Government to punish BA?

[Ancient Observer]

Has anyone noticed what our esteemed Government are up to at lhr? More tales of Grasping Gordon, and an attempt to end the BA monopoly?

First, they are going to cave in to US pressure to open up lhr., with SFA in return from the Yanks. No chance of UK airlines operating inside the US in return. Secondly, via mixed mode, they are going to create more slots at lhr. Then, they are going to sell the slots to the Americans who currently don't have slots at lhr. A nice money-making scheme for Gordon, and a punch in the nose for BA!

[Sporran]

This 'BA monopoly' at LHR is a load of tosh!:mad:

AF/KLM have about 75% of the slots at CDG and at AMS.
Lufty have 75% of the slots at FRA.
BA have only 38-40% of the slots at LHR.

Our stinking government is more bothered about being PC, than giving British airlines a fair crack.

I do not think we should give any more slots at LHR to the American airlines. Especially since these are the same ailing airlines that have been given the total protection by their government to operate in Chapter 11 - at the complete expense of British airlines that have had to 'survive'!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Joe le Taxi]

A retaliation for the cheap (failed) attempt to bring Blair onside over the Cross issue?

[Carnage Matey!]

Is there any reliable source for this rumour. Haven't seen or heard anything about it in the media.:confused:

[akerosid]

A new round of talks between the EU and US is due to take place next week. I don't think it's quite as simple as portrayed above, in that ministers of all EU member states (27 in all now) discuss the Commission's negotiating position. BA has always managed to get the UK govt to frustrate the process, by demanding concessions (such as ownership of US carriers) which it knows are unacceptable, as a way of frustrating the process.

This could only go on for so long and it may well be that it's coming to an end, but this does not mean that HMG is in any punishing BA; it's just a reality that with 27 member states, only a very small number of which want ownership of US carriers (which is not on the table any more), the UK is not going to get its way. What happens next week is unclear, with some still suggesting that the Commission might hold out for more.

However, the bottom line is that whatever happens, it's simply not a case of the UK govt wanting to punish BA (or indeed VS, potentially a bigger loser), or indeed favouring BD (a likely winner).

[RRAAMJET]

Sporran: full of generalizations, mate....

First of all, AA is the largest US carrier into LHR. AA did not take a nickel of US gov. loans aid or Ch11 nonsense (they did recieve some of the immediate post 9-11 compensatory 'keep-going' aid that all US carriers shared). AA has shovelled sh1t uphill over the last 4 years on the backs of its employees to get back to full annual profitability.

Secondly, opening up slots into LHR is totally different from 5th freedom rights in the USA. I don't believe anyone in the UK is offering the rights to fly JFK-LHR-EDI, etc to the US carriers.

However, I do agree that the British Gov is being irresponsible in not protecting its own flag carriers before all else, just as in some of the other examples posted above.

[Skylion]

For the EU as a single negotiating entity, intra- EU rights are domestic and the US carriers have a number of these. EU carriers have none in the USA and have no hope of getting any. The US vision of open skies is " You open yours , including for 5th freedom sectors, eg Hong Kong- Bangkok, but you get none from us. The other reality is that, other than domestics the US has little to offer overseas airlines as the points beyond the USA are effectively only South America and Caribbean. Apart from that of course the US has no proper facilities for transit or transfer traffic, other than at Anchorage if that remains as it was originally.

[Whitehatter]

Rights and slots are two different issues. Having the right to operate out of LHR is all fine and dandy if you get the slots to make it work.

As Sir Beard found out when he got the right to fly out of LHR but found his slots as offered were practically unworkable.

In addition, if flying the puddle is such a great bonus then why have United pulled out of the LHR-JFK route? Serious analysis of the issue puts a completely different face on it all, but hey let's not pass up an attempt to bash the Government shall we....?

The US market is in decline anyway. Passenger numbers may increase, but yields are dreadfully poor. Serious players need to concentrate on where growth exists and not a stagnating US market which is falling well behind Asia and the rest for traffic prospects and yields. Maybe liberalising the LHR situation could do more good than harm to British aviation.

[apaddyinuk]

The government made BA as big as it is...they should be punishing themselves for allowing LHR be as restricted as it is and not BA!

[Ancient Observer]

The negotiations are next week. Germany is in the lead, for EU vs. USA, Germany doesn't care at all about lhr - just want to do a deal, any deal, as they are currently in charge of EU......... and BA will not have the influence that they had in the past.
Someone earlier said, "I don't believe anyone in the UK is offering the rights to fly JFK-LHR-EDI, etc to the US carriers.".....Err., wake up - that is on offer! As is a "free for all" at lhr.
The Yanks were s'posed to allow EU airlines to own/operate in USA, but their legacy carriers have put a stop to that _ folk in Congress have been known to be "bought".
So, add that up with Mixed Mode, which is on its way to lhr, -with slots sold by UK Govt. to all and sundry, and lhr. will soon be very different!