Open Skies Part 2 (the agreement not the BA start-up)
#1
New guy here. I'm interested in your views about whether you feel that the US government will allow Part 2 of the Open Skies agreement to come to fruition. The general opinion on my side of the pond is that Part 1 favours the US far more than it favours Europe and that it is by no means a given that Part 2 will be approved by the US.
Also if Part 2 isn't approved, is it likely that Europe will repeal Part 1 in retaliation?
Over to you.
Also if Part 2 isn't approved, is it likely that Europe will repeal Part 1 in retaliation?
Over to you.
#2
Line Holder
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 5
I'm not sure exactly what part 2 is, but if it is allowing cabotage then most of the legacy US carriers are goners. They barely withstood the last barrage of competition from the LCCs and since most of the mismanagement teams haven't really improved, I don't see them managing their way out the mess they would be in with more competition. Their only hope is to throw enough lobby money out there to block cabotage. They would be in way better shape without part 2 even if part 1 goes away. Honestly I see part one as more benefit to EU carriers since they are allowed to go from the US to other EU countries than they were allowed to before. If I remember correctly about the best thing the US carriers got were some more slots into London. I may be totally wrong about the part one stuff, but cabotage will kill the US Carriers and the US government would be foolish (not that they don't do plenty of other foolish things) to allow it.
#3
You're right in that Part 2 will allow cabotage for EU carriers in the US. Our holy grail I suppose, access to the US domestic market.
I think Heathrow is the key to Part 1 (unfortunately as that is our home base) but it is so constrained that the impact of access by US carriers will be negligible. Slot swapping with EU shorthaul codeshare partners seems to be the trend. Ironically, while I agree that Part 1 benefits the main EU carriers, by allowing Part 1 to remain on it's own my company is likely to suffer as traditionally the EU favour France and Germany over the UK. I would be surprised if they repealed part 1 as it would disadvantage AF and LH whilst ensuring the strong position of BA.
As to Part 2, cabotage in the US, I can see why the US government would be reticent. However, as I understand it, US carriers now have these rights in the EU. How can we all ensure a level playing field? Do we want a level playing field?
I think Heathrow is the key to Part 1 (unfortunately as that is our home base) but it is so constrained that the impact of access by US carriers will be negligible. Slot swapping with EU shorthaul codeshare partners seems to be the trend. Ironically, while I agree that Part 1 benefits the main EU carriers, by allowing Part 1 to remain on it's own my company is likely to suffer as traditionally the EU favour France and Germany over the UK. I would be surprised if they repealed part 1 as it would disadvantage AF and LH whilst ensuring the strong position of BA.
As to Part 2, cabotage in the US, I can see why the US government would be reticent. However, as I understand it, US carriers now have these rights in the EU. How can we all ensure a level playing field? Do we want a level playing field?
#4
What exactly does part 2 mean? Is it the ablity for somebody like BA to fly to NY, then branch out to other points in the US? I always thought is was interesting how somebody like DAL can go to Africa and then from there branch out to different countries. Kinda like TWA used to do but, on the other hand you would never see EU carriers coming to the US branching out from NY and flying to other points in the US. I agree hardly a level playing. If you guys can't do it we shouldn't be able to do it either. If its true that it will kill us it sounds like it may not be good for you guys either. So it sounds like they should forget part 2 and part 1. Nothing can ever be simple anymore. Its too bad
#6
For common frame of reference, here are few links to the Bermuda II treaty and "freedoms of the air" from Wiki (there are obviously better sources)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air
The part 2 that your referring to are the same as "Ninth Freedom" rights, or Cabatoge?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air
The part 2 that your referring to are the same as "Ninth Freedom" rights, or Cabatoge?
#7
Should have searched just a little more, here is the Open Skies link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-US_Open_Skies_Agreement
The other two above make for a good reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU-US_Open_Skies_Agreement
The other two above make for a good reference
#8
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,236
Likes: 79
From: DAL 330
What exactly does part 2 mean? Is it the ablity for somebody like BA to fly to NY, then branch out to other points in the US? I always thought is was interesting how somebody like DAL can go to Africa and then from there branch out to different countries. Kinda like TWA used to do but, on the other hand you would never see EU carriers coming to the US branching out from NY and flying to other points in the US. I agree hardly a level playing. If you guys can't do it we shouldn't be able to do it either. If its true that it will kill us it sounds like it may not be good for you guys either. So it sounds like they should forget part 2 and part 1. Nothing can ever be simple anymore. Its too bad

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable on cabotage will chime in.
Scoop
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 973
Likes: 0
From: A320 CA
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post


Will part 2 allow US carriers to pick up UK passengers fro LHR and fly them to AMS?

