It bears repeating: there are NO SLOTS TO GIVE AWAY at LHR, period. Even if the UK Govt. decided to increase LHR delays by artificially creating more slots, the US carriers would likely take a back seat to airlines/governments that have been promised LHR slots (by treaty) for over a decade (Air India is one airline that comes to mind).WorldTraveler said:
It's Official Atsb Says "no"
- Thread starter Fly
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
"It bears repeating: there are NO SLOTS TO GIVE AWAY at LHR, period. Even if the UK Govt. decided to increase LHR delays by artificially creating more slots, the US carriers would likely take a back seat to airlines/governments that have been promised LHR slots (by treaty) for over a decade (Air India is one airline that comes to mind). "
Did I EVER say anything about GIVING slots away? No, I said that if Bermuda II is axed, then US carriers and other European carriers can gain access to London through market forces, including buying slots from smaller carriers or ones who decide it is economically advantageous for them to move their operations from LHR and LGW. I am fully aware that the whole world wants into LHR. It is now up to the British government and its carriers to decide if they want to become an island of isolation in the midst of a sea of prosperity or if they will allow either economic or legislative actions to fix the capacity problems at LHR and LGW. Take a look at the schedules at LHR and LGW and you will see that there are plenty of services using small aircraft or to leisure destinations. The UK government will either come to the point where they have no choice but to push those kind of flights out of busy airports or lose the ability to play at the big party with the rest of the world. The UK stands squarely alone as being the only country that REFUSES to deal with its capacity problems. Asian countries with far bigger obstacles are making progress in creating capacity as are other European countries. Incidentally, it's not just an aviation problem.
Did I EVER say anything about GIVING slots away? No, I said that if Bermuda II is axed, then US carriers and other European carriers can gain access to London through market forces, including buying slots from smaller carriers or ones who decide it is economically advantageous for them to move their operations from LHR and LGW. I am fully aware that the whole world wants into LHR. It is now up to the British government and its carriers to decide if they want to become an island of isolation in the midst of a sea of prosperity or if they will allow either economic or legislative actions to fix the capacity problems at LHR and LGW. Take a look at the schedules at LHR and LGW and you will see that there are plenty of services using small aircraft or to leisure destinations. The UK government will either come to the point where they have no choice but to push those kind of flights out of busy airports or lose the ability to play at the big party with the rest of the world. The UK stands squarely alone as being the only country that REFUSES to deal with its capacity problems. Asian countries with far bigger obstacles are making progress in creating capacity as are other European countries. Incidentally, it's not just an aviation problem.
You don't have a pension, so you are revelling in the fact that others are about to lose their's? You are pathetic.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
If you pay taxes, you should be concerned about people losing their pensions. Ultimately, pension defaults cost all Americans.
No, I’m saying I’m smart enough to have realized that the airlines will be out of the pension business long before I retire and planned accordingly.737nCH11 said:
I always planned to retire early, so I would take a huge hit in my pension anyway. From my personal point of view I couldn't care less if they did away with them, but thousands would be crushed. That is never a good thing.
They could increase capacity be changing the landing and takeoff scheme. If I recall corrently, that would add 20-30% more aircraft movements. But that will be difficult to get instituted. More flights descending over West London is not an easy thing to get implemented.avek00 said:
1. Every type of scheme under the sun has been proposed to increase the number of LHR slots. They have ALL been stalled on environmental or economic grounds, and won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
2. The LHR/LGW rationalization has been largely completed - by and large, any carrier that was interested in moving to LGW HAS moved by now. The Brits are generally unable to force any additional carriers to move to LHR, as the various bilateral agreements dictate LHR access terms.
3. Who would sell their LHR slots for US carriers anyways? There's no way in you-know-what that the Big 3 UK carriers will cede a sufficient number of viable LHR slots to permit competitive LHR services by even ONE additional US carrier, let alone for ANY US carrier that wants access.
2. The LHR/LGW rationalization has been largely completed - by and large, any carrier that was interested in moving to LGW HAS moved by now. The Brits are generally unable to force any additional carriers to move to LHR, as the various bilateral agreements dictate LHR access terms.
3. Who would sell their LHR slots for US carriers anyways? There's no way in you-know-what that the Big 3 UK carriers will cede a sufficient number of viable LHR slots to permit competitive LHR services by even ONE additional US carrier, let alone for ANY US carrier that wants access.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
I hope you all won't be surprised when the US gov't signs an open skies agreement with the EU and four US airlines "somehow" find a way to increase their service to LGW and LHR.
I don't think any of them have expectations of having slots given to them; that mantra died down years ago after they demanded hundreds of slots. At the same time, the US gov't does not represent AA and UA exclusively and they will not sign a deal that provides the legal but not the logistic framework for US carrier expansion. I'm not guaranteeing how it will happen but I can assure you that if the EU and US sign an open skies (and it is the Europeans who want it far more than the Americans), access to LON WILL increase for US airlines.
The world is not flat. People who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of change are ALWAYS proven wrong given enough time.
One way or the other, it is not good news for United.
I don't think any of them have expectations of having slots given to them; that mantra died down years ago after they demanded hundreds of slots. At the same time, the US gov't does not represent AA and UA exclusively and they will not sign a deal that provides the legal but not the logistic framework for US carrier expansion. I'm not guaranteeing how it will happen but I can assure you that if the EU and US sign an open skies (and it is the Europeans who want it far more than the Americans), access to LON WILL increase for US airlines.
The world is not flat. People who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of change are ALWAYS proven wrong given enough time.
One way or the other, it is not good news for United.
Be careful what you wish for: the UK has made clear that they will only consider expanded LHR access in exchange for US cabotage rights for UK carriers. In other words, do you want BA to be able to put a 777 on ORD-LAX in exchange for a CO 777 EWR-LHR? And besides, as mentioned earlier, the UK already "owes" LHR slots to airlines from multiple countries - why would the UK risk punitive flight restrictions against BA and VS in order to allow more foreign competition @ LHR?WorldTraveler said:
- Thread Starter
- #60
When it comes to World.......if it looks bad for United he'll spin it. He must have been turned down at a job interview or something :unsure: Check his profile....most posts are in United yet he works at Delta. Speaks volumes. Sad
