5th freedom in the USA
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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">
If I was a Mexican reading this I'd be feeling a little left out <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Transparency International
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;
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;
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: US
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Transparency International
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>
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>
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: US
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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>
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>
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
