team can participate and in the other they let the odd Canadian team in IIRC.
Cheers
BHR
Nexialist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Beaver Driver needs to look a bit more carefully at what the EU actually is. It is in fact remarkably similar to the United States. Some interesting points --
When the Declaration of Independance was signed and for many years afterwards the US did not have a common currency.
The EU has the powers to, and regularly does, pass and enforce laws that take precedance over national laws and regulations.
Individual US states can and do pass laws that are contradictory to the next one over. e.g. most US states do not have the death penalty or do not enforce it.
Kings and Queens are an irrelevance, they are figure heads and have no, or only theoretical powers.
There is free movement of residency and employment in the US.
There is free movement of residency and employment in the EU.
Each US state has their own flag.
Each EU state has their own flag.
When you move to a new state in the US you need to go to the local DMV to get a new driving licence.
When you move to a new state in the EU you need to send in your old licence for a new local one.
Car insurance in the US is valid in all US states.
Car insurance in the EU is valid in all EU states(sometimes third party only)
Each US state has thier own army/navy/and or airforce which is under the control of the locally elected head of state (Govenor)
Each EU state has their own army/navy/and or airforce which is under the control of the locally elected head of state (Prime Minister usually)
Every few years the residents of each state select a number of representatives to go to a Parliment and pass laws that bind them and thier locally elected Governments (both EU and US)
The EU has a judicial system that can, and does, overrule judgements made by individual states' judges. (eg European Court of Human Rights)
The US has a judicial system that can, and does, overrule judgements made by individual states' judges. (eg The Federal Supreme Court)
More to the point if any group chooses to give its right to negotiate to a body to do so collectively that should be their right, whether it is the EU or, for example, the Commonwealth. The only proviso should be that once an agreement is reached it is binding on all parties. You cannot give away your rights then decide the result of the negotiations does not suit you.
When the Declaration of Independance was signed and for many years afterwards the US did not have a common currency.
The EU has the powers to, and regularly does, pass and enforce laws that take precedance over national laws and regulations.
Individual US states can and do pass laws that are contradictory to the next one over. e.g. most US states do not have the death penalty or do not enforce it.
Kings and Queens are an irrelevance, they are figure heads and have no, or only theoretical powers.
There is free movement of residency and employment in the US.
There is free movement of residency and employment in the EU.
Each US state has their own flag.
Each EU state has their own flag.
When you move to a new state in the US you need to go to the local DMV to get a new driving licence.
When you move to a new state in the EU you need to send in your old licence for a new local one.
Car insurance in the US is valid in all US states.
Car insurance in the EU is valid in all EU states(sometimes third party only)
Each US state has thier own army/navy/and or airforce which is under the control of the locally elected head of state (Govenor)
Each EU state has their own army/navy/and or airforce which is under the control of the locally elected head of state (Prime Minister usually)
Every few years the residents of each state select a number of representatives to go to a Parliment and pass laws that bind them and thier locally elected Governments (both EU and US)
The EU has a judicial system that can, and does, overrule judgements made by individual states' judges. (eg European Court of Human Rights)
The US has a judicial system that can, and does, overrule judgements made by individual states' judges. (eg The Federal Supreme Court)
More to the point if any group chooses to give its right to negotiate to a body to do so collectively that should be their right, whether it is the EU or, for example, the Commonwealth. The only proviso should be that once an agreement is reached it is binding on all parties. You cannot give away your rights then decide the result of the negotiations does not suit you.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill,
I work for an LCC in the US, so really cannot say I am that concerned, but I also realize, that Western countries enjoy a higher pay scale than former eastern bloc countries do. If for eg. CSA is allowed to run rampant through the EU, what do you think it will do to your wages.
Apparently, the latest push comes from BA. Why is the access to US markets so important, because there perhaps money to be made? There is also a lot of money to be made out of LHR, yet only two US carriers are allowed access, something that open skies will not be able to change, because of slot constraints.
US has the highest amount of passengers and there really are not that many US carriers that is wanting to set up shop in EU land. I think Rod is foaming at the mouth, thinking about setting up shop here, just like Richard Branson is. Not sure how much VE pays, but if VA is any indication, he will pay very low wages.
Now, if you also pushed for the acceptance of FAA licenses as complying with JAR, then perhaps we could talk, but from reading these boards an others, it becomes apparent that JAR to FAA is relatively painless, whereas the other way is an absolute nightmare. One could even go so far, as to call that protectionism.
