Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > Asia > China
Reload this Page >

Trump administration bans China passenger planes effective June 16

Trump administration bans China passenger planes effective June 16

Old Jun 4, 20, 10:13 pm
  #46  
Ambassador: China
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Malibu Inferno Ground Zero
Programs: UA AA CO
Posts: 4,836
The word "chinese" is not present in the jan 30 travel restriction proclamation.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...l-coronavirus/
anacapamalibu is offline  
Old Jun 4, 20, 10:38 pm
  #47  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: BOS, PVG
Programs: United Global Services and 1MM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 8,813
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by EMIC View Post

Subsequently as the virus came more under control in China and other Asian regions, China sensibly introduced their 5/1 policy. It was stated at the time that a review would be held on relaxing / opening up to 'western' carriers that had voluntarily stopped their original scheduled flights.

The rules have been applied fairly to all countries - not singling out the US - some of these points seem to be conveniently forgotten or overlooked by some.
This is simply false.

China's 5-1 policy violates the 1980 and 1999 Air Agreements between China and the US. Each country has same number of weekly flights.

China has 7 airlines flying to US. But US has only 2 at this point (DL/UA).

Not to mention numerous "charters" by the Chinese to bypass it's own 5-1 policy.

How can you say 5-1 policy is sensible? China can operates 7 weekly flights but US can only operate 2? Is that fair?

I strongly urge the DOT reject CAAC proposal. If China denies equal number of weekly flights, then ban Chinese airlines to US.

Also, DOT should deny China's so called "charter" flights from now on.
m.y and STS-134 like this.
kb1992 is offline  
Old Jun 4, 20, 11:02 pm
  #48  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,400
Originally Posted by kb1992 View Post
This is simply false.

China's 5-1 policy violates the 1980 and 1999 Air Agreements between China and the US. Each country has same number of weekly flights.

China has 7 airlines flying to US. But US has only 2 at this point (DL/UA).

Not to mention numerous "charters" by the Chinese to bypass it's own 5-1 policy.

How can you say 5-1 policy is sensible? China can operates 7 weekly flights but US can only operate 2? Is that fair?

I strongly urge the DOT reject CAAC proposal. If China denies equal number of weekly flights, then ban Chinese airlines to US.

Also, DOT should deny China's so called "charter" flights from now on.
Also don’t forget the completely arbitrary assignment of “airlines can fly routes they were operating on March 12th”. Oh, look at that, only CAAC airlines were flying to US/EU on that date. How convenient!

The US should hold out until and equal number of flights are allowed for carriers from each country. 7 carriers from China flying 7 flights a week to the USA then the 2 airlines from the USA that want to fly to China should be able to split up the 7 weekly flights.
travelinmanS is offline  
Old Jun 4, 20, 11:10 pm
  #49  
m.y
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC *E HHonors Gold
Posts: 788
The March 12 date was an arbitrary baseline set up to protect Chinese airlines. Around February when many foreign airlines were stopping flights to China, China told its stated owned airlines to maintain connectivity to foreign countries, which lead to CA combining routes to US with PEK-JFK-IAD, and PEK-LAX-SFO. CA also kept routes like MSQ, ATH, WAW, IST that were kept purely for political purposes.

The 5 1 rule hurts Chinese studying or working abroad the most, since they have to pay $5000+ USD for one way economy ticket back, versus countries like Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea that did not have such draconian rules, cost of flights to these places remained affordable and they were still able to contain the virus.
m.y is offline  
Old Jun 4, 20, 11:27 pm
  #50  
889
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,654
At this moment -- early Friday afternoon in Hong Kong -- Expedia is showing only one seat, yes just one seat, from JFK to PEK on June 14. It's economy class on Alaska Airlines JFK to SFO and a UA business class seat SFO to PEK.

The one-way fare is US$19,084.

But that includes taxes and surcharges.
889 is offline  
Old Jun 4, 20, 11:32 pm
  #51  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,400
Originally Posted by 889 View Post
At this moment -- early Friday afternoon in Hong Kong -- Expedia is showing only one seat, yes just one seat, from JFK to PEK on June 14. It's economy class on Alaska Airlines JFK to SFO and a UA business class seat SFO to PEK.

The one-way fare is US$19,084.

But that includes taxes and surcharges.
That flight has no chance of operating but Expedia will take the money from some poor sap.

