5th freedom in the USA

[beardy]

Just how did Air 2000 get their 5th freedom rights in the USA granted so easily and recently? Was Canada a smoke screen or is that going ahead too?
Best of luck to them

[Wino]

5th freedom has always been available. It is the same thing that US carriers negotiate in Europe.

The problem is that the GUV and others don't think that is good enough, they want cabotage.

If you want to fly to the US and beyond that is virtually always been available, just remember you often have to go well over 1000 miles to get beyond.

Cheers
Wino

[ShotOne]

A typical wino reply -not an outright untruth, but very misleading. If a European freight airline wanted to fly its packages to a US hub and then distribute them to destinations in the continent of North America, the rules are simple. They can't!

[casual observer]

ShotOne:

I don't think Wino has said anything that's contrary to what you say. In fact, I would say your statement is not totally correct. A European freight airline would not be able to distribute from a US hub to other US destinations. However, they would be able to distribute to other Canadian destinations (which is in North America) if they choose to. The former is Cabotage, while the latter is fifth freedom traffic. The sticking point here is Cabotage is defined by "arbitrary" political boundaries. In terms of operational aspects, flying between, say, Boston and Chicago, is no different from flying between, say, Paris to Rome, or Tokyo to Seoul. If US airlines are allowed to fly between Tokyo to Seoul, why couldn't foreign airlines fly between Boston and Chicago. Then again, one has to ask the question: can a foreign airline operate an economically viable operation between US cities like Boston and Chicago. Perhaps, codesharing is a more effective means. And perhaps that's why Delta has almost abandoned all its fifth freedom rights out of Frankfurt which Delta got when they bought Pan Am's trans-Atlantic operation.

[Wino]

shotone,

I am so sorry that my country is so much larger than yours, it seams to inconvienience you.

If the United States of America were 50 independant countries like the European Union is, then you would be correct.

Typically Shotone cannot draw the distinction between the two sets of rights. Anycountry can come into the US and sort freight and continue out. They can also continue IN as long as they don't add freight picked up in the US and dropped off within the US.

Non US companies do it all the time at Anchorage. They land at Anchorage from their various Asian origination points, rescramble the freight (We are now in the USA) as they refuel and continue on the NY or LAX or ORD etc...

We don't allow british companies to come in and set up toll booths on the George Washington Bridge either, that must be protectionism as well.

Cheers
Wino

[Beaver Driver]

Casual
You are wrong. These are not arbitrary boundries. Something that most Europeans don't understand is that the states of the US are not sovereign countries, and have no rights to bargain or make treaties for themselves. Japan and Korea on the other hand can do this, as they are separate and sovereign countries. That is why 5th freedom is the proper term for a US airline flying between Seoul and Tokyo, but not the proper term for an non US airline to fly between Boston and Chicago.....this would be cabotage. Many foreign carriers bring their cargo into the US for further distribution. They are in and out of Chicago, Miami, JFK, and LAX all the time. The further distribution just happens by truck, not airplane.

[redtail]

Is DHL a foreign or domestic operation in the US?

[casual observer]

Beaver:

I don't need you to explain to me what fifth freedom right is and what cabotage right is. Political boundaries are defined by human beings. It is arbitrary. Traffic between EU national destinations as of now is still fifth freedom. But that can be changed anytime as EU attempts to negotiate air services agreements as a single entity. Before the two Germanies reunited, Lufthansa couldn't fly to West Berlin, but BA, Air France and Pan Am were the only airlines allowed to. Ocean shipping between different countries is not regulated the way air shipping is. If an airline were to be allowed to have a mini-hub in JFK to serve domestic routes to the same extent that NW is allowed to serve fifth freedom routes at their mini-hub in NRT, in terms of operational needs, it would be very similar. Cabotage or fifth-freedom, both involve short- to medium-haul routes that would be used to feed trans-oceanic flights.

[Wino]

Ahhh,
but if independant countries got together and did what you are proposing, by claiming all of Europe to be one country for the purposes of airnavigations, then the USA would do similar with NAFTA.

