official blog

Multilateral Open Skies Agreement

[13] Cheng, A., “Tiny Hong Kong Must Think Carefully before Opening up Its Skies.” South China Morning Post, 2017. The judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of 5 November 2002 marked the beginning of an EU AVIATION foreign policy. This case law has clarified the division of powers between the EU and its Member States in the regulation of international air services. While international air services were traditionally governed by bilateral agreements between states, the 2002 judgments heralded the arrival of the EU, a major new player with some exclusive powers in the field of aviation external relations. The EU`s external policy in aviation is synonymous with greater flexibility, openness and coherence, based on both bilateral measures (EU/third countries) and multilateral (EU/third countries) and aimed at: The International Air Transport Association (IATA) believes that greater airport capacity would reduce the problems of competition for slots. [10] The United States and China are funding and encouraging the national construction of airports over the next decade. [11] Increased capacity could improve the framework for an open-air agreement between the two countries. The “open skies” agreements also apply to cargo aviation, not just passenger flights. This complicates the negotiations because of the current US administration`s protectionist stance on trade between the two countries. Open skies agreements have significantly increased international passenger and cargo flights to and from the United States, encouraging more travel and trade, increasing productivity and boosting employment opportunities and quality economic growth.

Open skies agreements do this by eliminating state intervention in airline business decisions about routes, capacity and prices, and by enabling airlines to provide consumers with more affordable, convenient and efficient services. The agreement entered into force in April 2019, after being ratified by three countries (Brazil, Panama and Uruguay). The agreement is also provisionally implemented by Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay and the Dominican Republic and is open to membership in other CLAC member states. The obstacle to a comprehensive bilateral open skies agreement between the United States and China boils down to slots for aircraft at airports. There are currently restrictions on the number of flights that U.S. airlines can fly to foreign airports and vice versa. For example, with China, previous discussions to increase the number of authorized flights failed because U.S. airlines were concerned that Chinese airports would not have slots for additional U.S. airlines or would provide priority slots for Chinese airlines. [7] The agreement between Australia and China is expected to benefit both countries, but with a strong imbalance towards more business for Chinese airlines.

[8] An open skies agreement with the United States would likely benefit China more than the United States, increasing the barrier to get the United States to negotiate. [9] The Philippines and Vietnam have only recently entered into open-ski agreements with other countries. The Philippines signed its first agreement in 2016, when it joined the ASEAN Open Skies Policy for Southeast Asian countries. [15] The country is improving the quality of its air service to meet increased international competition. [16] Vietnam joined the ASEAN Open Skies in 2015 and its passenger and freight markets are expected to continue to grow due to increased demand and investment in additional airport capacity. [17] No public information has been drawn from the ongoing negotiations between the United States, the Philippines and Vietnam. [18] In January 2018, the United States

Comments are closed.

Leave a Reply: