Originally posted by james:
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm terenz? Don't forget that the UK is a small country, but a very densely populated one. US airlines do serve the 4 major cities Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and London (Gatwick and Heathrow). MAN and BHX each have plausible catchement areas of 10 million+ people and the London airports probably 25 million in the 'immediate' area. These are my estimates, based on a travelling time of 2 - 2.5 hours.
It is true that BA and VS fly all over the US, but the US is vastly larger geographically. It is also true that the US generally has a lower populaion density outside the really major metropolises of Chicago, New York and LA, thus logical that the UK carriers need to serve more US cities than the US carriers serve in the UK. In competition terms this is OK, because US carriers can in principle fly from wherever they like in the US to the UK.
[This message has been edited by james (edited 09-04-2000).]
No sarcasm at all?
The term "Open Skies" would be what you describe,
i.e., airlines from country A and country B being able to start service from anywhere in country A to anywhere in country B and v-v (like between the Netherlands and the U.S. or U.S. and Canada).
The main sticking point in the current U.S.-U.K. Open Skies negotiation is that some U.K. carriers (well, primarily/mainly/solely VS and solely as a ploy to maintain the status quo (keep new U.K.-U.S. entrants out of LHR)), want [b]cabotage (or "8th freedom" since this doesn't exist) which, in VS's case, is to allow U.K. airlines (or majority-owned by U.K. interests) to operate solely *within* U.S. borders. No market with the exception of EU member states (and only by airlines owned by nationals of EU member states), and Australia permits this.
I don't think opening up U.K. domestic skies to the U.S. airlines is as lucrative as U.S. domestic skies being opened to U.K. airlines (market size disparity).
As for my suggestion that the E.U. directly negotiated reciprocal access rights with the U.S. (which some such as Pitbull and Merry have said infringes with U.K sovereignty), it is base purely on practical matters.
Imagine, for example, the U.K. or E.U. member states having to negotiate with each U.S. state for all the various freedom rights, e.g., negotiating over flight rights with all states between LAX and NYC (since each U.S. state is technically sovereign).
[This message has been edited by terenz (edited 09-05-2000).]