Open Skies
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open Skies 2 - The next phase
Now that Phase I of O/S has been put in place, I thought it would be an opportune time to start another thread, to focus on the way forward. I think the next phase will be as difficult - indeed, potentially moreso - than the current one and I thought it would be useful for those interested to share some views here as to how things will - and/or should - work, going forward.
I note that there is a piece in today's FT, whereby the EU and US are on a collision course over the second stage of the Open Skies process and that we could reach a point where t/a flights could suddenly come to a stop. It just seems absurd, given the level of cabotage within Europe by US carriers and the likelihood of European carriers being dumb enough to want to start domestic operations, that we could sacrifice what will then be a huge t/a business, of huge economic impact, for very unlikely eventualities.
Now, I don't really believe it will come to that; it simply won't happen. There is no way that, for example, Ireland is going to stop its US access because UK carriers think they might be interesting in US domestic access. However, I think we need to look outside the box here and think of ways that we can work around this.
At the outset, let's assume (quite accurately, I think) that even if the US were to say, tomorrow, "look guys, you can have cabotage", very few airlines would really want to do so. They'd have to invest heavily to market, acquire a fleet, train staff, find a relatively unused hub and by the time they had done that, the likes of Airtran, Southwest, Spirit and the now-much-leaner legacy carriers would be waiting to cut them to pieces. It would be a disaster, so why fight for something that they would not necessarily want to do?
If they want to equalise things, why not take away the rights any US pax operators have in Europe, so there is a level playing field, rather than to cut off the nose to spite the face, by threatening to axe all routes? It just isn't sensible.
Surely, the best way forward is to align the extent to which US airlines can invest in EU airlines, with the extent to which EU airlines can invest in US airlines and, starting from that base, to encourage partnerships between EU and US carriers, on a case by case basis - looking at it more from a competition and mergers/monopolies basis than just an EU/US split.
What if the Americans decide not to move at all? The European economies, Britain included, will benefit significantly from the current position, whereby there are no restrictions on flights between the EU and US. Likewise, the EU will, I think, suffer much more than the US if the EU goes ahead with its threats; it is simply not a good bargaining position to threaten something which will hurt us (in the EU) much more than the US and consequently, it is difficult for the US to take this seriously; rather than withdrawing into inflexible and damaging positions, surely it makes sense to use the next two years to take a pragmatic, realistic view of trends and the realities of the two markets, so that a more mutually beneficial arrangement can be reached, which does not cast a cloud over links which are vitally important to many European economies?
Over to you ...
I note that there is a piece in today's FT, whereby the EU and US are on a collision course over the second stage of the Open Skies process and that we could reach a point where t/a flights could suddenly come to a stop. It just seems absurd, given the level of cabotage within Europe by US carriers and the likelihood of European carriers being dumb enough to want to start domestic operations, that we could sacrifice what will then be a huge t/a business, of huge economic impact, for very unlikely eventualities.
Now, I don't really believe it will come to that; it simply won't happen. There is no way that, for example, Ireland is going to stop its US access because UK carriers think they might be interesting in US domestic access. However, I think we need to look outside the box here and think of ways that we can work around this.
At the outset, let's assume (quite accurately, I think) that even if the US were to say, tomorrow, "look guys, you can have cabotage", very few airlines would really want to do so. They'd have to invest heavily to market, acquire a fleet, train staff, find a relatively unused hub and by the time they had done that, the likes of Airtran, Southwest, Spirit and the now-much-leaner legacy carriers would be waiting to cut them to pieces. It would be a disaster, so why fight for something that they would not necessarily want to do?
If they want to equalise things, why not take away the rights any US pax operators have in Europe, so there is a level playing field, rather than to cut off the nose to spite the face, by threatening to axe all routes? It just isn't sensible.
Surely, the best way forward is to align the extent to which US airlines can invest in EU airlines, with the extent to which EU airlines can invest in US airlines and, starting from that base, to encourage partnerships between EU and US carriers, on a case by case basis - looking at it more from a competition and mergers/monopolies basis than just an EU/US split.
