EU, U.S. agree tentative "open skies" deal

[cageyjames]

Reuters is reporting that the EU and the USA have reached an open skies deal.

The European Union and United States agreed on Friday to the outlines of a new pact to open transatlantic aviation markets, smoothing over a rift on airline ownership in the hope of boosting traffic and creating jobs.

The executive European Commission said the provisional "open skies" deal covered ownership and control rights over U.S. airlines by EU investors and would allow the EU to restrict U.S. investment in EU airlines.

About freaking time. Maybe finally we'll see PHL-LHR on US.

[David747]

I hope this agreement doesn't fall through like others in the past.

[cageyjames]

I hope this agreement doesn't fall through like others in the past.

Sure, douse gas on the fire won't you.

[David747]

I hope this agreement doesn't fall through like others in the past.

Sure, douse gas on the fire won't you.

WHO?? ME?

[nwa757]

I thought I'd never see the day...

[SN30952]

EU-US negotiations were launched in 2003.
The first EU-US "open sky" agreement would encompass 60% of the world traffic.
If approved by the EU Council of Transport Ministers, this first-stage EU-US "open sky"agreement would apply as of Oct. 28, 2007.

Progress and opportunity...., "open sky" could be a centrepiece... wait and see.

Reuters is reporting that the EU and the USA have reached an open skies deal.

The European Union and United States agreed on Friday to the outlines of a new pact to open transatlantic aviation markets, smoothing over a rift on airline ownership in the hope of boosting traffic and creating jobs.

The executive European Commission said the provisional "open skies" deal covered ownership and control rights over U.S. airlines by EU investors and would allow the EU to restrict U.S. investment in EU airlines.

About freaking time. Maybe finally we'll see PHL-LHR on US.

"I am delighted with the progress that has been made this week by the European and American negotiating teams ... We have an opportunity to unlock major benefits on both sides of the Atlantic," said Jacques Barrot, commission vice president in charge of transport affairs, on Friday.

He said he would submit the draft agreement to the decision-making EU Council of Transport Ministers at its next meeting on March 22. The decision of the council will be crucial, he said.

In other words: nothing is signed....

"In economic terms, this unprecedented agreement would represent a step change -- it could be worth up to 12 billion euros in economic benefits and up to new 80,000 jobs ... The open aviation area could be a centerpiece for a reinvigorated transatlantic relationship." Jacques Barrot added.

The job is done when the paperwork is done....
Fact is that US ownership in European airlines would be limited as well. That is new. EU ownership in U.S. airlines that was already so.
The more the US negotiate the more limitations they earn. One can hardly call that a success for them...

[SN30952]

US Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters said the agreement "will offer more choice and convenience to American consumers."

The agreement enables European companies to own up to 49.9% -- and in some circumstances, more than 50% -- of U.S. airlines, up from the current 25% limit.
It would allow European airlines to fly from anywhere in the EU to any point in the U.S., and vv.

Airlines are cautious in assessing the tentative deal, but meanwhile their shares received little boost from the news.

[TWA]

Hope SN will not react too late before others (BA, AF, LH, KL, ...) start to use BRU as their new satelite airport to thhe US, Africa and Asia.

Altough it's a good thing for customers as prices will probably decrease significantly. Eastern US coast is very popular amongst Europeans so I can imagine eg. a KL/NW BRU-BOS or a BA BRU-IAD or an AF BRU-YUL and why not an IB BRU-MIA.

[Vinnie-Winnie]

Hope SN will not react too late before others (BA, AF, LH, KL, ...) start to use BRU as their new satelite airport to thhe US, Africa and Asia.

Altough it's a good thing for customers as prices will probably decrease significantly. Eastern US coast is very popular amongst Europeans so I can imagine eg. a KL/NW BRU-BOS or a BA BRU-IAD or an AF BRU-YUL and why not an IB BRU-MIA.

Are you living on another planet or what? Brussels will never become the hub you are imagining the demand is just not there and anyway even if Air france or any other European airline entered the long-haul market from BRU does it matter? I mean when you fly to Bordeaux you fly with air France so what are you worse-off?

anyways about time that European airline consolidated and that is the only way they will do...

[beaucaire]

The main problem to have this agreement ratified will be the UK Heathrow lobby....
The USA or the rest of Europe never really objected to any agreement.
Slot acces in London will remain the main hurdle and I don't see it happen soon ....

