EU und USA einigen sich auf freien Wettbewerb im Luftverkehr

[jvthaler]

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,473298,00.html

 

Na endlich :-)

 

Beste Gruesse,

 

Johannes

[migflug]

es ist nicht alles Gold was glänzt. Die USA machen damit klar den besseren Deal als die Europäer, für die dieses Abkommen aber immernoch besser als gar keins ist.

 

Details z.B. im Economist von vor 2 Wochen...

 

Gruss

Flavio

[Juschi]

Ja das hilft dem Leser jetzt nicht groß weiter. Der Economist von vor zwei Wochen. Vielleicht steht noch was in der FAZ vor 3 Jahren dazu?

Ein, zwei erklärende Sätze zu deiner Aussage wären schon hilfreich.

[migflug]

ok, hier der gesamte Text aus dem Economist vom 8.3.2007:

 

A lousy deal for passengers in America; but time for Europe to accept second-best

 

YOU have probably been there. Your expensive long-haul flight is held up seemingly for ever. Suddenly, after hours of waiting, an alternative is on offer: you can get home, but only if you accept a different route that demands a transfer. Do you hold out for the ideal flight, or settle for second-best? That is the dilemma facing Europe's transport ministers who on March 22nd must vote on a much-delayed deal to liberalise transatlantic aviation.

 

Second-best would be a polite way to describe the deal provisionally struck last week between America and the European Union ()see page 76. True, it would break open the transatlantic routes stitched up by national carriers, allowing any American or EU airline to fly to any intercontinental destination. But "open skies" it ain't. In particular, the rights of European airlines to own American ones will not change, nor will their rights to fly between American cities.

 

Martin Broughton, the chairman of British Airways (BA), dismissed the deal as a "con trick". He wants European airlines to be allowed to buy and control American ones, instead of being restricted to 25% of voting shares. And he wants them to be able to pick up passengers in, say, New York on the way to the Midwest or beyond. (American carriers can already fly people around Europe, though they seldom do so.) Mr Broughton argues that to sign this deal would be to surrender the possibility of such gains for good. America is bent on protecting its weak airlines and their workers. The EU is about to give away its greatest prize without getting enough back.

 

In one important way, Mr Broughton is right: the best deal would open up American air travel and this falls short of that. In particular, flying inside America will remain more expensive than it should be: every time you board a domestic flight in the United States, curse the lousy carrier who is overcharging you and the lousier politicians who permit this rip-off. But that does not mean the deal is worse than no deal at all—especially once you consider transatlantic passengers.

 

From their perspective, the opposition of BA, Virgin Atlantic and American Airlines—which, with United Airlines, account for the biggest share of transatlantic flights—is not entirely altruistic. Even limited open skies would break the stranglehold of BA and Virgin Atlantic at London Heathrow and expose America's feather-bedded flock of airlines to more competition, at least on their transatlantic routes.

 

Of course, if there were a perfect deal waiting to be had, it might be tactically worth saying no to this one. In fact, there is no reason to think future negotiations will end up with a settlement that is very different from this one. Unlike past talks, Europe was this time negotiating from a position of relative strength. America used to divide and rule, picking off one-sided deals with countries eager to prop up their flag carriers. A few years ago the European Commission wrested the right to handle international aviation deals from EU governments. This, for better or worse, was the result.

 

And even a second-rate deal could be good for many European carriers, because it would help the European industry to restructure. Although America's internal market would remain closed, any European airline would be able to fly from anywhere in Europe to anywhere in America, as often and as cheaply as it likes. No longer would merging carriers, such as Air France and KLM, have to contort themselves in complex legal structures to preserve national flying rights. Indeed, if all rights are EU-based, the sky is the limit. It might even open the way for an easyJet, a Ryanair or whoever to attempt low-cost travel between Europe and the United States.

 

But in the end Europe's 27 transport ministers should be thinking about passengers, not airlines. They are the ones who suffer under today's absurdly restrictive treaties. Jacques Barrot, the EU transport commissioner, claims liberalised transatlantic flights could bring benefits worth euro12 billion ($15.8 billion) thanks to more competition and investment. An exaggeration perhaps, but even a fraction of that gain is a prize not to be cast away in the vain hope of a better deal at some uncertain future date. France is hardly a source of reference on free trade, but Voltaire summed up what is needed now in European aviation: do not let the best be the enemy of the good.

 

Text ist aus LexisNexis, Heraushebungen oben sind von mir.

 

Gruss

Flavio

[Briseid]

Die EU und die USA haben das über Jahre umstrittene Luftverkehrsabkommen heute in Washington unterzeichnet. Als amtierender Ratspräsident setzten Bundesverkehrsminister Wolfgang Tiefensee und die amerikanische Verkehrsministerin Mary Peters ihre Unterschriften unter das Vertragswerk, das den Luftverkehr zwischen Amerika und dem Alten Kontinent erleichtern soll. - Es wundert mich sehr, was in den nächsten Monaten mit Strecken etc. passieren wird!!!! :)