Per the Chinese report
国际航权资源配置新政出炉：打破一条远程航线一家承运人规则One Route, One Carrier Policy Revamped, CAAC has recently rolled out a latest new version of policies governing how international traffic rights get managed/allocated , and also how international traffic rights get allocated for Beijing’s twin-hub aviation market when the Daxing new airport opens next year, among Chinese carriers.

One highlight of the policies is that the previous long-disputed “One Route One Carrier” policy, declared by CAAC officials as out of touch with reality today, would be abandoned in a gradual manner, in line with President Xi’s call for developing Beijing’s new airport into a leading global hub that would provide a new driving source for the growth of the country, a call issued when the Chinese president made a field tour at the new airport under construction in early 2017

Any thoughts? How would this be received by carriers, esp the Chinese ones? Who would benefit most from the changes as such?

Haven't read the rules, but it doesn't seems to be much different from the previous version that was released for consultation? Especially that it still seems to treat PEK and Daxing as one airport?

Ah, seems like it have an additional policy that specifically regulate the two airports in Beijing, but I'm getting connection reset when I try to read the page on CAAC site...

Edit: it seems like the most notable difference is that it is easier for a Chinese carrier to be the second carrier in the route than the previous draft. Now it is saying that for any Cat 2 (Bilateral limited) market with total frequency more than 14x weekly (Chinese carrier and foreign carrier combined), and Chinese carrier have less than 70% market share, or alternatively if the Chinese carrier is the only one on the route for six years start counting from the date when the regulation implement (2018 October 1) then another Chinese carrier can apply to enter the market

Anetters here who know Chinese may click the following two links for a close look at the PDF documents outlining the two separate but related new policies by CAAC

http://www.caac.gov.cn/XXGK/XXGK/ZFGW/2 ... 87934.html

http://www.caac.gov.cn/XXGK/XXGK/ZFGW/2 ... 87935.html

Here is the part that states explicitly how to apply a more than one carrier policy on the most-coveted international long-haul routes for Chinese carriers

中国国内航点至美洲、欧洲（不含俄罗斯）、大洋洲、非洲航点的二类国际航线为二类远程国际航线
二类远程客运国际航线逐步引入竞争。对于已有空运企业运营的二类远程客运国际航线，满足下列条件之一的，可以新增一家承运人，且自经营许可颁发之日起三年内不批准其他空运企业进入该航线：
（一）中方空运企业经营班次份额低于70%且中外方空运企业平均每周总班次（一个往返计算为1班）达到14班的
（二）未满足第一款条件，但自本办法施行之日起，空运企业独家经营六年以上的

Routes out of mainland China (HK, MO, TW not included) to destinations in the Americas, Europe (excluding Russia), Oceania/Africa are classified as Category II international long-haul routes subject to certain restrictions

Competition will be introduced onto Category II international long-haul routes.
For a route under this category that has been served by an existing carrier(s) already, another new carrier may be introduced for entry into the market, provided either of the following two requirements is met, whereby further entry of any other carrier would be barred for three years onwards since the date when the new added carrier is granted permission for service on the route in question:

1. An existing Chinese carrier(s) accounts for less than 70% of the total flights served on the route AND the combined total of weekly flights by both Chinese and foreign carriers averages at 14 (a flight being two-way)

2. Failing the first requirement mentioned above, an existing carrier has served the route solely for more than 6 years since the date this regulation takes effect

So If I understand correctly:

For 1) a Chinese airline should make sure it flies no more than 12 weekly (both ways) to be almost sure there would be no additional competition...

For 2) " an existing Chinese carrier has served the route solely for more than 6 years" : so this does not apply to routes having foreign carriers competing on the same sector. Other routes where there is only one Chinese carrier, and no foreign competitor, are small markets that would not support an additional carrier.

Looks like a kind of status quo. How Beijing second airport is supposed to get international flights under these conditions - except for the ones that will be transferred from PEK ?

Per requirement #1, it seems the following China-US routes out of PEK could be open to competition by other Chinese carriers like CZ, MU, flying out of the new airport
PEK-EWR, PEK-LAX, PEK-SFO, PEK-IAD (run by CA), PEK-SEA (by HU)

airbazar wrote:

Zoedyn wrote:

Any thoughts? How would this be received by carriers, esp the Chinese ones? Who would benefit most from the changes as such?

I've been under the believe that some China-U.S. routes operated by Chinese carriers only exist due to the various carriers trying to preempt each-other and thus operating the route without regard for profits. When you can find U.S.-China ticket for $500 all in it's hard to believe anything other than the flights only exist in order to prevent someone else from starting the route. Additional competition will only make some of these routes non-viable I think, but I hope to be wrong.

Honestly this is spot on in many ways for both Chinese and US carriers operating TPAC flights between the US and Mainland China at least in the major channels that fall outside of fortress hubs like DFW or DTW. Think anyone is making money between, for example, LAX and PVG? Not a chance, but they're all having to preempt one another and chalk it up to a loss-making long term investment that will hypothetically make money years from now. Want to see a network planner squirm? Ask them when they think an LAXPVG will make money. There's no answer there.

I certainly welcome even more competition although I doubt the carriers that operate them do.

