Trump administration bans China passenger planes effective June 16
Jun 4, 2020, 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/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...l-coronavirus/
Jun 4, 2020, 10:38 pm
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: BOS, PVG
Programs: United 1K and 1MM, Marriott Ambassador
Posts: 10,000
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.
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.
Jun 4, 2020, 11:02 pm
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,232
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.
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.
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.
Jun 4, 2020, 11:10 pm
#49
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC 75k, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 1,154
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.
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.
Jun 4, 2020, 11:27 pm
#50
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,098
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.
The one-way fare is US$19,084.
But that includes taxes and surcharges.
Jun 4, 2020, 11:32 pm
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,232
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.
The one-way fare is US$19,084.
But that includes taxes and surcharges.
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.
Jun 4, 2020, 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: 6,680
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.
Jun 4, 2020, 11:38 pm
#53
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,098
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.)
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.)
Jun 5, 2020, 12:00 am
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,232
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.)
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.)
Jun 5, 2020, 12:15 am
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,468
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.
Jun 5, 2020, 12:27 am
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,232
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.
Jun 5, 2020, 12:43 am
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,232
Jun 5, 2020, 1:31 am
#60
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,098
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
http://focus.lvyou168.cn/special_top...602/55588.html
Last edited by 889; Jun 5, 2020 at 2:00 am