"Plans by British Airways to launch a new airline between Europe and New York have been thrown into disarray after American aviation authorities threatened to veto any increase of air traffic into the chronically congested John F. Kennedy airport.
The Times has learnt that the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is about to start talks with foreign airlines, including BA, to reduce congestion at JFK, the main New York airport. It is thought that the feasibility of launching the new airline will be a key issue under discussion at the BA board meeting tomorrow, when company executives gather to discuss the group’s interim results published on Friday."
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 7224 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8805 times:
This might pose problems for the whole Open Skies process; the UK govt could argue, "well, if you're not going to allow more flights to JFK, we won't allow new flights from LHR". Of course, BA could fly to EWR instead ...
"Surely you can't be serious?" "I am serious. And don't call me Shirley".
Byrdluvs747 From United States, joined Jul 2004, 1104 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8801 times:
Quoting Flyingcat (Reply 1): If this turns out to be true Air France has beaten BA in this round.
Wouldn't allowing the AF flights and not allowing the BA flights be inappropriate? I would think that the FAA would have to allow both and then impose any necessary restrictions.
Also wouldnt it be easier for BA/AA to "attack" AF in CDG than it would be for AF to do the same at LHR?
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
Nycfly75 From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 685 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8777 times:
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 2): This might pose problems for the whole Open Skies process; the UK govt could argue, "well, if you're not going to allow more flights to JFK, we won't allow new flights from LHR". Of course, BA could fly to EWR instead ...
Open Skies is not adding to the number of flights/slots into LHR, it is just allowing more airlines to use LHR. Those new airlines still have to obtain existing slots into LHR. JFK is having major capacity issues so Im sure BA is not the only airline thats going to feel the heat. Any Int'l carrier into JFK with more than 2-3 daily flights (BA,AF, LH...) is going to be feeling pressure to make some schedule adjustments, especially if all those flights are within the rush hour period. EWR is having similar capacity issues which are made worse by the lack of runways and CO's dominance. I think the 16:00-19:59 period should be slotted to 90 departures/hour with the 18:00-19:59 period closed to all departures except International and TRANSCON.
ANother From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 8608 times:
Quoting Flyingcat (Reply 1): If this turns out to be true Air France has beaten BA in this round.
IIRC 'slots' at JFK for S08 have yet to be assigned to any carrier. There are no assurances that AF (or any other airline) will receive any additional permissions, let alone the ones they operated last year. USG, and in particular, the DOJ does not like the idea of historical preference (aka Grandfather rights).
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 15166 posts, RR: 45 Reply 7, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8569 times:
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 2): This might pose problems for the whole Open Skies process; the UK govt could argue, "well, if you're not going to allow more flights to JFK, we won't allow new flights from LHR". Of course, BA could fly to EWR instead ...
The UK gov't is not allowing any more flights into LHR. It's only removing an unfair rule that restricts CO, DL, NW, US and any other non AA/UA USA airline from flying there, but allows every other airline in the world, and even allows for some 5th freedom airlines to fly LHR-USA.
JFK is talking about limiting operations during peak hours, a move that would effect EVERYONE, and prevent EVERYONE from expanding. BA has plans to add flights, during rush hour, to JFK.
Now BA might say it's not their fault that DL and AA and B6 have filled up the schedule, but there is nothing stopping BA from adding UK flights today, or from adding them over the last five years, or 10, to establish "slots" there.
Further, the limitations on JFK won't mean BA can't operate EU-USA flights to all the other airports and destinations in the USA. It's not the FAA's problem that BA decided to start this airline with 757s, which can't make it past New York. BA could use 767s and fly as much as they want to ORD and IAD and LAX and SFO and MIA from all over Europe should they choose.
Quoting Nycfly75 (Reply 5): JFK is having major capacity issues so Im sure BA is not the only airline thats going to feel the heat.
Everyone will. DL and AA and B6 are going to have to make tough decisions as well.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 5899 posts, RR: 71 Reply 8, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8544 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7): The UK gov't is not allowing any more flights into LHR.
When pointing that out, don't forget to mention that the treaty restricting LHR access wasn't a unilateral one...
