International Expansion

[Borescope]

The US has a flag carrier, it's called American Airlines.

Actually, the US has many "Flag" carriers. Among them DL, NWA, AA, UA, CO, & U. It just depends on your definition of a Flag Carrier. In the US carriers are categorized as Flag, Supplemental, Commuter, etc.

 

[WorldTraveler]

who,
Since you seem to still think DL can serve JFK-LGW and you haven't provided any documentation to your "claim" that any US airline can serve, I'd like to help you see the truth that you fail to see.

http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/r...ext/430a4.2.pdf

Item 3D shows that New York/JFK can only be served from LHR. Since DL is not one of the two airlines that can serve LHR, then they are SOL, right? Or would you like to still try to convince us otherwise?

 

[JFK777]

whodoyouthinkyouare,

The only Us flag carrier there was "Pan Am" is long gone. Many countries have let the Flag airline get local competition, ViginAtlantic is my favorite example of this. ANA Versus JAL in Japan was one of the first in the 1980's.

Then there the Latin American example, tie one airline's hand against the local "Flag" Carrier and see who wins? Remember "Air Panama Internacional" I do remember seeing that rusty old Boeing 727-100 in Miami, Copa came out the victor after being forced to fly to such pleasent places as Barranquilla, Colombia. Copa & Taca are examples of what Capitalism has bought to Latin Skies. Lan has replaced Aero Peru, Ecuadoriana in those two countries with modern and efficient airlines. Varig is going into the history books too, TAM and GOL are shinning examples of what modern airlines should be.

Now Lan has an opertation in Argentina that is avertising Buenos Aires- Miami daily flights for December1, Aerolineas Argentinas only flies to Miami 4 times weelky. AA flies from BA to Miami double daily so the government of Argentina is finally recognizing the value of all those foreign airlines departing every night for north america from the Buenos Aires airport; which are of greater impact on the Argentine economy then who flies in on Aerolineas Argentinas. I was in BA in February and all those UA, DL, Air Canada & AA flights really help me feel good. From Ba to ORD, IAD, ATL, YYZ, and soon Houston on CAL as well as Miami, DFW and JFK, service from Argentina to the North has finally arrived at the level it should have been. Lan and Tam will prosper with Copa and Taca to set the example. Avianca, only time will tell with the new investor from Brazil and Aerolineas Argentinas, it may continue being competitive to Europe( Spain especially) but north america remains a little too competitive for them using my barometer. I think Lan will own the southern & western coast of South America as Taca does Central America. Then there is always the Singapore example which helped a rich Arab start Emirates( SIA has nothing to do with Emirates) using it as his roadmap. That's another conversation...

 

[DLFlyer31]

Item 3D shows that New York/JFK can only be served from LHR. Since DL is not one of the two airlines that can serve LHR, then they are SOL, right? Or would you like to still try to convince us otherwise?

Sorry, but you are misinterpreting this item. Item 3D simply states which US cities can have flights to LHR, however those cities are not precluded from having service to LGW.

You'll notice that BOS appears as a city on 3D. However, DL has flown BOS-LGW in the past.
You'll notice that PHL appears as a city on 3D. However, US flies PHL-LGW daily.
You'll notice that DTW appears as a city on 3D. However, NW flies DTW-LGW daily.

However, DFW does not appear on that list. Therefore, while AA has the rights to serve LHR, they cannot fly DFW-LHR. They must fly DFW-LGW.

 

[JFK777]

To fly to LHR certain conditons must be met; first the airline in question must be one of the "Heathrow 4". If an airline wants to fly from a LHR designated city but is not one of the four airlines then it can fly to LGW, USAIR from PHL is the best example of this. BA owns LHR from PHL.

 

[whodoyouthinkyouare]

IF the US had a flag carrier (which they DON'T) it would not be AA, most likely it would be Southwest.

Get it straight man. The US loves them.

Possibly, I've never flown SWA. My wife has and says they're ok but prefers Delta for some reason. Anyway, I'm still waiting for the evidence that BA gets direct/indirect financial aid from the government. I'm only on your case about because I know you won't find any since it was privatised.

whodoyouthinkyouare:

If it wasn't for the US you would be speaking German today.

