EU-US Open Skies Agreed
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Hunter, I think most people understand that LHR is about the most constrained airport and that there are not any slots available. However, then why don't you explain to me, why the US air carriers should be happy about open skies, or why they would even want it, if access to LHR is not part of the deal?
Seems this might be good for BA, VA amd BMI, since they all have slots and would be allowed to use them to the states without restrictions, however companies like CO, DAL, NWA gets nothing.
Doesn't seem like a good deal to me!
Seems this might be good for BA, VA amd BMI, since they all have slots and would be allowed to use them to the states without restrictions, however companies like CO, DAL, NWA gets nothing.
Doesn't seem like a good deal to me!
Freight God
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acess is part of the deal, but at same conditions as every one else, no fast track.
Maybe US carriers want to keep all 5th (and in certain cases now 7th) freedoms they still enjoy...
Maybe US carriers want to keep all 5th (and in certain cases now 7th) freedoms they still enjoy...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, since there are no slots available and probably will not be for a long time, since the new entrant US carriers would go to the bottom of the queue, then it is tantamount to offering nothing in return for open skies in the US.
So I ask again, what is in this for the US, since I am unable to see an upside? So yes, status quo seems a better deal for the US airlines, as unfair as you may find this to be.
So I ask again, what is in this for the US, since I am unable to see an upside? So yes, status quo seems a better deal for the US airlines, as unfair as you may find this to be.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diesel8,
Considering AA and UAL have tie-ins with UK based carriers and would expect to connect onward traffic through LHR, [AA-BA and UAL-BMI].
IMO, it would make sense for AA to shift its DFW-LGW flights to LHR to consolidate ground ops and save a bunch of money on the current split operation. Obviously, the cost of three pairs of slots, and slot availabilty, may be prohibitive.
In the case of NWA, CAL and DAL their partners' hubs [KLM, AF] offer connecting traffic through Amsterdam or Paris, therefore any desire to move to LHR would be an expensive distraction.
For O & D traffic solely between the US and UK, LGW IS a viable option.
Frankly, I prefer it as it's just as easy to ride into London on the Gatwick Express.
From a marketing perspective LHR may appear to be the gateway jewel in the same way JFK is regarded versus Newark.
Instead of getting involved in a costly fight for an LHR presence I'd spend a few more bucks pumping up the advantages of LGW and identify further US-LGW opportunities.
I think this is part of the "win" for the US. Standy for rumours of a real second runway at LGW.
DD
Considering AA and UAL have tie-ins with UK based carriers and would expect to connect onward traffic through LHR, [AA-BA and UAL-BMI].
IMO, it would make sense for AA to shift its DFW-LGW flights to LHR to consolidate ground ops and save a bunch of money on the current split operation. Obviously, the cost of three pairs of slots, and slot availabilty, may be prohibitive.
In the case of NWA, CAL and DAL their partners' hubs [KLM, AF] offer connecting traffic through Amsterdam or Paris, therefore any desire to move to LHR would be an expensive distraction.
For O & D traffic solely between the US and UK, LGW IS a viable option.
Frankly, I prefer it as it's just as easy to ride into London on the Gatwick Express.
From a marketing perspective LHR may appear to be the gateway jewel in the same way JFK is regarded versus Newark.
Instead of getting involved in a costly fight for an LHR presence I'd spend a few more bucks pumping up the advantages of LGW and identify further US-LGW opportunities.
I think this is part of the "win" for the US. Standy for rumours of a real second runway at LGW.
DD
Last edited by dallas dude; 20th Nov 2005 at 15:54.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm left wondering how on earth they are going to squeeze a quart into a pint pot? Like an NCP car park on an international match day, Heathrow is full up. I want to be around the slot bartering table to see who's prepared to give up what and at what price and at what time.
And as someone succinctly pointed out that they had never had a CTOT at a US airport, true, but then at LHR you don't have to add FPF plus 5 tonnes for the taxi !!