Then the spanish airline (I forget the spanish national airlines name at this time of night) couldn't operate their little hub in Miami onward to Latin America and all those little 737/a320s (I forget which I saw this week in Miami) would have to go back to Europe.

The EU is NOT one country, and untill all the nations are abolished and replaced with brussels (who needs a parliment anyway?) you can't make those claims, and you are simply deluding yourself. The only thing that EU can negotiate as a block is 5th freedom rights (which is what is talked about when they talk open skies).

Cheers
Wino

[casual observer]

EU is trying to become a single economic and political entity. Unified currency is certainly one of the many steps that they are taking. Furthermore, negotiating Air Services Agreements as a single entity will be a reality very soon. The reason why the British and US governments are rushing to strike an open skies deal soon is because next year, EU nations will no longer be allowed to negotiate on their own. It will be a reality.

The US domestic market is by far the single largest commercial aviation market. EU "domestic" market would still be smaller than the US doemstic, but it would be sizable and much larger than Canadian and Mexican markets. Thus, even if US can get NAFTA to negotiate as a single entity, it doesn't change the equation by much. Furthermore, NAFTA is strictly an economical entity while EU is more than just an economical entity. It is a political entity, too.

[Raas767]

For all of your information 5th. freedom rights are NOT easy to get in the U.S. To my knowledge Iberia is the only scheduled airline that is allowed full 5th. freedom rights, ie picking up local pax in MIA and flying them points south. How Iberia was able to negotiate this is still a mystery to me since no U.S. based carrier enjoys the same rights out of Spain.
Various other airlines such as JAL stop over in the U.S. before continuing on to a third country but are not aloud to pick up local pax so it is not a 5th. freedom operation.
As for cabotage in the U.S. Keep dreaming.

[411A]

raas767 is right, European airlines just will have to accept the fact that they will always play second fiddle in the worldwide airline industry, whether they like it or not. However, some in Europe have begun to realise the benefits of low cost service, ala Southwest. These will be the airlines to really prosper in the years to come. The writing is clearly on the wall.

[AA SLF]

ugh Beaver Driver -

Your quote below:

[quote]the states of the US are not sovereign countries<hr></blockquote>

has a small ( <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ) discrepancy. Namely, the Republic of Texas. :)

We are a "commonwealth" member of the USA only so long as it pleases us to be a member. Little known fact is that the Articals of Incorporation into the USA give Texas the right to seceed lawfully. Texas is the only state in the USA with this legal right. All we have to do is vote it in, and it is a done deal.

dAAvid -

Citizen of the USA by Law, Citizen of the Republic of Texas by BIRTH!

[casual observer]

raas767:

That's not true. Here's a partial list of fifth freedom routes on the Pacific side, NZ has MEL-LAX and LAX-LHR. QF has LAX-AKL. RG has flights to Japan via LAX. Both KE and JL have flights to Brazil via the US. CX has flights to Vancouver from JFK. MH has TPE/NRT-LAX, and used to serve Mexico City via LAX. TG has KIX/NRT-LAX. Also SQ has HKG-SFO and TPE/NRT-LAX. On the Atlantic side, there are even more.

When the US signs an open skies agreement with a country, by definition, airlines from that country can fly any fifth freedom routes.

[Raas767]

Casual Observer.

If those route pairings are actual 5th. freedom routes then I stand corrected.
So, since the U.S. has open sky's agreements with Germany and Sweden does that mean that any carier can fly unlimited frequency between those points? I doubt it. To my knowledege, and I may be wrong, no non European airline is flying those kinds of pairings.

[casual observer]

Fifth freedom rights are also known as beyond rights. This means fifth-freedom routes have to originate or terminate in one's own country. So, an airline can offer no more fifth freedom flights than the number of flights it has to the US. Furthermore, even though the US allows fifth-freedom rights for airlines from the nations that have open skies agreement with the US, fifth-freedom rights by definition involve a thrid country. There are many countries who might not grant traffic rights to and from the US for foreign airlines.

[Beaver Driver]

Casual

Apparently you do need someone to explain it to you, as you have got it wrong. Fifth freedom rights are those rights to carry passengers from one country not of your flag to another country also not of your flag. The five freedoms are as follows:

The first two are technical freedoms....
(1) Fly over the territory of other states parties without landing.
(2) Land for noncommercial purposes such as fuel and crew change. (Hence the "Tech Stop" of modern day aviation).