Then of course, we have the fact, that there are not that many americans flying for EU carriers, while plenty of eu nationals here. I think it would be much easier for a frenchman to get hired at AA than an american getting hired by AirFrance.
I could go on, with why I think it is a bad idea for us, but I think you get the point. Open skies, in my eyes, would be great for EU, but would not do much for the US.
I work for an LCC in the US, so really cannot say I am that concerned, but I also realize, that Western countries enjoy a higher pay scale than former eastern bloc countries do. If for eg. CSA is allowed to run rampant through the EU, what do you think it will do to your wages.
Apparently, the latest push comes from BA. Why is the access to US markets so important, because there perhaps money to be made? There is also a lot of money to be made out of LHR, yet only two US carriers are allowed access, something that open skies will not be able to change, because of slot constraints.
US has the highest amount of passengers and there really are not that many US carriers that is wanting to set up shop in EU land. I think Rod is foaming at the mouth, thinking about setting up shop here, just like Richard Branson is. Not sure how much VE pays, but if VA is any indication, he will pay very low wages.
Now, if you also pushed for the acceptance of FAA licenses as complying with JAR, then perhaps we could talk, but from reading these boards an others, it becomes apparent that JAR to FAA is relatively painless, whereas the other way is an absolute nightmare. One could even go so far, as to call that protectionism.
Then of course, we have the fact, that there are not that many americans flying for EU carriers, while plenty of eu nationals here. I think it would be much easier for a frenchman to get hired at AA than an american getting hired by AirFrance.
I could go on, with why I think it is a bad idea for us, but I think you get the point. Open skies, in my eyes, would be great for EU, but would not do much for the US.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any update on Open Skies talks
Open Skies talks were to take place today (Tues, Feb 17) between the two sides; haven't heard any outcome so far. If talks extend into a second or third day, it could be a positive move, i.e. that something solid is going to emerge.
The Americans are hoping that some progress can be made with the small number of existing EU countries which haven't already achieved Open Skies with the US (notwithstanding the EU Court ruling). These include the UK, Greece, Ireland and one other, which escapes me right now. This "early harvest" approach could result in a deal with one or more of these countries, while leaving more complicated issues to be dealt with.
As for the US benefiting less than Europe, I'd disagree. The US has always been a leading driver in this process. If there is open skies, there'll be greater competition, therefore cheaper access to the US for European tourists and to the EU for US exports. Sure, ALL carriers (not just US ones) will have to smarten up, but the overall effect for both economies will be positive. I think US carriers would welcome greater access. Fewer restrictions means greater opportunities.
The Americans are hoping that some progress can be made with the small number of existing EU countries which haven't already achieved Open Skies with the US (notwithstanding the EU Court ruling). These include the UK, Greece, Ireland and one other, which escapes me right now. This "early harvest" approach could result in a deal with one or more of these countries, while leaving more complicated issues to be dealt with.
As for the US benefiting less than Europe, I'd disagree. The US has always been a leading driver in this process. If there is open skies, there'll be greater competition, therefore cheaper access to the US for European tourists and to the EU for US exports. Sure, ALL carriers (not just US ones) will have to smarten up, but the overall effect for both economies will be positive. I think US carriers would welcome greater access. Fewer restrictions means greater opportunities.
mostly harmless
Thread Starter
From Financial Times on February 12 (subscription required):
'The leading European airlines believe that the US is offering to accept the change sought by Brussels to a European Union nationality clause for EU airlines to replace the present national identities, in exchange for agreeing to the US model of so-called "open skies" being introduced across Europe.
This would fall far short of the "open aviation area" that the Commission has been mandated to seek by EU member states, and specifically it would still leave the US domestic aviation market completely protected from foreign competition.'
Last December, after the previous round of negotiations, the Association of European Airlines wrote:
'AEA members are particularly pleased with the fact that both sides have concluded that amending current bilateral Open Skies agreements is not a practical option, and that they have decided to address outstanding issues in the context of an Open Aviation agreement.'
Maybe I'm missing something but I haven't found any reference to the negotiations on the (US) Air Transport Association website or on either the US Transportation or Trade departmental websites.
aeroskid - your post seems to indicate knowledge of the US negotiating position. Is there a source you can quote?
The EU airline reaction to the US 'early harvest' position would be that the US would then have no further incentive for liberalisation.