Will US airlines with more debt than Africa rush to get a slot at LHR, possibly but then why. You can get to LON just a quickly from STN and LGW as you can from LHR and with less hasstle.
And as someone succinctly pointed out that they had never had a CTOT at a US airport, true, but then at LHR you don't have to add FPF plus 5 tonnes for the taxi !!
Will US airlines with more debt than Africa rush to get a slot at LHR, possibly but then why. You can get to LON just a quickly from STN and LGW as you can from LHR and with less hasstle.
Freight God
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange enough somehow it was the US that started discussions about open Skies and wanted to bluff intelf into an agreement for LHR, taking up all these bilateral open skies to 'press' the brits into doing it, and very strange enough the brits said always, yes, but no favourism for anybody, and they still say that.
LHR must be really worth something...
Or, judging by how much US airlines have lost in the past few years they just overestimate it?
The brits have been pretty clear on this, and the EU as well, so since the US were the ones starting talk open skies (and we mean open skies here, not US favourable skies, but same rules for all), suddenly slots at LHR should be favoured?
Very strange also is that other carriers have been able to get slots at LHR, incidentally partly by buying them or by queuing up.
So, in a quintessence, the US airlines are begging for favourite treatment because they cannot stand up to competition, or did I totally missunderstand something?
LHR must be really worth something...
Or, judging by how much US airlines have lost in the past few years they just overestimate it?
The brits have been pretty clear on this, and the EU as well, so since the US were the ones starting talk open skies (and we mean open skies here, not US favourable skies, but same rules for all), suddenly slots at LHR should be favoured?
Very strange also is that other carriers have been able to get slots at LHR, incidentally partly by buying them or by queuing up.
So, in a quintessence, the US airlines are begging for favourite treatment because they cannot stand up to competition, or did I totally missunderstand something?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US, EU negotiators agree to open skies without Heathrow carve-out
Air Transport World.
Monday November 21, 2005
Negotiators for the EU and US, after five days of talks in Washington, achieved a tentative air services agreement that will provide airlines from the US and EU member states open access to each other's markets "with freedom of pricing and unlimited rights to fly beyond the EU and US to points in third countries," according to a joint statement (see text below).If approved by both sides, the agreement could take effect with the 2006 IATA winter season, which traditionally begins in late October.
The accord, which must pass muster with all 25 members of the EU Council of Transport Ministers--who rejected an earlier agreement in 2003--would open London Heathrow to all US international airlines as well as to all European carriers wishing to fly between the US and London, subject to acquiring slots at the airport. Increased access to Heathrow has been viewed as a key stumbling block to reaching an all-inclusive Transatlantic Open Aviation Area. Under the Bermuda 2 agreement, only two US and two UK airlines are permitted to fly between Heathrow and the US.
"As soon as the agreement applies, every US airline would be legally authorized to fly from any point in the United States to Heathrow [and] to any airport in Europe. By the same measure, every European carrier could fly from Heathrow or any other European airport to any airport in the US. They would have to obtain slots and facilities to do so but the legal prohibitions that exist today would no longer exist," US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Transportation Affairs John Byerly told reporters during a conference call.
"There is no carve-out for Heathrow," European Commission Director-Air Transport Daniel Calleja stated. He also emphasized that "when the Council makes its decision, it will take into account the outcome of the rulemaking process recently initiated in the US Dept. of Transportation concerning increasing the opportunities for foreign citizens to invest in and participate in management of US air carriers" (ATWOnline, Nov. 3).
The Council of Transport Ministers is expected to discuss the agreement at its Dec. 6 meeting but is not expected to take a vote until the outcome of DOT's rulemaking is known. Comments on the NPRM are due to DOT Jan. 6 and the department could make its decision final in February.
While Calleja acknowledged that UK opposition could torpedo the agreement, he told reporters: "If the evaluation [by the Council] of the outcome of the procedure in the US is positive, I think there will be a positive decision from the Council of Ministers."