What if the Americans decide not to move at all? The European economies, Britain included, will benefit significantly from the current position, whereby there are no restrictions on flights between the EU and US. Likewise, the EU will, I think, suffer much more than the US if the EU goes ahead with its threats; it is simply not a good bargaining position to threaten something which will hurt us (in the EU) much more than the US and consequently, it is difficult for the US to take this seriously; rather than withdrawing into inflexible and damaging positions, surely it makes sense to use the next two years to take a pragmatic, realistic view of trends and the realities of the two markets, so that a more mutually beneficial arrangement can be reached, which does not cast a cloud over links which are vitally important to many European economies?
Over to you ...
Last edited by akerosid; 23rd Mar 2007 at 20:59. Reason: correct error in text
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canada wants to talk ...
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...b81654&k=65363
It is currently talking with Canadian airlines and airports and wants to talk to the EU later in the year.
Hopefully, the deal with Canada will be more straightforward than that with the US. With any luck, a deal might be possible in time for next year's Summer season, although it's pretty tight timing.
It is currently talking with Canadian airlines and airports and wants to talk to the EU later in the year.
Hopefully, the deal with Canada will be more straightforward than that with the US. With any luck, a deal might be possible in time for next year's Summer season, although it's pretty tight timing.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OS
If the Americans get their act together and wish to start services, where do the slots come from? purchase? most our broke. So, does this mean turning to their European alliance partners for slots? If so, does this mean giving up short haul slots at LHR for long haul? Will these short haul services then move to LGW or even better LCY? Have Air France and BA jumped the gun with their new LCY services? We hear that the money is in the long haul traffic. OS may just see LHR focusing more on long haul by all airlines in the future.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not the Agreement per se, but the nearest thing to it - an 'Information note' published by the Commission.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: STN
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me ?
I cant see what all the fuss is about over LHR slots, would'nt it be
a safer bet for some Transatlantic traffic to start flights from other
London Airports, STN and LTN would be better for people north of London
I for one hate the M25.
I might be wrong but if more airlines start flying LHR to USA they are going
to be half full/empty, where as, if say one or two open routes from STN or LTN they will get the majority of pax north of London and there is alot of
us trust me.
I cant see what all the fuss is about over LHR slots, would'nt it be
a safer bet for some Transatlantic traffic to start flights from other
London Airports, STN and LTN would be better for people north of London
I for one hate the M25.
I might be wrong but if more airlines start flying LHR to USA they are going
to be half full/empty, where as, if say one or two open routes from STN or LTN they will get the majority of pax north of London and there is alot of
us trust me.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't tell the pax -
LHR is being made such a fuss becuase of all the potential interline traffic that can be had. It is just not about point to point anymore. No other airport in the UK has this size of through traffic.
LHR is being made such a fuss becuase of all the potential interline traffic that can be had. It is just not about point to point anymore. No other airport in the UK has this size of through traffic.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: STN
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You say its just not about point to point anymore, I would say
many more are willing to try it as the cost from getting from A to C
via B is normaly less with low cost airlines such as FR and EZY to
name but two.
I have noticed/spoken to alot of Americans using STN who have flown
into LHR and took the to coach to STN get a better deal.
More and more people have the Internet and are finding it
cheaper to make there own way with low cost airlines
and not using through check-in (interline).
but saying that keep an eye on AirBerlin who do have Interline
baggage at STN.
((( sorry for my typo )))
Its ment to read not using through check-in or interlined baggage.
many more are willing to try it as the cost from getting from A to C
via B is normaly less with low cost airlines such as FR and EZY to
name but two.
I have noticed/spoken to alot of Americans using STN who have flown
into LHR and took the to coach to STN get a better deal.
More and more people have the Internet and are finding it
cheaper to make there own way with low cost airlines
and not using through check-in (interline).
but saying that keep an eye on AirBerlin who do have Interline
baggage at STN.
((( sorry for my typo )))
Its ment to read not using through check-in or interlined baggage.
