Southwest gets ready for end of Write Amendment

[WorldTraveler]

BOS was a NW major TATL gateway early during deregulation when they focused on service to northern Europe.

PHL is a large city and it is a hub in the traditional legacy sense. BOS is not a legacy airline hub and the chances are high that DL will further grow BOS.

WN happens to have a non-focus city presence at both cities.

 

[700UW]

I dont ever remember a NW flight from PHL to AMS.

 

[eolesen]

NWA ran PHL-AMS from May 1998 to Oct 1999 using a DC-10.

US was also serving the route, but dropped it in June 1999.

 

[WorldTraveler]

on the general discussion of PHL, the EU originally said that AA-US had to divest a PHL-LHR flight in order to gain ATI/JV approval with BA. There has been little said about that route that must be divested unless AA-US have renegotiated something else but it will either go to DL-VS or UA.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

on the general discussion of PHL, the EU originally said that AA-US had to divest a PHL-LHR flight in order to gain ATI/JV approval with BA. There has been little said about that route that must be divested unless AA-US have renegotiated something else but it will either go to DL-VS or UA.

Just a couple questions:
a)  has any airline expressed interest in the PHL-LHR slot?  If no, then would AA/US get to keep it?
b ) would it really make sense for UA to serve LHR from PHL since they already have ample service to LHR from IAD and EWR?

 

[FWAAA]

on the general discussion of PHL, the EU originally said that AA-US had to divest a PHL-LHR flight in order to gain ATI/JV approval with BA. There has been little said about that route that must be divested unless AA-US have renegotiated something else but it will either go to DL-VS or UA.

No, the settlement was that AA-US had to make slots at LHR available at a commercially reasonable time for someone else to begin a flight PHL-LHR, not that AA-US had to divest a PHL-LHR flight.   

 

[robbedagain]

Fwaa so in reality does the new aa keep their time slot for the phl lhr run?

 

[WorldTraveler]

No, the settlement was that AA-US had to make slots at LHR available at a commercially reasonable time for someone else to begin a flight PHL-LHR, not that AA-US had to divest a PHL-LHR flight.

yes, you are correct but that is essentially the same language that existed for other LHR divestments as part of the AA-BA JV.
BOS, DFW, and MIA were all required divestments, IIRC, but only BOS-LHR is operated on the same route that AA/BA had to divest.


still, any news on the process?

robbed,
presumably the divestiture will come from AA/US and not BA and AA/US will have to make a decision as to which flight to cut.

 

[phllax]

Robbed, I'm sure WT will weigh in but I don't think PHL has ever been a major station for DL/NW nor is particularly strategic for DL, even to the extent larger non-hub stations like BOS, MCO, RDU, SFO, etc are. Pretty sure DL only has flights to hubs from PHL, many of which are on DCI and they don't have a crew base there but I could be wrong.

Josh

 
DL previously served BOS, BDL, MCO, MSY, FLL, TPA, MIA, & PBI non-stop from Philly before US grew the PHL hub in addition to DFW and ATL.

 

[FWAAA]

Fwaa so in reality does the new aa keep their time slot for the phl lhr run?

Yes, new AA is under no obligation to cancel any PHL-LHR flights.    The settlement with the EU merely obligates new AA to provide competitors with LHR slots (any slots) that would permit the new competitor to land and take off from LHR at commercially reasonable times.   New AA could easily lease a set of LHR slots from BA if necessary.   I would guess that Parker and Walsh can discuss from where the slot should come.  
 
The real question is this:   The US CLT-LHR flight operates with a slot provided by BA, originally so competitors could fly MIA-LHR.    Once DL gave up on MIA, US applied for authority to use that slot for one-stop MIA-CLT-LHR service.    Now that US and AA are under common ownership, I find it hard to believe that the EU would permit new AA to keep that slot that was supposed to provide competition from MIA.   CLT will still have flights to LHR, but I'm talking about that particular slot pair that came from BA and is supposed to be available for competitive service.   New AA flying CLT-LHR isn't what the EU had in mind in 2010.    
 
My main point was that precision in language is important - and that many people might find "AA had to divest a PHL-LHR flight" as misleading.   When the AA/BA joint venture was approved, slots had to be provided by the joint venture for competitors from BOS, MIA, EWR (if CO scaled back its flights) and DFW (if any competitor showed interest from DFW, which nobody did).  The joint venture didn't have to give up flights from any of those cities, yet lots of articles and bloggers mis-characterized the requirement.     New AA doesn't have to give up any PHL-LHR flights unless it chooses to do so.    

 

[700UW]

They arent leasing the slot from BA, BA and AA had to divest the slot and US obtained it:
 

US Airways has confirmed it has been awarded operating slots to inaugurate daily, non-stop services between its Charlotte hub and London Heathrow.  The airline currently serves the UK market from the North Carolina airport with flights to London Gatwick.  It will introduce the new route to Heathrow from March 2013 using an Airbus A330.  The new flight will originate in Miami, according to US Airways, offering additional one-stop connection opportunities for customers to/from in South Florida.

 

The Heathrow landing rights became available when oneworld carriers — including British Airways and American — had to divest some of their collective slots there in order to win regulatory approval for a trans-Atlantic joint venture among oneworld partners.
 

 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2012/11/21/us-airways-charlotte-london-heathrow/1719255/

 

[FWAAA]

They arent leasing the slot from BA, BA and AA had to divest the slot and US obtained it:
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2012/11/21/us-airways-charlotte-london-heathrow/1719255/

As usual, your attempted correction of my post fails, as you are incorrect.   And you cite to USA Today?   Why not cite to a wikipedia article?  
 
I don't mind corrections when I'm wrong, but you consistently attempt to "correct" me even when I'm right.   It takes a very special person to repeatedly demonstrate such ignorance, and you rarely disappoint.    
 
From the EU Q&A on the AA/BA slot lease commitments:
 

How will the commitments be implemented?
 
The parties are to make take-off and landing slots available to competitors following a procedure detailed in the commitments. Competitors can apply for the slots in advance of each summer and winter scheduling season, until they are all allocated.
 
The Commission will then decide which competitor receives the slots, based on the strength of the competitive constraint it would impose on the parties (on the basis, for example, of the applicant's business plan, its proposed number of frequencies and pricing structure).
 
The slots are to be released by the parties on the basis of long-term leases. The slots can only be used to operate flights on the routes of concern throughout the term of the lease.

 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-10-330_en.htm?locale=en
 
EU Decision:    http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39596/39596_4342_9.pdf
 
AA/BA Commitments to provide slots:  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39596/39596_3882_2.pdf
 
The slots used by Delta at BOS and MIA (DL later abandoned MIA) and the MIA slot obtained by US and used for one-stop MIA-CLT-LHR are leased to the competitors by BA, as AA did not permanently divest any LHR slots.   The commitments to the EU run for 10 years and are not permanent:
 

(178) Consequently, the Commission considers that non-permanent releases of slots, pursuant to the revised mechanism contained in the Final Commitments, are sufficient to provide the necessary certainty for competitors and enable entry on these routes. The Commission notes that, in light of the principle of proportionality and given the non-permanent nature of the parties' cooperation, a permanent release of slots could only be imposed if it were the least onerous measure to ensure the remedy's effectiveness. However, in light of the above, it would be disproportionate to require permanent releases of slots in this case.

 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39596/39596_4342_9.pdf       (page 38 of the .pdf)