[TWA]

So we won't see BMI on trans atlantic services ex LHR then?

[SN30952]

Hope SN will not react too late

Are you living on another planet or what? Brussels will never become the hub you are imagining ...

Now I wonder why Belgium should ratify this agreement?
I suggest our Belgian minister does not sign the agreement.
Belgium will not win in this, rather loose. So why not block the agreement?

[fcw]

I wonder why Belgium should ratify this agreement?
I suggest our Belgian minister does not sign the agreement.
Belgium will not win in this, rather loose. So why not block the agreement?

Belgium can only win, more flights means more passengers, more bussiness,...
I think your concern is BruAir, but even they could be winners. Why not use the LGW slots to fly BRU-LGW-BOS with an A330 for example.
This agreement is favorable to the small ones, that is why BA will do everything to try to stop it.

[sn26567]

Now I wonder why Belgium should ratify this agreement?
I suggest our Belgian minister does not sign the agreement.
Belgium will not win in this, rather loose. So why not block the agreement?

Belgium is part of the EU and has no other choice than to ratify the agreement . OK, our Foreign Minister can try to block it, but he will antagonise most of his colleagues, and the US! With no guarantee to succeed.

So why not take the best of the agreement and capitalise on it to build a strong network (even with codeshare agreements)?

[SN30952]

I wonder why Belgium should ratify this agreement?
I suggest our Belgian minister does not sign the agreement.
Belgium will not win in this, rather loose. So why not block the agreement?

Belgium can only win, more flights means more passengers, more bussiness,...
I think your concern is BruAir, but even they could be winners. Why not use the LGW slots to fly BRU-LGW-BOS with an A330 for example.
This agreement is favorable to the small ones, that is why BA will do everything to try to stop it.

They don't even fly BRU-BOS....
It is nowhere said that these flights have to originate in the origin country

What will sooner happen is a BRU-LGW-BOS, or a BRU-CDG-MIA by KLM or AF as an example.

Belgium .... has no other choice than to ratify the agreement. OK, our Foreign Minister can try to block it, but he will antagonise most of his colleagues, and the US!

Do you think he will be the only FM to antagonise?
Only the PM representing the major airlines will be happy to ratify. The other will sign a death sentence of their small players.

There is only advantage for the members that have big volumes, and that want to produces cheaper via other gates or waypoints.

Why do countries like France or Germany have all or almost their transatlantic departures concentrated " one airport.
Why does AF not fly eg WAW-LIL-CHI or HAM-BOD-MIA? Thay could do this for years, but they did not do so, why is that?
Or LH doesn't fly ATH-HAM-LAX?

No they will fly where smaller airlines have already flights. The bigger ones will just predate on them. Eat and syphon the traffic on their or partners lines.

No jobs to win, only to loose. If I were a union man in a small national airline, I would not think twice about what to do, to have my FM vote against this agreement....

This is the end of the mother of all conventions. The end of sovereignty in the national skies. The NATO of civil aviation.

[fcw]

I wonder why Belgium should ratify this agreement?
I suggest our Belgian minister does not sign the agreement.
Belgium will not win in this, rather loose. So why not block the agreement?

Belgium can only win, more flights means more passengers, more bussiness,...
I think your concern is BruAir, but even they could be winners. Why not use the LGW slots to fly BRU-LGW-BOS with an A330 for example.
This agreement is favorable to the small ones, that is why BA will do everything to try to stop it.

They don't even fly BRU-BOS....
It is nowhere said that these flights have to originate in the origin country

What will sooner happen is a BRU-LGW-BOS, or a BRU-CDG-MIA by KLM or AF as an example.

You make my point 30952, there is no market for BRU-BOS, but there is one for BRU-LGW-BOS. AF has no need to sent a wide body to BRU, they fill it up easily in CDG and even ORY. BruAir has a small homemarket and can thus take advantage of this agreement. Another winner will be Aer Lingus, as MOLE already knew a couple of months ago... The US companies can also take advantage as they can combine two smaller european cities.

[SN30952]

There are two things to consider:
A day has 24h, so in the optimal conditions a rotation should not exceed that.
And two that is what the shareholders think: Shares in British Airways fell as much as 10 percent Monday, after the United States and Europe agreed to the outline of a pact that could weaken the airline's position on profitable transatlantic flights.