The only way to buy tickets now is directly from the Chinese airlines. At least until the ban goes in to effect. JFK-PVG is once a week on MU.
MSPeconomist likes this.
travelinmanS is offline  
Old Jun 4, 20, 11:36 pm
  #52  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA MileagePlus (Premier Gold); Hilton HHonors (Gold); Chase Ultimate Rewards; Amex Plat
Posts: 3,635
Originally Posted by travelinmanS View Post
That flight has no chance of operating but Expedia will take the money from some poor sap.

The only way to buy tickets now is directly from the Chinese airlines. At least until the ban goes in to effect. JFK-PVG is once a week on MU.
I don't understand why they're even being given until June 16th. US should ban Chinese airlines from flying "any more routes than US carriers are currently flying", effective immediately. Make any lifting of the ban contingent on US carriers being able to fly as many additional flights as the Chinese carriers flew, in excess of US carriers, since implementation of the "5 1" rule, until equality is reached, at which point, flights are capped at a 1:1 ratio.
STS-134 is offline  
Old Jun 4, 20, 11:38 pm
  #53  
889
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,654
But I just checked the United website, and they do show that flight UA888 operating out of SFO on June 15 (there's a layover if you're flying in from JFK on June 14).

Again, one ticket and one ticket only is available, in business class. Fare out of SFO is USD$18,768. So don't point fingers at Expedia here.

There is a generous luggage policy, though.

(If you don't allow a couple of weeks for the ban to take effect, you risk stranding Americans who've booked those flights ex-China in the next two weeks.)
889 is offline  
Old Jun 5, 20, 12:00 am
  #54  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,400
Originally Posted by 889 View Post
But I just checked the United website, and they do show that flight UA888 operating out of SFO on June 15 (there's a layover if you're flying in from JFK on June 14).

Again, one ticket and one ticket only is available, in business class. Fare out of SFO is USD$18,768. So don't point fingers at Expedia here.

There is a generous luggage policy, though.

(If you don't allow a couple of weeks for the ban to take effect, you risk stranding Americans who've booked those flights ex-China in the next two weeks.)
The passenger can choose who they want to give their money to more, Expedia or UA. This doesn’t change the fact that there is no chance of UA 888 operating SFO-PEK on June 14th or 15th.
travelinmanS is offline  
Old Jun 5, 20, 12:06 am
  #55  
889
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,654
" . . . the fact that there is no chance of UA 888 operating SFO-PEK on June 14th or 15th."

Why do you say that? Does UA offer phantom bookings? Is this a computer glitch?
889 is offline  
Old Jun 5, 20, 12:15 am
  #56  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 10,690
Originally Posted by travelinmanS View Post
The only way to buy tickets now is directly from the Chinese airlines. At least until the ban goes in to effect. JFK-PVG is once a week on MU.
With one caveat: if the Chinese carrier cancels the flight, trying to get a refund might be a challenge - safe thru an immediate charge back from the credit card.
cesco.g is offline  
Old Jun 5, 20, 12:27 am
  #57  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,400
Originally Posted by 889 View Post
" . . . the fact that there is no chance of UA 888 operating SFO-PEK on June 14th or 15th."

Why do you say that? Does UA offer phantom bookings? Is this a computer glitch?
UA is purposely and unethically offering bookings on flights they know they won’t operate to get some cash into their business. There is a thread in the UA forum about this. They aren’t the only airline doing this as well.
travelinmanS is offline  
Old Jun 5, 20, 12:32 am
  #58  
889
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,654
But they are flying some planes out there. How do you distinguish the real from the phantom flights?
889 is offline  
Old Jun 5, 20, 12:43 am
  #59  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,400
Originally Posted by 889 View Post
But they are flying some planes out there. How do you distinguish the real from the phantom flights?
Every UA flight to China is phantom until CAAC allows them to fly or the DOT and CAAC come to an agreement. There are no UA passenger flights to China now.
travelinmanS is offline  
Old Jun 5, 20, 1:31 am
  #60  
889
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,654
This story, in Chinese, from a few days ago says the flight is awaiting approval, but that US888/889 are United flights scheduled to start June 15, so not operating now in any event.

http://focus.lvyou168.cn/special_top...602/55588.html

Last edited by 889; Jun 5, 20 at 2:00 am
889 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: