FYI, the price for F on SQ NYC - EUR (both routes) was unbelievably low a year ago.

Open skies, as usually defined, grants all carriers of the two countries unlimited fourth-freedom rights (the right to fly from their own country to another). It is a separate issue from fifth-freedom rights, which allow a carrier to fly between two countries neither of which is its own. (There's a whole list. IIRC, first freedom is overflight, second is stopping for repairs, third is taking on cargo, etc... cabotage would be 8th freedom.)

Silverpie said:

My understanding of "open skies" is that it is a descriptive term applying to the type of bilateral air services agreement existing between two countries, rather than a specific right, such as the right of cabotage.

For instance, the air services agreement between the U.S. and the Netherlands is considered the international legal basis for an "open skies" regime between the two countries. Not only does it include very liberal fourth freedom rights, as Silverpie indicates, but it also describes relatively flexible competition treatment (the NW/KL alliance was essentially conditioned on the agreement), no restrictions on aircraft type, extensive beyond rights, etc.

Most open skies regimes, as a part of their air services agreement, include enhanced fifth freedom rights. Silverpie is, of course, correct that the fourth freedom rights are among the most important rights to carriers, but they are only part of the picture in an open skies regime.

Greg

[This message has been edited by greg99 (edited 08-30-2000).]

Taken by me last week ARN-CPH on TAP Air Portugal. I found that interesting.

Turkish Airlines is flying:
SEL-KIX
DXB-KUL
BKK-SIN
JNB-CPT

SK: ewr-ams

"Open Skies"? You mean 8th freedom? Right BA and VS get to fly all over the U.S. in return for the U.S. airlines being able to fly all over the U.K.?


On the original topic, here's a related thing
http://www.msnbc.com/news/446787.asp

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm terenz? Don't forget that the UK is a small country, but a very densely populated one. US airlines do serve the 4 major cities Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and London (Gatwick and Heathrow). MAN and BHX each have plausible catchement areas of 10 million+ people and the London airports probably 25 million in the 'immediate' area. These are my estimates, based on a travelling time of 2 - 2.5 hours.

It is true that BA and VS fly all over the US, but the US is vastly larger geographically. It is also true that the US generally has a lower populaion density outside the really major metropolises of Chicago, New York and LA, thus logical that the UK carriers need to serve more US cities than the US carriers serve in the UK. In competition terms this is OK, because US carriers can in principle fly from wherever they like in the US to the UK.

[This message has been edited by james (edited 09-04-2000).]

But how about a country-A airline flying between country-B and country-C?

I know in asia this happen a lot, e.g.:
BA HKG-TPE
CI/GF/ER HKG-SIN
similar NW,UA fly HKG-NRT...

then doens't CX can fly Vancouver-JFK ?
:O

No sarcasm at all?

The term "Open Skies" would be what you describe, i.e., airlines from country A and country B being able to start service from anywhere in country A to anywhere in country B and v-v (like between the Netherlands and the U.S. or U.S. and Canada).

The main sticking point in the current U.S.-U.K. Open Skies negotiation is that some U.K. carriers (well, primarily/mainly/solely VS and solely as a ploy to maintain the status quo (keep new U.K.-U.S. entrants out of LHR)), want [b]cabotage (or "8th freedom" since this doesn't exist) which, in VS's case, is to allow U.K. airlines (or majority-owned by U.K. interests) to operate solely *within* U.S. borders. No market with the exception of EU member states (and only by airlines owned by nationals of EU member states), and Australia permits this.

I don't think opening up U.K. domestic skies to the U.S. airlines is as lucrative as U.S. domestic skies being opened to U.K. airlines (market size disparity).

As for my suggestion that the E.U. directly negotiated reciprocal access rights with the U.S. (which some such as Pitbull and Merry have said infringes with U.K sovereignty), it is base purely on practical matters.

Imagine, for example, the U.K. or E.U. member states having to negotiate with each U.S. state for all the various freedom rights, e.g., negotiating over flight rights with all states between LAX and NYC (since each U.S. state is technically sovereign).

[This message has been edited by terenz (edited 09-05-2000).]

No, U.S. States are not sovereign. They have exclusive jurisdiction within their areas of competence, but they may not legislate extraterritorially.

Further, U.S. States have no jurisdiction of aviation, which is a federal jurisdiction.

Contrast this with the E.U. where there are fifteen jurisdictions which are sovereign, and which do have jurisdiction over aviation.

(deleted due to duplication)

[This message has been edited by terenz (edited 09-05-2000).]

terenz- thanks for the elaboration!

I think the sovereignty matter is still up for debate despite thw Federalists having gotten their way in the 19th century.

So the U.S. states do not have sovereignty over the transportation issues (as this has been delgated to the federal authority) but imagine if the E.U. member states had to negotiate with each U.S. state!


[This message has been edited by terenz (edited 09-05-2000).]

just to add some more routes:

lufthansa: CGK-SIN
qantas: CGK-SIN
cathay: CGK-SIN

there are many others doing this segment, but these are the ones Ive used before