'The leading European airlines believe that the US is offering to accept the change sought by Brussels to a European Union nationality clause for EU airlines to replace the present national identities, in exchange for agreeing to the US model of so-called "open skies" being introduced across Europe.
This would fall far short of the "open aviation area" that the Commission has been mandated to seek by EU member states, and specifically it would still leave the US domestic aviation market completely protected from foreign competition.'
Last December, after the previous round of negotiations, the Association of European Airlines wrote:
'AEA members are particularly pleased with the fact that both sides have concluded that amending current bilateral Open Skies agreements is not a practical option, and that they have decided to address outstanding issues in the context of an Open Aviation agreement.'
Maybe I'm missing something but I haven't found any reference to the negotiations on the (US) Air Transport Association website or on either the US Transportation or Trade departmental websites.
aeroskid - your post seems to indicate knowledge of the US negotiating position. Is there a source you can quote?
The EU airline reaction to the US 'early harvest' position would be that the US would then have no further incentive for liberalisation.
Last edited by answer=42; 18th Feb 2004 at 05:32.
mostly harmless
Thread Starter
The Financial Times ran an article (free access) yesterday based on an interview with ALPA's President:
'The largest US pilots' union has dismissed European Union demands for greater access to the US market as a "red herring" aimed at extracting concessions from the US in negotiations on liberalising the transatlantic aviation market.
"I can see nothing but downside from additional competition," said Mr Woerth. "[though]... Consumers may benefit"
"We are a little worried about things being established that provide replacement workers, or US carriers hiring out . . .pretty cheap labour." '
Hope this is interesting.
'The largest US pilots' union has dismissed European Union demands for greater access to the US market as a "red herring" aimed at extracting concessions from the US in negotiations on liberalising the transatlantic aviation market.
"I can see nothing but downside from additional competition," said Mr Woerth. "[though]... Consumers may benefit"
"We are a little worried about things being established that provide replacement workers, or US carriers hiring out . . .pretty cheap labour." '
Hope this is interesting.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answer,
"I can see nothing but downside from additional competition," said Mr Woerth. "[though]... Consumers may benefit"
I think this is the quote of the topic. It says it all. The US is afraid of competition because they know they are not geared up to compete. It is protectionism of the most obvious kind and is the sort of thing we have come to expect under the Bush Administration.
Diesel,
Good post mate but your last paragraph was what I wanted to hear about. I would like to hear why you think it would be a bad idea.
Cheers
BHR
"I can see nothing but downside from additional competition," said Mr Woerth. "[though]... Consumers may benefit"
I think this is the quote of the topic. It says it all. The US is afraid of competition because they know they are not geared up to compete. It is protectionism of the most obvious kind and is the sort of thing we have come to expect under the Bush Administration.
Diesel,
Good post mate but your last paragraph was what I wanted to hear about. I would like to hear why you think it would be a bad idea.
Cheers
BHR
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHR,
Duane WOrthe is ANYTHING but a Bush supporter, and Bush is anything but a friend of ALPA.
Bush is pushing for liberalization of the market because it will allow him to hammer the US unions.
It is the unions (and their democratic supporters) that are opposed to this liberalization.
To the republicans, ALPA is the great satan of all unions.
Slightly different political landscape over hear mate.
Cheers
Wino
Duane WOrthe is ANYTHING but a Bush supporter, and Bush is anything but a friend of ALPA.
Bush is pushing for liberalization of the market because it will allow him to hammer the US unions.
It is the unions (and their democratic supporters) that are opposed to this liberalization.
To the republicans, ALPA is the great satan of all unions.
Slightly different political landscape over hear mate.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Special report: public services
Darling rejects US open skies plan
Andrew Clark
Wednesday March 3, 2004
The Guardian
Transport secretary Alistair Darling has told his counterpart in Washington that America's latest proposals to create transatlantic "open skies" for airlines are unfair and would damage the interests of British carriers.
On a visit to the US capital, Mr Darling stepped into negotiations over liberalisation of the aviation industry which have been conducted to date by the European commission.
He met the US transportation secretary, Norman Mineta, to object to plans that would let American airlines fly freely within Europe while continuing to prevent European carriers from operating domestic flights in the US.
A spokesman for Mr Darling said: "What's on the table at the moment is not something we can accept."
Negotiations towards "open skies" have been under way between Brussels and Washington since last June. They followed a decision by the European court that Britain was acting illegally in only allowing four airlines to fly on lucrative routes between Heathrow and the US.
