{"id":244,"date":"2015-02-08T14:03:05","date_gmt":"2015-02-08T12:03:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/?p=244"},"modified":"2019-07-23T11:49:30","modified_gmt":"2019-07-23T09:49:30","slug":"when-airlines-call-for-more-competition-they-actually-mean-less-competition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/?p=244","title":{"rendered":"When Airlines call for more competition they actually mean less competition\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"Aviation never says what it means \u2013 the freedoms of the air are actually the restrictions of the air; the one thing that is not actually shared in a code share is the code; open skies treaties stop airlines flying certain routes. The list goes on and on, but we must now add a new example to the list: the US legacy carriers want the open sky agreement with the Gulf to be rescinded, \u2018to ensure competition is preserved and enhanced.\u2019\r\n\r\nIf you don\u2019t me believe me, read it here: http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/02\/07\/business\/us-airlines-challenge-open-skies-agreements.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&amp;smprod=nytcore-ipad\r\n\r\nYou could not make this stuff up. Kitchen too hot?\r\n\r\nPartially, the issue is that any competitor wants the opposition to be weakened, that is natural. But the real problem here is that by preserving the ridiculous Chicago System, airlines that cannot stand the heat of evolution have a lever they can demand be pulled.\r\n\r\nIf you changed the rules of football, any code, it is not important, to say that goals kicked by my team were worth 12 points, but goals kicked by opposing teams were only worth 1 we could happily rewrite most of the world\u2019s championships. But we would look silly.\r\n\r\nA bit like the US legacy carriers.","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Aviation never says what it means \u2013 the freedoms of the air are actually the restrictions of the air; the one thing that is not actually shared in a code share is the code; open skies treaties stop airlines flying certain routes. The list goes on and on, but we must now add a new [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-244","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-airlines","category-competition"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=244"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":247,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244\/revisions\/247"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=244"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=244"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=244"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}