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 8, 20, 9:27 pm
  #121  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: BOS, PVG
Programs: United Global Services and 1MM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by HkCaGu View Post
It wasn't the 5 ones exactly; it's the March 12 baseline that was the problem. If they heeded the USDOT warning, the US might have been satisfied with 4 vs. 2.
No way DOT will accept such unfair arrangement, which violates 1980 US-China Air Route Agreement.

March 12 baseline is not a problem anymore. CAAC agreed to remove that on June 4.

DOT response on June 5: same number of flights!!!

For this, I applaud DOT for protecting interests and equal rights of US carriers.

Originally Posted by sincx View Post
I suspect the Chinese government is quite happy to agree to 2 weekly flights for each side.

The PRC wants to minimize the risk of returnees spreading the virus, so China would love to stop all inbound flights from countries where COVID is still uncontrolled. But cutting off travel completely makes China look hypocritical (since China criticized other countries for cutting flights back in January) and also pisses off citizens who are stuck outside the country. The 5-1 policy was meant to open the door just enough so overseas student, etc. won't be too pissed off, but still substantially limit risk.

However, if it's the US government that's limiting flights, China can just shrug its shoulders and say "hey that's the best we can do, it's out of our control," and only having 4 weekly flights keeps the number of returnees and the risk of re-seeding COVID to a minimum until a vaccine is found.
.
I am not so sure about this.

Last month CAAC applied to DOT for additional 47 flights to USA effective July 1. Another 45 flights effective Sept. 1.

Info is from DOT, see below for list of routes asked by CAAC.

This is massive amount of flights!!!

kb1992 is offline  
Old Jun 8, 20, 9:35 pm
  #122  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by kb1992 View Post
I am not so sure about this.

Last month CAAC applied to DOT for additional 47 flights to USA effective July 1. Another 45 flights effective Sept. 1.

Info is from DOT, see below for list of routes asked by CAAC.

This is massive amount of flights!!!
Those were not requests from CAAC. As the title to the chart clearly says, those were requests (or perhaps wishful thinking) from Chinese airlines to the US DOT. Although Chinese airlines are mostly state owned, they are partially publicly traded, act independently of CAAC in pursuit of profit, and certainly do not reflect the Chinese government's position that international flights should remain limited.
sincx is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 12:56 am
  #123  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by kb1992 View Post
No way DOT will accept such unfair arrangement, which violates 1980 US-China Air Route Agreement.

March 12 baseline is not a problem anymore. CAAC agreed to remove that on June 4.

DOT response on June 5: same number of flights!!!

For this, I applaud DOT for protecting interests and equal rights of US carriers.
You missed his point. His point was that if it wasn't for the March 12 baseline, this issue would never have gotten to the DOT. DOT only intervened when the American airlines asked them to since they couldn't operate any flights. So now this thing has gotten political and public and "fairness" is now a primary concern (and seems to be for you too). No other country seems to have even noticed the fairness problem. The airlines themselves would probably have settled for 4 + 2 (even if they are happier with 2+2).

And I might add this whole fairness argument is rather self-serving in the context of travel restrictions in place. For almost two months from late Jan until late March, the US had a unilateral travel ban that excluded almost all passengers from China, during peak travel periods for Chinese tourists. (And it's still unilateral with regards to passengers from Europe.) I do actually understand the rationale for the travel ban (even though I acknowledge there are criticisms against it). But I think all fairness has been lost when the travel ban was put in place in late Jan.

Last edited by Ricebucket; Jun 9, 20 at 1:08 am
Ricebucket is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 2:09 am
  #124  
889
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,654
"And it's still unilateral with regards to passengers from Europe."

More lies on this thread trying to make the U.S. look unreasonable.

First, it's NOT unilateral: Schengen bans Americans. Second, the U.S. only bans those of whatever nationality (except U.S. citizens and residents) who've recently been in Schengen. Schengen on the other hand bans Americans PERIOD based solely on their U.S. nationality, not where they've recently been (unless they've got residency in Schengen, etc.).
kb1992 likes this.
889 is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 2:16 am
  #125  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: BOS, PVG
Programs: United Global Services and 1MM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by Ricebucket View Post
You missed his point. His point was that if it wasn't for the March 12 baseline, this issue would never have gotten to the DOT. DOT only intervened when the American airlines asked them to since they couldn't operate any flights. So now this thing has gotten political and public and "fairness" is now a primary concern (and seems to be for you too). No other country seems to have even noticed the fairness problem. The airlines themselves would probably have settled for 4 + 2 (even if they are happier with 2+2).

And I might add this whole fairness argument is rather self-serving in the context of travel restrictions in place. For almost two months from late Jan until late March, the US had a unilateral travel ban that excluded almost all passengers from China, during peak travel periods for Chinese tourists. (And it's still unilateral with regards to passengers from Europe.) I do actually understand the rationale for the travel ban (even though I acknowledge there are criticisms against it). But I think all fairness has been lost when the travel ban was put in place in late Jan.
Sorry you totally missed "fairness" point.

Countries like Canada (AC), Germany (LH), France (AF) can only do one weekly flight but China can do 5-6 weekly flights.

Trust me other country do notice unfair treatment by China. They are either too preoccupied by COVID, or they don't have the balls to protest.

