Emirates Granted "Fifth Freedom Rights" For Milan-New York Flights

The NYC to Milan, Italy Air Route is covered by four jets (shown below with their codeshares). The fourth one is of interest, since it is flown by Emirates airline, even though it has a JetBlue codeshare.
..
1) Leave Wed, Oct 8 5:41 PM New York JFK 7:45 AM Milan MXP non-stop 8hr 4min
Delta Air Lines 418
Alitalia 7603
2) Leave Wed, Oct 8 6:25 PM New York JFK 8:25 AM Milan MXP non-stop 8hr 0min
American Airlines 198
US Airways 198
British Airways 1582
Iberia 4252
Finnair 5798
3) Leave Wed, Oct 8 8:30 PM New York JFK 10:40 AM Milan MXP non-stop 8hr 10min
Delta Air Lines 1046
Alitalia 605
4) Leave Wed, Oct 8 10:20 PM New York JFK 12:15 PM Milan MXP non-stop 7hr 55min
jetBlue 5010
Emirates 206

The decision of the courts to allow this flight is discussed in Emirates Granted "Fifth Freedom Rights" For Milan-New York Flights: A New Target On EU - U.S. Routes 21 May 2013.

Naturally, law suits are multiplying as a state owned airline in the Middle East begins competing in the Trans-Atlantic routes whose profits are supporting most of the European and USA airlines.

The flight does carry through to Dubai, but sales from NYC only to Milan are very high.

Singapore Airlines secured it's position as the airline with the world's longest commercial nonstop in 2004 when the A340-400 was introduced. Singapore introduced nonstops between Singapore and LAX and EWR. They now fly a maximum of 7000 miles, and eagerly are selling intermediate fares. The nonstops now stop in Frankfurt to NYC, and in Tokyo to LAX. They now fly from Singapore to Houston via Moscow. Singapore to San Francisco via Seoul and Hong Kong.

Part of the legal argument is that many trans-Atlantic routes are eliminating First Class in favor of an expanded business class. Emirates and Singapore Airlines says that they offer a new upgraded service. Of course they sell their version of Economy seats as well.

Is their any opinions as the morality of opening up competition to this level? Should national airlines be protected?

National Airlines?

One openly acknowledged to be owned and operated by a country's government?

Independent Airline? One with capital and capital guarantees, loans and forebearances, training centers, pilot applicant streams, all nominally separate but actually government funded.

Where are lines to be drawn?

Quote: Pacomartin

Is their any opinions as the morality of opening up competition to this level? Should national airlines be protected?

I'm for open skies. Let any airline fly from anywhere to anywhere else, dependent only in obtaining slots where they want to fly and generally complying with local rules.

Back when both Aeromexico and Mexicana were owned by the government and run as a monopoly, domestic flights were more expensive than international flights, because there was no competition. that's why air traffic exploded when first Mexicana, then Aeromexico went private; and also when rules for new airlines relaxed.

Quote: Fleastiff

National Airlines?

Well that is getting more and more difficult with British Airways and Iberia one company and KLM and Air France one company. Delta is investing in Aeromexico which goes beyond code sharing.

There are very few airlines in Europe that are significantly owned by their governments. They tend to be in Eastern Europe. Airlines in most of Latin America are independent entities.

Australia is probably the most air intensive country in the world, and so many airlines want to fly their that Qantas is going bankrupt.

But Emirates is not an Italian airline company, nor is it part of the EU. Singapore Airlines is not a Russian company.

Looking at the traffic to Mexico from the USA, (normalized to Aeromexico=100%) the Mexican airlines are only getting a small fraction of the passengers. Now if European airlines can fly to the USA, and pick up more passengers, and fly them to Mexico City, Cancun and Monterrey as well as from their own countries they will overwhelm the smaller local airlines.

