Gamblers’ flights from London jeopardized by bill

Friday, Oct. 22, 1999 | 11:12 a.m.

A powerful Pennsylvania congressman has introduced legislation pressing Great Britain to renegotiate aviation treaties with the United States.

But the consequences of Britain's failure to act could become a roadblock to Virgin Atlantic Airline's bid to inaugurate nonstop air service to Las Vegas and its casinos from London next year.

Rep. Bud Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is pressing the legislation, introduced last week in response to British Airways' plans to discontinue direct service between London and Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh-based USAirways has aircraft available to pick up the route, but current aviation treaties between the United States and Great Britain don't permit another American air carrier to fly into London.

When British Airways announced it was discontinuing its Pittsburgh flights, Virgin Atlantic applied for and received permission from British aviation authorities to fly between London's Gatwick International Airport and McCarran International Airport.

Virgin Atlantic hasn't formally announced its London service, but the company is making plans to fly to Las Vegas twice a week on Boeing 747 jets. London is considered a key international market for Las Vegas because so many flights connect from there to other European cities. It's also a key gateway to South Africa.

Shuster said the point of his bill, HR 3072, is not to impose penalties, but to spur the British government to open up access to the United Kingdom, preferably with an "open skies" agreement that would allow any air carrier access to British airports.

Under Shuster's proposal, if a new aviation agreement is not reached within six months of the bill's passage, the secretary of Transportation would be directed to revoke all current slots held by British air carriers at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, the two largest ports for London service.

Also under the bill, if the United States and Britain fail to reach an open-skies agreement by Dec. 31, 2000, the current bilateral aviation agreement would be renunciated, effectively cutting off flights between London and all U.S. cities.

Travel and aviation experts are split over how seriously Shuster's proposal should be taken, but most concur that the bill is political posturing designed to express frustration and wouldn't get much support.

"This is radical legislation introduced to placate people in the Pittsburgh area," said Terry Trippler, an airline expert with 1travel.com, a website that analyzes travel and airline issues.

"Congressman Shuster was involved with the passenger bill of rights that went absolutely nowhere. It's (the new bill) crazy. The people of Las Vegas will get their London service."

Trippler said the main reason he doesn't expect the bill to go anywhere is that it takes more than one person to implement transportation policy in the United States. Shuster's legislation likely would be opposed by congressmen representing districts in states that have existing London service.

But because Shuster is so influential, Harry Kassap, manager of air service development at McCarran, is taking the bill seriously.

"We're watching it closely because if it gains momentum, it would cause a great deal of discomfort here," Kassap said. "We would be remiss if we did not pay attention, especially since Congressman Shuster plays such an important role in aviation legislation."

Kassap concurred that lawmakers from New York, Illinois and California probably would rise up against the legislation since it would hurt airports and companies doing business in those states.

He said it is evident that the Pennsylvania delegation wants the rest of the nation to feel its pain and that the way he reads the proposal, the pain would be that all London flights would be discontinued.

"We agree that liberalization is necessary in aviation agreements with Britain," Kassap said, "but I don't know that renunciation (of the existing agreement) is the way to go about it. We'd prefer a more diplomatic approach."

A spokesman for Rep. Ron Klink, D-Pa., whose district includes thousands of USAirways employees, said Shuster's bill isn't a bluff.

"He (Shuster) is the most powerful lawmaker on transportation policy in the U.S. Congress," said Charles Territo. "If you're in the transportation industry and he's mad about something, you've got something to be worried about. If Bud Shuster has a problem, you have a problem."

Pennsylvania's congressional delegation began mobilizing to take action last week following a meeting at Pittsburgh's airport.

Scott Brenner, a spokesman for Shuster, said the intent of the bill is to show how serious U.S. transportation leaders are about forcing Britain to consider reform in aviation agreements between the two nations.

Las Vegas officials have experienced first hand how international politics can affect the community's economic fortunes. Local officials tried in 1997 to forge a deal that would have brought Virgin Atlantic to Las Vegas. The deal was blocked when the British government awarded an available landing slot in London to British Airways for nonstop flights to Denver.

Ever since the Las Vegas deal failed to materialize, local experts have worked every angle to get Virgin Atlantic to McCarran. The route is important to bring more gamblers to Las Vegas to help fill the city's growing inventory of rooms in hotel-casinos. Last year, Las Vegas officials were with U.S. State Department negotiators when they walked out of aviation talks. The United States left the bargaining table because they believe British proposals are stacked too heavily in favor of British companies.

This week is the first time the two sides have come back to the bargaining table since the walkout in 1998.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette quoted Shuster as calling existing treaties with Britain "an anachronism" and that the United States has open-skies agreements with more than 20 nations.

"This is disgraceful, it is absolutely disgraceful," Shuster said. "Pittsburgh, western Pennsylvania, deserves to have air service, Pittsburgh to London. It is unconscionable that we would have this anachronistic, many-year-old Bermuda II agreement when all across the world today we have open skies or are moving toward open skies."

Kassap said he can understand where the Pennsylvania lawmakers are coming from.

"It is a very restrictive agreement, certainly an archaic document," Kassap said of Bermuda II, the treaty that presently governs aviation issues between the two countries.

"If I were in their position, I'd be doing the same thing," he said.

Kassap said he hopes it doesn't come to legislation that would thwart Virgin Atlantic from flights to Las Vegas.

"Believe me, I understand better than anybody what that service is worth," Kassap said.

archive