Undoubtedly true. But when it came to fighting the Germans we were there fighting alongside American soldiers rescuing those french surrender monkeys for the second time in 40 years.

The fact that the big Euro flag carriers have managed to soak up every available useable landing slot at every viable airport is proof enough that the European flag carriers are not really able to compete with the US or Euro LCC carriers. Well, actually not all European carriers take that approach. Paris CDG is growing and there are growth opportunities for US carriers. And guess what European airline is the most profitable and growing? It's not the one that's based at Heathrow but the one based at CDG!

Don't tell me that all US and British airlines have open access to London, you stiff upper lipped Brit, because that is far from the truth. The reality about free enterprise is that if you choose not to play, you will get left behind. BA can keep LHR closed or they can open it up and face the competition the rest of the US airlines have faced. There is no doubt that 5 out of 6 of the large legacies could have stayed out of bankruptcy if they had been able to relegate their low cost competitors to 2nd and third tier airports. In fact, if the British don't want to allow the US airlines into the "proper" airports, then I say Delta should drop about a half dozen of those 764s into Stansted and flood the market with $199 roundtrip seats. We'll see how long British Airways decides they like the status quo. And don't hold your breath about flying between JFK and LAX. Actually go ahead and hold it for about 7 minutes... that should be long enough.

That wasn't very nice was it, wishing harm on someone. I really got your hackles up haven't I
BA is highly competitive on european routes and is holding its own very successfully against the LCCs by being better. Rather than a race to the bottom as has happened with the US carriers BA maintains it's product. But then being a smug arrogant yank you wouldn't know about that spending zero time actually using european carriers within the EU. The fact remains you are blowing smoke, if the US carriers were as competitive as you claim at least one of two should have been forced out of business by market forces. The only reason US Airways and UAL exist as they do is because of almost socialist bankruptcy laws.

If you want unrestricted access to LHR give us something back. Be competitive!! Give our airlines 3rd freedom (?) rights to the US and then you can do what you want at LHR. You won't because you're uncompetitive and fear our airlines operating in your market. It's the typical thing from you guys, you want it all, and all your own way and as soon as someone wants something back it's not fair and you stamp your feet and chuck your dummy on the floor.

who,
Since you seem to still think DL can serve JFK-LGW and you haven't provided any documentation to your "claim" that any US airline can serve, I'd like to help you see the truth that you fail to see.

http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/r...ext/430a4.2.pdf <http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1999/fulltext/430a4.2.pdf>

Item 3D shows that New York/JFK can only be served from LHR. Since DL is not one of the two airlines that can serve LHR, then they are SOL, right? Or would you like to still try to convince us otherwise?

DLFlyer31 answered that with such style I don't need to any anything more.

To fly to LHR certain conditons must be met; first the airline in question must be one of the "Heathrow 4". If an airline wants to fly from a LHR designated city but is not one of the four airlines then it can fly to LGW, USAIR from PHL is the best example of this. BA owns LHR from PHL.

BA does have some monopoly routes from LHR, I believe phoenix is another one.

 

[Dizel8]

Whodoyouthink,

There is really only one airport US carriers wants to serve, LHR. Every thing else is second best.
Secondly, look at the cities BA serves in the US compared to what cities are feasibly served in the UK, clearly, the US is a much larger market. That is the same reason Rod E. was all over open skies.

Want a way to opem LHR, kick out some of the third tier carriers in there today!

But really, until all US carriers gets access to LHR, forget open skies!

 

[whodoyouthinkyouare]

Whodoyouthink,

There is really only one airport US carriers wants to serve, LHR. Every thing else is second best.
Secondly, look at the cities BA serves in the US compared to what cities are feasibly served in the UK, clearly, the US is a much larger market. That is the same reason Rod E. was all over open skies.

Want a way to opem LHR, kick out some of the third tier carriers in there today!

But really, until all US carriers gets access to LHR, forget open skies!

