Topic: Why not revoke BA's 5th freedom ex-SIN?
 

A topic to make some conversation:

SQ wants 5th freedom rights to fly to the U.S. from the U.K. The U.S. government is o.k. with the idea but the U.K. government is against it (probably to protect the U.K. due of the LHR-U.S. quadropoly). What's there to stop the Singapore government exerting pressure on the U.K. by revoking BA's 5th freedom (mostly for flights to Australia - just SYD and more recently, MEL, these days?)

BA could possibly shift flights to affiliate QF but that would stop codesharing.

I would back Singapore in this matter - the fact the the LHR-USA route is closed out annoys the hell out of me - although VS would proberbly not let you earn miles on ex-LHR transatlantic flights as per BA/AA

I know that KLM is not allowed to pick up passanger from SIN to SYD. Why should BA/QF be allowed to do that?

KLM no longer flies the route. Interesting though considering that SQ flies AMS - EWR and soon ORD!!

The SIN-AMS route is very busy with KL and SQ daily and GA for the economists. I dont hear anybody complaining about the yields they get on this route though. I know its a KL piggybank route with incredible load factors and expensive tickets.

An extremely unwise idea. If the Singapore government starts to use regulatory pressure on a foreign company, that is a non-tariff barrier to trade in services. It would invite the UK to haul Singapore before the WTO, which would sully Sinapore's reputation as a trading entity.

Isn't the U.K.'s stand (against 5th freedom ex-U.K. for Singaporean airlines) also a barrier to trade in services?

Singapore could simply revoke the 5th freedom rights out of SIN for all U.K. carriers. It just happens that BA is the only one which is exercising that right currently.

If U.K. airlines have 5th freedom rights out of SIN, why can't Singaporean airlines have them out of U.K.?

Please disclose that you're a citizen of the U.K. (I am of Singapore but by birth, have no interest in remaining a citizen of that country, and I can't get rid of that citzenship!)

I disagree. The WTO does not cover air toutes, rights or other airline agreements.

There is a difference between withdrawing a trade privilege which is being exercised, and not granting a trade privilege which is being sought.

Buster CT1K, the GATS does cover Air Services--indeed, there is an Annex on Air Transport Services. It's invocation would depend upon whether Singapore were to take regulatory action against one service supplier by denying traffic rights (in which case the GATS annex does not apply) or against one country's carriers (in which case it would).

If Singapore made the mistake of acting against BA alone, however, they would be in no position to squawk if the UK were then to take action against SQ by, for example, taking away their landing slots at LHR.

SATS would probably lobby the Singapore government fairly heavily against such action--both BKK and KLL are available as transit points from UK to OZ, and SATS would be most reluctant to see traffic bled off to competing ports.

SQ are also probably wise enough to recognize that they stand to lose fare more than they gain in such an exercise.

So it's a good thing Canada revoked SQ's 5th freedom rights between YYZ and LHR before all this W.T.O. nonsense came into being. This was back in the '80s when AC wanted U.K.(LHR)-India-SIN 5th freedom rights and couldn't make it work when they tried. They still can't make a case for Canada-India.

SQ never operated YYZ-LHR, they operated YYZ-VIE-SIN.

AC and OS had the rights to VIE which neither were exercising. The Government's position was that they would not grant 5th freedoms ex-Canada to countries other than the USA in circumstances where more than 50% of the traffic ex-Canada was not destined to the carrier's home country. Since SQ was carrying more than 50% of ex-YYZ traffic only as far as VIE, their 5th freedom was revoked. Even SQ couldn't make YYZ-SIN work.

I thought it was YYZ-AMS-SIN.