The European transport commissioner, Loyola de Palacio, has been arguing for complete liberalisation of the skies on both sides of the Atlantic, allowing any airline to fly anywhere.
However, the US has so far refused to hand over "cabotage" rights, which would allow European airlines to pick up passengers for flights between cities within America.
The Bush administration is thought to be keen to appear tough with foreign businesses during an election year. It has so far refused to raise the limit of foreign shareholdings in US airlines beyond 49%.
British Airways' chief executive Rod Eddington last month attacked the US proposals as "essentially unbalanced". He demanded an end to the "Fly America" policy, which requires all US government officials to fly on home-owned carriers. He called for relaxation of rules covering the leasing of aircraft and crew by one airline to another.
Mr Darling has also met the US homeland security chief, Tom Ridge, to discuss terrorist threats which have caused the cancellation of a succession of BA flights.
He will report back to his European colleagues at a meeting of transport ministers next Tuesday, where he is likely to express reservations about the Charleroi ruling, which concluded that Ryanair was benefiting from illegal state aid.
Darling rejects US open skies plan
Andrew Clark
Wednesday March 3, 2004
The Guardian
Transport secretary Alistair Darling has told his counterpart in Washington that America's latest proposals to create transatlantic "open skies" for airlines are unfair and would damage the interests of British carriers.
On a visit to the US capital, Mr Darling stepped into negotiations over liberalisation of the aviation industry which have been conducted to date by the European commission.
He met the US transportation secretary, Norman Mineta, to object to plans that would let American airlines fly freely within Europe while continuing to prevent European carriers from operating domestic flights in the US.
A spokesman for Mr Darling said: "What's on the table at the moment is not something we can accept."
Negotiations towards "open skies" have been under way between Brussels and Washington since last June. They followed a decision by the European court that Britain was acting illegally in only allowing four airlines to fly on lucrative routes between Heathrow and the US.
The European transport commissioner, Loyola de Palacio, has been arguing for complete liberalisation of the skies on both sides of the Atlantic, allowing any airline to fly anywhere.
However, the US has so far refused to hand over "cabotage" rights, which would allow European airlines to pick up passengers for flights between cities within America.
The Bush administration is thought to be keen to appear tough with foreign businesses during an election year. It has so far refused to raise the limit of foreign shareholdings in US airlines beyond 49%.
British Airways' chief executive Rod Eddington last month attacked the US proposals as "essentially unbalanced". He demanded an end to the "Fly America" policy, which requires all US government officials to fly on home-owned carriers. He called for relaxation of rules covering the leasing of aircraft and crew by one airline to another.
Mr Darling has also met the US homeland security chief, Tom Ridge, to discuss terrorist threats which have caused the cancellation of a succession of BA flights.
He will report back to his European colleagues at a meeting of transport ministers next Tuesday, where he is likely to express reservations about the Charleroi ruling, which concluded that Ryanair was benefiting from illegal state aid.
Transparency International
EU Transport Council to discuss progress in talks with US
ATW, Monday March 08, 2004
The EU Transport Council tomorrow will discuss the progress the European Commission has made in its negotiations with the US on achieving a transatlantic Open Aviation Area.
During the third round of talks in Washington last month, US authorities expressed their desire to reach an interim deal before summer. "Given that both sides agree on [only] a limited list of items, such timing is optimistic," an insider told ATWOnline. He added that despite the limited scope of agreement, "the US side has become more concrete and is willing to accommodate some of the [EC's] requests."
Reportedly, the US has proposed to permit an EU carrier to operate to and from the US from any international point provided the route also includes a destination within the EU. As a consequence, the US would allow all mergers between EU airlines without restricting their access to bilateral transatlantic services--which is essential for the nearing Air France acquisition of KLM. In return, the US wants unlimited fifth freedom for US airlines within and among EU nations.
The US continues to oppose cabotage, however, while the prevailing view in the EU is that fifth freedom rights in the EU are equivalent to cabotage in the US. Even were US negotiators to approve cabotage, it would take an act of Congress to change US law.
The US also proposed unlimited capacity for all US and EU carriers over the Atlantic and no restrictions would exist on routes or access points, with no carve-out on London Heathrow or Gatwick. Charter airlines would enjoy at least the same rights as scheduled carriers and all-cargo operators would benefit from worldwide seventh freedom rights.