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7): Now BA might say it's not their fault that DL and AA and B6 have filled up the schedule
... and they'd be right. If US carriers fill up an airport with more departures than the airport can handle alltogether, then it's hardly BA's fault, nor any other international carrier's fault. Strangely enough, the US (not sure who exactly it was, it was a couple of months ago when the open skies treaty was announced) think that they're entitled to receive slots at LHR: if they're entitled to slots at LHR, then BA is most certainly entitled to slots at JFK (or another slot-restricted airport that they'd like to fly to).
What's good for the goose...
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7): Further, the limitations on JFK won't mean BA can't operate EU-USA flights to all the other airports and destinations in the USA.
That's irrelevant. The limitations on LHR didn't mean that CO, NW, DL etc. couldn't operate any other USA-EU flights, still that was deemed an unfair disadvantage.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7): It's not the FAA's problem that BA decided to start this airline with 757s, which can't make it past New York.
It most certainly is their problem - as they're the ones that allowed the situation at JFK to deteriorate to the point where it is now. They're the ones, together with US carriers, that created the mess - they should clean it up again.
Same goes for BA, BAA and whoever else is involved at LHR.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 15166 posts, RR: 45 Reply 9, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8362 times:
Quoting Leskova (Reply 8): When pointing that out, don't forget to mention that the treaty restricting LHR access wasn't a unilateral one...
It was as good as unilateral. The UK had the upper hand, and there wasn't much the USA could do. It was a bilateral treaty that was meant to protect BA as it was emerging from government ownership and facing competition from around the world. And it was also meant to try to keep PA and TW afloat, which didn't work out so well. But what made sense (or didn't) 20 and 30 years ago doesn't make sense in 2008. BA isn't in danger anymore.
The problem with any such legislation is that even as the entity that needed help no longer needs help, they will fight tooth and nail to keep the help coming. It's a universal problem around the globe.
To quote Grandpa Simpson when he was asked where he got the money he gave bart as a birthday gift:
"From the Government. I don't need it, lord knows I didn't earn it, but I'll fight 'em tooth and nail if they try to take it from me."
Quoting Leskova (Reply 8): That's irrelevant. The limitations on LHR didn't mean that CO, NW, DL etc. couldn't operate any other USA-EU flights, still that was deemed an unfair disadvantage.
BA is not restricted from flying to ANY us city or airport, including JFK. It's only going to be subjected to the same "slots" that any other carrier is at JFK. BA planned to expand at JFK next year. This move is NOT to prevent BA from doing so. Nothing prevented them from adding as many flights as they wanted to THIS year. Or last year. Or the year before. From LHR or to fly to JFK from anywhere else in England, for that matter.
But next year, new rules may be put in place for ALL carriers. No carrier will gain an unfair advantage. And the argument that a domestic carrier shouldn't have more slots holds no weight considering the number of slots BA holds at LHR, the number of flights LH has at FRA or AF has at CDG. And there is nothing stopping BA from flying CDG-JFK next year, either. Or FRA. But when all airlines need to limit their number of flights, BA will have to decide which routes are most important and what equipment works best, just like AA, DL, AF, etc. will have to do. All the airlines are going to be bitching about this, and I think DL especially is going to be in for a rude awakening.
BA can time some of their London flights differently. So could AA, DL, VS. Part of the reason "rush hour" exists is because airlines have traditionally defined departure and arrival times for TATL during that period and customers "expect" those times now, but there is wiggle room to shift some of these flights around. If all the seats are full at 7:01pm, and no other options exist because no other carrier has seats either, will customers just decide that they don't have business in London after all? No, they'll fly on the 8:30pm and adjust their schedule accordingly.
Currently BA flies 4 744s between JFK and LHR in a 1.5 hour span during "rush hour" but if everyone was limited before 8pm, and BA had to trim it to 2 flights (6:30pm and 7:15pm) and then 3 flights between 8pm and 9pm instead, and other airlines had the same limitations, it wouldn't really impact them much, other than a longer turn time for a couple aircraft by about 1 hour. (Of course, there's the problem of LHR having time specific slots on the other end, but I don't think JFK's rules, if adopted, will be as draconian. And BA, which holds the most LHR slots by far, is in a much better position to adjust slots on the LHR end than AA, DL, etc.) And BA could also run their CDG and FRA flights after 8pm, or one before and one after if they decided to use their slots that way. Since the 757s are supposed to be "JFK based" anyway, I'm not sure why this is such a problem.
