International Expansion

[boeing787]

World:

Your so full of crap. Delta by it's own admission over a year ago said C11 would be a very bad thing if they had to go into it. They tried everything to avoid it including a billion from the pilots. The DAL plan was for UAL to liquidate. Didn't happen. Good luck with the int'l expansion. Airtran will be expanding exponentially into ATL and the rest of the east. As for SWA...DEN will prove to be a real treat for them I'm sure. With TED and F9 from Midway and UAL mainline from ORD and a UAL DEN hub SWA will have they're hands full. It'll be interesting that's for sure



good luck

 

[Fly]

Fly,
I'm already a Mileage Plus member. Almost thought I saw you at IAD a week ago but decided you'd probably cry that I was trying to "out" you if I ask if you were the real Fly.

You should have said 'hello'. I can assure you that once I knew where you were going, the crew would have pampered you silly. By the time they finished with you, you'd be saying, "Delta, who dat?".

 

[WorldTraveler]

Two airline from each side BA, AA, UA, VS may serve LHR.

Anyway, you guys have proved that full deregulation is tosh. Look at the state of your airline industry, it's a shambles, no one able to make a profit, service pared back to the bone, unhappy staff. Nah, you can keep it and your lousy second tier airlines.

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.

787,
you've got to be kidding if you think DL's plan was for UA to liquidate. DL certainly would have taken advantage of the opportunity if it had come to pass but DL had very little to gain from a UA liquidation. AA is another story. DL didn't want bankruptcy any more than GM does now or UA did. Like UA, DL faced a cash crisis that forced it. That doesn't change the underlying plan that each company did or didn't have going into BK.

JBG,
Thanks for the compliment about my cheerleading skills! I'll ask Jerry if he'll put me on the payroll in that capacity.

Next time I will mention your name then, Fly. I'm glad you'd have gone the extra mile for me. That's why I fly UA when DL can't take me where I need to go (which is usually Asia and up and down the west coast).

 

[whodoyouthinkyouare]

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.

What a crock. You totally ignored the issues which was; you were wrong about Bermuda 2 and you're blowing smoke to cover your embarrassment.

The big issues you're missing:

While LHR doesn't allow for all US airlines to serve it is one of the most competitive transatlantic markets.

The major sticking point from the UK end is cabotage. UK airlines are unable to get rights to carry passengers from JFK to LAX for example, if you want competition open up the internal US market to our carriers.

Even if we opened the skies the US bankruptcy laws have allowed the US carriers to operate under such lax rules that are not available to UK carriers. This is anti-comptetive and you need to reform your bankruptcy laws to align more closely to europe.

If DL, UA, US had had to file for bankruptcy in the Uk that would have been it, finished, kaput and finito. This doesn't even take into account the massive post 9/11 'loans' given to the airlines that neither BA nor Virgin were offered by the British government. Our airlines took the steps at the time to cover their losses, what did yours do? Go to the Hill cap in hand, begging for a hand out :down:

So before you bleed on about competitiveness, why not examine you're own backyard before poking around in other peoples. :down:

 

[Borescope]

Even if we opened the skies the US bankruptcy laws have allowed the US carriers to operate under such lax rules that are not available to UK carriers. This is anti-comptetive and you need to reform your bankruptcy laws to align more closely to europe.

And why don't you align yours to more closely fit the US law?

If DL, UA, US had had to file for bankruptcy in the Uk that would have been it, finished, kaput and finito. This doesn't even take into account the massive post 9/11 'loans' given to the airlines that neither BA nor Virgin were offered by the British government.

Just go to show you that your gov't is not on the ball. In the US, many groups, individuals, and even other countries go to the US gov't for handouts. I bet the UK gets some handouts from the US. You might even benefit from OUR tax dollars

 

[JFK777]

The "Open Skies" agreement would be a good thing for all concerned. Many people on this board bring up the Heathrow 4, don't forget there is another UK airline that wants to fly to the USA, BMI. Ending the quadopoly of the "Heathrow 4" would help out Delta, CAL, USAIrways, but also BMI and other UK airlines. BMI has 17% of LHR's slots, second only to British Airways's 39%. Many have speculated why Sir Richard Branson's Virgin doesn't by BMI for its slots may finally get there answer. With the opening of LHR to all airlines, the Value of BMI slots goes up and Sir Michael Bishop can finally sell his 50.1% in BMI and retire to his country manor.

Traffic rights give an airline the right to bid (or buy) slots, so the feasting and horse trading will be very interesting as it plays out. No traffic right means no bidding for the slots at LHR's poker table. BA has been very agressive on recent years buying slots from Avianca, Sabena and a few others. United sold a pair used for its EWR-LHR route to Qantas(not't 100% but UA did sell). Air France sold some slots as the trains from Paris to London compete for traffic on the route. May the meal be a hearty one, the winners will join aviation's house of lords. Southern Good' Ole boys and English Lords, I can't wait for the site of this one.

 

[Fly]

I do not believe you will see United selling any LHR slots.