Last edited by DONTTELLTHEPAX; 27th Mar 2007 at 20:10. Reason: self clarification
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Some confusion of terms here, interline refers to through pricing, ticketing and baggage transfer between airlines. Online transfers are between flights of the same airline.
Hope you don't mind the clarification
Hope you don't mind the clarification
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant see what all the fuss is about over LHR slots,
That comment unintentionally raises one good point though.....ask bmi if they think Heathrow slots are worth a fuss!
bmi wouldn't admit to it, but their entire survival and profitability for 20 years relied upon the fact that their only real "competition" on short haul was BA. Of course, the loco's like Ryanair have ruined that cushy little number in recent times.
I wonder if bmi would welcome Ryanair at Heathrow with a nice big fat wad of slots?
Still be proclaiming "we welcome competition" would they?
No, thought not.
Open skies to bmi doesn't mean open skies in and out of Heathrow.
BMed slots-BMi-BA
I wrote on here some time ago that the BMed slots which BMi bought/inherited had been sold to BA. If you look at to-day's Times, that has now been confirmed.
BMi had no experience of flying to "dodgy" places, and had no intention of starting to do so.
BMi had no experience of flying to "dodgy" places, and had no intention of starting to do so.
Selling mixed-mode slots
bmi expat asks whether or not the sale of the mixed-mode slots can go ahead at lhr. Hr thinks it would be unlawful. Well, it isn't and it won't be.....any more unlawful than the Treasury's UKP100 billion raid on UK pension plans. If the UK Treasury want the money, they will get it. They certainly won't let BAA have the money.
DfT and European soft touches
Akerosid - I have a different opinion to you. Whilst I appreciate your thoughtful inputs on this topic, I do not agree. I believe that UK plc, aided by the Germans, who just wanted a quiet life in the Presidency, (and whose DfT is pre-occupied by flogging off their version of NATS), just rolled over when the USA came calling.
Within the bureaucracies of DfT and the Commission, they just wanted a deal. The legal obstacles put up by the Euro courts could have been overcome, but no-one had the guts to do that.
In the end, BA will manage within these new constraints, as they have to, but it was not a good deal. Phase 2 will be just a joke.
Within the bureaucracies of DfT and the Commission, they just wanted a deal. The legal obstacles put up by the Euro courts could have been overcome, but no-one had the guts to do that.
In the end, BA will manage within these new constraints, as they have to, but it was not a good deal. Phase 2 will be just a joke.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Middx.
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open Skies
I don-t think we can assume because BMI has sold slots to BA that it doesn-t intend to OP most of the ex BMED schedule.
The number of slots may equal previous BMED operation but that doesn-t mean the slots sold to BA aren-t a mix of ex Bmed and current BMI slots .
From BMI's point of view what wud be the point of buying BMED for 30m
,selling their slots for 30m ,taking on BMED staff and aircraft .What wud they do with them ??
The number of slots may equal previous BMED operation but that doesn-t mean the slots sold to BA aren-t a mix of ex Bmed and current BMI slots .
From BMI's point of view what wud be the point of buying BMED for 30m
,selling their slots for 30m ,taking on BMED staff and aircraft .What wud they do with them ??
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: heathrow
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sky chef 1923
Think you are being a little unfair,any company in the world can only compete along with the rules and regs of that industry.
bmi have suffered as much as anyone with the flood of low cost carriers as a consequence of having a majority short haul business,any successful business has to adapt and roll with the punches. Perhaps this is why bmi is the longest running privately owned airline in the world!
Open skies is great news for bmi because it can now compete with the big boys on a level playing field for the first time,no wonder that Branson would love to snap it up,unfortunately it doesnt appear to be for sale.Watch this space...
bmi have suffered as much as anyone with the flood of low cost carriers as a consequence of having a majority short haul business,any successful business has to adapt and roll with the punches. Perhaps this is why bmi is the longest running privately owned airline in the world!
Open skies is great news for bmi because it can now compete with the big boys on a level playing field for the first time,no wonder that Branson would love to snap it up,unfortunately it doesnt appear to be for sale.Watch this space...