First there was deregulation....

[mirrodie]

I do not know what the rule is saying that I can't take QF from LAX to JFK. You know, that rule about international carriers hauling us Americans between our own cities?

Wouldn't it be GREAT if the US passed new regulation allowing non-US carriers to carry domestic service? Can you imagine having the option of AA vs UA vs B6 vs QF from JFK-LAX? Of course, I thnk most of us would JUMP at the QF flight. Their coach service is EONs better than the US. Virtually any international carriers service is better than domestic US coach.

Can you just imagine what might happen if Qatar, Royal Jordanian, JAL, Thai, Etihad and BA were suddenly allowed to do JFK-MIA, JFK-DFW, you name the route?

I'm just salivating at the though. Some GREAT competition for the US carriers to finally wake up to and who knows which US carriers would fall? And....AND......deserve to fall.

I would love to see such a change. Perhaps it would force a turn in the right direction. Along with the 787, bring back the joy of flying. Who knows.


Or maybe its happening already....in the form of Virgin America.


Thoughts?

[njgtr82]

I thought the gov't was already working on open skies with some of the european govt's and this is why other US carriers will be allowed to fly into heathrow and thay carriers such as BA and VS could then fly in the US domestically. But I really don't think they would stand a chance. Most US carriers are fighting prices with each other already and I think the general US public would still choose a US carrier(unless they cam in and blew the prices away)

[adam613]

The practice of carriers providing domestic service within a foreign country is called cabotage.

I believe it's illegal for any European carrier to fly to the US from ANY country other than its own. So, for example, BA can't fly from CDG to JFK. A few years back, there was a rather amusing incident where some EU lawmaker decided this arrangement was illegal and that European carriers should be allowed to fly to the US from anywhere, and nobody pointed out to him that it's a US law, not an EU law. This doesn't apply to any airline though; I think Air New Zealand operates a flight from LAX to LHR.

I doubt the US will do anything to allow foreign carriers to operate here. Our airlines don't want the competition, and they have all of congress in their pocket.

[nwafan20]

No, I do not think it would be awesome, it would derail the ENTIRE US aviation market.

Do overseas airlines have the overhead of high union pay and the such? It is much cheaper to run a company out of India, say, than the US. So, say airline X, a huge low-cost carrier startup in India starts running flights in the US. They pay their flight attendants (Indian citizens) $4.50 an hour, and skimp out on maintenance and other overhead, but offer a ticket for $20 bucks each way, is that fair to the US airlines who by law have to provide higher pay? I don't think so at all.

If this were to happen, you can say bye-bye to NW, US, UA, AA, every single legacy carrier, and all LCC's would be severely hit as well.

[hiss srq]

No, I do not think it would be awesome, it would derail the ENTIRE US aviation market.

Do overseas airlines have the overhead of high union pay and the such? It is much cheaper to run a company out of India, say, than the US. So, say airline X, a huge low-cost carrier startup in India starts running flights in the US. They pay their flight attendants (Indian citizens) $4.50 an hour, and skimp out on maintenance and other overhead, but offer a ticket for $20 bucks each way, is that fair to the US airlines who by law have to provide higher pay? I don't think so at all.

If this were to happen, you can say bye-bye to NW, US, UA, AA, every single legacy carrier, and all LCC's would be severely hit as well.
I am for and against. I think airlines like VA and the amazeing prodect they are promiseing are going to force airlines to giddy up and go. The money execs. make in this nation as far as airlines go is nuts. Put some of that money into a decent product and you will eventually get the return you want. I would love to see SIA or BA or QF or LH jump in over here to wake up airlines like AA and even my own precious carrier. It is needed. BA even which is pretty run of the mill by EU standards has a service product that is I would say 60% better than any legacy carriers on a transcon. That says something I think. Alitalia is the oddball on that side of the pond from my experince but I say go for it.

[Matt Molnar]

I believe it's illegal for any European carrier to fly to the US from ANY country other than its own. So, for example, BA can't fly from CDG to JFK.
It is currently illegal, but a new Open Skies agreement signed this year will allow exactly that when it takes effect in 2008...any EU-based carrier will be able to fly to any US airport from any EU airport.

