AA/BA
 

The Department of Justice has recommended against antitrust immunity in the AA/BA alliance due to the market power of the two combined airlines. Even though the DOT has final say in the matter it is tough for them to go against a DOJ recommendation. Now what?

Fair competition?

lufthansa-united(70+%slotownership fra)
air france-delta
klm-northwest
ba-????
fair? i really don't think so.

What the DoJ is really saying is "Folks, we don't feel obliged to support the AA/BA alliance in it's present form but if you figure out "the price (in slot reductions) you're prepared to pay, we may change our mind".

As you correctly state, the DoT has jurisdiction over this alliance.

It's difficult to believe the claims of Delta, Continental and Northwest that they absolutely need access to LHR. It's not as if they have a connecting hub they need to plug in to. And as everyone knows, LHR is about as bad as LGA was until the Port Authority stepped in.

Smart folks go to Gatwick and jump on the express train to Victoria.

Why would DAL, CAL and NWA not have a problem with their euro hubs but have a fundamental problem with AA/BA?

It's called competition, And DAL,CAL and NWA don't want it if they can avoid it.

Hey Dude! Any chance that you might be elected to the DoJ in the new year? First bit of clear thinking I've read for a while.

AA/BA is the only big alliance yet to recieve antitrust immunity. In the interest of fairness, the fact that Don is freinds with George, and that Tony is putting pressure on to let the alliance go through, I think it will probably go.
We are moving toward a world where eventually we will have one airline, one phone company, one insurance company,etc,etc. Thats what they call globilization I suppose.

I remember some while back, when the BA / AA alliance was always held back by the Bermuda II agreement and its restrictions. More importantly, the UK's cargo carriers were adamant that the UK should not yield to a US version of Open Skies until the Fly America policy, cabotage et al was lifted.

Is there still a strong anti BA / AA sentiment from the UK as a whole, or is this simply now restricted to "wails" of protest from Virgin. The cargo lobby has been quiet for some considerable time.

Come on everyone, we don't need a US version of Open Skies, we need full, free and open competition.

LGW Vulture,

The real "timing" driver behind the present UK/US open sky discussion is the likelihood that the UK will shortly lose all ability to negotiate between itself and the US, or any other international party. Once (as expected sometime early 2002) the EU assumes the sole right to negotiate these types of treaties the UK is along for the ride.

Therefore, as far as the UK government, and AA and BA are concerned, the "best before date" is rapidly approaching. Beyond that, who knows (except for guv, maybe)?

This shelf life could expire as early as Jan 31st, 2002.

Bienvenuto Dallas Dude!
I always read your comments with a grin on my face, your position on competition is self-serving to be fair. Why did American need to reconfigure their F-100's to a 56 seat configuration and fly out of Dallas Love except to preclude competition which American fights at DFW and anywhere else that it might rear its ugly head. Now that American has run its competition at Love out of business ( Legend Airlines ), I see that American has pulled out of Love field, and discontinued its 56 seat service's. I don't think that a little above board opposition to the BA/AA alliance is a crime, we have too much consolidation going on in the business already, much to the detriment of the flying public, which I see are all bringing their shoes with them. PR

Party Reptile,

As you're aware AA didn't reconfigure it's airplanes to compete with Legend, AA was required to comply with Love Field's Wright Ammendment (no relation to Orville or Wilbur). This mandates that only airplanes with 56 seats or less may fly beyond the states whose borders "touch" Texas, plus AL,MS,KS.

The fact that Legend also flew to some of these places was merely a coincidence.

(How's that for spin? I don't think even an Indian bowler could touch that!)

Now, back to the scheduled programming...
the open skies deal has been something the UK has been reluctant to discuss previously because in their estimation the restrictions in Bermuda II had greater value than the hand across the table the US was holding.

With the EU's imminent interference, the UK's royal flush is reduced to aces and eights.

AA, by grace of fortunate timing and their existing relationship with BA (remember UAL and US Air were both previously involved with BA but withdrew from their partnerships) presently stands to gain more than DAL,CAL,NWA.

Timing is everything, so I'll get you a watch for your birthday.

BTW-maybe now they'll let us fly in flip flops!

As Kevin Kline once said: "the pilot say there is a crack in the engine, but we take-off anyway!"

[quote] It's difficult to believe the claims of Delta, Continental and Northwest that they absolutely need access to LHR. It's not as if they have a connecting hub they need to plug in to. And as everyone knows, LHR is about as bad as LGA was until the Port Authority stepped in.

Smart folks go to Gatwick and jump on the express train to Victoria.