I for one would love to see hu or cz operate jfk to pek

Somehow I read somewhere else that the new Bejing airport at Daxing will be treated as the same as PEK in terms of routes out of Beijing. Correct?

Aither wrote:

So If I understand correctly:
For 1) a Chinese airline should make sure it flies no more than 12 weekly (both ways) to be almost sure there would be no additional competition...

Theoretically, that can indeed be a likely means for a Chinese carrier to circumvent the first requirement to block competition from peer Chinese competitors, but that would run the obvious risk of moral hazard should carriers calculate to do so, which may well prompt the regulator for a revision of the stipulation in that regard

For 2) " an existing Chinese carrier has served the route solely for more than 6 years" : so this does not apply to routes having foreign carriers competing on the same sector. Other routes where there is only one Chinese carrier, and no foreign competitor, are small markets that would not support an additional carrier.

Agreed partially. For 2nd requirement, I double-checked the Chinese original text. It just said "an existing carrier has served the route solely for more than 6 years" without specifying whether the existing carrier being Chinese or foreign. Given that the regulations are intended only for Chinese carriers, we have every reason to believe "an existing carrier" refers to a Chinese carrier that operates a route solely without facing any foreign competition

We may take CA's PEK-JFK and HU's PEK-BOS for examples. CA currently runs a twice daily service on PEK-JFK; HU a 7x weekly on PEK-BOS, both without competition from American airlines. Which means, per the new regulation and assuming the competitor scenario for the two routes remains unchanged, that another carrier like CZ/MU should be able to join competition on these previous solely-served routes, which they could serve out of Daxing new airport, starting from Oct 1st, 2024 when the new regulation will have been effective for 6 years

Looks like a kind of status quo. How Beijing second airport is supposed to get international flights under these conditions - except for the ones that will be transferred from PEK ?

The new policies as they appear to be, aren't groundbreaking nor radical in that they haven't broken off relations entirely with the old regime, and are certainly far from satisfying, particularly to those Chinese airlines that would move over to the new airport. But stilll, according to 2nd document, the new airport and the carriers relocated therein would get sort of preferential treatments when it comes to traffic rights allocation

So, what's new with these new policies is a gradual relaxation, not an abrupt abandonment of the controversial "One Route One Carrier" rule

As I understand it, the Chinese aviation regulator would like to introduce competition primarily on trunk routes with voluminous pax traffic that fall under Category II international long-haul routes, e.g, Beijing-NYC, Beijing-SFO, Beijing-CDG, Beijing-LON, Beijing-FRA, Beijing-MUC, Beijing-AMS, instead of on long thin ones like PEK-LAS, PEK-TXL, PEK-MAN, PEK-ATH, PEK-CPH

In comparison with the old stubborn, one-size-for-all regime, IMO, the new policies should be a (small/considerable/significant [depending on your standpoint]) step in the right direction toward liberalization of the Chinese aviation market

Zoedyn wrote:

Aither wrote:

So If I understand correctly:
For 1) a Chinese airline should make sure it flies no more than 12 weekly (both ways) to be almost sure there would be no additional competition...

Theoretically, that can indeed be a likely means for a Chinese carrier to circumvent the first requirement to block competition from peer Chinese competitors, but that would run the obvious risk of moral hazard should carriers calculate to do so, which may well prompt the regulator for a revision of the stipulation in that regard

For 2) " an existing Chinese carrier has served the route solely for more than 6 years" : so this does not apply to routes having foreign carriers competing on the same sector. Other routes where there is only one Chinese carrier, and no foreign competitor, are small markets that would not support an additional carrier.

Agreed partially. For 2nd requirement, I double-checked the Chinese original text. It just said "an existing carrier has served the route solely for more than 6 years" without specifying whether the existing carrier being Chinese or foreign. Given that the regulations are intended only for Chinese carriers, we have every reason to believe "an existing carrier" refers to a Chinese carrier that operates a route solely without facing any foreign competition

We may take CA's PEK-JFK and HU's PEK-BOS for examples. CA currently runs a twice daily service on PEK-JFK; HU a 7x weekly on PEK-BOS, both without competition from American airlines. Which means, per the new regulation and assuming the competitor scenario for the two routes remains unchanged, that another carrier like CZ/MU should be able to join competition on these previous solely-served routes, which they could serve out of Daxing new airport, starting from Oct 1st, 2024 when the new regulation will have been effective for 6 years

Looks like a kind of status quo. How Beijing second airport is supposed to get international flights under these conditions - except for the ones that will be transferred from PEK ?

