Editorial: British panel shoots down direct travel

Thursday, Dec. 18, 1997 | 10:44 a.m.

Las Vegas just got a lump of coal in its stocking, courtesy of the United Kingdom.

Britain's Civil Aviation Authority turned down a request Wednesday from Virgin Atlantic Airways for a London to Las Vegas flight, instead allowing rival British Airways to start a nonstop flight to from London to Denver.

At this point, most Las Vegans are probably scratching their heads as to why the British bureaucracy has the power to restrict what cities an airline will serve in the United States.

The reason: Under the current air treaty between the United States and Britain, there was just one new route left. British Airways and Virgin Atlantic Airways, which are Britain's two largest long-distance carriers, were in competition for the last route.

The United States and Britain are engaged in talks to update the treaty by liberalizing landing rights, but progress has been slow in establishing an "open skies" treaty, which proponents say would create more flights and result in lower fares.

Not only is this a matter of convenience for Las Vegas travelers, it is also an issue affecting our lifeblood: tourism.

The SUN has written extensive news stories about the need for more domestic and international flights, especially in light of the falling hotel occupancy rate, coupled with thousands of new hotel rooms scheduled to open soon.

Virgin Atlantic Chairman Richard Branson said he might ask the United Kingdom's transport secretary to overturn the ruling, calling it "a slap in the face for smaller airlines and a further unwanted boost to the monopolists at (British Airways)."

The British aviation regulator said in its statement that it chose British Airway's daily service over Virgin's plan for twice-weekly flights because it would produce "greater benefits for users of air services."

The problem with the existing system is not that there aren't enough travelers; the problem is that foreign governments are making arbitrary decisions on which cities should be served.

If tourists and locals don't use a London-Las Vegas route, then the airline will stop serving the destinations. The government doesn't need to tell air travelers what cities they can visit. The United States is involved in negotiations with other nations on open skies treaties, including Japan, another important international market.

One recent news account reported a U.S. Department of Transportation official as saying that a U.S.-Canada open skies treaty, which was completed two years ago, yielded impressive dividends. U.S.-Canada fares dropped an average 22 percent and the passenger count increased 28 percent.

Travel destinations with larger markets get preference under current air treaties. In effect, with the existing framework, the rich get richer. It's time to put an end to this situation and give the traveler a choice. Passengers and market demand -- not foreign governments -- should determine what cities receive international air service.