Why would DAL, CAL and NWA not have a problem with their euro hubs but have a fundamental problem with AA/BA?

It's called competition, And DAL,CAL and NWA don't want it if they can avoid it.
<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, Dude, it won't wash. There are bilaterals allowing US carriers unfettered access to Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam - and Paris and Amsterdam actually have the runway capacity to make the promise of competition more realistic.

Heathrow is slot limited and destination limited. British Airways has had to resort to stopping at Washington Dulles to provide direct service from Heathrow to Houston, because the bilateral will not allow nonstops. Allowing BA and AA to corner the market to Heathrow does not foster competition; it stifles competition. And Gatwick is not Heathrow. It is not a good substitution for Heathrow; if it were, then Stansted would be a substitute for Gatwick.

Bottom line - competition will only be fostered with a new Bermuda agreement and 9 slots being transferred to carriers who by law have no rights to Heathrow.

How right you are Toxteth, EGKK does not bear comparison with EGLL.

EGKK : Aicraft to baggage, 20mins.
Baggage wait 15mins
Baggage to Train 15mins (max wait
15mins too)
Time to central London 30mins.
TOTAL 1hr20mins.

EGLL : Aircraft to baggage 20mins
Baggage wait 30 to 45 mins
Baggage to Train/bus 15mins.
Time to central London 45 to 60mins.
TOTAL 1hr50min/2hr20min.

No comparison at all! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ 31 December 2001: Message edited by: G.Khan ]

[ 31 December 2001: Message edited by: G.Khan ]</p>

Not forgetting 20 mins holding at LHR. Then 10 mins waiting for a stand!

Don't forget that the American version of Open Skies is one tilted 90 degrees in their favour.

They expect - nay, demand access to LHR for their carriers (LHR being the world's premier intercontinental hub) and in return are NOT prepared to provide the following:

1) Cabotage or derived fifth freedom rights

2) Wetlease of UK aircraft to US carriers for operation within the US (despite the fact that there are many N registered aircraft flying over here - including for BA)

3) Abolition of the 'Fly America' policy

The only company to gain from this travesty would be BA, and we know how much they care about competition (hence why they are trying to push Tone to expedite this through).

Sod 'em.

Can i just add that although the arguments for EGKK vs EGLL are all logical. EGLL still for some reason remains the choice for business travel, something to do with image of EGKK as a charter airport.

Both BA and VS pulled flights and moved them to EGLL after Sept 11th. These flights were mainly higher revenue business flights.

Toxteth o'g (great handle BTW),

I don't believe the real fight's about Heathrow.

Once BA and AA cement their "friendship" KLM may become a takeover opportunity for BA. When and if that happens, NWA and CAL are out in the cold as far as Europe is concerned.

I guess we'll see.

Happy, and safe, new year

Dallas Dude,

Sounds like you and AA are afraid of competition. Why not let DL, NW, US, and CO have
the opportunity to buy slots (or obtain slots) at Heathrow? Every other major European Airport is open to AA. Yes, DL and AF have a "hub" at Paris CDG, but AA can start service from CDG to where ever they want, and DL doesn't mind. If AA wants to compete with DL on CDG-CVG--great. (DL would win because it has a large base there) How about CDG to ATL? They probably wouldn't try. But, when it comes to cash cows like JFK and BOS---AA
might not win--and that is what they (and you) are afraid of. DL wouldn't try LHR to ORD or LGW to DFW---because it doesn't make sense. And if you think LGW is comparable to LHR---you are wrong. Taking a train to Victoria from LGW after a long trans-atlantic flight is NOT fun---because I did it last month and hated it. For the business traveler ($$$cash cow), LHR is preferred.
DL wants a total of 11 roundtrips a day from LHR
eventually (4 to JFK, 2 to BOS, 2 to CVG, and 3 to ATL) and they will eventually get it. And I'm sure AA will operate a NY-BOS-DC shuttle, and Airtran will operate into DCA. And then everyone will be happy.

Thanks. Donkey Duke <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

Yeah but CDG has 4 runways, AMS has lots (though they only use two), FRA has 3, etc etc, and none of them are as close to saturation point as LHR. DL may only want 11 slots per day, but if NW want 11, CO want 11 then thats 33 slots that have to come from somewhere, and they're all wanted at the busiest time of the day. The only way you can get them is to take them from BA and AA, and is that really fair?

Guv.
If I didn't think that you were writing alot of your postings just to get a rise out of people then I would wholeheartedly suspect that you are smoking some of the most beutifully refined crack this planet has ever seen!