The new policies as they appear to be, aren't groundbreaking nor radical in that they haven't broken off relations entirely with the old regime, and are certainly far from satisfying, particularly to those Chinese airlines that would move over to the new airport. But stilll, according to 2nd document, the new airport and the carriers relocated therein would get sort of preferential treatments when it comes to traffic rights allocation

So, what's new with these new policies is a gradual relaxation, not an abrupt abandonment of the controversial "One Route One Carrier" rule

As I understand it, the Chinese aviation regulator would like to introduce competition primarily on trunk routes with voluminous pax traffic that fall under Category II international long-haul routes, e.g, Beijing-NYC, Beijing-SFO, Beijing-CDG, Beijing-LON, Beijing-FRA, Beijing-MUC, Beijing-AMS, instead of on long thin ones like PEK-LAS, PEK-TXL, PEK-MAN, PEK-ATH, PEK-CPH

In comparison with the old stubborn, one-size-for-all regime, IMO, the new policies should be a (small/considerable/significant [depending on your standpoint]) step in the right direction toward liberalization of the Chinese aviation market

p.s. the six year thing only start counting from the date the document come into effect, so it won't have any actual effect until year 2024

Overthecascades wrote:

Somehow I read somewhere else that the new Bejing airport at Daxing will be treated as the same as PEK in terms of routes out of Beijing. Correct?

Yes,

Zoedyn wrote:

Any thoughts? How would this be received by carriers, esp the Chinese ones? Who would benefit most from the changes as such?

CZ/MU probably won't be satisfied by it, they wanted to have hundreds of aircraft in the new airport with dozens of widebody flying all sort of routes by making Daxing to be counted separately from PEK and thus getting route authority to all major airports around the world but obviously they can't do it now

The map above shows all long-haul nonstop links to destinations in Europe and North America that Air China currently serves out of PEK.

Due to CAAC’s protectionist and infamously disputed policy of “One Route One Carrier”for Chinese airlines, CA has effectively held a de jure monopoly over these routes on the Chinese side, facing absolutely no competition from any other Chinese carrier. Note that virtually all the lucrative trunk routes to major US/European hubs (with the exception of AMS) have fallen into CA’s hands

Given the eminent status of PEK as the world’s 2nd busiest airport and mainland China’s largest gateway to the world, it is no exaggeration to say CA has become THE most privileged beneficiary with deep vested interest in the existing regime of One Route One Carrier

Now with the introduction of the new policies that aim to bring in competition among Chinese carriers, we’ll be waiting out to watch closely how they will be playing out across the international long-haul routes

Zoedyn wrote:

Due to CAAC’s protectionist and infamously disputed policy of “One Route One Carrier”for Chinese airlines, CA has effectively held a de jure monopoly over these routes on the Chinese side, facing absolute no competition from any other Chinese carrier. Note how virtually all the lucrative trunk routes to major US/European hubs (with the exception of AMS) fall into CA’s hands

Given the eminent status of PEK as the world’s 2nd busiest airport and mainland China’s largest gateway to the world, it is easy to note how CA has become THE most privileged beneficiary with deep vested interest in the existing regime of One Route One Carrier

CA didn't just benefit from its near monopoly at PEK, they also benefit from being able to operate PVG-CDG/FRA in Europe, and PVG-MEL/SYD in Australia, alongside MU/FM, preventing a true monopoly by MU (Yes, no North American routes nor London, but CA already have a chokehold of that at PEK anyway).

BTW, some stats for China-US routes:
http://bbs.feeyo.com/posts/592/topic-0011-5925365.html

(The column all the way to the right is the average load factor for Jan-Nov 2017 two-way. Data is supposed to be from BTS. It counted all carriers, though, so I've no clue what each individual airlines' load factor are).

Do keep in mind some number maybe off, i.e. CKG-JFK and CTU-JFK, b/c they just started that month.

From PEK:
Operated by CA:
LAX: 81.6% (along with AA)
SFO: 80.5% (along with UA)
IAD: 74.7% (along with UA)
JFK: 79.4%
EWR: 83.2% (along with UA)
IAH: 83.4%
HNL: 59.4% (along with HA)

Operated by HU:
BOS: 78.2%
ORD: 80.5% (along with AA & UA)
LAS: 62.8%
SJC: 73.1%
SEA: 81.7% (along with DL)

Operated by MU:
SPN: 88.2% (Visa free travel helps )

Operated by AA only:
DFW: 75.7%

Operated by DL only:
DTW: 86.7%

Zoedyn wrote:

Aither wrote:

So If I understand correctly:
For 1) a Chinese airline should make sure it flies no more than 12 weekly (both ways) to be almost sure there would be no additional competition...

Theoretically, that can indeed be a likely means for a Chinese carrier to circumvent the first requirement to block competition from peer Chinese competitors, but that would run the obvious risk of moral hazard should carriers calculate to do so, which may well prompt the regulator for a revision of the stipulation in that regard

For 2) " an existing Chinese carrier has served the route solely for more than 6 years" : so this does not apply to routes having foreign carriers competing on the same sector. Other routes where there is only one Chinese carrier, and no foreign competitor, are small markets that would not support an additional carrier.

Agreed partially. For 2nd requirement, I double-checked the Chinese original text. It just said "an existing carrier has served the route solely for more than 6 years" without specifying whether the existing carrier being Chinese or foreign. Given that the regulations are intended only for Chinese carriers, we have every reason to believe "an existing carrier" refers to a Chinese carrier that operates a route solely without facing any foreign competition

We may take CA's PEK-JFK and HU's PEK-BOS for examples. CA currently runs a twice daily service on PEK-JFK; HU a 7x weekly on PEK-BOS, both without competition from American airlines. Which means, per the new regulation and assuming the competitor scenario for the two routes remains unchanged, that another carrier like CZ/MU should be able to join competition on these previous solely-served routes, which they could serve out of Daxing new airport, starting from Oct 1st, 2024 when the new regulation will have been effective for 6 years

Looks like a kind of status quo. How Beijing second airport is supposed to get international flights under these conditions - except for the ones that will be transferred from PEK ?