I can see why, it's a great market for connecting flights to the middle east, Africa and the rest of europe. But our carriers want 3rd freedom rights (I think it's 3rd freedom) in the US. Personally I have no issue with DL and the rest using LHR, but if you guys want it that bad then give us something we want. Everyones a winner.

There are a lot of 3rd rate airlines using LHR, goodness knows how they get slots.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Not to continue beating an already dead animal but the abililty to serve a London market is also governed by frequency restrictions in Bermuda 2 (see section 4 of the link above).

I have consulted some friends that are in aviation law and they believe that DL does not have the abililty to serve JFK-LGW because of restrictions in Bermuda 2. I also standy by my assertion that no US carrier could serve NYC-LHR or LGW which is why I don't think there has been a US non-LHR holding carrier that has served JFK-LGW or ORD-LGW or LAX-LGW, among others. All of the currently available frequencies between those cities are being used by the incumbent LHR carriers from those cities. The reason why DL was able to serve BOS-LGW was because UA pulled out of BOS-LHR, leaving AA as the only US carrier between BOS and London; they were not using all of the frequencies which provided an opening for DL.

 

[Cosmo]

I have consulted some friends that are in aviation law and they believe that DL does not have the abililty to serve JFK-LGW because of restrictions in Bermuda 2. I also standy by my assertion that no US carrier could serve NYC-LHR or LGW which is why I don't think there has been a US non-LHR holding carrier that has served JFK-LGW or ORD-LGW or LAX-LGW, among others. All of the currently available frequencies between those cities are being used by the incumbent LHR carriers from those cities.

With all due respect, you and your aviation law friends are wrong. Delta could start JFK-LGW service tomorrow as long as it has (1) U.S. government authority to operate U.S.-U.K. flights, which it obvious does have, and (2) the necessary LGW slots. This was proven by Delta's BOS-LGW flights that were flown a few years ago (see below).

The reason why DL was able to serve BOS-LGW was because UA pulled out of BOS-LHR, leaving AA as the only US carrier between BOS and London; they were not using all of the frequencies which provided an opening for DL.

Sorry but that statement is absolutely and categorically wrong! As I write this, I'm looking at page 325 of the August 2001 OAG which shows the following daily nonstop Boston-London flights: 3 x BA/LHR, 2 x AA/LHR, 1 x UA/LHR, 1 x VS/LGW and 1 x DL/LGW. The UA/BOS-LHR and DL/BOS-LGW service overlapped for a period of exactly one year, from June 1, 2001, through May 31, 2002, with the UA flight (which began operating in the late 1990s) eventually ending in October 2002. This clearly refutes your chronology of service in the Boston-London market as well as your contention that additional service to LGW (from bilaterally-named LHR cities like BOS, JFK, ORD or elsewhere) is prohibited to all but the four U.S.-LHR carriers.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Cosmo,
since you are so ready to categorically refute my assertions, why don't you tell us the allowable frequencies under Bermuda 2 in the BOS-London and NYC-London markets? And also tell us the maximum number of flights that have ever been served by US carriers from BOS while you are at it. And why don't you also explain why there have been no non-LHR US carriers that I am aware of (unless you can tell me otherwise) have served LAX-LGW, JFK-LGW, or ORD-LGW? Given that DL has tried many other routes, I simply find it hauntingly obvious that DL cannot serve JFK-London (LHR or LGW) or they would have. CO's statements several years ago that they would be willing to serve several additional London routes from either LGW or LHR including LAX tell me that you and your bud's assertions that there is surplus London authority. I also find it more than a little curious that the people who are arguing the most that there is surplus authority are those who support carriers who hold LHR authority.

 

[SoftLanding]

[color=#FF0000]

I'm so glad your bias finally came out. Guess what, the US still exports more free enterprise to the rest of the world than any other country. If you think things are lousy here, I would suggest you fasten your seat belt because the world is only getting more global and the US airlines are going to be much better prepared to compete in it.

In case you've missed it, the US and EU are apparently making significant progress in securing a new aviation agreement that will expand travel over the Atlantic and probably consolidate it into a couple players. I am rather certain that DL has mapped out its expansion w/ that reality in mind.

