Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
As the Alliance Turns.....more AA/BA/IB drama
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
jimntx
Veteran
Well, if they want to block the AA/BA/IB agreement, AND they disallow and dismantle the Star and Skyteam agreements, so be it. But, if the other alliance anti-trust arrangements are allowed to stand, it seems to me that LH and AF (and Virgin) are probably behind this "objection" to the AA agreement.
goodgirl37
Senior
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 400
- Reaction score
- 2
Well, of course.. BA might have to divest some assets at LHR (which they should) if the alliance happens.. They shouldn't "not allow" it, just some divesture should take place..
What's your rationale for confiscating LHR slots (and/or other assets) from BA (or AA) as a condition for approval of the joint venture?
Now that LHR is Open Skies, anyone can fly to/from Heathrow. They might have to buy slots, but as you know, CO, NW, US, DL and other airlines around the world have done just that in the past year and a half.
NW and KLM were not forced to "divest" assets at AMS, nor were AF or DL at CDG. LH and UA were not forced to divest assets at FRA. All of those share antitrust immunity, which AA and BA do not have. So what's the justification for requiring BA/AA to divest LHR assets?
Lets see British Airways has 41% slots at Heathrow, Lufthansa has 61 percent at Frankfurt, Air France has 58 percent at Charles de Gaulle and KLM has 58 percent at Amsterdam. seems fair.
Virgin criticizes anti-trust immunity for AA-BA but, in Australia, for its deal with Delta it is in favor of anti-trust immunity.
Virgin criticizes anti-trust immunity for AA-BA but, in Australia, for its deal with Delta it is in favor of anti-trust immunity.
Then all they have to do is buy more slots. Since the Open Skies treaty was announced, lots of slot pairs have changed hands. Forcing BA or AA to give up some of their current stash of slots is functionally no different than raiding their bank account. After all, AA's slots were initially purchased from TWA (as well as subsequent purchases by AA from others).
Want more slots? Open your wallet and buy some.
I agree that LHR is no AMS, CDG or FRA, but then again, only AA and BA are trying to run a big connecting hub there. Other US airlines merely want to fly O&D to London and they have found that business passengers prefer LHR (or so they believe). The media said that CO spent more than $200 million buying three slot pairs - I doubt CO will ever be able to recover that money in increased fares to LHR compared to LGW.
Confiscating BA/AA slots would cripple their ability to achieve what the other alliances have: big connecting hubs at their major airports. In my view, the harm to BA/AA from confiscating some of their slots is greater than the benefit that would provide to the recipient airlines. So on balance, IMO, BA/AA should keep its slots and the other airlines should have to go shopping if they want to fly more O&D to LHR and clog up the BA/AA hub.
I don't know if LHR still maintains, or merits, such a high rating. Given the stringent and inconsistent security measures and massive amount of lost baggage claims, I would guess not.
The slots are still expensive but people could just as easily connect through FRA and AMS if the route conditions are agreeable.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,931
- Reaction score
- 3,341
I would guess an airline could probably purchase LHR slots cheaper today (than the rumored $200 CO paid for their 3 pairs), if there was disposable cash on hand. It seems to me that * and skyteam have better PR and lobbying power in DCA and BRU as they are able to still hold up the AA-BA ATI application.
FrequentFlierCA
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 35
Virgin Atlantic's vocal opposition to this is getting very old and tired. We all know that Sir Richard hates anything and everything BA, but his never ending whining about this deal is really starting to put me off. He can always have VS join an alliance if he's really so concerned about it.
As for the folks in Brussels... this is just sheer idiocy and politics. As others have said, either allow all three groupings to enjoy similar benefits or dismantle them all. Either way the playing field should be the same for all entrants. And frankly I'd go with the former option, since consumers have benefited so much from these partnerships.
As for the folks in Brussels... this is just sheer idiocy and politics. As others have said, either allow all three groupings to enjoy similar benefits or dismantle them all. Either way the playing field should be the same for all entrants. And frankly I'd go with the former option, since consumers have benefited so much from these partnerships.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/cont...ampaign_id=yhoo
read the article..It seems they consider the AA/BA/IB to be less favorable.
read the article..It seems they consider the AA/BA/IB to be less favorable.
APA is now "unequivocally opposed" to ATI:
http://www.alliedpilots.org/public/publicr...es/20091009.pdf
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pilots-union...ml?x=0&.v=2
Fortunately for the tens of thousands of non-pilot employees of AA and the many millions of customers of AA who want this agreement to be approved, the policymakers won't give Hill's small-minded concerns any weight in approving or denying the ATI.
http://www.alliedpilots.org/public/publicr...es/20091009.pdf
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pilots-union...ml?x=0&.v=2
Fortunately for the tens of thousands of non-pilot employees of AA and the many millions of customers of AA who want this agreement to be approved, the policymakers won't give Hill's small-minded concerns any weight in approving or denying the ATI.