The new policies as they appear to be, aren't groundbreaking nor radical in that they haven't broken off relations entirely with the old regime, and are certainly far from satisfying, particularly to those Chinese airlines that would move over to the new airport. But stilll, according to 2nd document, the new airport and the carriers relocated therein would get sort of preferential treatments when it comes to traffic rights allocation

So, what's new with these new policies is a gradual relaxation, not an abrupt abandonment of the controversial "One Route One Carrier" rule

As I understand it, the Chinese aviation regulator would like to introduce competition primarily on trunk routes with voluminous pax traffic that fall under Category II international long-haul routes, e.g, Beijing-NYC, Beijing-SFO, Beijing-CDG, Beijing-LON, Beijing-FRA, Beijing-MUC, Beijing-AMS, instead of on long thin ones like PEK-LAS, PEK-TXL, PEK-MAN, PEK-ATH, PEK-CPH

In comparison with the old stubborn, one-size-for-all regime, IMO, the new policies should be a (small/considerable/significant [depending on your standpoint]) step in the right direction toward liberalization of the Chinese aviation market

Thank you, very interesting.

Zoedyn wrote:

The map above shows all long-haul nonstop links to destinations in Europe and North America that Air China currently serves out of PEK.

Due to CAAC’s protectionist and infamously disputed policy of “One Route One Carrier”for Chinese airlines, CA has effectively held a de jure monopoly over these routes on the Chinese side, facing absolutely no competition from any other Chinese carrier. Note that virtually all the lucrative trunk routes to major US/European hubs (with the exception of AMS) have fallen into CA’s hands

Given the eminent status of PEK as the world’s 2nd busiest airport and mainland China’s largest gateway to the world, it is no exaggeration to say CA has become THE most privileged beneficiary with deep vested interest in the existing regime of One Route One Carrier

Now with the introduction of the new policies that aim to bring in competition among Chinese carriers, we’ll be waiting out to watch closely how they will be playing out across the international long-haul routes

The most significant change could be Air China having finally the opportunity to create a true hub at PEK, thanks to the slots that will become available.

Looking at Chinese aviation forum seems like people are rather pessimistic about it? Some points mentioned in Chinese aviation forum:
- MU/CZ are to face the regulation in Daxing yet CA have virtually no restriction in PVG, isn't the bias a bit too obvious?
- MU/CZ can now go back to their home at Shanghai/Guangzhou and scrap whatever plan they might be having
- After initial years of Daxing operation, further expansion plan will be carried out at PEK with capacity possibly going up to 120M, which would make it become like HND after its expansion project in next decade, and Daxing will face the same fate that Narita will be facing in the future..
- While it would be dumb for MU/CZ to expand at Daxing instead of strengthening their own hub, it is a political project and no doubt they would have to follow through the plan if their CEO.don't want to be caught
- At the end of the date, the second carrier that would be allowed onto these routes will probably be CA's Beijing Airlines flying PEK-NYC, MU's Shanghai Airlines flying PVG-LAX
- The policy will probably allow home carrier of each hub airport to be able to have a even stronger monopoly on these routes. In the future when ME4 open more routes to Tier 2 cities in China or a KEF-style hub emerge in Central Asia, maybe they could attract a lot of passengers that will be dissatisfied by lack of competition among CN3...

Shanghai-based China Eastern and Guangzhou-based China Southern airlines, which have been designated as main operators at Beijing’s new airport—are expected to benefit from the Civil Aviation Administration of China’s (CAAC) new policies on international operations and Beijing’s “One city, two airports” rules, which are scheduled to take effect Oct. 1.


what do you think about?

source: http://atwonline.com/regulation/china-e ... c-policies

LPSHobby wrote:

Shanghai-based China Eastern and Guangzhou-based China Southern airlines, which have been designated as main operators at Beijing’s new airport—are expected to benefit from the Civil Aviation Administration of China’s (CAAC) new policies on international operations and Beijing’s “One city, two airports” rules, which are scheduled to take effect Oct. 1.


what do you think about?

source: http://atwonline.com/regulation/china-e ... c-policies

I think CA will be under enormous pressure as both CZ and MU are adding services from Beijing. It's probably increasingly important for CA to keep building it's Shanghai presence through its own and their partner in Juneyao Air. Don't forget PVG will soon add S1 and S2 satellite terminals too.

It's high time someone brought a decisive and effective end to Air China's decades-old near-monopoly among Chinese carriers over most lucrative/coveted Beijing-Europe/North America intercontinental service, a monopoly gained not by winning cut-throat competition with peer Chinese competitors, but effortlessly secured by a corruptive policy and jealously guarded by a bunch of freeloaders like mad

For that reason alone, any changes in policy that would contribute to the demise of CA's ethically insidious near-monopoly on international long-haul service out of Beijing should be welcomed and encouraged

This map shows mostly Beijing-Europe/North America routes that should be up for grabs for an additional Chinese carrier to serve in coming years, as per the latest policy revisions released by CAAC
The blue line indicates the only international long-haul route run by China Southern currently at PEK, while China Eastern simply has none therein (Imagine in New York, what if AA was allowed to enjoy almost exclusive access to NYC's international long-haul service to Asia/Europe, leaving crumbs of bread only to UA/DL or any other US carrier, at the largest American gateway to the world)

None of this matters for North America, as Chinese carriers are maxed out in the US and Canada. The only way to add flights is to cannibalize other routes.

Either way, with the AC-CA joint venture kicking into gear this month, CA, for all intents and purposes, gains access to PEK-YYZ as well.

They'll all be coming to DTW---signed klm617.

Zoedyn wrote:

Per requirement #1, it seems the following China-US routes out of PEK could be open to competition by other Chinese carriers like CZ, MU, flying out of the new airport
PEK-EWR, PEK-LAX, PEK-SFO, PEK-IAD (run by CA), PEK-SEA (by HU)

I don’t think PEK-LAX qualifies #1. CA runs 21x weekly 77W and AA runs 7x weekly 788, so Chinese carrier takes more than 70% share on that route.

Zoedyn wrote:

Routes out of mainland China (HK, MO, TW not included) to destinations in the Americas, Europe (excluding Russia), Oceania/Africa are classified as Category II international long-haul routes subject to certain restrictions

Few things make me angrier than the CCP behaving as if it should be the legitimate government for Taiwan.

I think it is a shame that they won't adopt a more logical plan. Considering the nature of the Chinese market, they could evolve to a "one gateway, one airline" policy. It would make much more sense all intercontinental routes from each major airport in China is flown by one local carrier. That would even increase the power of Chinese carriers as network airlines.

LPSHobby wrote:

Shanghai-based China Eastern and Guangzhou-based China Southern airlines, which have been designated as main operators at Beijing’s new airport—are expected to benefit from the Civil Aviation Administration of China’s (CAAC) new policies on international operations and Beijing’s “One city, two airports” rules, which are scheduled to take effect Oct. 1.


what do you think about?

source: http://atwonline.com/regulation/china-e ... c-policies

read the post above your original reply. Yes there are benefits, but probably nit enough to drive the new airport to work and the new airport might face a Mirabel situation

C010T3 wrote:

I think it is a shame that they won't adopt a more logical plan. Considering the nature of the Chinese market, they could evolve to a "one gateway, one airline" policy. It would make much more sense all intercontinental routes from each major airport in China is flown by one local carrier. That would even increase the power of Chinese carriers as network airlines.

What you propose would discourage competition and be bad to Haiana or other relatively new airlines

c933103 wrote:

LPSHobby wrote:

Shanghai-based China Eastern and Guangzhou-based China Southern airlines, which have been designated as main operators at Beijing’s new airport—are expected to benefit from the Civil Aviation Administration of China’s (CAAC) new policies on international operations and Beijing’s “One city, two airports” rules, which are scheduled to take effect Oct. 1.


what do you think about?

source: http://atwonline.com/regulation/china-e ... c-policies

read the post above your original reply. Yes there are benefits, but probably nit enough to drive the new airport to work and the new airport might face a Mirabel situation

There are definitely difference between Daxing and Mirabel/Narita. Transport Access being the big one. Mirabel never have that rail line build to the airport, and Narita for years not only doesn't have a rail station at the terminal (Was at the current Higashi-Narita Station, which required either a long walk or riding a shuttle bus that's, well, not free to the terminal), and even after they moved the line into the terminals, access time to NRT is still long up until the new Keisei Line was finished. But for all of NRT's problem, it's still the 2nd busiest airports in Japan (Yes, it helps that Osaka area has its own split airport dilemma).

Then there's traffic demand. Mirabel suffered because once it was built, TATL flights can simply overfly it. Same can be said, to certain extent, for NRT, which was a giant TPAC gateway with the opening up of Chinese/Russian airspace, Tokyo is no longer a "must-do" stopover point. Narita, of course, suffered from other problems as well, such as the land acquisition issue that greatly increase the cost to build and operate the airport. Last note? Chinese aviation is still growing, and mainland PRC has a much larger domestic market than Japan or Canada.

The nature of the split airport also helps - instead of making one airport domestic, one airport international (Which is the most common split airport operation), they simply separate by carrier. With the current PEK being congested as-is, Daxing should open up more frequencies for CZ/MU.

c933103 wrote:

C010T3 wrote:

I think it is a shame that they won't adopt a more logical plan. Considering the nature of the Chinese market, they could evolve to a "one gateway, one airline" policy. It would make much more sense all intercontinental routes from each major airport in China is flown by one local carrier. That would even increase the power of Chinese carriers as network airlines.

What you propose would discourage competition and be bad to Haiana or other relatively new airlines

Agree. And quite frankly, if CA seriously want to stop HU at PEK, they definitely have the political clot to do so. CA is simply not all that interested in operating to the like of SJC or LAS from PEK.

