|
Originally Posted by PresRDC
The Bermuda II Agreement, which is the treaty governing air traffic rights between the U.S. and the U.K. contains a provision limiting both the number of carriers of each country that can operate into Heathrow (2 U.S. and 2 U.K.) on routes to the USA and the destinations that can be served non-stop from LHR. Both Dallas and Raleigh are not on that list, hence the reason those flights are at LGW.
In some cases, it creates a major advantage for one carrier. For example, BA can serve DTW non-stop from LHR, but NW is relagated to LGW (same goes for EWR). However, BA cannot serve ATL non-stop from LHR, hence the reason both it and DL operate to ATL from LGW. Forgive my ignorance on matters such as this, such as B II, but I have a question about DFW-LHR. Would it not be possible to run a one-stop flight from LA-LHR, with that stop being in DFW? Hence, the flight number will remain the same, but pax will be allowed on and off. It would also have the advantage of one more 777 LAX-DFW. I am guessing this isn't allowed, but I figured I might as well ask, because someone here will know for sure. |
They can do this, have done so in the past (AA flew SFO-ORD-LHR on one flight number before, I remember), and may still do so now (I'm not sure). They don't even need to use the same aircraft for both segments. It's called a "one-stop with equipment change".
FewMiles.. |
Originally Posted by Fly AA J all the way
Forgive my ignorance on matters such as this, such as B II, but I have a question about DFW-LHR. Would it not be possible to run a one-stop flight from LA-LHR, with that stop being in DFW? Hence, the flight number will remain the same, but pax will be allowed on and off. It would also have the advantage of one more 777 LAX-DFW. I am guessing this isn't allowed, but I figured I might as well ask, because someone here will know for sure.
AA is allowed to originate flights at points beyond permissible gateways, provided the flight stops in the permitted gateway. As fewmiles pointed out, AA does this when it flies DFW-ORD-LHR or SFO-ORD-LHR. But AA could not fly what you proposed, because it simply can't fly a nonstop from DFW to LHR. But it could fly DFW-MIA-LHR or DFW-JFK-LHR or DFW-BOS-LHR. |
No, an airline cannot fly LAX-DFW-LHR. They can do the opposite, though. British Airways, for example, flies IAH-ORD-LHR. The flight can originate in any city, but is most stop at an LHR gateway before getting there.
|
Can fly only like AA66: DFW - ORD - LHR on B777.
|
Originally Posted by ClipperDelta
Sorry, but AA/BA's stranglehold on LHR-US traffic needs to be broken as well.
thanks FTers for the tip-off; I filed an objection just now. |
I saw this immunity request recently, and put a thread on the SkyTeam forum (which, I admit, is rather lame, esp. compared to AAdvantage...).
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=452311 What I found interesting about this is that CO did not join the other SkyTeam members in this request. Maybe it's due to CO's aggressive strategy of nonstop flights to secondary US markets on 757s, or just the fact that EWR is the closest hub of any airline in the US to Europe, but I would have loved to heard the exchanges among the Skyteam execs when CO refused to sign on. |
Originally Posted by CO FF
I saw this immunity request recently, and put a thread on the SkyTeam forum (which, I admit, is rather lame, esp. compared to AAdvantage...).
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=452311 What I found interesting about this is that CO did not join the other SkyTeam members in this request. Maybe it's due to CO's aggressive strategy of nonstop flights to secondary US markets on 757s, or just the fact that EWR is the closest hub of any airline in the US to Europe, but I would have loved to heard the exchanges among the Skyteam execs when CO refused to sign on. It makes sense though that they did not. They are the most financially viable of the three US Skyteam carriers. Therefore, they can afford to go out on their own a little. On another note, Skyteam frequent flyers should be just as concerned about this, because, while they could colude to lower prices to compete with OW and *A, they could also colude to raise them on markets not served by OW and *A. However, I do think that if this goes through, it may lead the way to some AA/BA codeshares across the pond, such as IAD, DEN and SFO to LHR with AA flight numbers. Not much anyone can say once the immunity is granted to one alliance. |
Done. Thank you for the suggestion.
|
Originally Posted by PresRDC
The Bermuda II Agreement, which is the treaty governing air traffic rights between the U.S. and the U.K. contains a provision limiting both the number of carriers of each country that can operate into Heathrow (2 U.S. and 2 U.K.) on routes to the USA and the destinations that can be served non-stop from LHR. Both Dallas and Raleigh are not on that list, hence the reason those flights are at LGW.
In some cases, it creates a major advantage for one carrier. For example, BA can serve DTW non-stop from LHR, but NW is relagated to LGW (same goes for EWR). However, BA cannot serve ATL non-stop from LHR, hence the reason both it and DL operate to ATL from LGW. |
Originally Posted by chsb
I know you have BA and VS with service into LHR from the U.S. but didn't BD start service to LHR from IAD several years back?
|
Thanks for the clarification.
|
Originally Posted by Fly AA J all the way
It makes sense though that they did not. They are the most financially viable of the three US Skyteam carriers. Therefore, they can afford to go out on their own a little.
On another note, Skyteam frequent flyers should be just as concerned about this, because, while they could colude to lower prices to compete with OW and *A, they could also colude to raise them on markets not served by OW and *A. However, I do think that if this goes through, it may lead the way to some AA/BA codeshares across the pond, such as IAD, DEN and SFO to LHR with AA flight numbers. Not much anyone can say once the immunity is granted to one alliance. I believe there's a word that sounds like "hypocrisy" for that. |
thanks for the tip!
Thanks for pointing this out. I filed a statement in SUPPORT of the anti-trust immunity (ATI).
American's motives in opposing the ATI are transparent: fear of increased competition. As opposed to the CUSTOMERS of NW & DL (and even AA) who's views should really matter to the regulators. SkyTeam flyers have yet to see the full benefits of the alliance because of the current regulations. (And yes, OW too has yet to see fully realized benefits because of similar regulations, ie: LHR as discussed on this thread.) The merger of KLM and AF make the ATI application necessary. AA should stop being a bully and instead focus it's extensive lobbying & legal efforts to promote & improve international air travel for everyone. Legacy carriers must globalize to stay alive.
Originally Posted by MAH4546
The DOT takes these issues seriously, and considers public feedback important matter. The more the better! American Airlines is strongly against this, and, as an AA flyer, you should be too. You can support AA by filing a docket, which can be done anonymously if you chose (it is better, though, if you give at least your name; anoymous submissions obviously have less weight), here: |
Originally Posted by nroscoe
The merger of KLM and AF make the ATI application necessary. AA should stop being a bully and instead focus it's extensive lobbying & legal efforts to promote & improve international air travel for everyone. Legacy carriers must globalize to stay alive.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:23 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.