According to a letter written by the Directorate General for Energy and Transport of the European Commission to the members of the EU-US negotiations Special Committee, it appears that the EC is ready to accept a so-called mini-deal with the US under which the UK would preserve the trans-Atlantic limitations contained in the current US-UK bilateral.
Under the so-called Bermuda II agreement, only two US and two UK carriers may operate services between US points and London Heathrow.
Moreover, it appears that the restricted access is being extended to London/Gatwick.
The letter states: 'Notwithstanding the provision of the bilateral air transport agreements between the US and Member States of the EC, and pending the conclusion of a comprehensive air transport agreement between the US and the EC?should a Member State of the EC designate an airline to operate between its territory and the US via either London Heathrow or London Gatwick airports, the US may limit the operating authorisations of such designated airlines between the US and London Heathrow or London Gatwick to operations that are also available for all US airlines under the air transport agreement or arrangements between the US and UK.'
This would mean that carriers from other EU states such as France, Spain or Germany would have no access to routes to the US over LHR or LGW.
However, British carriers would have access to routes to the US from all other EU countries.
BERMUDA II INTACT
Moderator: Latest news team
If i understand correctly, then that would be very bad information, not only for competitive flying within Europe (from the usa) but also for competitive flying between the USA and the EU!carriers from other EU states such as France, Spain or Germany would have no access to routes to the US over LHR or LGW.
But i think nevertheless that concequences could be most visible at LHR and LGW, because if non-british carriers can't fly from there to the USA, then much traffic will be lost from LHR, i guess. Not only traffic to the USA, but also feedertraffic from many european airlines to LHR. Now, i have to say that i don't know much about the situation at LHR and LGW, but nevertheless i think that they will suffer very much, while maybe other EU airports (who knows, maybe BRU, because of the good location and the available capacity?) might benefit very much from this situation! Or am i understanding the post totally wrong?
Greets,
Pieter
A matter of fifth freedoms...
Pieter, by my knoiwledge there are no EU member states airlines flying between Lodon and the USA, except British airlines....Flybe wrote:But i think nevertheless that concequences could be most visible at LHR and LGW, because if non-british carriers can't fly from there to the USA, then much traffic will be lost from LHR, i guess. Not only traffic to the USA, but also feedertraffic from many european airlines to LHR.
Greets, Pieter
That's why Bermuda II is unchanged.
Any routing departing from the UK onto the USA, via a point in the EU, except Eire, is in fact a back track, and is probably in 100% of the cases to be considered as a back haul in case of stopover.
But a flight originating in lets say Milano with stop in LGW or LHR would, after disembarking its load of local MIL-LON traffic, embark traffic to the USA. Of course no british carrier would be in a position to compete with this advantage, that's why Bermuda II stays in application.
On the other hand, little is known, anyway by me, about traffic right, british carrier enjoy, as for fifth freedoms for flights originating in UK with a stop in another EU m,ember state. The case would be eg: LHR-AMS-BKK om a BA flight, or a LGW-MAD-BUE.
Notice the whole alliance business outs this in question...
PS
Traffic rigts cover passenger and cargo traffic as well...
Bermuda II protects LON, in fact BA.... not other airports as there are MAN, and the scottish airports, that are open for such traffic.
Thanks SN30952, i'm starting to understand it better now. Indeed it sounds very much as protection of BA in this case, and you're right, now the alliances start to count...
I don't understand that the European Comission allows this, in fact we're talking about a monopoly position on some routes for BA, no? And normally the EC is so strongly against possible monopoly positions...? And now they create one of their own! Although i doubt that many complaints of airlines will follow, i think they surely would have a case if they complain about this situation.
Thanks for clearing this out!
Pieter
I don't understand that the European Comission allows this, in fact we're talking about a monopoly position on some routes for BA, no? And normally the EC is so strongly against possible monopoly positions...? And now they create one of their own! Although i doubt that many complaints of airlines will follow, i think they surely would have a case if they complain about this situation.
Thanks for clearing this out!
Pieter
Conservatism seems to have advantages...
Yes, Pieter, but nothing is simple...Flybe wrote: in fact we're talking about a monopoly position on some routes for BA, no? And normally the EC is so strongly against possible monopoly positions...? Pieter
Now we're talking about precedence of agreements.
Even in the laws of a single country precedence of laws is sometimes a problem...
Here we're talking about international agreements, that not need ratifications. Some bilateral agreements have force of law, or are at least enforced by laws either side.
And these agreements are also consequence of aviation history... You're not without knowing that not really such a long time ago, transatlantic air travel was quite an expedition: flying first to Shanon, than Gander than to the Eastern gateways. So all airlines were tributairy to technological progress. But the Brittons stayed put with their agreements...conservatism seems to have advantages...
Conservatism seems to have advantages... for BA indeed. Well, i won't go into politics here, but indeed you're right when it comes to precedense of laws. Although i was under the impression that it was a new deal that was made now, so the EC could have ended that conservatism if they wanted, because it would be a new agreement, replacing the old national agreements. But i guess we'll never know all the reasons why they gave in. My best guess is that they did it to get out of a possible deadlock and to be able to finish the negotiations. Nevertheless strange that they left just that "small detail" in the agreement. 
Greets,
Pieter
Greets,
Pieter