The Open Skies agreement has been passed by the EU - http://tinyurl.com/2hufbp which should mean cheaper transAtlantic flights. Shame (and typical) that the US aren't allowing European airlines the same rights in America though.

Hi H,

Thanks for the link.

I look forward to a sudden drop in airfares.

>Shame (and typical) that the US aren't allowing European airlines the same rights in America though. <

"But while US airlines would gain free access to European airports, EU carriers would not be allowed the same rights on domestic routes within the US."

Does this mean that Delta, for example, will be able to book domestic flights between EU cities, but AF can't do the same in the US?

I see other reports that both US and EU carriers will be able to make one additional hop.

What is means is that BA (for example) couldn't operate a route London-NY-Chicago whilst AA could operate NY-London-Frankfurt

and the agreement has a 2-year opt out clause - if the U.S. doesn't similarly open up its domestic routes to European carriers then the agreement will be cancelled - according to an article in today's Times (of London)

Am I the only person who thinks there's a lot less to this than meets the eye?

Yes, it's a defeat for American voters - and for American democracy. American taxpayers already pay the wages of people specifically charged with keeping Chinese clothes out of America (and therefore with increasing the cost of clothing for the poorest Americans). Now they're paying alleged public servants to fight to ensure competition's kept out of the US market - and that government employees are forced to take foreign flights with the costliest supplier.

In Britain, we'd laugh such inanity out of court. The idea we'd expect civil servants to LIMIT their choice of supplier is the kind of nonsense even Old Labour regarded as stuff you'd find only in the Evil Empire.

Incidentally: first with textiles, now with planes. When, precisely, did the Republican party abandon its belief in free markets? Is there some hidden Neocon agenda we don't know about? Do Cheney et al see Adam Smith (whose image on the £20 note was launched this week just as Britain surrendered to this socialist ripoff) as just another Eurowimp?

So who gains? Well, I don't: the agreement can't create more slots at Heathrow, so useful slots at my local airport (to Leeds, say) will now be used by people flying to Cincinnati. May make the Kentucky Derby easier to get to - but it isn't a patch on thr real one anyway. And, if the only connections left at Heathrow are going to be to the US, are there really that many Bostonians who want to fly to New York via London?

BA (and Virgin) probably gain: British companies have a diabolical record competing in US domestic retail markets, so the agreement forces them to steer clear of throwing shareholders' money into short-lived battles for share in obscure bits of the US. British shareholders (ie my pension) gain. Rigged markets always make more money.

Will prices come down? London-NYC is already close to the cheapest (cents per mile) public transport route in the world (far cheaper than the tube - or even the Metro), and the proportion of what we all pay that goes into airport or government taxes is so high a bit of extra competition isn't going to help. Last time I counted, nine airlines flew London-NYC daily. Is adding Air Oshkosh really going to change much?

Underwhelming. And depressing.

Any chance of an Open Skies agreement sometime?

Since the Queen is going to the KY Derby for the first time ever and she is a government servant/employee i suspect in flanner's UK she will be forced to shop around for the lowest fare?

Is it really the first time ever?

A decade or two ago, I was touring bits of my commercial empire round Lexington and Frankfort. I say "my": I mean of course the division I ran of a UK megacorp. Government-owned, oddly enough - and yes, we were required to take the lowest-cost supplier. In this case, Delta since you ask.

Anyway, the minions were puzzled about my accent.

Was I Australian? Err, no. But why do you ask?

Well, they explained. You don't sound a bit like the English customers we get coming in.

I always thought I sounded like any Englishman. So who are these strange compatriots of mine?

Your Lord Porchester, they said (the Queen's racing manager). A bunch of other people they named, big in racing circles, but probably a bit obscure for this site. Lexington and Frankfort don't have that diversified an economy of course.

Oh, and your queen comes in every year or two, they said. And you don't sound at all like her.

I've never been sure about this. Were they just brown-nosing the boss?

I work with American tourists all day every day and 1/3 will take my (I think) unremarkable, relatively well spoken Hampshire, with a little more than a touch of Thames, as Australian.

Apparently most septics can't tell the difference between Scottish and Irish either.

<i>Is it really the first time ever?</i>

Yes, really. Mrs. Q has been to KY four times previously, but never to Churchill Downs.

For some people, the skies are already quite open.

I think the big winner in all this is BMI. Why use a Heathrow slot for Palma when you can use it for Vegas?

If the US is so anti-free market, why did we EVER let your mega-corp in?

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
The idea we'd expect civil servants to LIMIT their choice of supplier is the kind of nonsense even Old Labour regarded as stuff you'd find only in the Evil Empire.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;


flanner...we must be reading different newspapers. the (free market loving) UK is vehemently against this. of late they seem to be putting a positive spin on it since it clear there is no choice.

waring, maybe we can commiserate with each other. In the east and south (but not the west) of the US my Australian accent was variously taken as English, South African, Yankee and, weirdest of all, a &quot;Georgia twang&quot; (this from an old lady from NJ). I put it down to the possibility that Americans expect Australians to sound like Crocodile Dundee or that bloke who lost a fight with a stingray last year.

Flanner yuck: Stow the sarcasm. The restriction on foreign flights and ownership in the US predates Bush. Yes, we did have a president before him...name was Clinton (8 years). Predates him. Predates Bush 1. Predates Reagan. Predates Carter. Predates Ford.
The reason for it is, where would our government get troop transports to defend Europe (which seems not able to defend itself) if Serbs owned all the airlines?

tomboy, exactly who or what is Europe unable to defend itself against? Have I missed a Chinese invasion or something?

As for free trade agreements, of course they'll be championed by the US if a net benefit to the US is apparent - more specifically, benefit to US corporations. If American workers' jobs are exported to Latin America or Asia, they're collateral damage.

Here's a quote for Flanner from today's story in The Washington Post:

&quot;Britain, <b>fearing that british Airways could lose its market domiance at Heathrow</b>,[emphasis mine]had threatened to veto the new agreement unless the United States allowed greater European <b>ownership of US airlines</b>.

In the end, Britain insisted that the agreement, which was scheduled to start in october, be delayed until March 2008, and that work continue on relaxing U.S. ownership regulations and opening the domestic U.S. market to foeign carriers.

One of the results of this policy is that is going to get harder to fly to regional cities in the UK from Heathrow as airlines convert their Heathrow slots to serving the Transatlantic trade.

I've got to admit though that it's ironic (and hilarious) that the wimpy Euros have the balls to DO something about free trade while the Americans &amp; their poodles do their best to set up trade barriers

Note that the new open-air policy will not be implemented until March 2008--exactly the same timing as BA moves to Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Still don't expect LHR-JFK fare to come down.

Heathrow will still be capacity-constrained, as everyone suspects BAA will demolish Terminal 2 (probably the shabbiest of all) and the third run-way is still at least a decade away, if it ever materialises. So no change in transatlantic supply/demand for Heathrow.

BA will likely move transatlantic flights out of LGW to LHR, thus freeing up some slots. Theoretically, an EU airline can do a intra-EU dip and pick up additional passengers (eg BA doing LHR-CDG-JFK, or LH doing FRA-AMS-ORD) though it doesn't make sense to lose non-stop flights from the originating countries.

Oh, and any EU member state can automatically terminate the open sky agreement if US does not progress the next phase of de-regulation, notably allowing up to 49% (still no controlling stake) ownership of a US carrier.

Adam Smith's free trade policies - if really instituted by fortress Europe, of which UK last i noticed was a part of, would lose much of its industrial base and nearly all its agricultural production to cheaper imports

bananas at twice the price from French colonies in American would be replaced by Chiquitas at half the price.

Free trade sounds good but impossible to really implement. British Air's special interests noted above perfectly illustrates UK's free trade myth - Adam Smith to boot on the 20 pound note or not.