AA/BA Is it All Over?
Thread Starter
AA/BA Is it All Over?
DoT Gives Tentative Approval of AA/BA... But is the price too high?
224 Slots Looks like its too much for AA or BA to give up. BA thought they had it in the bag and had won the argument with the UK Government at least...
----
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TENTATIVELY APPROVES ANTITRUST IMMUNITY COVERING THE ALLIANCES OF AMERICAN AIRLINES AND BRITISH AIRWAYS, AND UNITED AIRLINES AND BMI
The Department of Transportation today tentatively approved antitrust immunity covering the alliances of air carriers American Airlines and British Airways, and United Airlines and bmi, a decision that will significantly benefit consumers by expanding service to a host of U.S. cities; encouraging additional price competition; and increasing passenger choice.
Final approval of antitrust immunity, which depends on several conditions yet to be met, will greatly enhance competition in the nation’s largest overseas market by allowing four new U.S. carriers to enter the London Heathrow market, and providing passengers with 17 new roundtrip services between the U.S. and Heathrow Airport for a total of more than 6,200 new flights per year.
The Department’s analysis and tentative conclusions for approving anti-trust immunity are largely in line with the recommendations of the Department of Justice. Tentative approval of antitrust immunity is based on several conditions yet to be met, including the divestiture by American and British Airways of 224 take-off and landing slots for flights by new competitors between U.S. cities and Heathrow airport.
The Department’s order tentatively allocates those slots as follows:. . 5 daily roundtrips to Continental (3 of which must be served from Newark) . . 6 daily roundtrips to Delta (3 of which must be served from New York’s JFK. .Airport, and 1 from Boston). . 3 daily roundtrips to Northwest. . 2 daily roundtrips to US Airways . . bmi would be required to provide slots to United for a daily round trip from Boston.
Final approval also hinges on the finalization of an open skies agreement between the U.S. and U.K. The nation’s existing aviation agreement with the U.K., one of its most restrictive, limits where U.S. carriers can fly, how many flights they can operate, and what prices they may charge, providing minimal consumer choice for the almost 18 million passengers traveling the route every year. The latest round of open skies talks are expected to begin in Washington on Monday, January 28.
A copy of the order can be obtained by visiting: <a href="http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" target="_blank">http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp</a>
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: oncemorealoft ]</p>
224 Slots Looks like its too much for AA or BA to give up. BA thought they had it in the bag and had won the argument with the UK Government at least...
----
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TENTATIVELY APPROVES ANTITRUST IMMUNITY COVERING THE ALLIANCES OF AMERICAN AIRLINES AND BRITISH AIRWAYS, AND UNITED AIRLINES AND BMI
The Department of Transportation today tentatively approved antitrust immunity covering the alliances of air carriers American Airlines and British Airways, and United Airlines and bmi, a decision that will significantly benefit consumers by expanding service to a host of U.S. cities; encouraging additional price competition; and increasing passenger choice.
Final approval of antitrust immunity, which depends on several conditions yet to be met, will greatly enhance competition in the nation’s largest overseas market by allowing four new U.S. carriers to enter the London Heathrow market, and providing passengers with 17 new roundtrip services between the U.S. and Heathrow Airport for a total of more than 6,200 new flights per year.
The Department’s analysis and tentative conclusions for approving anti-trust immunity are largely in line with the recommendations of the Department of Justice. Tentative approval of antitrust immunity is based on several conditions yet to be met, including the divestiture by American and British Airways of 224 take-off and landing slots for flights by new competitors between U.S. cities and Heathrow airport.
The Department’s order tentatively allocates those slots as follows:. . 5 daily roundtrips to Continental (3 of which must be served from Newark) . . 6 daily roundtrips to Delta (3 of which must be served from New York’s JFK. .Airport, and 1 from Boston). . 3 daily roundtrips to Northwest. . 2 daily roundtrips to US Airways . . bmi would be required to provide slots to United for a daily round trip from Boston.
Final approval also hinges on the finalization of an open skies agreement between the U.S. and U.K. The nation’s existing aviation agreement with the U.K., one of its most restrictive, limits where U.S. carriers can fly, how many flights they can operate, and what prices they may charge, providing minimal consumer choice for the almost 18 million passengers traveling the route every year. The latest round of open skies talks are expected to begin in Washington on Monday, January 28.
A copy of the order can be obtained by visiting: <a href="http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" target="_blank">http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp</a>
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: oncemorealoft ]</p>
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that all slots should go to US carriers. Poor bmi has to give up slots to allow UA to operate flights, when they have all along wanted to operate themselves from LHR to the US. Sir Michael may be crying into his soup now!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Whitehill, Hampshire, U.K.
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I understand correctly, if BMI refuse to give up a slot for United than the deal can not go ahead. Don't see why that should be, but I can't see any reason why BMI would want to do that, and their Star Alliance partner is unlikely to put pressure on them if it means quashing the BA/AA get together.
Seems like good news for Michael Bishop to me.
Meering
Seems like good news for Michael Bishop to me.
Meering
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember when AA paid TWA somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million for those LHR slots back in 91 and now CAL,DAL,US are getting slots for free. AA is the worlds undisputed leader at pissing away cash!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Confederatio Helvetica
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite, Raas (hi, btw! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ). . [quote]AA is the worlds undisputed leader at pissing away cash! <hr></blockquote>. .The Belgians take a lot of beating!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a joke!