I seem to remember them selling a time slot for a different, more undesirable time, but not the slot outright. Anyone remember how that went?

 

[FWAAA]

I do not believe you will see United selling any LHR slots.

I seem to remember them selling a time slot for a different, more undesirable time, but not the slot outright. Anyone remember how that went?

Yep. UA sold four slots to BA for 12 million pounds in October, 2003:

BA pays £12m for four more landing slots at Heathrow

Frank Kane in New York
Sunday October 12, 2003

In a move to consolidate its dominance of Heathrow airport, British Airways has paid £12m to buy four slots at the London hub from United Airlines, the troubled US carrier. The deal, made on Friday after an open 'e-auction' by United, will give BA more than 40 per cent of take-off and landing slots at Heathrow for the first time in 11 years.

Several other carriers are believed to have been interested in the slots, which give take-off and landing rights at Europe's busiest airport.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ba/story/0,13772,1060973,00.html

Of course, just three months later, QF spent substantially more (£20m) for four slots, as did VS:

BA outbid for Heathrow slots

David Gow
Wednesday January 21, 2004

Qantas and Virgin Atlantic have trumped British Airways by paying record sums for scarce take-off and landing slots at London's congested Heathrow airport, it emerged yesterday.

The Australian flag carrier, a BA partner, has paid £20m - up to twice the normal rate - for two pairs of daily slots, industry sources said. Virgin has paid a similar sum for four pairs.

"They've certainly paid top dollar, in fact a shedload of money," sources said of deals which are traditionally conducted in a grey market rather than by open auction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ba/story/0,13772,1127473,00.html

Either the market for slots improved dramatically in three months, or UA was screwed by BA, or maybe the slots bought by BA were really undesirable times.

 

[Fly]

I just couldn't remember the details of that sale so I went back and found the thread pertaining to that sale. Apparently, those gates were not being used at the time (and LHR had a "use it or lose it" situation) so instead of flying an unprofitable route they sold the slots for $20m.

Here is the discussion about that! (notice how some Capt used his real name back then)


And here is where it is brought up that it was an actual trade for undesirable time slots.

Post #32



Rank: Veteran
Group: Registered Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20-August 02
Member No.: 198



Back on topic ...

According to today's Rocky Mountain News in Denver, United actually traded, rather than sold, the two pairs of LHR slots with British Airways. In return for about $20 million and two pairs of prime (presumably morning) slots, United received two pairs of less valuable slots (presumably afternoon/evening) from BA. Given Transatlantic flight times, this may signal that United is planning to add more evening flights to LHR from its West Coast hubs at LAX and SFO. The acquired slots could also be used if DEN-LHR authority is received by United at some point in the future. So if the newspaper is correct, IMHO it's really not a bad deal for United at all.

Oct 15 2003, 01:53 AM Post #33



Rank: Senior
Group: Registered Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 7-July 03
From: PIT at school, PHL/ACY at home
Member No.: 2,456



Technically, LHR slots are not allowed to be sold, so whenever you see BA (or whoever) "buy" slots, it's always a trade of undesirable slots plus money for desirable slots. AFAIK, these slots are *really* undesirable.

 

[whodoyouthinkyouare]

And why don't you align yours to more closely fit the US law?

What on earth would we want to do that for? So we can create anti-competitive laws that give our companies the time to screw over their employees, creditors and competitors? It's a nice idea, but if a company is failing as badly as the US majors then they should be allowed to liquidate to allow market forces to operate properly.

Just go to show you that your gov't is not on the ball. In the US, many groups, individuals, and even other countries go to the US gov't for handouts. I bet the UK gets some handouts from the US. You might even benefit from OUR tax dollars

No. We're just not going to subsidise airlines that can't operate on their own. In fact the you yanks have more in common with the highly socialist Italians who also have a habit of bailing out failing airlines.

We don't take a dollar from you. From where I'm sat you need every one.

 

[Fly]

BA is your country's flagship carrier. The US doesn't have one. Some fail, some survive the process here. BA will survive at all costs because your government will make sure of that fact.

Are you insinuating that your country hasn't put any $$ into BA?

 

[whodoyouthinkyouare]

BA is your country's flagship carrier. The US doesn't have one. Some fail, some survive the process here. BA will survive at all costs because your government will make sure of that fact.

Are you insinuating that your country hasn't put any $$ into BA?

If it has I haven't seen any evidence of it, not since it was privatised and became a publicly quoted company with 0% government ownership. If you can provide evidence to the contrary I would be surprised to see it. If BA got into serious financial trouble the government would allow it to sink, we allowed the last car manufacturing plant in the UK (Rover) to go under, what makes you think BA would get preferential treatment?

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

 

[Fly]

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.

 

[boxer]

whodoyouthinkyouare:

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

 

[WorldTraveler]

boxer and fly,
"whodoeshethinkheis" fails to recognize that all of the European airlines have had preferential treatment for decades - even if they are not fully government owned. 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.