Under Friday's agreement, the US and EU committed to a timetable for another round of talks. Within 60 days of the accord taking effect, "we would commence negotiations for a second-stage agreement," Byerly said.
"This is a first step and we look forward to continuing the process, Calleja stated. "We think we share on both sides the goal of continuing open access to markets to maximize the benefits for the consumers, for the airlines, so what we have agreed is there will be a pre-agenda for the second stage and on the EU side an expectation that we would seek further liberalization and also further cooperation in issues like competition, security."
by Perry Flint
(Sounds like a free for all, dog eat dog guys. Let's have some competition!!).
Monday November 21, 2005
Negotiators for the EU and US, after five days of talks in Washington, achieved a tentative air services agreement that will provide airlines from the US and EU member states open access to each other's markets "with freedom of pricing and unlimited rights to fly beyond the EU and US to points in third countries," according to a joint statement (see text below).If approved by both sides, the agreement could take effect with the 2006 IATA winter season, which traditionally begins in late October.
The accord, which must pass muster with all 25 members of the EU Council of Transport Ministers--who rejected an earlier agreement in 2003--would open London Heathrow to all US international airlines as well as to all European carriers wishing to fly between the US and London, subject to acquiring slots at the airport. Increased access to Heathrow has been viewed as a key stumbling block to reaching an all-inclusive Transatlantic Open Aviation Area. Under the Bermuda 2 agreement, only two US and two UK airlines are permitted to fly between Heathrow and the US.
"As soon as the agreement applies, every US airline would be legally authorized to fly from any point in the United States to Heathrow [and] to any airport in Europe. By the same measure, every European carrier could fly from Heathrow or any other European airport to any airport in the US. They would have to obtain slots and facilities to do so but the legal prohibitions that exist today would no longer exist," US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Transportation Affairs John Byerly told reporters during a conference call.
"There is no carve-out for Heathrow," European Commission Director-Air Transport Daniel Calleja stated. He also emphasized that "when the Council makes its decision, it will take into account the outcome of the rulemaking process recently initiated in the US Dept. of Transportation concerning increasing the opportunities for foreign citizens to invest in and participate in management of US air carriers" (ATWOnline, Nov. 3).
The Council of Transport Ministers is expected to discuss the agreement at its Dec. 6 meeting but is not expected to take a vote until the outcome of DOT's rulemaking is known. Comments on the NPRM are due to DOT Jan. 6 and the department could make its decision final in February.
While Calleja acknowledged that UK opposition could torpedo the agreement, he told reporters: "If the evaluation [by the Council] of the outcome of the procedure in the US is positive, I think there will be a positive decision from the Council of Ministers."
Under Friday's agreement, the US and EU committed to a timetable for another round of talks. Within 60 days of the accord taking effect, "we would commence negotiations for a second-stage agreement," Byerly said.
"This is a first step and we look forward to continuing the process, Calleja stated. "We think we share on both sides the goal of continuing open access to markets to maximize the benefits for the consumers, for the airlines, so what we have agreed is there will be a pre-agenda for the second stage and on the EU side an expectation that we would seek further liberalization and also further cooperation in issues like competition, security."
by Perry Flint
(Sounds like a free for all, dog eat dog guys. Let's have some competition!!).
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR access remains the nub of the problem. Slots are not available at transatlatic timings from the normal slot pool (ie, the slots that are given away for free). This means that the only source of slots is from other airlines. The price is fairly high though - GBP 10m to GBP 12m per daily slot pair for prime morning slots, maybe set to go higher in a sellers market.
But who would sell? BA and BD will need theirs for their own Open Skies aspirations. CO/DL/NW could always look to their Skyteam partners AF/KL/AZ but they don't have too many slots that they could give up without making whole routes like CD-LHR or AMS-LHR unviable. Maybe 4 slot pairs in total - max.
Other than alliance partners, potential sellers of slots get hard to find.
Even if the runway slots can be found, coverting shorthaul/small aircaft services into longhaul/big airrcaft services is not automatic. Before T5 open in 2008 terminal and stand capacity is very limited. BA and BD face this problem as well.