On a visit to Washington last week, UK Transport Secretary Alistair Darling told US Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta that the latest US proposals are unfair and would damage the interests of British carriers, The Guardian reported. "What's on the table at the moment is not something we can accept," a spokesperson for Darling said. AEA also has voiced concern "whether the US proposal for interim agreement provides for added value for the European airline industry."
According to information obtained by ATWOnline, the EC has threatened to terminate existing fifth freedom rights if the US blocks cabotage. The US position has been that the EC does not have the authority to renounce treaties between sovereign nations.--Cathy Buyck
EU Transport Council tells EC to keep negotiating with US
ATW, Thursday March 11, 2004
EU Transport Council asked the European Commission to continue its negotiations with the US aimed at achieving a transatlantic Open Aviation Area and said it will review the situation during its June 10-11 meeting. The call to pursue a fourth round of talks, scheduled for the week of March 29 in Brussels, is a de facto rejection of the latest US proposal for an interim deal that would put the transatlantic bilaterals into conformity with EU law (ATWOnline, March 8). The US had offered more flexibility of ownership restrictions, which at present limit the participation of voting stock of US airlines held by foreign capital to 25%. "The progress, while encouraging, falls short of the objectives of the mandate given by the Council," the Commission said. As expected, the EC also asked the Council for a mandate to negotiate with the countries of the western Balkans as well as Morocco, Jordan and Lebanon. No firm decision was made by the Transport Ministers but the issue is under examination.--CB
ATW, Monday March 08, 2004
The EU Transport Council tomorrow will discuss the progress the European Commission has made in its negotiations with the US on achieving a transatlantic Open Aviation Area.
During the third round of talks in Washington last month, US authorities expressed their desire to reach an interim deal before summer. "Given that both sides agree on [only] a limited list of items, such timing is optimistic," an insider told ATWOnline. He added that despite the limited scope of agreement, "the US side has become more concrete and is willing to accommodate some of the [EC's] requests."
Reportedly, the US has proposed to permit an EU carrier to operate to and from the US from any international point provided the route also includes a destination within the EU. As a consequence, the US would allow all mergers between EU airlines without restricting their access to bilateral transatlantic services--which is essential for the nearing Air France acquisition of KLM. In return, the US wants unlimited fifth freedom for US airlines within and among EU nations.
The US continues to oppose cabotage, however, while the prevailing view in the EU is that fifth freedom rights in the EU are equivalent to cabotage in the US. Even were US negotiators to approve cabotage, it would take an act of Congress to change US law.
The US also proposed unlimited capacity for all US and EU carriers over the Atlantic and no restrictions would exist on routes or access points, with no carve-out on London Heathrow or Gatwick. Charter airlines would enjoy at least the same rights as scheduled carriers and all-cargo operators would benefit from worldwide seventh freedom rights.
On a visit to Washington last week, UK Transport Secretary Alistair Darling told US Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta that the latest US proposals are unfair and would damage the interests of British carriers, The Guardian reported. "What's on the table at the moment is not something we can accept," a spokesperson for Darling said. AEA also has voiced concern "whether the US proposal for interim agreement provides for added value for the European airline industry."
According to information obtained by ATWOnline, the EC has threatened to terminate existing fifth freedom rights if the US blocks cabotage. The US position has been that the EC does not have the authority to renounce treaties between sovereign nations.--Cathy Buyck
EU Transport Council tells EC to keep negotiating with US
ATW, Thursday March 11, 2004
EU Transport Council asked the European Commission to continue its negotiations with the US aimed at achieving a transatlantic Open Aviation Area and said it will review the situation during its June 10-11 meeting. The call to pursue a fourth round of talks, scheduled for the week of March 29 in Brussels, is a de facto rejection of the latest US proposal for an interim deal that would put the transatlantic bilaterals into conformity with EU law (ATWOnline, March 8). The US had offered more flexibility of ownership restrictions, which at present limit the participation of voting stock of US airlines held by foreign capital to 25%. "The progress, while encouraging, falls short of the objectives of the mandate given by the Council," the Commission said. As expected, the EC also asked the Council for a mandate to negotiate with the countries of the western Balkans as well as Morocco, Jordan and Lebanon. No firm decision was made by the Transport Ministers but the issue is under examination.--CB
Transparency International
Flight Intl. 13-19 APRIL 2004:
AIR TRANSPORT JUSTIN WASTNAGE / BRUSSELS
USA warns Europe over Open Skies
EC calls for fuller access to US domestic market rebuffed
The USA will probably never fully liberalise its aviation market and Europe should stop holding out for a better deal in transatlantic Open Skies talks, says US Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.