• 204% American Airlines Inc. & US Airways Inc.
• 172% United Air Lines Inc.
• 122% Delta Air Lines Inc.
• 100% Aeromexico <===========
• 67% Alaska Airlines Inc.
• 52% Concesionaria Vuela Compania De Aviacion SA de CV (Volaris) <===========
• 46% AirTran Airways Corporation
• 45% ExpressJet Airlines Inc.
• 38% Frontier Airlines Inc.
• 22% Sun Country Airlines d/b/a MN Airlines
• 18% JetBlue Airways
• 17% Aerolitoral
• 14% ABC Aerolineas SA de CV dba Interjet <===========
• 14% Spirit Air Lines
• 12% Envoy Air
• 8% SkyWest Airlines Inc.
• 6% Virgin America
• 3% Mesa Airlines Inc.
• 2% Horizon Air
• 2% Aeroenlaces Nacionales, S.A. de C.V. d/b/a VivaAerobus <===========
  
  
  Currently Aeroméxico can only get 20% of the traffic share to Spain
  Share of passenger traffic between Mexico and Spain of each scheduled service air carrier Jul 2014
  40% Iberia
  22% Pullmantur
  20% Aeroméxico
  16% Air Europa
  2% Evelop Airlines
  
  Now Singapore Air is flying to Barcelona and then on to Sao Paolo in Brazil. Presumably, they will consider doing that to Mexico as well.

Quote: Pacomartin

Looking at the traffic to Mexico from the USA, (normalized to Aeromexico=100%) the Mexican airlines are only getting a small fraction of the passengers.

There was the red-tape bump which prevented Mexican airlines from setting up new flights to the US about the time things were still uncertain about Mexicana (it has ceased operations, but looked as though someone would take it over soon). That delayed such things and allowed US-flagged airlines to step up routes, perhaps.

However:

Quote:

Now if European airlines can fly to the USA, and pick up more passengers, and fly them to Mexico City, Cancun and Monterrey as well as from their own countries they will overwhelm the smaller local airlines.

Let them. I'd welcome the competition and options. It might shake up the local airlines into providing better services, or better prices. Either way I win.

Quote: Nareed

Let them. I'd welcome the competition and options. It might shake up the local airlines into providing better services, or better prices. Either way I win.

Suppose the local and feeder companies don't choose to compete on price but choose to slice safety inspection costs, put their pilots up in No Sleep Noisy Hotels, hire pilots who just meet language standards, etc.

You want to fly a recognized "National Airline" ????

How about Air France, totally impossible for a pilot to get fired from Air France. Do you like that policy? Would the AF447 have been saved if passengers knew about that? Every pilot in the world hears a stall warning and he lowers the nose and increases power instantly but AF's up from the ranks pilot raises the nose and keeps it raised all the way down for a bellywop onto the Atlantic Ocean at 11,000 fpm.

Quote: Nareed

There was the red-tape bump which prevented Mexican airlines from setting up new flights to the US about the time things were still uncertain about Mexicana (it has ceased operations, but looked as though someone would take it over soon). That delayed such things and allowed US-flagged airlines to step up routes, perhaps.

Probably. Mexicana represented a significant portion of the Mexican fleet. With a half a dozen USA airlines jumping in, they could sweep up the routes relatively easily.

Quote: Nareed

Id welcome the competition and options. It might shake up the local airlines into providing better services, or better prices. Either way I win.

With Emirates stopping in Milan on the way to NYC, or Singapore Airlines stopping in Moscow on the way to Houston, they are taking the luxury fliers who spend a fortune on a few hour of coddling. This is not likely to help the economy flier, but it financially hurts the local airline. The end result may be higher prices for coach seats.

Right now Emirates flies from Dubai International Airport (DXB) to Antônio Carlos Jobim International Airport (Galeão) (GIG) in Brazil in 14hr 20min with a Boeing 777-200LR and continues in 3hr 28min to Ministro Pistarini International Airport (EZE) in Argentina.

I think that they would like to fly to Mexico City, but it would be the longest commercial flight in the world, and both airports are hot and dry (plus altitude at Mexico city). I am not sure if the present airframes can do such a flight reliably. Emirates is working with Boeing for the specifications on the 777X which won't be available for a few years so that it can do better with hot airports.

Of course, one of the most useful things for such conditions is a long runway. AICM has a very long runway, but is planning 4.5 km runways for the future airport. Toluca has a runway of 4.31 km at an altitude of 2.58 km which is a little higher than AICM altitude of 2.238 km (3.9 km runway).