So, Open Skies doesn't necessarily mean that much for LHR in practice.
But who would sell? BA and BD will need theirs for their own Open Skies aspirations. CO/DL/NW could always look to their Skyteam partners AF/KL/AZ but they don't have too many slots that they could give up without making whole routes like CD-LHR or AMS-LHR unviable. Maybe 4 slot pairs in total - max.
Other than alliance partners, potential sellers of slots get hard to find.
Even if the runway slots can be found, coverting shorthaul/small aircaft services into longhaul/big airrcaft services is not automatic. Before T5 open in 2008 terminal and stand capacity is very limited. BA and BD face this problem as well.
So, Open Skies doesn't necessarily mean that much for LHR in practice.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how much cash it would take for airlines such as Air Seychelles, Air Mauritius, Uzbek, Air Astana, Air Algerie, Air Baltic, Belle View etc to be persuaded to swap their Heathrow slots with Delta's, Continental's Gatwick slots?
It's happened before with BA swapping with Balkan and Lithuanian.
It's happened before with BA swapping with Balkan and Lithuanian.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR will see a benefit though - bmi can open the market from their view point and increase competition and more than likely reduce fares like it did in Europe, and like it has done on the London, India route. Slots can't be given by a government as they are controlled by the airport/slot people - so airlines will have to wait or buy from an airline, just like Virgin/Qantas did when they bought slots from flybe.
Delta have already acknowledged this and said that they will queue up for slots but will probably be a couple of years before they can start LHR - but until LHR even gets opened up they can't wait around.
The only way more slots will be given up is if a joint venture type agreement goes ahead between say AA and BA - at which point they would have to surrender some slots for competition rules. Or wait until LHR finds more slots maybe through mixed mode operations, or a future new runway???
But you also have to think that European airlines can now also start LHR to the US if this goes through - yes DL may not be able to get any slots, but why couldn't KL or AF operate LHR-ATL with DL codesharing?? LH may also want to start new services from LHR - they won't get the feed they need (although they will have STAR feed still just like bmi would) and could still start a service to a STAR hub like ORD, IAD etc - unless they fancy increasing their presence in New York for example with flights from Germany and the UK - a good offering!!! Just like Virgin could open up AMS-NYC, CDG-LAX etc focusing on their point to point traffic like LGW etc!!
So the UK consumer will get a lot of good out of this, there will be increased competition on the LON-US markets, markets like Las Vegas, Dallas and Orlando would be opened up from LHR (at the moment they are restricted as only certain amount of markets can be served from LHR, even for the 4 airlines allowed access).
And it isn't just LHR that gets included as the US cargo carriers like Fed Ex will be able to fly fifths beyond LHR to European points (eg LON-AMS)
So a lot in this for everyone, but the consumer more than anything - so why shouldn't this be a good direction??? And it may start changing the face of the US aviation map which to be honest needs a kick up the rear end!!
Delta have already acknowledged this and said that they will queue up for slots but will probably be a couple of years before they can start LHR - but until LHR even gets opened up they can't wait around.
The only way more slots will be given up is if a joint venture type agreement goes ahead between say AA and BA - at which point they would have to surrender some slots for competition rules. Or wait until LHR finds more slots maybe through mixed mode operations, or a future new runway???
But you also have to think that European airlines can now also start LHR to the US if this goes through - yes DL may not be able to get any slots, but why couldn't KL or AF operate LHR-ATL with DL codesharing?? LH may also want to start new services from LHR - they won't get the feed they need (although they will have STAR feed still just like bmi would) and could still start a service to a STAR hub like ORD, IAD etc - unless they fancy increasing their presence in New York for example with flights from Germany and the UK - a good offering!!! Just like Virgin could open up AMS-NYC, CDG-LAX etc focusing on their point to point traffic like LGW etc!!