Only US finally stands up to the bully.
kb1992 is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 2:50 am
  #126  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Programs: CX, BA
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by kb1992 View Post
Sorry you totally missed "fairness" point.

Countries like Canada (AC), Germany (LH), France (AF) can only do one weekly flight but China can do 5-6 weekly flights.

Trust me other country do notice unfair treatment by China. They are either too preoccupied by COVID, or they don't have the balls to protest.

Only US finally stands up to the bully.
EMIC is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 3:31 am
  #127  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by 889 View Post
"And it's still unilateral with regards to passengers from Europe."

More lies on this thread trying to make the U.S. look unreasonable.

First, it's NOT unilateral: Schengen bans Americans. Second, the U.S. only bans those of whatever nationality (except U.S. citizens and residents) who've recently been in Schengen. Schengen on the other hand bans Americans PERIOD based solely on their U.S. nationality, not where they've recently been (unless they've got residency in Schengen, etc.).
Schengen banned travel. But did the UK ban travel from the US?

Secondly, Europe was a minor point in parentheses. Way to miss the bigger picture, which is the statement that was the basis for most of my argument, quote: "travel ban that excluded almost all passengers from China, during peak travel periods for Chinese tourists." And that statement is fully correct. How is this a lie again?

Look, i'm all for discussing different viewpoints. But don't selectively pick and choose subsets of my argument and call me a liar. That's out of line.

Last edited by Ricebucket; Jun 9, 20 at 3:42 am
Ricebucket is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 3:43 am
  #128  
889
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,654
You said, "But I think all fairness has been lost when the [U.S.] travel ban was put in place in late Jan."

Almost as if you're forgetting just where the virus originated and just where the bulk of the infections were in January.

For God's sake, was "all fairness lost" when China itself locked down Wuhan in January and forbade exit from the city?
889 is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 3:45 am
  #129  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by 889 View Post
You said, "But I think all fairness has been lost when the [U.S.] travel ban was put in place in late Jan."

Almost as if you're forgetting just where the virus originated and just where the bulk of the infections were in January.

For God's sake, was "all fairness lost" when China itself locked down Wuhan in January and forbade exit from the city?
I did say I understood the rationale for the travel ban. Not sure what you're trying to say here. It is what it is. There is a disease going around. But don't claim it's fair.
Ricebucket is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 3:52 am
  #130  
889
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,654
You were plainly stating you felt the U.S. action was somehow unfair. Again, targetting the U.S. for an attack when what the U.S. did only mirrored action China itself had taken to stop spread of the virus.
889 is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 4:00 am
  #131  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by 889 View Post
You were plainly stating you felt the U.S. action was somehow unfair. Again, targetting the U.S. for an attack when what the U.S. did only mirrored action China itself had taken to stop spread of the virus.
It is unfair, and it's not fair for residents of Wuhan too. And I said I understood the reasons for it. But it still supports my argument that the US in late Jan did unilaterally, significantly, change the nature of bilateral air traffic.

By the way, not everything you disagree with is an "attack" or a "lie." Chill dude
Ricebucket is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 6:40 am
  #132  
Ambassador: China
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Malibu Inferno Ground Zero
Programs: UA AA CO
Posts: 4,836
With potential liabilities in the trillions.
Best to keep quiet.

In the Paper, however, China argues the actual origin of the virus cannot be determined yet, suggesting it may not have been Wuhan.
Covid-19: China denies foreign spread of virus | Daily Nation
https://www.nation.co.ke/dailynation...-spread-626468
anacapamalibu is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 7:29 am
  #133  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: PMD
Programs: UA*G, NW, AA. WR-G, HH-S, IHG, ALL. TT-GE.
Posts: 2,362
Well, when in late March China started tightening entries, I’d say all UNfairness (by the US and other countries) is lost.
HkCaGu is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 1:51 pm
  #134  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 92,634
Originally Posted by kb1992 View Post
No way DOT will accept such unfair arrangement, which violates 1980 US-China Air Route Agreement.

March 12 baseline is not a problem anymore. CAAC agreed to remove that on June 4.

DOT response on June 5: same number of flights!!!

For this, I applaud DOT for protecting interests and equal rights of US carriers.



I am not so sure about this.

Last month CAAC applied to DOT for additional 47 flights to USA effective July 1. Another 45 flights effective Sept. 1.

Info is from DOT, see below for list of routes asked by CAAC.

This is massive amount of flights!!!

This is an awful lot of flights unless they're optimistic that mainland Chinese students, etc. will be able to enter the USA soon (including obtaining visas from USA consulates in China)
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Jun 9, 20, 5:11 pm
  #135  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: BOS, PVG
Programs: United Global Services and 1MM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 8,813
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist View Post
This is an awful lot of flights unless they're optimistic that mainland Chinese students, etc. will be able to enter the USA soon (including obtaining visas from USA consulates in China)
I am pretty certain that Trump Administration will lift travel ban for China by August.

Some of my friends in China have booked visa interviews for their children in August with US Embassy in Beijing.

Large number of Chinese students contribute lot of $$ to US economy.

Besides, China is the safest country in the world regarding COVID.
kb1992 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: