It's Official Atsb Says "no"

[WorldTraveler]

If you think LHR is going to open anytime soon, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...

Let's see...LH has two US airline partners that are basketcases and BA has no hope of codesharing across the Atlantic under the current regime, let alone playing at the level currently enjoyed by AF and LH.

Nah...the Euro's have no desire to liberalize the current patchwork of bilaterals....

I'm not interested in your bridge if you won't be surprised if increased access to LON is granted - LHR and LGW.

 

[Bear96]

Nah...the Euro's have no desire to liberalize the current patchwork of bilaterals....

I'm not interested in your bridge if you won't be surprised if increased access to LON is granted - LHR and LGW.

They can change the international bilateral agreements all they want to. Heck, they can go ahead and reach an Open Skies agreement tomorrow!

But if there are no slots available (and there aren't), no one else is gonna be able to land at LHR.

 

[orwell]

Wasn't it Gordon that described UAL as "roadkill" about a year ago?

Uncle Gordy is a boorish loudmouth - a US version of Sir Dick Branson.

He once decried AA's "more room" effort a "publicity stunt by a mediocre airline."

Regardless of whether the substance of his arguments are right or wrong, he has zero class in the way he presents his opinions - they are meanspirited rants. Honestly, I think he was trying to position himself as some sort of nouveau Crandall.

Oh - I think he once compared UA to an "AIDS patient." That one was REAL classy.

 

[hp_fa]

I think CO's remarks were, at a minimum, ill-conceived.

 

[The Drunken Duck]

Based on that claim, I presume you would both be in favor of removing the airlines from the RLA and placing them under the less restricitve covenants of the NLRB?

Why stop there? Why not free up the entire industry.

Allow 100% foreign ownership. That would introduce some new equity investment. It would also allow more airlines to introduce capacity during a strike.

 

[WorldTraveler]

But if there are no slots available (and there aren't), no one else is gonna be able to land at LHR.

You're foolish if you think non-incumbent airlines (both US and British) won't spend the money to buy slots; I've never advocated that BA or any other carrier give them away but I do think the US will demand that market-priced slots be available.

What's scary about this part of the conversation is that UA supporters deny the inevitability of competition coming to its most valuable routes rather than prepare for it.

 

[ual777fan]

For how many years have they been trying to open up LHR? How many attempts? I have lost count. But as it was said earlier that opening up LHR wouldn't do any good all of the slots are already taken, and I don't think that UAL would be dumb enough to sell the ones they own. Look at what happened to TWA when they sold their LHR slots, they lost hundreds of millions in revenue. UAL needs that cash flow.

 

[ClueByFour]

You're foolish if you think non-incumbent airlines (both US and British) won't spend the money to buy slots; I've never advocated that BA or any other carrier give them away but I do think the US will demand that market-priced slots be available.

What's scary about this part of the conversation is that UA supporters deny the inevitability of competition coming to its most valuable routes rather than prepare for it.

The US has been screaming about LHR for about 20 years. The brits (notably BA and VS) are not going to give it up. No how, no way. It's one of the few airports in the world with the capital to continue with this stance, but continue it will.

I'm not really a UA supporter, per se, but I don't see them having to fight off competition at LHR for some time.

The Pacific, OTOH, could get interesting.

 

[avek00]

mweiss,

Based on that claim, I presume you would both be in favor of removing the airlines from the RLA and placing them under the less restricitve covenants of the NLRB?

I am ABSOLUTELY in favor of such a move, since I have LONG believed that the RLA promotes counterproductive behaviors amongst airline management and labor alike.

 

[ITRADE]

The US has been screaming about LHR for about 20 years. The brits (notably BA and VS) are not going to give it up. No how, no way. It's one of the few airports in the world with the capital to continue with this stance, but continue it will.

OFF TOPIC, but.....

I'm not so sure about this one.

Remember, the agreement on LHR is contained in a bilateral agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom (a.k.a. Bermuda II). The EU transportation commissioner and the E.U. itself decreed that individual agreements between E.U. members and outside parties that cause detriment to other E.U. members are not permissible. Additionally, the E.U. ruled that the only agreements that should be set up are multilateral agreements between the E.U. and outside parties.

So, I would not be so quick to say that the LHR restrictions are here for an extended period of time.

 

[avek00]

You're foolish if you think non-incumbent airlines (both US and British) won't spend the money to buy slots; I've never advocated that BA or any other carrier give them away but I do think the US will demand that market-priced slots be available.

What's scary about this part of the conversation is that UA supporters deny the inevitability of competition coming to its most valuable routes rather than prepare for it.

While I would love to see CO run 5 777s daily to LHR tomorrow, it's not going to happen even under an Open Skies deal, as LHR is operating AT CAPACITY -- the Brits cannot grant what does not (and, for the foreseeable future, will not) exist (takeoff/landing slots). Ditto for an AA NRT hub.

 

[The Ronin]

To show my part in willingness to sacrifice for the greater good...let it be known that I would sign RIGHT NOW for the same package LUV mechanics receive. Ok pilots...your turn

 

[Bear96]

You're foolish if you think non-incumbent airlines (both US and British) won't spend the money to buy slots

You're foolish if you are not getting the point...

THERE ARE NO SLOTS TO SELL.

What's scary about this part of the conversation is that UA supporters deny the inevitability of competition coming to its most valuable routes rather than prepare for it.

What I find scary is 1) that you really seem to enjoy bad news at the expense of others; and 2) that you think you have some of us all figured out. Your preconceived notions are not very accurate. I fully expect LCC competition on our "most valuable routes" (if by that you mean international routes) in the very near future. I just think you are naive if you believe the British government is about to open the flood gates at LHR to the heathens from the colonies.

Plus, as a lowly F/A, I don't have much input into how UA prepares a corporate strategy to deal with future competition. Personally, I am much too busy attending university full time and completing an advanced degree in a field that will pay me at least three times what I make as a UA F/A. I have seen the writing on the wall for a few years now. I don't really have much personal stake in UA's future anymore.

But, I'm glad you've got us all figured out. <_< You might want to check your preconceived notions of UA 'supporters' at the door.

 

[WorldTraveler]

While you're in school, take the class that tells you that in the free enterprise system, any scarce commodity can be had for the right price. The Europeans, far more than the Americans, are pushing for a rework of US-EU aviation agreements. The US has made it perfectly clear that there will be no deal if LON is not involved. Quite frankly, I think CO, DL, NW, and US would be happy if they have unlimited rights to LGW but that isn't available either. There are all kinds of leisure services flown from LHR and LGW which could be transferred to STN if the British are interested in a deal with the US. And, of course we know that slots can indeed be created as evidenced by US government actions over the past several years at DCA and LGA. Either way, the point is how the competition will come but that it will come and United needs to prepare itself for it; restating my original point, UA has the highest percentage of limited access routes of any US airline so is most subject to increased competition.

I have no interest in seeing UA or ahy other institution fail; however, I do expect UA to do everything it needs to survive on its own - which is exactly the message the ATSB sent today. I also expect United and its employees to be able to honestly deal with the challenges facing it rather than simply grin and say that everything will be ok - a strategy that has obviously failed miserably for about 4 years now.



Best wishes on your new endeavors.

 

[The Ronin]

Of coarse UAL will survive. With about 40,000 employees and 2/3's of the fleet it has now. But as with all businesses, contraction is BAD, expanding is GOOD. LCC's are expanding (GOOD), legacy carriers will contract (BAD). Long term prognosis, looks good if you're growing, looks bad if you're not. Then 20yrs from now the whole thing will probably do it all over, but a few of the players will be missing.