Having worked at LHR over the summer logging departing flights, I calculated (roughly) that the percentage of LHR slots held by Star Alliance airlines is in the region of 37%, and the percentage held by One World airlines is in the region of 43%.
This strikes me as strange. BA is considerably larger than BMI, and holds considerably more slots than BMI, yet still Star has nearly the same number of slots even though BMI can hardly be called a major member of the alliance.
Also, bare in mind that at AA's main hub in Dallas/Fort Worth, AA has over 80% of the slots, and NorthWest has over 90% of the slots at its main hub in Minneaspolis (spelling??).
Is this fare?? I think not. Why does the UK government insist on trying to damage a major British company's business in order to improve competition for US companies?
Also, why is there so much red tape over essential improvements at LHR. The government should be approving terminal 6 not still wasting time on terminal 5, and a third runway should be built. It is too late to try and build another London airport.
Having worked at LHR over the summer logging departing flights, I calculated (roughly) that the percentage of LHR slots held by Star Alliance airlines is in the region of 37%, and the percentage held by One World airlines is in the region of 43%.
This strikes me as strange. BA is considerably larger than BMI, and holds considerably more slots than BMI, yet still Star has nearly the same number of slots even though BMI can hardly be called a major member of the alliance.
Also, bare in mind that at AA's main hub in Dallas/Fort Worth, AA has over 80% of the slots, and NorthWest has over 90% of the slots at its main hub in Minneaspolis (spelling??).
Is this fare?? I think not. Why does the UK government insist on trying to damage a major British company's business in order to improve competition for US companies?
Also, why is there so much red tape over essential improvements at LHR. The government should be approving terminal 6 not still wasting time on terminal 5, and a third runway should be built. It is too late to try and build another London airport.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: terra firma
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No comprendo...224 slots = 112 T/O's and 112 LDG's. These numbers are way in excess of the round-trips "awarded" to new competitors, assuming each round-trip involves one landing and one take-off at LHR, which are listed in the 1st entry in this thread. What happens to all the other slots? (I imagine there is a simple answer to this, which will make my question look very stupid...but I would like to know it)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it will be up to AA and BA to figure out if the increase in revenue generated by an immune alliance will offset the increase in competition and loss of slots. I don't know but I would be surprised if BA or AA goes for it. I think there is more lobying in the future before we here the end of this.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
splonguk: not too sure how relevant your stats are.
These don't take into account the fact that a significant percentage of BA shorthaul work has shifted to LGW, whilst bmi are still fighting the good fight to get into the bravos and charlies.
Can't quite work out whether this announcement is exactly what Sir Mickey would have liked, what with more 330's on the way soon and no where to fly them. Doesn't sound too good to me from bmi's point of view <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
These don't take into account the fact that a significant percentage of BA shorthaul work has shifted to LGW, whilst bmi are still fighting the good fight to get into the bravos and charlies.
Can't quite work out whether this announcement is exactly what Sir Mickey would have liked, what with more 330's on the way soon and no where to fly them. Doesn't sound too good to me from bmi's point of view <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, oh dear..... IT IS ALL OFF AT THIS PRICE!!!
<a href="http://www.american-britishairways.com/newsroom/releases/012502pm.htm" target="_blank">http://www.american-britishairways.com/newsroom/releases/012502pm.htm</a>
<img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
=========
What I can't understand is why BA/AA have had so many restraints put on them and the likes of Delta, Air France etc etc haven't....WHY???
<a href="http://www.american-britishairways.com/newsroom/releases/012502pm.htm" target="_blank">http://www.american-britishairways.com/newsroom/releases/012502pm.htm</a>
<img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
=========
What I can't understand is why BA/AA have had so many restraints put on them and the likes of Delta, Air France etc etc haven't....WHY???
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to US government policy.
Tariffs, WTO, GATT, everything the US government gets involved in, you can rest assured that US corporations will NEVER be disadvantaged and the majority of the time they will be advantaged.
When will the United States government realise that IMPERIALISM was supposed to have died with Queen Victoria!
Tariffs, WTO, GATT, everything the US government gets involved in, you can rest assured that US corporations will NEVER be disadvantaged and the majority of the time they will be advantaged.
When will the United States government realise that IMPERIALISM was supposed to have died with Queen Victoria!
Thread Starter
Actually, there's many on both sides of the pond who feel the deal may have stood a better chance if BA didn't think and behave like it was the preferred tool of the Holy British Empire! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: oz
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>When will the United States government realise that IMPERIALISM was supposed to have died with Queen Victoria!<<<
to everything, spin, spin, spin! why is it that a proposed virtual merger is viewed as consumer friendly!
seems just the opposite to me? but I could be wrong. the suggested slots give away did nothing to even the field, yet BA couldn't even imagine letting a bit of competition onto the field.
shame isn't it?
to everything, spin, spin, spin! why is it that a proposed virtual merger is viewed as consumer friendly!
seems just the opposite to me? but I could be wrong. the suggested slots give away did nothing to even the field, yet BA couldn't even imagine letting a bit of competition onto the field.
shame isn't it?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: LHR
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The slots BA hold seem to be the only assets left having sold off most of the family silverware. I just cannot see BA chucking away so many valuble slots especially to the Atlantic competitors. Mind you with 'Future Size and Shape' looming who knows what RE maybe thinking! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">