BA: "We don't believe it's a good deal for Europe or the UK",( and neither do I).
"a legal mess" if European governments did not back the new agreement said Jacques Barrot.
Better a legal mess than a social cemetery.

BTW: British Airways Shares Slump on Open-Skies Accord (Update5)

British Airways Chairman Martin Broughton criticized the agreement, saying it favors U.S. interests at the expense of European and particularly U.K. interests.

"Greedy American eyes are on Heathrow,'' said Broughton after a speech in London today.

An ART as Art 4 of Air Transport Agreement Between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America Current version of the Agreement of 7 July 1955 is important.

How is "Either contracting party ", in the EU-US open sky proposal, defined?

[David747]

There are two things to consider:
A day has 24h, so in the optimal conditions a rotation should not exceed that.
And two that is what the shareholders think: Shares in British Airways fell as much as 10 percent Monday, after the United States and Europe agreed to the outline of a pact that could weaken the airline's position on profitable transatlantic flights.

BA: "We don't believe it's a good deal for Europe or the UK",( and neither do I).
"a legal mess" if European governments did not back the new agreement said Jacques Barrot.
Better a legal mess than a social cemetery.

BTW: British Airways Shares Slump on Open-Skies Accord (Update5)

British Airways Chairman Martin Broughton criticized the agreement, saying it favors U.S. interests at the expense of European and particularly U.K. interests.

"Greedy American eyes are on Heathrow,'' said Broughton after a speech in London today.

An ART as Art 4 of Air Transport Agreement Between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America Current version of the Agreement of 7 July 1955 is important.

How is "Either contracting party ", in the EU-US open sky proposal, defined?

Dear SN30952. I thought you were a proponent of an Open-Skies for Europe and the United States, all of the sudden you seem to be in the protectionist camp, what gives? Second, of course BA is believes the open skies agreement with the US is bad for Europe, after all, BA's version of an open-skies agreement would be BA having access to all US routes only, after all, that would be the best version of open skies for them and Virgin right Last thing, what is this social cemetary you speak of? In one of your other posts you said that this agreement would be the NATO of civil aviation, what do you exactly mean by that? do you seriously believe that the US will be the dominant player in European civil aviation???
To rant a bit more, what is your version of open skies?

[fcw]

There are two things to consider:
A day has 24h, so in the optimal conditions a rotation should not exceed that.
And two that is what the shareholders think: Shares in British Airways fell as much as 10 percent Monday, after the United States and Europe agreed to the outline of a pact that could weaken the airline's position on profitable transatlantic flights.

BA: "We don't believe it's a good deal for Europe or the UK",( and neither do I).
"a legal mess" if European governments did not back the new agreement said Jacques Barrot.
Better a legal mess than a social cemetery.

BTW: British Airways Shares Slump on Open-Skies Accord (Update5)

British Airways Chairman Martin Broughton criticized the agreement, saying it favors U.S. interests at the expense of European and particularly U.K. interests.

"Greedy American eyes are on Heathrow,'' said Broughton after a speech in London today.

An ART as Art 4 of Air Transport Agreement Between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America Current version of the Agreement of 7 July 1955 is important.

How is "Either contracting party ", in the EU-US open sky proposal, defined?

Once again you make my point 30952, this agreement is favourable for small countries and for the americans and unfavourable for the ones flying out of big saturated hubs...
I predicted over the WE, BA would not be happy, but BruAir should be happy and should be making plans for its 4th 330 and maybe more to come...

[SN30952]

There is a difference between open sky over one's head and trousers on one's shoes!
It is maybe a sales technique by Airbus, but it should not be a way to give all away.
To have an open sky, a country needs a... sky.
There is no use to attract such 'open sky transit hopper traffic', including its nuisance to an airport.

If BRU had BRU-BOS flights in SN times, that were one TO and one Landing.
In this system that would be eg* a BER-BRU-BOS one Landing, one TO, one Landing and one TO.
And BER-BRU would only be function of the arrival slot in BOS.
You see what schedule that would be?
Of course, that BER-BRU-BER would be offered at a quite good fare, but who needs that in such schedule?
A poor hub and and a poor spoke system, indeed.

And I still confirm, the traffic on such 'hopper' lines would not be generated, but only be the result of predation.

*just as an illustration.