So the UK consumer will get a lot of good out of this, there will be increased competition on the LON-US markets, markets like Las Vegas, Dallas and Orlando would be opened up from LHR (at the moment they are restricted as only certain amount of markets can be served from LHR, even for the 4 airlines allowed access).
And it isn't just LHR that gets included as the US cargo carriers like Fed Ex will be able to fly fifths beyond LHR to European points (eg LON-AMS)
So a lot in this for everyone, but the consumer more than anything - so why shouldn't this be a good direction??? And it may start changing the face of the US aviation map which to be honest needs a kick up the rear end!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem - where are they going to find room for them?? Heathrow is working almost at max capacity and the only way to seriously up the movement rate is to ditch the noise abatement procedures.... and can anyone see that happening??
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD
... would open London Heathrow to all US international airlines as well as to all European carriers wishing to fly between the US and London, subject to acquiring slots at the airport
...They would have to obtain slots and facilities to do so but the legal prohibitions that exist today would no longer exist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will always be buyers and sellers of the slots at Heathrow - indeed it is not impossible with more than a little planning to obtain them from BAA directly a zero cost where carriers fail to utilise their slot, or more are created through efficiency gains. Though there may not be a large mass available, there are many than can be obtained through some means or another.
Surely when a carrier enters Chapter 11 or Administration (UK version), its ownership effectively changes. Perhaps any airline operating under bankruptcy protection (i.e. not on a level playing field) should be deprived of their LHR slots?
Wouldn't be liked by the US but may stop the current unfair trading conditions.......
Wouldn't be liked by the US but may stop the current unfair trading conditions.......
Almost all of the desired slots will be for an early morning arrival and a later departure. The additional slots that become available at present tend not to fall into this pattern.
And as Heathrow is also currently "full" for ground movements, stands, check-in desks and gates as well, there is that to consider. Can't quite see Continental going for transfer buses to/from the cargo area.
The whole thing about Heathrow access usually hides the facts. Heathrow is already full for movements. It's like a nice apartment building where all the units are taken by long-established residents. Here comes Mr Upstart, who now would also like an apartment. Sorry, it's full. All taken. But that's not good enough for him. Complain to the press. Say it's not fair. Whine Moan Pout Sulk. Throw the existing tenants out, make them double up, all so Mr U can get in where he wants.
And as Heathrow is also currently "full" for ground movements, stands, check-in desks and gates as well, there is that to consider. Can't quite see Continental going for transfer buses to/from the cargo area.
The whole thing about Heathrow access usually hides the facts. Heathrow is already full for movements. It's like a nice apartment building where all the units are taken by long-established residents. Here comes Mr Upstart, who now would also like an apartment. Sorry, it's full. All taken. But that's not good enough for him. Complain to the press. Say it's not fair. Whine Moan Pout Sulk. Throw the existing tenants out, make them double up, all so Mr U can get in where he wants.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Wouldn't be liked by the US but may stop the current unfair trading conditions......."
What is unfair about it? Even in Ch.11 companies do pay their bills, sure they alter the debt state. They discuss the debt with their lenders, but they still have to pay the daily bills. Of note should be, that say in the case of UAL, very, very few of the leaseholders have decided to take back their airplanes.
If BA was able to negotiate better lease deals would that be unfair to others who might not?
Before you all start flaming away, I should say, that I do not work for UAL or any other ch.11 airline, actually compete with them. Further, if you want to have a meaningful discussion, you should look up US Ch.11 laws.
Now, I am donning my asbestos suit
What is unfair about it? Even in Ch.11 companies do pay their bills, sure they alter the debt state. They discuss the debt with their lenders, but they still have to pay the daily bills. Of note should be, that say in the case of UAL, very, very few of the leaseholders have decided to take back their airplanes.
If BA was able to negotiate better lease deals would that be unfair to others who might not?
Before you all start flaming away, I should say, that I do not work for UAL or any other ch.11 airline, actually compete with them. Further, if you want to have a meaningful discussion, you should look up US Ch.11 laws.
Now, I am donning my asbestos suit