Can we say that availability of fast and reliable transport links of multiple modes btwn downtown Beijing and the New Beijing Airport (NBA) is already half the battle for its would-be success almost guaranteed?

Per this report 北京新机场线最快年底北延 候机楼挪到丽泽商务区Extension of New Beijing Airport Express Line to the North, New Beijing Airport Express Line would be extended further north into downtown Lize Financial Business District, with an in-town terminal building to be relocated further north as well, where pax could be expected to check in with luggage.

It's noteworthy New Beijing Airport Express Line will be China's first urban rail designed to run with top speeds up to 160 km/h, and with an operational speed of 110 km/h, shrinking travel time btwn the previous originating-point Caoqiao Station in town and NBA to a mere 19 minutes.

There would be an extra minute or two added to a ride on the northerly extended Airport Express Line, but the additional benefits would be huge, as the booming Lize Financial Business District, a newly emerging district prioritized by Beijing's municipal and local governments for balanced economic development, would not only be a potentially high-yielding catchment area for NBA, but also be a converging point of two key subway lines No. 14 and No. 16 currently under construction (note how Line No. 16 in particular would conveniently connect all the influential dots/areas in West Downtown Beijing roughly along the west sections of Beijing's 3rd and 2nd Ring Roads)

Also it's important to note how the originating point of the NBA Express Line in town is in close proximity to Beijing West Railway Station (with an HSR link to NBA) and Beijing South Railway Station, two of Beijing's most busy railway hubs with pax from across the country, as the following maps illustrate

Zoedyn wrote:

Can we say that availability of fast and reliable transport links of multiple modes btwn downtown Beijing and the New Beijing Airport (NBA) is already half the battle for its would-be success almost guaranteed?

Per this report 北京新机场线最快年底北延 候机楼挪到丽泽商务区Extension of New Beijing Airport Express Line to the North, New Beijing Airport Express Line would be extended further north into downtown Lize Financial Business District, with an in-town terminal building to be relocated further north as well, where pax could be expected to check in with luggage.

It's noteworthy New Beijing Airport Express Line will be China's first urban rail designed to run with top speeds up to 160 km/h, and with an operational speed of 110 km/h, shrinking travel time btwn the previous originating-point Caoqiao Station in town and NBA to a mere 19 minutes.

There would be an extra minute or two added to a ride on the northerly extended Airport Express Line, but the additional benefits would be huge, as the booming Lize Financial Business District, a newly emerging district prioritized by Beijing's municipal and local governments for balanced economic development, would not only be a potentially high-yielding catchment area for NBA, but also be a converging point of two key subway lines No. 14 and No. 16 currently under construction (note how Line No. 16 in particular would conveniently connect all the influential dots/areas in West Downtown Beijing roughly along the west sections of Beijing's 3rd and 2nd Ring Roads)

Also it's important to note how the originating point of the NBA Express Line in town is in close proximity to Beijing West Railway Station (with an HSR link to NBA) and Beijing South Railway Station, two of Beijing's most busy railway hubs with pax from across the country, as the following maps illustrate

110km/h is not the operational speed, it's the total trip speed average.
Abd the northerly extension will not open by the time the new airport open

Foreign airlines to face new rivals on popular China routes as restrictions ease
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKCN1M60TL

That's Reuters' timely article here on the upcoming changes to occur on China's popular intercontinental longhaul routes

Foreign airlines that fly on 20 popular long-haul routes to China will face fresh competitive pressure as Beijing begins to ease decade-old restrictions on Oct. 1, allowing more Chinese carriers to offer service

Unsurprisingly, Beijing and Shanghai have the most intercontinental longhauls to offer for route duplication in the skies, with CA and MU facing serious competition from their Chinese peers at their respective home base

Definitely interesting to see what additional Chinese carriers would get to fly the listed routes here. China Southern and Hainan Airlines are mouth watering:)

Really like the terrific visual explainer by Reuters

Very interesting. As this policy is rolled out, I would assume an unintended consequence is that secondary Chinese cities would lose service. For instance, the aircraft SFO-WUH on CZ or LAX-NKG on MU might be deployed to PEK or PVG in search of higher yields (or business travelers). Thoughts on this?

Zoedyn wrote:

Really like the terrific visual explainer by Reuters

Interesting to see PVG - AKL there.

So, if NZ operates 7x weekly PVG - AKL and MU operates 7x weekly PVG - AKL, does that mean that PVG - AKL qualifies for a new entrant being allowed to fly the route, like HU (as one example)? I had read elsewhere that the loosening would only apply to destinations in countries with at least a partial open skies agreement with China, such as Australia, Thailand and the United States - New Zealand, AFAIK, does not fall within this category.

Cheers,

C.

How unfortunate. I'll bet Colorful Guizhou Airlines is raring to start the second PVG-PIT...

Now, if they could just amend the whole air force-controls-the-skies fly in the ointment, that would be a treat.