Denver's airport is altitude of 1.655 km , and it is warm only in summer. But they have a runway of length 16,000 feet (4.877 km) so that there is no question that fully loaded jumbo jets can always take off. But, being a United hub, they only have to deal with B747 and not the A380.

Quote: Pacomartin

With Emirates stopping in Milan on the way to NYC, or Singapore Airlines stopping in Moscow on the way to Houston, they are taking the luxury fliers who spend a fortune on a few hour of coddling. This is not likely to help the economy flier, but it financially hurts the local airline. The end result may be higher prices for coach seats.

Let's say Singapore flies from Singapore to Moscow to Houston to Mex City. You'll find few passengers willing to take that flight back to Singapore, but many willing to take it to Houston, especially if the airline serves breakfast, even cold, on the flight, assuming a cost similar to Aeromexico's. I'd take it if only because the bigger plane feels less cramped than an Embraer-90 or a B-737.

Aeromexico would be pressed to lower prices or offer something extra.

Quote:

Of course, one of the most useful things for such conditions is a long runway. AICM has a very long runway, but is planning 4.5 km runways for the future airport. Toluca has a runway of 4.31 km at an altitude of 2.58 km which is a little higher than AICM altitude of 2.238 km (3.9 km runway).

I know loaded passenger 747s, A-340s, A-330s, B-777s, B-767s and, in the old days, DC-10s, take off regularly from Mex City. The FedEx DC-10 still does, and I've seen full-size cargo versions of the 747 operating there, too. That's not an issue. But a long runway merely makes it possible, it doesn't make it economical. As long as air-breathing engines are used, the costs of doing business increases somewhat directly in relation to take off altitude.

Quote: Nareed

Let's say Singapore flies from Singapore to Moscow to Houston to Mex City. You'll find few passengers willing to take that flight back to Singapore, but many willing to take it to Houston, especially if the airline serves breakfast, even cold, on the flight, assuming a cost similar to Aeromexico's. I'd take it if only because the bigger plane feels less cramped than an Embraer-90 or a B-737.

I don't think they are likely to want to compete on such a short run

Quote: Nareed

But a long runway merely makes it possible, it doesn't make it economical. As long as air-breathing engines are used, the costs of doing business increases somewhat directly in relation to take off altitude.

That's a good point. The longest commercial flight right now (B747) is Sydney to Dallas on Qantas which is 13,804 km. The return trip against the winds stops in Brisbane (which is 13,363 km ). They are flying so close to the limit that 402 km makes the difference. Next week they are going to switch from a B747 to an A380 and remove the Brisbane stop.

As far as I know the longest commercial flight from AICM has been to Rome @10,200 km . On return Aeromexico can fly 11,200 km from Tokyo, and with the new B787 they can make that distance flying west as well.

Emirates will probably find it either impossible or uneconomical to go nonstop from Dubai to Mexico City. More than likely they will stop at Barcelona and take fares from Barcelona to Mexico City. I don't think anyone is flying nonstop from Barcelona to Mexico City (Aeromexico discontinued that destination).

8,900 km Heathrow - MEX
9,060 km Barajas Arpt -MEX
9,190 km Charles De Gaulle Intl Arpt-MEX
-----------
5,170 km Dubai-Barcelona
9,480 km Barcelona-MEX
14,300 km Dubai - MEX
-----------

9,210 km AMS-MEX (Amsterdam)
10,200 km FCO-MEX (Rome)

11,200 km Narita Intl,JP - MEX
12,100 km Incheon Intl, Korea -MEX
12,900 km Pudong International Airport China,-MEX

Quote: Pacomartin

I don't think they are likely to want to compete on such a short run

Who knows? Houston gets a traffic from several parts of Mexico.

BTW, years ago, perhaps in the late 70s, I vividly recall taking an Air France 747 MEX-IAH, which was then flying on to Paris. Another time I took a Pan Am 747 on the same route, which later would go on to Europe, then Asia, then back.

What are the odds for an airline to develop mid-air refueling? I don't see it economical at all, not for passenger jets. The military more or less does it because they have to. Still, on some extremely long routes, it might be worth it if the tanker can refuel more than one airplane.