Important: Support AA and write to the DOT
 

As some may or may not know, six skyTeam airlines - Alitalia, Air France, Delta, Northwest, KLM, and CSA Czech - have asked for anti-trust immunity on trans-Atlantic routes:

http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/storie...4072447&EDATE=

This has become a hotly contested topic, because it would leave two US and four European airlines all sharing anti-trust immunity, which, IMO, is just insane. This proposed anti-trust will have six airlines controlling a huge majority of the traffic between the US and four countries - Italy, Czech Republic, France, and the Netherlands.

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:

http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/dspSubmission.cfm

Under "Docket ID", enter the number 19214, and under "Document Title", fill in something allong the lines "Submission by XXX in Opposition (or, Approval, if you approve of it) of proposed skyTeam anti-trust". Then fill in as much or as little information as you'd like (this is being submitted to the US government; don't worry spam or anything such). On the next page, write as little or as much as you'd like: a one sentence "I oppose to the proposed anti-trust immunity between the skyTeam airlines"; a whole essay about why you think it's unfair that such a huge number of airlines may get anti-trust, while AA/BA can't; a paragraph on how you think it will be unfair compietition; or a few words on why you support this application.

Submitting a docket can take as little as two minutes of your time, and can help prevent this unfair anti-trust alliance from moving foward. American Airlines has already submitted more than one docket in opposition, the most recent which can be seen here (*.pdf link):

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf92/339730_web.pdf

And, as AA did, mentioning something along the lines of "this is unfair unless AA/BA get antitrust" is good bonus points, if you support AA/BA's antitrust.

Thanks for the link. I will do this today. :)

Done
Can't have the French rule the world ... :D

done!

huh...

Gonna go there, thanks for the info... and I can see when Aeroflop becomes a full SkyScream member, they will ask for inclusion :p .

Done! I said for them to not approve it because if they did so, they would also have to approve AA/BA, which I don't think is a good idea. We need less cooperation and more competition, IMHO.

Maybe if we had more competition, maybe AA would then be forced to continually upgrade their J product to keep up with the likes of BA, and VS.

Thanks!
 

Excellent catch! Fares are high enough with fuel costs being passed on; airlines need more competion, not less(or at least not immunity from anti-trust violations).

Does this work?

Skyteam : DFW
Immunity : Wright Amendment

Sorry, but AA/BA's stranglehold on LHR-US traffic needs to be broken as well. The big difference is that the U.S. has open skies treaties with all of those countries and nothing is preventing AA from flying or adding more flights to France, Italy,Holland, and the Czech Republic. However, DL, NW, and CO are all PREVENTED from taking a crack at the world's most lucrative international market because of that archaic Bermuda II agreement. So it's not really on an equal basis that this fight is being conducted! We're not comparing apples with apples here.

You may well be correct here, but I don't think you'll get much sympathy for this viewpoint in the AA forum.

Cheers.

Point taken. Even if they did away with Bermuda II things would not change much because LHR is slot restricted and if and only if the U.K. gov. opens more slots then even with the lifting of B II, DL, NW, and CO would be left out unless the repeal of B II included lifting slot restrictions at LHR and that is something that the U.K. gov won't do anytime soon. Especially because the BAA is spending a ton of money updating LGW right now. Hey I would love to see LHR service from DFW.

With respect to the LHR slot limit for AA, what exactly prevents them from moving one of the MIA-LHR to DFW, and a DFW-LGW to MIA?

The only US cities that are allowed to see non-stop service to Heathrow are:

1) Cities that had non-stop service to London in 1977 - Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington.
2) Co-terminals of those cities, including Baltimore, Fort Lauderdale, Newark, and Oakland.
3) Anchorage, Alaska and Minneapolis, Minnesota, though only by a British airline.
4) Cities that are served on a US-London route by only one British carrier that carriers a significant amount of traffic over the period of three years, in which then the British airline can transfer the service to Heathrow. However, if a second airline enters the market, then the service must be returned to Gatwick.

However, this only applies to US and UK airlines. A third-country airline can indepdently negotiate for US-LHR rights to any US city, including those that are not bound by Bermuda II (for example, Air India can fly DFW-LHR).

Point well taken, entirely correct. I personally support AA/BA's application for personal reasons.

Though I don't support any anti-trust alliance that includes SIX (and in the future, more) airlines, even if it was AA. That is plain ridiculous. Consumers stand no benefit.

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..

I don't think it would be permitted.

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.

allowing this SkyTeam boondoggle would do nothing to accomplish that

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.

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.

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?

No. They fly MAN-IAD. They wanted to fly LHR-IAD/ORD/MIA/SEA, and tried very hard to get the authorities, with no luck.

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree that CO made sense -- but if SkyTeam gets its exemption, it will make sense for CO to take full advantage of it too...

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.

You mean instead of lobbying for their own continuing monopolistic and anti-competitive Wright Amendment? ;)

I'm bumping this up to the top. To those who read this, I cannot stress how important it is that you guys take two minutes of your time to submit a docket. The pending results of this decission can have a major affect on the fares you pay to fly trans-Atlantic.

the justice department filed its opinion today-- AGAINST. DOT gets final say-- so presumably there's still time for people to weigh in.

two sentences, plus a link:

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuot...9227852_newsml
----------------
WASHINGTON, Aug 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Friday urged against giving antitrust immunity to five members of the SkyTeam airline alliance, saying the carriers had failed to show the benefits would outweigh potential harms.

In comments filed with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Justice Department said there was "a significant risk" of reduced competition if the airlines were allowed wide latitude to share information and coordinate their operations.

Good - make it an openly competitive environment or give everyone similar privileges and exemptions, imo. And think, SU is going to become part of SkyTeam... :rolleyes: Maybe they should give Aeroflop some exemption of some kind as well, just so they feel good. (I don't think I'll use my remaining CO miles on SU, thank you.)

Thanks
 

for bringing this to my attention. I've filled out the form in opposition of the skyteam anti-trust immunity.

Done! ^ ^

Thanks!

Done!

You might want to post this in other forums as well.

eli

I think it made the rounds of several of them, the first time around. would make the most sense in non-SkyTeam forums, of course.

It looks like DOT ruled against Skyteam;
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051222/airli...ance.html?.v=2

This IAH-ORD-LHR flight is very interesting. Out of curiosity, I checked this out on BA.com and Orbitz. IAH-ORD seems to be on BA metal (777) and not bookable IAH-ORD-IAH.

It seems like such a waste to fly a 777 over half-empty (no proof, but it's gotta be) between Houston and Chicago and that an AA codeshare would be better, but what do I know. If it wasn't cost-effective, BA wouldn't do it. My guess is that there is some premium-flying corporate contract that makes this worthwhile for BA.

British Petroleum has large operations in both the Chicago Area and Houston and it could be the fat corporate contract that keeps that odd route afloat.