The next three are known as commercial freedoms:
(3) To put down passengers, mail, and cargo taken on in their flag state. (Which is what you assumed was 5th freedom)
(4) To take on passengers, mail, and cargo destined for their flag state.
(5) To take on or put down passengers, mail, and cargo destined for or arriving from any state party. This commercial freedom is the right for any airline to carry passengers, mail, and cargo between any two contries outside of its own country.

[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: Beaver Driver ]</p>

[Raas767]

Beaver Driver.

I was looking for my old Aviation Law book, but now I don't have to since you have clearified it nicely. I always thought that actual 5th. freedom operations are quite rare. Were they not then alot more U.S. carriers would be flying beyond routes out of Europe to third country's without relying on code share partners.

[BIG PARTYR]

AASLF
I'm real proud of ya..... now let's try to stay on topic, eh!

[casual observer]

Beaver:

You are absolutely amazing. Tell me which of my examples do not fit into your definition? Are you telling me Japan Airlines' JFK-San Paulo is not a fifth freedom route, or Air New Zealand's LAX-LHR is not one? The last time I checked, the US and Brazil are not a part of Japan. Also, the US and UK are not part of New Zealand. The same can be said for all my examples.

In fact, your definition is incomplete. Fifth freedom rights have to be flights that originate or terminate in one's own country (but it does not have to be using the same aircraft, as one might recall UA 1/2 changed aircraft in HKG and LHR). That is, Air New Zealand's LAX-LHR flight has to be a sector of a flight that originated in New Zealand. Indeed, the complete itinerary of the said flight is AKL-LAX-LHR. If NZ can operate an independent flight between LAX-LHR, then it's not a beyond or fifth-freedom right. FYI, it would be called a seventh-freedom right. For example, the US agreements with Macau and the Philippines allow seventh-freedom rights for UPS and FedEx.

Just in case you don't know, Cabotage is also known as the eighth freedom. And to complete the whole thing, the sixth freedom is to carry passengers from Nation A to Nation B via one's own country. An example would be Air Canada carries passengers from Europe to the US via Canada.

[casual observer]

raas767:

Pan Am used to have a number of fifth-freedom routes out of FRA and to a lesser extent, LHR. PA based a number of B727s there. (Recall the Lockebie bomb originated in FRA on a PA B727. Also, I believe TW had some beyond rights from LHR, too. Recall a hijacked TW B727 from Athens that ended up in Beirut. As most of you should know, the B727 did not have the range to cross the Pond.) The FRA rights were assigned to DL when DL bought PA's trans-Atlantic operations, sans LHR. I believe Bombay/Mumbai is DL's only fifth-freedom route out of FRA now.

As the range capability of new aircraft has improved over the years, nearly all major European destinations can be served by nonstop flights. Secondary destinations are more effectively served by codesharing than basing a few planes in a foreign destination.

On the Pacific side, not all major destinations can be served nonstop. That's why NRT is still an effective foreign hub for NW and UA.

[Raas767]

Casual Observer.
You are correct. Back when I first became familiar with ICAO freedoms there were no "open sky's agreements". Things have obviously changed.

[Ignition Override]

Here we go again. I am from the US and fly within the US, seldom to Canada. The legal difference between European States and states within the US is fairly obvious. However, I have some sympathy for European (British etc) pilots' resentment toward the operational reality regarding US airlines which fly cargo etc within Europe, especially on bread-and-butter routes, and the protections in place here against cabotage.

On the other hand, if one's US company says: there will be a 727 base in Paris (i.e. FEDEX), and if senior pilots do not bid to be based there, it will be assigned to and forced upon junior 727 pilots-you must go or lose your job, in theory and reality. One of our FOs flew in his previous job as a DC-8 FO for Emery (based in Ohio). They had some two-day layovers in Brussels, which he really enjoyed. They also operated into Spain or whereever else.

Why did the European associations, or whatever they are called, allow this? Was it trade pressure from the US?