Zoedyn wrote:

Foreign airlines to face new rivals on popular China routes as restrictions ease
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKCN1M60TL

That's Reuters' timely article here on the upcoming changes to occur on China's popular intercontinental longhaul routes

Foreign airlines that fly on 20 popular long-haul routes to China will face fresh competitive pressure as Beijing begins to ease decade-old restrictions on Oct. 1, allowing more Chinese carriers to offer service

Unsurprisingly, Beijing and Shanghai have the most intercontinental longhauls to offer for route duplication in the skies, with CA and MU facing serious competition from their Chinese peers at their respective home base

Definitely interesting to see what additional Chinese carriers would get to fly the listed routes here. China Southern and Hainan Airlines are mouth watering:)

Really like the terrific visual explainer by Reuters

20 routes, and half of them are bilateral restricted?

Very interesting. As this policy is rolled out, I would assume an unintended consequence is that secondary Chinese cities would lose service. For instance, the aircraft SFO-WUH on CZ or LAX-NKG on MU might be deployed to PEK or PVG in search of higher yields (or business travelers). Thoughts on this?

Definitely interesting issue here

Speaking of unintended consequence, I believe the opposite is more true: it is precisely the controversial existence of One Route One Carrier policy that has unwittingly contributed a great deal to the flourishing of a good many intercontinental longhaul routes we see today operating to and from secondary cities in China (and to the benefit of even some secondary cities in Europe and North America) on the metals of Chinese carriers spearheaded by Hainan Airlines/HNA subsidiaries (e.g, Tianjin Airlines, Capital Airlines), Sichuan Airlines, Xiamen Airlines

HU is an excellent case in point. If we look at what it has been doing over the years in international longhaul flying, it is immediately clear HU has been implementing a seemingly odd strategy that has in fact been effectively shaped and constrained by the repressive One Route One Carrier regime, under which HU, say at the Beijing market it serves with a big hub there, has been left with no choice but to explore mostly niche long thin routes that got either conveniently ignored or frowned upon by CA like PEK-LAS, as practically all lucrative PEK-originated trunk routes like PEK-CDG have been hogged by the so called flag carrier CA on the Chinese side, leaving HU or any other aspiring Chinese airline for that matter literally zero chance for entry into the coveted market, no matter how they want a share on a route like PEK-PAR

At PVG, it’s pretty much the same, with MU dominating longhauls

But in China’s secondary cities where intercontinental routes tend to be few and scarce, it is a totally different picture. HU shrewdly saw and seized longhaul opportunities inherent with the vast interior China previously ignored by the CN3 big carriers (esp CA, MU) that are only interested in guarding jealously their own big home hubs under the shelter of One Route One Carrier, relegating secondary cities to mere longhaul traffic feeder cities

Yet it’s in those secondary cities that HU has maximized the policy effect of One Route One Carrier, blazing a trail in Chinese aviation by leveraging the following factors combined:

On one hand, eagerness for international longhaul connectivity from secondary cities is no less strong than that of Beijing/Shanghai, with local governments most willing to hand out big alluring subsidies

On the other, the crucial traffic rights for longhauls are way more easy and liberal to secure in secondary cities, which in general are subject to far less restrictions than Beijing/Shanghai in air service accords the Chinese government signed with other countries (cf. Zone 1, Zone 2, Zone 3 in China-US bilateral for instance)

Also, there’s the significant impact of China’s One Belt One Road, which has not only greatly enthused local governments of secondary cities to push for international connectivity directly out of interior China that carriers like HU are most ready to offer, but also afforded local governments/airlines perfect legitimacy/pretext to do so on the back of still more subsidies that have attracted even more carriers to join the game, including the CN3

Hence the booming of intercontinental links on Hainan Airlines from secondary Chinese cities: XIY-FCO, XIY-SYD, CTU-JFK, CKG-JFK, CKG-FCO, CSX-LHR, CSX-LAX, CSX-MEL, etc

So, will the easing of One Route One Carrier policy cause secondary Chinese cities to lose longhaul service?

I don’t think the policy loosening will negatively impact longhaul service from secondary Chinese cities in any serious way, as long as the following elements remain at play:

• The availability of traffic rights for longhaul ops from top hubs Beijing, Shanghai continues to be tight

• The enthusiasm of secondary Chinese cities for global connectivity remains keen

• The subsidizing practice of local Chinese governments with a deep wallet stays on

Plus, though the revised policy has indeed loosened a bit now, it is still rather restrictive and harsh in many ways, which I believe is far from satisfactory to many of the Chinese airlines eyeing the top Beijing, Shanghai markets

We’ll see what happens

Aither wrote:

The most significant change could be Air China having finally the opportunity to create a true hub at PEK, thanks to the slots that will become available.

Beijing already has congested airpsace - I've seen nothing to suggest that the Chinese will add to this congestion by treating Capital Airport and Daxing Airport as different for the 'one route, one airline' policy, giving CA (or other airlines) the ability to expand significantly at PEK.

Cheers,

C.

To what extent is this change meaningless because of slots? That is - in China, can airlines mix around their slots how they want to? For example, could Air China decide it'll drop a frequency on PVG - PEK, and use it to fly PVG - AKL? I thought that it wasn't that simple - the regulator had a say in how the slot was used (but someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Cheers,

C.

When can airlines apply for these new routes and when will the government award them ? What's the time frame ?

