Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

EU to decide on Open Skies

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

FDJ2

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Posts
3,908
http://images.forbes.com/media/assets/forbes_logo_blue.gif


International
Delay Could Wreck Open Skies Deal
Oxford Analytica 09.22.06, 6:00 AM ET



The European Union's Council of Ministers will be asked next month to ratify the U.S.-EU Open Skies Air Services Agreement. The two sides reached a tentative agreement in November 2005. However, opposition in the United States has led Congress to cut key provisions and could prevent EU ratification.
Following the 2002 ruling by the European Court of Justice outlawing all existing bilateral air services agreements with the United States, the European Commission has been seeking a comprehensive regime to meet the court's demands. A tentative agreement was reached in November:
--The EU wanted to open the U.S. market by winning so-called "cabotage" rights, the ability to operate inside the U.S. market with no restrictions. Failing this, the EU wanted the United States to drop its strict foreign ownership requirements. The EU airline industry would also benefit from an end to national designation of air routes limiting access to named national carriers.
--U.S. supporters of Open Skies wanted to gain better access to key European airports and were also keen to see overseas capital invested in an ailing U.S. airline sector. The U.S. administration rejected the EU's demands for cabotage and only made a limited offer on foreign ownership liberalization of U.S. airlines.
On the European side, airlines that stood to gain from the agreement welcomed the accord. However, others were less enthusiastic:
--Virgin Atlantic Airways has called the ownership offer a transparent device to fool the EU into agreeing to an unbalanced deal.
--British Airways in particular was disappointed with the agreement. However, BA has expressed interest in forging closer links with its alliance partner, American Airlines, a subsidiary of AMR, but only if it has more influence over strategy and operations.
--Aer Lingus Group wants to build up Dublin as a transatlantic hub. Widening its long-haul network is its best hope of boosting the value of its planned floatation.
--The British Airports Authority was badly hit by last month's security clampdown. BAA fears that with an Open Skies agreement, it could not cope with demand.
While the tentative agreement was regarded as a relatively modest proposal, its U.S. supporters felt that it would signal a new direction for international air transport and would challenge government subsidies.
U.S. critics of the deal include a coalition of airlines and labor unions, with the active support of several key congressmen. Opponents of the agreement contend that it will have deleterious consequences for U.S. safety and security, as well as the economic and strategic effects of diluting U.S. sovereign control over domestic airlines.
Egged on by opponents, Congress has vetoed changes to foreign ownership provisions. In this context, the Department of Transportation has delayed its plans to loosen foreign ownership rules.
This delay threatens the whole Open Skies agreement, since European negotiators have made it clear that the ownership rule is a prerequisite to signing the deal. However, the Department of Transportation remains hopeful that a final Open Skies agreement with Europe can be struck toward the end of this year.
EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot is also optimistic that the EU's Council of Ministers will ratify the Open Skies agreement next month despite the U.S. administration's stance on airline ownership. The commission was surprisingly unwilling to press the United States on cabotage.
Failure to confirm the Open Skies agreement would be highly damaging to the transatlantic air transport market and would also delay a much-needed rationalization of the EU airline industry. However, the most likely outcome is that the council will ratify the existing agreement next month and hope to secure more concessions at a later date.

The EU is hoping to push through a cabotage" agreement at a latter date. Who do you want voting on that agreement? This November know where candidates stand on Open Skies and cabotage when you vote. Support ALPA-PAC.
 
Protectionism has a long history of failure, where competition is allowed it has always benefitted industry. I think one of the critical failures of organized labor is recogonizing that open markets are inevitable and instead of trying to figure out how to benefit from them they seek to do everything to fight against them.

Look at Texas International and Braniff rather then working to correct the shortcomings that Southwest was pointing out to them, they sought to use protectionisim to defeat them and ultimately failed. If your business model can't stand up to the competition it probably isn't a good business model.
 
--The EU wanted to open the U.S. market by winning so-called "cabotage" rights, the ability to operate inside the U.S. market with no restrictions.
--U.S. supporters of Open Skies wanted to gain better access to key European airports and were also keen to see overseas capital invested in an ailing U.S. airline sector.

So, European carriers get unlimited rights to operate within our borders, and we get more slots at "key" European airports and some money? WTFO?

Most countries in Europe can be traversed in a day on a motorcycle... In my opinion, offering the airlines of those countries the right to fly point-to-point within the United States will be the death knell of our domestic carriers...

If I want to go someplace in Germany, I'll take a US airline to a major city there and either drive, take the train, or a German airline to my destination. There is no need, and no practical purpose for being able to fly on a US carrier within another country. Especially if it means allowing British Airways (or any other foreign carrier) to fly from Chicago to Denver... My point is, the trade-off isn't equal. It's pretty-much a one way benefit for them.
 
Last edited:
WE really have very little room for our own airlines to expand in the US, let alone allow some foreign airlines to do so. They would have to operate many many flights to be profitable, and they would probably operate out of far flung airports, like Ryanair does in Europe. Jetblue is still fighting for 8 slots at ORD, and it has taken them years to get those. LGA, EWR, JFK during the push, are all full. No more gates available at LAX, and LAS and DEN are full. MCO may have a few gates available, along with SFO, but Virgin America will likely take those. DFW has the old DL terminal with gates, but they would be taken quickly.

I don't think any of this will be agreed upon anyway, and I doubt many LCCs would try to come to the US when there is such a large LCC presence here already. I doubt it.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Protectionism has a long history of failure, where competition is allowed it has always benefitted industry. I think one of the critical failures of organized labor is recogonizing that open markets are inevitable and instead of trying to figure out how to benefit from them they seek to do everything to fight against them.

Look at Texas International and Braniff rather then working to correct the shortcomings that Southwest was pointing out to them, they sought to use protectionisim to defeat them and ultimately failed. If your business model can't stand up to the competition it probably isn't a good business model.

You are quite incorrect my friend. Protectionism was granted SWA at Love Field, and they still enjoy it! They have 97% of Love Field traffic, the highest percentage of a single airline at a single airport.

There has been an absence of free market initiatives in the metroplex since SWA arrived, only politics. When Braniff and AA sought to compete with SWA at Love they were forced to leave. Any deal that might force SWA to compete in Dallas has been squashed, even this most recent deal looks to fail.

The question we need to ask ourselves as an economy: Are we a superpower, or do we want to become a third world country? Braniff got flushed down the toilet to bolster SWA. That's like abandoning electricity and using coal and candles! We need a national air transportation policy pointing us in a proper direction, AND a real free market for airlines.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom