|
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by wideman: Now hold on, this isn’t going to happen tomorrow or even next week, but some comments by Mr. Andrew Pyne, Cathay Pacific general manager for international relations, are extremely interesting. It’s a somewhat complicated story, as anything interesting regarding Hong Kong tends to be: According to an article in The Standard, it seems that Virgin Atlantic wants rights to fly between Hong Kong and Australia. According to Pyne, any such routing available to Virgin would also need to be available to other European carriers, according to European rules. And that would be a big issue for CX, unless CX got something in return. And here comes the intriguing part. According to The Standard, Pyne said that, if there were negotiations between Britain and Hong Kong with a view to letting Virgin fly from Hong Kong to Australia, then Cathay Pacific would want rights across the North Atlantic from Britain to the US. “Cathay Pacific has been seeking the rights from the UK to the US for a long time,” Pyne said. He said that, while Virgin wanted Hong Kong-Australia rights, “Virgin has been instrumental in blocking open skies between the UK and the US.” JFK-LHR-HKG has a nice ring to it, don’tcha think?</font> |
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by gemini573: Does anyone have any additional information on what the status is on talks about VS flying to SYD </font> Interestingly they have not bid for it in their coming IATA Bid |
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by seawolf: PresRDC is correct. You do need open skies and codeshare authority (antitrust immunity).</font> Dont think so... ------------------ A340s don't fly... they're repelled from Earth by their ugliness! [This message has been edited by 777-232LR (edited 06-29-2003).] |
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by 777-232LR: Originally posted by seawolf: PresRDC is correct. You do need open skies and codeshare authority (antitrust immunity).</font> Dont think so... http://dms.dot.gov/general/orders/19...y99/990502.pdf CO/VS http://dms.dot.gov/general/orders/19...v97/971119.pdf Any other codeshare arrangments? But what others said is right...open skies isn't absolutely necessary for codesharing as in the case with Japan. However, the US is dangling codesharing as a carrot for open skies. |
What I find intriguing about this possibility -- which I actually don't see happening any time soon -- is that CX would become the only airline to operate an around-the-world service. UA did this for a while in the late 90s but killed its LHR-DEL-HKG service after about a year. I believe it had local pick-up rights in all these non-US cities too. [PAN AM did it through the 60s and 70s before tanking.]
So CX could fly you HKG-YVR-JFK-LHR-HKG with stop-over and local pick-up rights at each city. Kewl! |
Shareholder, actually SQ does get pretty close to an around the world service (only AMS-MAN is missing). For political reasons, if they grant CX rights, I would expect SQ to be granted rights as well.
UA has the rights but does not find that commercially feasible particularly with the restrictions placed by India on flts into and out of India (which many on this board in the past seem to have argued are fair and reciprocal constraints). |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:46 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.