So the airlines that have recently been awarded rights to operate flights between the UK and India should be happy that today a new bilateral was signed between the 2 countries permitting an increase from 40 flights per week to 84 and this should mean that VS and bmi will gain rights to take their servcies daily to Mumbai.
The two countries stopped short of full open skies agreements, but from what I can gather the airlines are ok with this in the meantime.
By: KabirT - 14th April 2005 at 10:37
Interesting that VS and BD will compete on Mumbai route from LHR. I wonder if their will be a big enough demand for a daily A34(3?) service and a A330!
definately will be…. BA goes full daily both from Delhi and Mumbai and lots of people are just left on waitlists. The demand is very much there.
By: KabirT - 14th April 2005 at 10:37
Interesting that VS and BD will compete on Mumbai route from LHR. I wonder if their will be a big enough demand for a daily A34(3?) service and a A330!
definately will be…. BA goes full daily both from Delhi and Mumbai and lots of people are just left on waitlists. The demand is very much there.
By: andrewm - 14th April 2005 at 09:54
Interesting that VS and BD will compete on Mumbai route from LHR. I wonder if their will be a big enough demand for a daily A34(3?) service and a A330!
By: andrewm - 14th April 2005 at 09:54
Interesting that VS and BD will compete on Mumbai route from LHR. I wonder if their will be a big enough demand for a daily A34(3?) service and a A330!
By: bkonner - 14th April 2005 at 00:44
Howdy,
Ok, I’m confused! I thought the EU was responsible for external agreements. For example, an EU court ruled two years ago (or so) that the individual open sky agreements between individual states and the US were illegal. So Brussels is now in (sort of) negotiations with the US. So how come the UK government is allowed to negotiate these rights with India? Could this end up in court?
Thanks!
Bkonner
By: bkonner - 14th April 2005 at 00:44
Howdy,
Ok, I’m confused! I thought the EU was responsible for external agreements. For example, an EU court ruled two years ago (or so) that the individual open sky agreements between individual states and the US were illegal. So Brussels is now in (sort of) negotiations with the US. So how come the UK government is allowed to negotiate these rights with India? Could this end up in court?
Thanks!
Bkonner
By: David Kerr - 13th April 2005 at 22:31
The details:
Indian carriers: (a) 56 flights from Delhi and Mumbai to LHR and (b) unlimited flights from India to UK on all other routes
UK carriers: (a) 56 flights per week from LHR to New Delhi and Mumbai – staggered thus: 42 in winter 2005, 49 in summer 2006 and 56 in winter 2006. (b) 14 flights per week connecting UK with Chennai and Bangalore (c) seven flights per week connecting the UK with other international airports.
By: David Kerr - 13th April 2005 at 22:31
The details:
Indian carriers: (a) 56 flights from Delhi and Mumbai to LHR and (b) unlimited flights from India to UK on all other routes
UK carriers: (a) 56 flights per week from LHR to New Delhi and Mumbai – staggered thus: 42 in winter 2005, 49 in summer 2006 and 56 in winter 2006. (b) 14 flights per week connecting UK with Chennai and Bangalore (c) seven flights per week connecting the UK with other international airports.
By: G-OJET - 13th April 2005 at 21:25
Well if an FI 757 was the best they could find to cover their flagship route I wonder what they will sub ORD, LAS, or ANU with. Euroatlantic Tristar anyone?
PMSL!!! My thoughts exactly!
They’ve obviously struggled so far. I didn’t think there were that many A330’s floating around for quick lease?
They really need to remember that their long haul reputation is built on good service on modern aircraft, not some ropey old lump of metal that they’ll shove on a route and hope for the best (not that I’m tarring the FI 757 with this brush!). Still, we’ve had this discussion many a time before and I doubt our thoughts will ever be taken into account at Toad Hall!
Should be interesting to see what happens if they do start more Indian routes though.
By: G-OJET - 13th April 2005 at 21:25
Well if an FI 757 was the best they could find to cover their flagship route I wonder what they will sub ORD, LAS, or ANU with. Euroatlantic Tristar anyone?
PMSL!!! My thoughts exactly!
They’ve obviously struggled so far. I didn’t think there were that many A330’s floating around for quick lease?
They really need to remember that their long haul reputation is built on good service on modern aircraft, not some ropey old lump of metal that they’ll shove on a route and hope for the best (not that I’m tarring the FI 757 with this brush!). Still, we’ve had this discussion many a time before and I doubt our thoughts will ever be taken into account at Toad Hall!
Should be interesting to see what happens if they do start more Indian routes though.
By: Mark L - 13th April 2005 at 21:21
It wont be a big deal,…BD will lease more aircraft if they need them. Good news especially for BD to launch a new Indian service!, if they opt to.
Well if an FI 757 was the best they could find to cover their flagship route I wonder what they will sub ORD, LAS, or ANU with. Euroatlantic Tristar anyone?
By: Mark L - 13th April 2005 at 21:21
It wont be a big deal,…BD will lease more aircraft if they need them. Good news especially for BD to launch a new Indian service!, if they opt to.
Well if an FI 757 was the best they could find to cover their flagship route I wonder what they will sub ORD, LAS, or ANU with. Euroatlantic Tristar anyone?
By: Humberside - 13th April 2005 at 21:07
Any chance of BD launching Chennai and Bangalore like they previously applied to or where those applications just in case they got rejected for Mumbai?
By: Humberside - 13th April 2005 at 21:07
Any chance of BD launching Chennai and Bangalore like they previously applied to or where those applications just in case they got rejected for Mumbai?
By: SHAMROCK321 - 13th April 2005 at 18:14
RUH is a strange decision. Although loads etc may (I dont know) be quiet good BA had the problem of the British goverment telling them to postpone flights. If bmi are unlucky then the goveremtn may decide to say once again that British airlines should stop flights.
By: SHAMROCK321 - 13th April 2005 at 18:14
RUH is a strange decision. Although loads etc may (I dont know) be quiet good BA had the problem of the British goverment telling them to postpone flights. If bmi are unlucky then the goveremtn may decide to say once again that British airlines should stop flights.
By: Airline owner - 13th April 2005 at 18:13
It wont be a big deal,…BD will lease more aircraft if they need them. Good news especially for BD to launch a new Indian service!, if they opt to.
By: Airline owner - 13th April 2005 at 18:13
It wont be a big deal,…BD will lease more aircraft if they need them. Good news especially for BD to launch a new Indian service!, if they opt to.
By: G-OJET - 13th April 2005 at 18:04
I’m sure bmi are kicking themselves that they’ve announced their RUH service now then!!!
Its so obvious they only announced that because they had nothing to use the A330 on whilst not in India and probably didn’t want to leave it parked up at LHR or have to ferry it back and forth to MAN.
I feel a U-Turn coming with RUH if they get daily BOM. Hehe!!! :p
By: G-OJET - 13th April 2005 at 18:04
I’m sure bmi are kicking themselves that they’ve announced their RUH service now then!!!
Its so obvious they only announced that because they had nothing to use the A330 on whilst not in India and probably didn’t want to leave it parked up at LHR or have to ferry it back and forth to MAN.
I feel a U-Turn coming with RUH if they get daily BOM. Hehe!!! :p
Sign In
April 13, 2005 at 3:48 pm