[Raas767]

Some of that authority is left over from air agreements signed right after the end of the second world war. I don't know if cargo was one of them, but other examples include PanAm's base in Berlin, and TWA's base in Paris, I believe it was. These agreements were extremely liberal and allowed these two carriers vast access to Europe and beyond. I think it all ended after the wall came down.

[1261]

We Europeans should not forget that Mexico is also in North America (and under NAFTA)...

If I was a Mexican reading this I'd be feeling a little left out <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[411A]

Interesting about Mexico, believe they have signed open-skies agreements with several European countries yet they are able to field only a limited number of flights due to financial constraints. As their economy starts to improve, more competition from that end of North America may well be forthcomming. CUN for example is a top European destination.

[dusk2dawn]

raas767, you wondered how Iberia was able to negotiate their rights out of MIA, but this goes back - at least as far as 1991 - when these rights were made available to US carriers on a reciprocal basis. That agreement - and others - can be found here: <a href="http://www.flyvebranchen.dk/docs/pub_eu_us_tr.htm" target="_blank">US-European Air Transport Agreements</a>

Beaver Driver, WTO has a rather significant ly different version of the 5th right:

- the right of an airline of one country to carry trafic between two countries outside its own country of registration as long as the flight
originates or terminates in its own country of registration;

[Wino]

So they fly from spain to Miami, then back to spain on another airplane without going anywhere else? &lt;G&gt;

[Beaver Driver]

d2d

My definition came right out of the international Law Library book of Legal definitions. Some of what I've written come from a book called "Air Transportation" Ninth Edition by Robert M. Kane and Allan D. Vose. Admittedly a little dated, as it was a college text from eight or nine years ago. Some of what you have read here from others came from subsequent treaties and not the original intent or agreement made during the Chicago Conference of 1944 or Bermuda 1 and 2. In either case, the terminology and what is leagally right, varies with the bilateral agreements; and the definitions fluctuate with each agreement.

As PPRUNE is not a court of law, it is really not worth the effort to educate some, or to argue with others....unless of course you'd like to pay a retainer for research. :) :) :)

[dusk2dawn]

PPRuNe may not be a court of law but the debates are half the fun in my opinion.
The WTO doc I refered to is no 98-4346 and can be found at the <a href="http://docsonline.wto.org/gen_search.asp" target="_blank">WTO search page</a>

[casual observer]

Beaver:

You seem to insinuate that the definition of the fifth freedom has changed over the year. No, it hasn't. The definition of the first five freedoms has not been changed since 1944 (only the first five freedoms were explicitly laid down in the original document). You quoted the text without understanding the underlying context. Dusk2down's quoted text from a WTO document is just a clearer explanation of the original defintion.

And FYI, Bermuda I and II were bilateral ASAs between the US and the UK. These agreements were negotiated based on the rights defined in the 1944 Chicago Convention. They didn't "define" what beyond right is. I don't know why you brought them up along with the Chicago Convention.

[Beaver Driver]

Cas.
In the Law Library I can find no references to "Beyond" nor can I find anything that stipulates that the 5th freedom flight must originate in the airlines home country. That's not to say that things haven't been modified since then, but the original definition does not seem to be as you describe. As far as Bermuda I and II, I only mentioned them because, as in many such contracts, they seem to have been used as the basis for many other bi-lateral agreements.

[ 04 January 2002: Message edited by: Beaver Driver ]</p>

[casual observer]

Beaver:

Why are you being so stubborn? Trust me, fifth freedom flights have to be extensions of flights originated or terminated in one's own country. That's why it is also known as beyond rights. The definition has not changed since 1944. Seventh freedom allows airlines to operate independent flights between two foreign countries. However, I don't believe any major passenger airlines have ever been granted this right, just like no airlines have been granted cabotage right. Seventh freedom is becoming part of ASAs, especially those with the US, but it is for freighter operations, namely, companies like FedEx and UPS. That's how they can have distribution centers in foreign countries. The one I know for certain is Subic Bay in the Philippines.

[Roadtrip]

Does anyone know of a web site that has a good primer on international aviation law/treaties that would include detailed explanations of the "freedoms" and status of current and pending treaties?