The reality is that one way or the other, DL will end up with the ability to fly from the NE to London on equal terms as the incumbent airlines. The sticking point in these talks all along has been not just legal but practical access to Heathrow and Gatwick. If the non-incumbent US airlines don't have legal and practical access to all European airports, the deal will not happen. The risk for European carriers is that DL and CO and AA will continue to take bigger portions of the transatlantic market and dominate countries that do not have strong home carriers. AA, CO, and DL are finally reaching a large enough combined size outside of the big hub airports that the European airlines are threatened enough that they are willing to give up some position in their hubs in order to get a piece of the market outside of their home countries. The two can happen."

Hope you don't mind me jumping in here?!
NOW, free enterprise is exported from the US to the rest of the world, huh? But so is 3rd world pay/benefits in the from of Wal-Mart, US Airways, and soon to be included here: Delta, Northwest and UAL.

The airline employees of the EU better watch out, because your benefits, pensions and pay are in the sights of big business. Look at what has happen to most pensions in the US, and believe you me the EU managers will scream bloody murder, they have to have the same to be able to compete! Matter of time, hopefully you'll take a stand...

This started long ago, as the Republican wave came over the Land, though the cycle is most likely over within the next 10-15 years, give or take. But it'll take years of negotiating to get back even a small percentage of this.

My own feeling is that these fromer CH II companies should have to give up their overseas rights, and have to earn them all over again. We wouldn't want to export 3rd world conditions to the rest of the world, now, would we?! (MSY)


SoftLanding

 

[Cosmo]

Given that DL has tried many other routes, I simply find it hauntingly obvious that DL cannot serve JFK-London (LHR or LGW) or they would have.

This is simply your opinion, based on the faulty premise that if Delta isn't serving the JFK-LGW route, it "obviously" can't. You haven't offered any facts to support that faulty premise, and that's because you can't -- such facts don't exist.

CO's statements several years ago that they would be willing to serve several additional London routes from either LGW or LHR including LAX tell me that you and your bud's assertions that there is surplus London authority.

OK, let me make this as clear as I possibly can. While I can't immediately think of any non-LHR U.S. carriers that have served the specific JFK/ORD/LAX-LGW routes, there are plenty of other current and historic examples of non-LHR U.S. carriers serving LGW from named LHR-qualifying airports, listed as follows:

Current
1. CO from EWR
2. NW from DTW
3. US from PHL

Historic
4. PA from MIA (after giving up its LHR rights to UA)
5. PA from DTW (ditto)
6. TW from PHL (after giving up its LHR rights to AA)
7. TW from BWI (ditto)
8. US from BWI
9. NW from BOS
10. AA from MIA (before getting its LHR rights from TWA)
11. PE from EWR
12. WO from EWR

And those are just the ones that I can think of quickly! Plus, this phenomenon showed up on the U.K. side, too, as VS served JFK/EWR/LAX-LGW before it received its LHR authority, and before that, British Caledonian and the original Laker Airways both served JFK/LAX-LGW (although I don't believe it was at the same time).

Beyond that, it should be "hauntingly obvious", even to you, that the real reason DL doesn't operate any JFK-LGW flights is because it would carry virtually no premium traffic while competing against the JFK-LHR services of AA, UA, BA and VS. Thus, it would be nearly impossible for DL to operate its hypothetical JFK-LGW flights profitably, as was the case with its short-lived BOS-LGW service.

I also find it more than a little curious that the people who are arguing the most that there is surplus authority are those who support carriers who hold LHR authority.

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that some of us might actually work in, and therefore know, this business better than you do. Deal with it.

 

[whodoyouthinkyouare]

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that some of us might actually work in, and therefore know, this business better than you do. Deal with it.

 

[Bear96]

But our carriers want 3rd freedom rights (I think it's 3rd freedom) in the US.

Would you support US-flagged carriers having these same rights within Europe -- i.e., permitting DL to carry local traffic between, say, London -- CPH?