EU-US Open Skies Agreed
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..and in the event of Lufthansa excercising this put option on BD, what stops them making an absolute mint from selling the whole batch of slots, shutting the airline down and laughing all the way to the bundesbank?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D8
That is 100% incorrect. No they don't. One airline has been granted the right through the courts not to have to pay its aircraft leasing bill.
Chapter 11 is in effect a grossly unfair subsidy and life line to an uncompetative business.
Airlines in Europe must deplore it.
Even in Ch.11 companies do pay their bills
Chapter 11 is in effect a grossly unfair subsidy and life line to an uncompetative business.
Airlines in Europe must deplore it.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been following this excellent thread with much interest and I'd like to share a few thoughts - in no particular order I'm afraid; it's more of a brain dump!
1) Mixed mode. Won't this create new slots; how will they be divided? Assigned or for sale.
2) If there is to be entry of new airlines to LHR, presumably it will be done on a phased basis ... i.e. a certain number from 11/06 and more once Mixed Mode is introduced, then another date.
The big losers here will be regional links to LHR; apart from the big three - MAN, GLA and EDI, how many will be left. I can't see BMI being too slow to dump INV, BHD and/or LBA, if it got rights to the US, same with BA to ABZ, NCL and one or two others?
It seems brutally unfair that these regional destinations, to which LHR access is SO important (and living in JER, I can vouch for that) can have their access severed and their flights replaced by those of US carriers in Ch11. There's no way (even if it were permitted) that UK regional destinations could afford £30m (or even half of that) for a slot.
The DFTR (the "R" incidentially, standing for "Regions"!) is not interested in lifting a finger, which basically means that airlines have the right to dictate which regions/centres have access to LHR - and that basically means the biggest of them; perhaps legal moves are necessary to prevent regional routes being sidelined; injunctive relief to require DFTR to provide slots. Role of CAA in obstructing access to regions; it has been an obstacle.
Perhaps it's time for regional centres to come together as a group, to fight for their rights. Even if R3 is authorised, it's hardly reasonable to tell them that their access is being cut for 7-8 years until that runway is open (if this ever happens?)
Consultation process last July on issue of regional access to London; what was the result of this? Is HMG going to set its face against any access. This is the most frustrating aspect; it's a straight market approach. LGW becomes less attractive as a hub by the month; smaller regional destinations can't justify a large number of links, so access to a major hub becomes all the more important.
Ultimately, best solution may be for UK regions to come together and invest in small UK carrier with significant LHR slots? Is this the method the govt would prefer? If bmi were owned by a group of regional governments and interest groups, they would suitably "incentivised" to reintroduce and protect regional routes.
Is govt satisfied with prospect of no domestic access to LHR (apart from major routes which have plenty of alternative access - MAN, GLA, EDI? That's what's going to happen and for those regional airports lucky enough to have access to it, AMS will be their primary link to intercontinental markets.
1) Mixed mode. Won't this create new slots; how will they be divided? Assigned or for sale.
2) If there is to be entry of new airlines to LHR, presumably it will be done on a phased basis ... i.e. a certain number from 11/06 and more once Mixed Mode is introduced, then another date.
The big losers here will be regional links to LHR; apart from the big three - MAN, GLA and EDI, how many will be left. I can't see BMI being too slow to dump INV, BHD and/or LBA, if it got rights to the US, same with BA to ABZ, NCL and one or two others?
It seems brutally unfair that these regional destinations, to which LHR access is SO important (and living in JER, I can vouch for that) can have their access severed and their flights replaced by those of US carriers in Ch11. There's no way (even if it were permitted) that UK regional destinations could afford £30m (or even half of that) for a slot.
The DFTR (the "R" incidentially, standing for "Regions"!) is not interested in lifting a finger, which basically means that airlines have the right to dictate which regions/centres have access to LHR - and that basically means the biggest of them; perhaps legal moves are necessary to prevent regional routes being sidelined; injunctive relief to require DFTR to provide slots. Role of CAA in obstructing access to regions; it has been an obstacle.
Perhaps it's time for regional centres to come together as a group, to fight for their rights. Even if R3 is authorised, it's hardly reasonable to tell them that their access is being cut for 7-8 years until that runway is open (if this ever happens?)
Consultation process last July on issue of regional access to London; what was the result of this? Is HMG going to set its face against any access. This is the most frustrating aspect; it's a straight market approach. LGW becomes less attractive as a hub by the month; smaller regional destinations can't justify a large number of links, so access to a major hub becomes all the more important.
Ultimately, best solution may be for UK regions to come together and invest in small UK carrier with significant LHR slots? Is this the method the govt would prefer? If bmi were owned by a group of regional governments and interest groups, they would suitably "incentivised" to reintroduce and protect regional routes.
Is govt satisfied with prospect of no domestic access to LHR (apart from major routes which have plenty of alternative access - MAN, GLA, EDI? That's what's going to happen and for those regional airports lucky enough to have access to it, AMS will be their primary link to intercontinental markets.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm almost tempted to say.......Surely that would lead to more holding in the stacks at Heathrow?.......oooops, I said it!
************************************************
Teehee
Great minds think alike Gonzo.
Sorry for that insulting stuff guys in that other post.
It's just some of the arrogance that I have a tough time dealing with. We have it out here as well !!
************************************************
Teehee
Great minds think alike Gonzo.
Sorry for that insulting stuff guys in that other post.
It's just some of the arrogance that I have a tough time dealing with. We have it out here as well !!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
Has anyone got the actual text of what has been agreed?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. Mixed mode won't bring in that many extra slots, and it won't work unless all environmental considerations (ie. noise preferential routes) are done away with.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Blairgowrie,Scotland
Age: 75
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daysleeper
Fifth freedom is mentioned in this other thread running on 'Rumours and News'.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=199262
Of course,all this has to be agreed by all EU countries,and the UK/US governments.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=199262
Of course,all this has to be agreed by all EU countries,and the UK/US governments.
..and in the event of Lufthansa excercising this put option on BD,
YS
