|
Originally Posted by travelinmanS
(Post 35199092)
What’s wrong with PVG? I find it much better than PEK.
And don't even suggest PVG-PEK or PVG-PKX 😎.... I've had just one too many of those cancel to attempt that again any time soon. |
Originally Posted by Philipp Morgenstern
(Post 35197143)
|
Originally Posted by italdesign
(Post 35199487)
Nice. Isn't Hainan still a redemption partner of AS? Probably no chance of award availability thru AS though.
|
With Starlux flying to LAX, there might be more US-Taiwan direct flights than to all of mainland China, the 2nd largest economy & most populous* country in the world.
(I'm not sure exact numbers, and maybe it was already that way before Starlux; it's just mind-boggling) * for another week. |
Originally Posted by italdesign
(Post 35205111)
With Starlux flying to LAX, there might be more US-Taiwan direct flights than to all of mainland China, the 2nd largest economy & most populous* country in the world.
(I'm not sure exact numbers, and maybe it was already that way before Starlux; it's just mind-boggling) * for another week. |
Originally Posted by italdesign
(Post 35205111)
With Starlux flying to LAX, there might be more US-Taiwan direct flights than to all of mainland China, the 2nd largest economy & most populous* country in the world.
(I'm not sure exact numbers, and maybe it was already that way before Starlux; it's just mind-boggling) * for another week. |
Originally Posted by Philipp Morgenstern
(Post 35196876)
https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230424-cnns23
Why can't Chinese airlines increase flights to Canada?
Originally Posted by moondog
(Post 35196905)
Canada also needs to update its bilateral. I'm guessing AC isn't pushing too hard.
|
Originally Posted by moondog
(Post 35184441)
My understanding (as of several months ago) is that they want parity based on the number of frequencies each side is actually using going forward (I.e fresh start)...as opposed to returning to the caps that were in place during 2019.
ETA: The pre-covid agreement was a little more complex than straight up caps because it included a mechanism to add lower demand routes (e.g. SFO-CTU) with less red tape.
Originally Posted by boat stuck
(Post 35184499)
That seems like a difficult framework to use. So if US airlines ramp up to 21x a week, Chinese carriers are given permission to match, but then say AA leaves the market and US airlines go back down to 14x, Chinese carriers have to cut? I doubt China is ever going to agree for their airlines' frequencies to be at the mercy of US airlines' route planning.
If the US side is worried about Chinese carriers flooding the market, they should just try to negotiate for a lower cap under the current framework.
Originally Posted by moondog
(Post 35184573)
As I suggested a few posts up, we got to the 2020 situation slowly over the course of 20 years one batch at a time.
Carriers were allowed to remove or modify routes without too much hassel, and if a US carrier pulled out of a given route, there was no impact on China carriers' existing slots. Furthermore, the DOT was permitted to reassign the US carrier's forfeited slots to another US carrier, based on its own procedures. In any event, if we were to return to 2020 limits now, neither side would come close to maxing out in the short term, but the Chinese would presumably ramp up faster. |
Originally Posted by lsquare
(Post 35207756)
Is this because of lobbying from the US carriers? I really want to go back to pre-COVID agreements because prices to the Mainland were so good.
|
Originally Posted by lsquare
(Post 35207756)
Is this because of lobbying from the US carriers? I really want to go back to pre-COVID agreements because prices to the Mainland were so good.
|
Originally Posted by m.y
(Post 35209525)
US airlines think it's unfair that Chinese airlines can overfly Russia, at a much lower cost vs US airlines that have to overfly Russia, and they've been lobbying the government to mandate that Chinese (and other foreign) airlines do not overfly Russia for US routes. US airlines also don't have a lot of excess capacity left (UA had a large South Pacific expansion, and both AA and DL are short on widebodies), so they aren't as eager to increase flights as the Chinese airlines. So you won't see those $400 fares to China anytime soon.
|
Originally Posted by lsquare
(Post 35209924)
I am aware of that. I think both WSJ and the NYT covered that. However, this only became a problem in late February 2022. Was the original agreement abandoned due to COVID?
|
Per this article from the Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/06a44def-...e-2ca6091e0e1e
The main sticking point is now Russia overflight rights: The US has offered to grant Chinese airlines the same number of weekly flights between both countries as American carriers — but only if they agree not to fly over Russia, according to six people familiar with the talks. Moscow banned US carriers from flying over the country after Washington prohibited Russian airlines from flying to the US in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Chinese airlines are not banned from Russian airspace. US carriers have 12 weekly flights to China, while Chinese airlines have eight to the US. The American carriers face higher fuel costs than their Chinese rivals whose routes over Russia to the US are much shorter. US airlines have lobbied the Biden administration not to grant China more flights because of the cost gap. The shorter route over Russia also allows Chinese carriers the advantage of flying directly to the US east coast. One Chinese embassy official said Beijing’s proposal to equalise weekly flight numbers — to give both sides 12 — was “quite reasonable”. He blamed Washington for the stalemate in the negotiations, saying China did not accept that its carriers should have to avoid flying over Russia. “The slow progress at the moment is not what we want to see. Frankly speaking, the responsibility lies with the US side,” the official said. “An issue between the US and Russia is not one between the US and China, even less should it be used as a basis for demanding the so-called ‘reciprocity’.” ... The Chinese official said another reason not to accept the US condition about circumventing Russia was that airlines from other countries, such as India and the UAE, flew over Russia without facing repercussions in the US. Also, I doubt China is going to capitulate on the Russia overflight issue, especially since the US is not making the same demand of Middle Eastern and Indian carriers. I would not expect any more direct flights between the US and China until the Russia-Ukraine war is over. Given the desire of hawks in both governments to reduce reliance on each other, the present state probably suits those who are in charge. |
Originally Posted by boat stuck
(Post 35212482)
Per this article from the Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/06a44def-...e-2ca6091e0e1e
The main sticking point is now Russia overflight rights: Anyways, CAAC is already planning on reducing US airlines' flights back to 8x weekly (DTW-PVG ends 5/17; DFW-PVG is already back to 2x weekly from 4x). Honestly, I'm surprised CAAC agreed to increase US carriers' flights to 12x weekly (both sides had 8x weekly in 2021 and 2022) before US DOT confirmed that it would reciprocate. I don't think China will make that mistake again. Also, I doubt China is going to capitulate on the Russia overflight issue, especially since the US is not making the same demand of Middle Eastern and Indian carriers. I would not expect any more direct flights between the US and China until the Russia-Ukraine war is over. Given the desire of hawks in both governments to reduce reliance on each other, the present state probably suits those who are in charge. |
Originally Posted by boat stuck
(Post 35212482)
Per this article from the Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/06a44def-...e-2ca6091e0e1e....
I think this is quite petty now by the US side. I understand the cost factor, and how it would give the Chinese carriers a cost advantage; but "Who the #$% cares"? Just from an environmental stand-point; does it really make sense to waste tons and tons of fuel just keep one side of a bilateral agreement happy? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:12 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.