In contrast, LHR was closed to CO, DL, etc. They couldn't just fly 1 flight or whatever to LHR only if they landed at 11AM and left at 1PM on alternate Tuesdays. Even if LHR had free time because it was inconvenient, CO, DL, etc. couldn't use it. BA, VS, AA, and UA could fly as much as they wanted to the selected USA cities from LHR (as long as both countries approved the capacity). It was clearly an unfair advantage held by AA, UA, BA and VS over CO, DL, NW, BMI and US. Open Skies only removes that restriction, which includes allowing BA to fly LHR to any US city with as much capacity as they wish, as well as LGW to cities that were closed before entirely to London flights (like SLC, HNL, Portland, Nashville, etc.)
But I agree, CO's claim that they were somehow "owed" LHR slots was a lame assertion given the history of the treaty. If anything, the US government should have stepped in while UA was slowly selling off slots to foreign airlines, and asserted that UA, as "custodian" of LHR access, had a duty to maintain a set number of LHR slots in the national interest of the USA or lose their status as one of two anointed carriers under B2 to Continental, whom had been appointed a third carrier already (which allowed them to codeshare with VS). Since the US government failed to protect that access as UA sold off slots, it was never incumbent on the UK government to make up for our mistake. But hey, it couldn't hurt for CO to try to make that case? Never hurts to ask...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Commavia From United States, joined Apr 2005, 6093 posts, RR: 42 Reply 10, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8264 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7): Everyone will. DL and AA and B6 are going to have to make tough decisions as well.
Which is incredible, seeing as Delta and JetBlue are the ones chiefly responsible for the delays. Those two airlines alone account for probably 75% of the additional flying at JFK over the last year. Not that there is anything wrong with adding capacity, of course: if it was up to me, this whole thing would be a moot point and no airline - Delta, JetBlue, AA, BA, or anyone else - would have to make a choice between serving the public and serving the slavemaster that is the federal government and its bureaucracy. But, alas, that's where we are, unfortunately.
RedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 1499 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8245 times:
The basic reason that this problem exists in the first place is all the small airplanes flying around that everyone lauds as the fantastic "point-to-point fragmentation." The USA needs to halt this and go for bigger airplanes. The alternative is a planes full of passengers sitting five hours on the tarmac while waiting for clearance to take off.
Passengers should vote with their feet and refuse to fly 757s across the Atlantic. If they would do that, the congestion would be relieved very quickly.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9): Currently BA flies 4 744s between JFK and LHR in a 1.5 hour span during "rush hour" but if everyone was limited before 8pm, and BA had to trim it to 2 flights (6:30pm and 7:15pm) and then 3 flights between 8pm and 9pm instead
BA may soon be forced to take up some of those A380 options.
BrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 2066 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8214 times:
I think BA have a strong position here, solely due to the fact that they have their own terminal at JFK, hald of which is taken up by UA. Now if they were to kick out UA where would they go........
Brian.
Next flights: MAN-ORK(WW) ORKLBA(RE) LBA-LHR-ORK(BD/EI) DUB-BOS(EI) IADDUB
Theginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8208 times:
Surely the FAA should have seen this problem coming years ago and started to do something about it then?!?! I am sure that BA could use EWR if it couldn't get project Lauren into JFK.
Are there any other 757 Long range suitable airports in the New York area?
RIX From United States, joined Aug 2000, 1516 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7993 times:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 11): this problem exists in the first place is all the small airplanes flying around that everyone lauds as the fantastic "point-to-point fragmentation."
Would pre-deregulation "JFK is main USA international gateway, with tons of domestic connections" be better? For each 330/777 not even appearing in JFK we would have 747/380 plus 737/320/757 flying in and out JFK. Point-to-point allows air traffic to bypass hubs - JFK would be a sheer disaster if "fantastic point-to-point fragmentation" was not there.
Danny From Ireland, joined Apr 2002, 3117 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7947 times:
FAA should clamp down on their domestic RJ abuse which is the main cause of congestion not on international flights. BA and UK will clearly see that as violation of Open Skies and might retaliate.
Sponsor Message: 
From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 685 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2007, 282 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 7224 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1888 posts, 
From , joined today!, posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 5899 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 1499 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 656 posts,