Canada-Uk Open Skies: New Routes
Apr 21, 2006, 6:46 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 643
Canada-Uk Open Skies: New Routes
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/nat...es-060421.html
Now that there is an open skies agreement between the UK and Canada, do we think that BA will start flying an oil route like EDI-YYC-IAH with a 757? Since CO can make it EWR-TXL on a 757 (3980 nm), then EDI-YYC seems almost do-able (4062 nm) for high revenue oil traffic.
What do you think?
Now that there is an open skies agreement between the UK and Canada, do we think that BA will start flying an oil route like EDI-YYC-IAH with a 757? Since CO can make it EWR-TXL on a 757 (3980 nm), then EDI-YYC seems almost do-able (4062 nm) for high revenue oil traffic.
What do you think?
Apr 21, 2006, 6:57 pm
#2
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: MEL
Programs: BA Gold; VA Velocity Gold; LH FTL; Marriott Gold; ICHG Platinum AMB; Hilton Gold
Posts: 5,393
On a similar note, does Canada allow international stopovers without requiring passemgers to go through immigration and customs there? My recollection from YVR, for example, is that they do (passengers there can seemingly go direct from an international flight into US preclearance, without going through Canadian customs first).
If so, would BA be able to switch the current LHR-ORD-IAH flight to LHR-YYZ/YUL-IAH (assuming, as seems to be the case, that the majority of passengers are travelling LHR-IAH? This would potentially allow a shorter stopover (IAH passengers need not disembark and re-embark), and BA already has the ground staff at both locations to handle such flights.
If so, would BA be able to switch the current LHR-ORD-IAH flight to LHR-YYZ/YUL-IAH (assuming, as seems to be the case, that the majority of passengers are travelling LHR-IAH? This would potentially allow a shorter stopover (IAH passengers need not disembark and re-embark), and BA already has the ground staff at both locations to handle such flights.
Apr 21, 2006, 10:52 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,801
EDI-YYC-IAH would be poor a/c utulisation. It'd be more than 12 hours each way (including ground time) so you'd need 2 a/c and who would want to fly the route? EDI-LGW-IAH on CO would be much better (as is CO's BF). At any rate, AC and CO have YYC-IAH service already. If I had to make a stop in Canada between IAH and the U.K., I'd rather fly to LGW direct on CO.
Sterile transit is possible in Canada. Pax traveling CX on HKG-JFK via YVR don't have to clear Cdn immigration nor do PR pax for MNL-LAS via YVR.
Sterile transit is possible in Canada. Pax traveling CX on HKG-JFK via YVR don't have to clear Cdn immigration nor do PR pax for MNL-LAS via YVR.
Apr 22, 2006, 1:02 am
#4
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SCL, MCT, LGW and a variety of 1W lounges in between.
Programs: BA Mucci (Seigneur et Ingenieur des Appareils Volants (Gold)), QF (WP and LTG), AA EXP, GF Gold
Posts: 3,931
Confused?
How can the UK sign this as the EU is responsible for all route negotiations in terms of open skies agreements? Do I see our friends in Brussels taking an interest in this matter?
Apr 22, 2006, 4:43 am
#5
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: MEL
Programs: BA Gold; VA Velocity Gold; LH FTL; Marriott Gold; ICHG Platinum AMB; Hilton Gold
Posts: 5,393
Originally Posted by spotwelder
How can the UK sign this as the EU is responsible for all route negotiations in terms of open skies agreements? Do I see our friends in Brussels taking an interest in this matter?
Apr 22, 2006, 6:23 am
#6
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold4life, ICH RA, Hyatt Gold and others
Posts: 701
Originally Posted by IAATM
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/nat...es-060421.html
Now that there is an open skies agreement between the UK and Canada, do we think that BA will start flying an oil route like EDI-YYC-IAH with a 757? Since CO can make it EWR-TXL on a 757 (3980 nm), then EDI-YYC seems almost do-able (4062 nm) for high revenue oil traffic.
What do you think?
Now that there is an open skies agreement between the UK and Canada, do we think that BA will start flying an oil route like EDI-YYC-IAH with a 757? Since CO can make it EWR-TXL on a 757 (3980 nm), then EDI-YYC seems almost do-able (4062 nm) for high revenue oil traffic.
What do you think?
So i imagine we wont see BA take advantage of anything. BTW am I going mad or did Air Canada fly LHR/DEL daily back 15 years ago?
Apr 22, 2006, 12:56 pm
#7
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Up North
Programs: Platinum Amex, BAEC Blue, BA PP Amex, Club SLH, Avis Wizard
Posts: 325
Shouldn't it have a massive effect on BA? If there is no restriction on flights then there will be more competition which should result in lower fares and maybe more reward availability ?!
Wishfull thinking on my part I think
Wishfull thinking on my part I think
Apr 22, 2006, 1:18 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: somewhere north of London, UK
Programs: HH Gold, BA Silver, Accor Silver
Posts: 15,245
Originally Posted by Mutu
So i imagine we wont see BA take advantage of anything. BTW am I going mad or did Air Canada fly LHR/DEL daily back 15 years ago?
There was a discussion on the AC forum about this a few weeks ago and IIRC, apparently the number of pax they were allowed to uplift from LHR heading East was too small to make this a viable proposition in the long run.
Apr 22, 2006, 5:33 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
Originally Posted by IAATM
What do you think?
Apr 22, 2006, 5:34 pm
#10
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Programs: AA Platinum Pro, AC *S, Marriott Gold Elite, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 9,689
Originally Posted by IAATM
http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/nat...es-060421.html
Now that there is an open skies agreement between the UK and Canada, do we think that BA will start flying an oil route like EDI-YYC-IAH with a 757? Since CO can make it EWR-TXL on a 757 (3980 nm), then EDI-YYC seems almost do-able (4062 nm) for high revenue oil traffic.
What do you think?
Now that there is an open skies agreement between the UK and Canada, do we think that BA will start flying an oil route like EDI-YYC-IAH with a 757? Since CO can make it EWR-TXL on a 757 (3980 nm), then EDI-YYC seems almost do-able (4062 nm) for high revenue oil traffic.
What do you think?
Apr 22, 2006, 5:58 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
Originally Posted by sadiqhassan
I am not sure which tool you are using, but I am seeing EWR-TXL as 3458nm and EDI-YYC as 3530 nm