Mineta used a joint meeting of the European Aviation Club and US Chamber of Commerce at the European Parliament in Brussels last week to counter European calls for access to the US domestic aviation market.
Mineta says the European Commission negotiating team has presented several "innovative" versions of the same request for improved market access for European carriers. Mineta's team had to reject each one, he says, as every version "still looked like cabotage". One senior US official involved in the talks says the USA is angry that Europe is holding out for "something that was never on the table".
Meanwhile, Karan Bhatia, US Department of Transportation (DoT) assistant secretary for aviation and international affairs, says: "The [US] proposal should be recognised for what it is: a great deal".
Changes to US laws banning foreign carriers from flying US domestic routes are strongly opposed by labour organisations and, as such, existing rules will be almost impossible to change before the forthcoming elections in the USA, says Mineta (Flight International, 23-29 March). "Not only this November, but one, two, three years from now and perhaps forever, Congress's feelings will be no different," Mineta says. The DoT is urging Europe to accept early adoption of the US proposal or risk derailing the negotiations.
Mineta says the EC "must seize the moment or else risk losing the window of opportunity for a long and unforeseeable time".
The European Parliament's transport committee has already opposed the US proposal, under which the USA would permit carriers to fly from any EU point to any US destination and would raise the foreign control limit for US carriers to 49% from 25%.
Europeans fear that accepting a quick "mini deal" risks giving the USA the prize of London Heathrow airport access, while delivering little progress on its aims to loosen ownership, cabotage and state aid rules in the USA, says Jacqueline Foster, a member of the European Parliament specialising in aviation legislation.
AIR TRANSPORT JUSTIN WASTNAGE / BRUSSELS
USA warns Europe over Open Skies
EC calls for fuller access to US domestic market rebuffed
The USA will probably never fully liberalise its aviation market and Europe should stop holding out for a better deal in transatlantic Open Skies talks, says US Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.
Mineta used a joint meeting of the European Aviation Club and US Chamber of Commerce at the European Parliament in Brussels last week to counter European calls for access to the US domestic aviation market.
Mineta says the European Commission negotiating team has presented several "innovative" versions of the same request for improved market access for European carriers. Mineta's team had to reject each one, he says, as every version "still looked like cabotage". One senior US official involved in the talks says the USA is angry that Europe is holding out for "something that was never on the table".
Meanwhile, Karan Bhatia, US Department of Transportation (DoT) assistant secretary for aviation and international affairs, says: "The [US] proposal should be recognised for what it is: a great deal".
Changes to US laws banning foreign carriers from flying US domestic routes are strongly opposed by labour organisations and, as such, existing rules will be almost impossible to change before the forthcoming elections in the USA, says Mineta (Flight International, 23-29 March). "Not only this November, but one, two, three years from now and perhaps forever, Congress's feelings will be no different," Mineta says. The DoT is urging Europe to accept early adoption of the US proposal or risk derailing the negotiations.
Mineta says the EC "must seize the moment or else risk losing the window of opportunity for a long and unforeseeable time".
The European Parliament's transport committee has already opposed the US proposal, under which the USA would permit carriers to fly from any EU point to any US destination and would raise the foreign control limit for US carriers to 49% from 25%.
Europeans fear that accepting a quick "mini deal" risks giving the USA the prize of London Heathrow airport access, while delivering little progress on its aims to loosen ownership, cabotage and state aid rules in the USA, says Jacqueline Foster, a member of the European Parliament specialising in aviation legislation.
Transparency International
Transparency International
..or maybe its a whip ?
The US Congress has already allowed more foreign cargo aircraft access to Anchorage, AK.
As Wino correctly stated, the GOP will do almost anything possible, in order to hammer US unions-even cut off more than its nose, just to spite its face.
Never mind US jobs-the government must also be interested in major long-term loss of CRAF capability-the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Such emergency airlift goes far beyond that which Air Force C-130s, C-141s, C-5s and C-17s and relatively few Navy/Marine planes can carry.
As Wino correctly stated, the GOP will do almost anything possible, in order to hammer US unions-even cut off more than its nose, just to spite its face.
Never mind US jobs-the government must also be interested in major long-term loss of CRAF capability-the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Such emergency airlift goes far beyond that which Air Force C-130s, C-141s, C-5s and C-17s and relatively few Navy/Marine planes can carry.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 21st May 2004 at 07:02.