[mirrodie]

No, I do not think it would be awesome, it would derail the ENTIRE US aviation market.

Do overseas airlines have the overhead of high union pay and the such? It is much cheaper to run a company out of India, say, than the US. So, say airline X, a huge low-cost carrier startup in India starts running flights in the US. They pay their flight attendants (Indian citizens) $4.50 an hour, and skimp out on maintenance and other overhead, but offer a ticket for $20 bucks each way, is that fair to the US airlines who by law have to provide higher pay? I don't think so at all.

If this were to happen, you can say bye-bye to NW, US, UA, AA, every single legacy carrier, and all LCC's would be severely hit as well.

Bye-bye to ****ty services, terrible flight attendants, strikes, etc, etc....hmm, a tough call. :roll: Your assumption that they skimp out on maintenence is invalid. I can't say I've seen Etihad, Air India, Thai, Jal, Qatar or Royal Jordanian birds just falling out of the sky. Your low cost carrier description does not fit by comparison.

The US aviation market needs a wake up call. We are in a global economy. There is airline competition in the US but the competitors are all low grade compared to the rest of the world. Considering we are amongst the worlds most advanced nations, looking at our airline service, you'd have to think twice about that.

[hiss srq]

No, I do not think it would be awesome, it would derail the ENTIRE US aviation market.

Do overseas airlines have the overhead of high union pay and the such? It is much cheaper to run a company out of India, say, than the US. So, say airline X, a huge low-cost carrier startup in India starts running flights in the US. They pay their flight attendants (Indian citizens) $4.50 an hour, and skimp out on maintenance and other overhead, but offer a ticket for $20 bucks each way, is that fair to the US airlines who by law have to provide higher pay? I don't think so at all.

If this were to happen, you can say bye-bye to NW, US, UA, AA, every single legacy carrier, and all LCC's would be severely hit as well.
Just to add to what Mario said, a few of those carriers habve won awards for the quality of their MX programs for spearheadding certain programs and being proactive in many areas of mx. The only carrier MX wise that erven comes close to it here in the states is AA and posssibly CO as far as standards. As far as LCC's go though Frontier has a excellent program for the airbus fleet as well.

[PhilDernerJr]

Having seen a lot of what I have in the industry, I don't think there is skimping on MX like people say.

[T-Bird76]

You know what's funny we sit here and say how good these other carriers are but we're comparing apples to oranges. All the service levels you were thinking of Mario are for intl service not domestic. Talk to most people in Europe and they'll tell you BA, IB, AZ, and LH's domestic service suck. As for JAL....have you seen how they pack those 747s in Japan? I don't think you want to see that level of service domestically in the U.S. What difference do you see Qatar doing on a JFK-MIA route 10 plus times a day from JFK? Their service levels would be equal to American as costs would get in the way of offering intl level service on a two hour flight. However for the flights like Qantas's JFK-LAX-SYD route I think they should be allowed to sell tickets on the route. The route is once a day, its not going to greatly impact the countless other airlines flying JFK-LAX. However I just don't see BA, JAL, China or whoever wanting to open domestic routes in the U.S ever.

[Matt Molnar]

However for the flights like Qantas's JFK-LAX-SYD route I think they should be allowed to sell tickets on the route. The route is once a day, its not going to greatly impact the countless other airlines flying JFK-LAX.
Agreed, but would they want to? It would take seats away from JFK passengers wishing to fly to SYD, which I presume is quite a bit more profitable than a simple JFK-LAX fare.

[T-Bird76]

However for the flights like Qantas's JFK-LAX-SYD route I think they should be allowed to sell tickets on the route. The route is once a day, its not going to greatly impact the countless other airlines flying JFK-LAX.
Agreed, but would they want to? It would take seats away from JFK passengers wishing to fly to SYD, which I presume is quite a bit more profitable than a simple JFK-LAX fare.

The average load factor is about 73% for most flights so I think they'd be able to fill some of that space. I can't imagine to many people even booking JFK-LAX on QA to begin with.