The777Man

So, almost half a year after the relaxation of "One Route One Carrier" policy that took effect on Oct 1, 2018, it looks that the 1st intercontinental longhaul route to see duplication among Chinese carriers per the policy revision is most likely to be PVG-LON with 3x weekly flights from July 2019, proposed by Juneyao Airlines, a private airline based in Shanghai, as per CAAC's notice on Feb 27th (See: http://www.caac.gov.cn/XXGK/XXGK/TZTG/2 ... 94852.html)

Currently, PVG-LON is flown by MU with 10 weekly frequencies on the Chinese side, with another 17 weekly frequencies by BA and VS

In addition, CZ, MU are reported to launch London, Paris from Beijing Daxing respectively in late 2019 (See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1416219). Both LON and PAR from BJS have long been monopolized by CA on the Chinese side

Moreover, MU is even widely rumored to propose a further two other longhauls from ZBAD, one being Amsterdam currently operated by CZ from PEK. We’ll see

With the latest Chinese international flight authority pending allocation announcement that gave CA right to start flying the PVG-LON route, and CAAC proclaiming that it is a huge breakthrough to the "one airlines one route" policy, some aviation-focused forum and websites in China have publish a number of critical opinion against the authority, with one of the reason being Air China have long been given exception to the policy and thus they gaining extra routes via the new policy can hardly be described as a breakthrough.

Those opinions also noted that, CA have discontinued three long haul routes out of PVG in the past year yet it's able to gain the authority to start the LON long haul flight out of PVG instead of other carriers because this is not considered in the new rating system. The rating system also put a lot of focus on flights the carrier offer to a destination country and make it even more significant than hub-related metrics, and there're even some abnormalities in rating that make it suspicious whether someone modified those rating without respecting the rating guidelines.

Overall speaking, according to those analysis, it will be very difficult for any new carriers to launch new routes to bilateral-restricted destinations in the future, CA will have an inherent advantage over all other carriers because of destinations it is flying to, MU will face further competition and pricing pressure from CA at PVG while MU and CZ at PKX will be difficult to gain significant number of important routes to effectively compete against CA at PEK.

Has anyone applied for the London-Beijing route?

SeanM1997 wrote:

Has anyone applied for the London-Beijing route?

No public application yet. On Chinese website someone described the situation as there are no indication of CAAC opening the route for application yet. However a while ago there was a report on atwonline saying
https://atwonline.com/airports-routes/c ... tes-daxing saying the airlines are having plans to fly the route

According to the circular MU is the big winner with 14 new LON frequencies split equally between PVG and KMG and CA 4 new frequencies from PVG. MU will need all the transfer passengers around Southern China and even South East Asia to make KMG works as a daily flight. Meanwhile CA will struggle with 4 weekly flights against BA VS MU. As for CZ which got nothing, I expect CZ to win most / all allocations from BJS if and when it's announced. The associated announcement regarding BJS-MOW kind of implies that trend of CZ over MU at BJS.

As for ZH, HO and the others, I suppose they will have to find better luck with other European routes. Losing out on LON no doubt means a lot of money has been lost.

mdavies06 wrote:

According to the circular MU is the big winner with 14 new LON frequencies split equally between PVG and KMG and CA 4 new frequencies from PVG. MU will need all the transfer passengers around Southern China and even South East Asia to make KMG works as a daily flight. Meanwhile CA will struggle with 4 weekly flights against BA VS MU. As for CZ which got nothing, I expect CZ to win most / all allocations from BJS if and when it's announced. The associated announcement regarding BJS-MOW kind of implies that trend of CZ over MU at BJS.

As for ZH, HO and the others, I suppose they will have to find better luck with other European routes. Losing out on LON no doubt means a lot of money has been lost.

The main dissatisfaction is not there are some other carriers who are allowed onto the PVG-* long haul flights, but that it was CA that was allowed to do so instead of other Shanghai-based carriers. Which reflect perceived problems in the new route allocation system, that is not sufficient emphasis on carriers performance in the Chinese port of origin. Instead, the system emphasis a lot on carriers' foreign performance, which make ot difficult for other airlines to build up their hub against CA

Look at the published score table. CA gained 57 points but HO only gained 36 points. The rating item A2+A4+A5+A6 are all about carrier current performance in the destination country. HO scored zero before they don't have any British flights for now. Meanwhile CA scored a total of 18.67 points from these metrics combined. There are no way for HO to close in in term of these metrics until they actually get a route to say like the UK in this case, but they're now precluded from getting new routes to these countries due to this new route authority application system that emphasis all these metrics.

Likewise, CZ's success over MU on gaining more flights on the PKX-MOW route was not because of what they have in PKX. Instead it's because they have stronger presence at Northeastern and Northwestern China that give them more routes and more flights to Russia that's closer to both area. Their stronger presence at Russia gave them a total of 24.00 points in A2+A4+A5+A6, while MU was only able to obtain a grand total of 5.02 points. Compares to the seventeen point lead CZ have over MU in the rating table, it mean that MU could have got higher ranking on the route if it weren't for the current system's emphasis on carrier performance at destination countries.

China Southern have today applied to the CAAC for 7x weekly flights between London and Beijing Daxing (PKX) from September 2019 - https://twitter.com/SeanM1997/status/11 ... 1734554624