British Airways claims that protectionism was preventing airline consolidation.
(So did we in Luchtzak)
New rules governing the ownership of domestic carriers in the USA would be published in August, in which foreigners will still be barred from controlling US airlines.
In the USA foreign company can hold only 49% of the stock in a US airline and just 25% of the controlling stock. (Note in Cuba, the airlines are 100% completely hold by the regime's army!)
In the same line the USA claim there are national security concerns.
Although the USA prefers to register its Merchant marine vessels abroad, (registered in other countries: 659, against a total of 470 US ships, to undercut competion?), it does not allow foreign aviation companies to do similar commercial moves, when it does not suit them.
Now, what can the world expect from a government that protects protectionism?
Britain's American colonies broke with the mother country in 1776 and since problems seem not solved yet...
Still a brake away mentality? A poacher's mentality? Where is the 'old continental' mentality now?
It is time the US come to 21-century, quick.
BA attacked US Government refusing to deregulate its skies
Moderator: Latest news team
BA has everything to lose if the U.S cancel the Brermuda II agreement to punish them.
The U.S gov decided against the sell of the Port Authority of New-York to a global Dubaï-based port authority. National Security is their top of the list priority, whatever what we think of it.
Virgin America has so many problems to obtain its certificate of operations.
I think BA will lose, no doubt about it.
Brazil has the same ownership laws if I remember correctly.
The U.S gov decided against the sell of the Port Authority of New-York to a global Dubaï-based port authority. National Security is their top of the list priority, whatever what we think of it.
Virgin America has so many problems to obtain its certificate of operations.
I think BA will lose, no doubt about it.
Brazil has the same ownership laws if I remember correctly.
Bermuda II is a highly restrictive Bilateral Air Transport Agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States. No airline signed that, it were the governments.
The problems is US' definition of its open skies policies.
Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation (MALIAT) works trans Pacific for limited cases.
Via the Treaty on Open Skies, UK allowed a lot to US military aviation in the recent past: technical stops for questionable detainee transports, technical stops for bomb transports to Israel in war time, in a 'fait accompli', where UK protested to th US of breaching the rules.
So there is more than BII, Uk can restrain US' moblity, more than at first glance just over the LHR-case.
If Uk starts questionning the application of thae Treaty, under prssure of the EU, particularly under France's lobbying and added pressure, then things could go shifting. What do you think, Steph?
The problems is US' definition of its open skies policies.
Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation (MALIAT) works trans Pacific for limited cases.
Via the Treaty on Open Skies, UK allowed a lot to US military aviation in the recent past: technical stops for questionable detainee transports, technical stops for bomb transports to Israel in war time, in a 'fait accompli', where UK protested to th US of breaching the rules.
So there is more than BII, Uk can restrain US' moblity, more than at first glance just over the LHR-case.
If Uk starts questionning the application of thae Treaty, under prssure of the EU, particularly under France's lobbying and added pressure, then things could go shifting. What do you think, Steph?
Some airlines like Continental want to keep foreign ownership of airlines out. As you know with me, part of me doesn't want to see too much foreign ownership of American airline companies, but the other part of me says it would bring in much needed competition and service. It will be a long time before the American government softens its position on foreign ownership, and the fact that Bush approves of the Open Skies Agreement means it has little chance of being supported in the Congress during an election year and the fact that a very unpopular president supports such a messure.SN30952: Although the USA prefers to register its Merchant marine vessels abroad, (registered in other countries: 659, against a total of 470 US ships, to undercut competion?), it does not allow foreign aviation companies to do similar commercial moves, when it does not suit them.
Now, what can the world expect from a government that protects protectionism?
The US government will have a lot to lose as well if the Bermuda II agreement is canceled. Second, the US government stopped the DP World from managing the ports in the United States, PA of New York city did not sell, neither did any ports for that matter sell to DP World.Stepha380:BA has everything to lose if the U.S cancel the Brermuda II agreement to punish them.
The U.S gov decided against the sell of the Port Authority of New-York to a global Dubaï-based port authority. National Security is their top of the list priority, whatever what we think of it.
Virgin America has so many problems to obtain its certificate of operations.
Not only the US government, I am afraid. US business tooDavid747 wrote:The US government will have a lot to lose ...
Look what happened in India. USA was arguing about India's, soon to be the biggest market in the world, trade demands.
To me it looks like a retaliation, that Pepsi and Coke cannot be sold in a big part of India. They want to know the formula of the fizz, even before they will allow sales again.
imho, it is just a beginning. The indonesian Playboy case, was maybe just some a testcase, of how it should be done. (some people died for that...)
But many countries have similar boycotts on shelf. Wait & see.
I think once these economical boycotts will gether impact, the sponsoring multinationals will chose money over politics - and that is also what this forum pretends, as no (adverse) political opinions are allowed here and quickly shot down by lobbyists.
In other words, when worldwide, a huge majoroty of the population are designated as "evil people", some of these will act as "evils', others will just turn their back.
Both attitudes are detrimental to the US. Because turning the back to someone is facing an other...
It is meanwhile well-known that Continental Airlines has lobbied hard against Virgin America.
UK Virgin Group holds 25% in the company, but is said to effectively control the US airline* in violation of US law.
With in the background this dispute: the Bush administration delays the plan to ease limits on foreign investment in US airlines, now the proposal seems delayed indefinitely.
Last year the DoT** proposed giving international airlines or other foreign investors some say in operations, including scheduling and fleet makeup, when they invest in up to 25% of the voting stock of an airline.
US carriers are struggling with bankruptcy.
US airline companies under bankruptcy protection were bought by other airlines: eg: American Airlines bought TWA in 2001.
America West Airlines combined with the US Airways, mergers are the subject of many forums.
US are delaying talks, to win time in order to give their carriers the opportunities to get organised.
Two possibilities in this gamble.
a- they get organised.
b- they don't.
Question is only, why should they get organised now, if for years they couldn't do it?
The delay provides time to the struggling amercan airlines indeed, but also to the foreign airlines, that get stronger by the time.
Conclusion? The foreign airlines will be able to hit them even harder...
And who would the foreign airlines want to hit hardest? The ones that have costed them most, answer is in the first line here.
Read also:
American airline Ownership by Foreigners Delayed
*Virgin America has 33 Airbus planes on order
**Transportation Department
UK Virgin Group holds 25% in the company, but is said to effectively control the US airline* in violation of US law.
With in the background this dispute: the Bush administration delays the plan to ease limits on foreign investment in US airlines, now the proposal seems delayed indefinitely.
Last year the DoT** proposed giving international airlines or other foreign investors some say in operations, including scheduling and fleet makeup, when they invest in up to 25% of the voting stock of an airline.
US carriers are struggling with bankruptcy.
US airline companies under bankruptcy protection were bought by other airlines: eg: American Airlines bought TWA in 2001.
America West Airlines combined with the US Airways, mergers are the subject of many forums.
US are delaying talks, to win time in order to give their carriers the opportunities to get organised.
Two possibilities in this gamble.
a- they get organised.
b- they don't.
Question is only, why should they get organised now, if for years they couldn't do it?
The delay provides time to the struggling amercan airlines indeed, but also to the foreign airlines, that get stronger by the time.
Conclusion? The foreign airlines will be able to hit them even harder...
And who would the foreign airlines want to hit hardest? The ones that have costed them most, answer is in the first line here.
Read also:
American airline Ownership by Foreigners Delayed
*Virgin America has 33 Airbus planes on order
**Transportation Department
Last edited by SN30952 on 17 Aug 2006, 06:26, edited 1 time in total.
The US is one of the most protected economies anywhere - despite what they say. They certainly don't practice what they preach. HAving opened in office in teh US a few years back they certainly make you jump through hoops to get anything done. A friend of mine opened an office / lab specialising in industrial microbiology and the hassle was beyond belief. It seems as though the idea was that company lawyers got as much work out of the process as possible - surely that can't be true? Cough.
The Continental thing is a complete joke - fear of competition that is called - nothing more.
On the flipside of course BA operates within a protected environment itself at the worlds busiest international airport. Complaining about lack of freedom of competition is a bit rich really given what they got upto a few years back in trying to eliminate it. Read a book called Dirty Tricks and you learn that BA was really rather naughty and certain individuals should really be in prison for some of their activities. And before anyone says it is written by a Branson supporter (actually it wasn't) - the courts found enough to slap BA down - just didn't have the spine to do it properly with a COnservative government in charge. The same governemnt that privatised them in the first place.
The Continental thing is a complete joke - fear of competition that is called - nothing more.
On the flipside of course BA operates within a protected environment itself at the worlds busiest international airport. Complaining about lack of freedom of competition is a bit rich really given what they got upto a few years back in trying to eliminate it. Read a book called Dirty Tricks and you learn that BA was really rather naughty and certain individuals should really be in prison for some of their activities. And before anyone says it is written by a Branson supporter (actually it wasn't) - the courts found enough to slap BA down - just didn't have the spine to do it properly with a COnservative government in charge. The same governemnt that privatised them in the first place.
Continental Airlines position on this issue is hypocritical at best. They lobbyed the US government to get the British to open up their airspace to Continental airplanes a few years back, and now they are trying to stop the Open Skies Agreement. Either way, I think Continental is afraid of the benifits the OSA would bring to companies like disUnited Airlines and Northworst.
Continental are probably more concerned at the fact that if foreign investment were allowed in US carriers that it would have to up its game to the standards of foreign carriers. ie. not charging 5 bucks for a can of piss water beer, not putting made for TV movies on the PTV system and not serving food that already appears to have been digested. I know i keep repeating myself but I never really saw why Continental got all the accolades it apparently gets.....NWA was better across the Atlantic and United were better within the US! None were as good as AF, KL, MH, SA, EK, QR or anyone else I have flown in the last year......
Calling American beer, "piss water," you know those are fighting words. :shoot: :pang:not charging 5 bucks for a can of piss water beer
Like you, I don't know why Continental gets all the perks it gets, and as you said, if the Open Skies Agreement is approved by the American Congress, American airline companies that foreign companies would invest in, will have to adopt the standard service that foreign companies provide their customers. That would eat on Continental's thing profits as it is, and other airliners, since these companies are not doing well to begin with.
Fair do's David747 - not all American beer is piss water! I remember a flight from Detroit to Calgary a couple of years ago on NWA and was upgraded thanks to the Flying Blue Platinum card. The lovely lady serving the few passengers in First kept giving me cans of this fantastic beer from St Paul whose name escapes me. I was zombied after flying across the pond and fell asleep every twenty minutes for a bit - every time I woke up another can was sitting there. I was well buzzed when i got off.....
But generally the stuff they dish out on planes in US is pretty bad....
But generally the stuff they dish out on planes in US is pretty bad....