A VIAT ION
WOR D S A L E X MC W HIR T E R
T 74
owards the end of the Second World War, a group of wise men convened in Chicago. Teir meeting was to result in the Chicago Convention of 1944, which would determine how civil aviation would function in the future. Five freedoms of the air were established. Tey ranged from the first – the right to fly over a
foreign country without landing – to the fiſth, which is perhaps the most interesting. Simply put, fiſth freedom grants an airline of one country the right to carry travellers between two other countries. One example would be British Airways carrying passengers between Singapore and Sydney, or Dubai’s Emirates flying customers between Milan and New York. In the post-war years, fiſth-freedom
rights were of great benefit to airlines because aircraſt of that era lacked range. It made long-distance routes such as Delhi- New York or London-Singapore viable because passengers could be carried to and from intermediate points. It also enabled airlines to operate to, from and within West Germany. For many years aſter the war, West Germany’s national airline was grounded, so fiſth-freedom rights provided Germany with air links to the outside world, as well as those connecting the West with West Berlin (the latter were routed over East German airspace). However, fiſth freedoms are not a right.
I remember JAL’s fiſth-freedom rights well, as I was a passenger on several of its Silk Route B747 flights. (Italian, Indian and Tai residents would enjoy similar rights along the route.) Te downside for any airline is that if they are too
successful, there is the risk that governments will want to withdraw these rights because they syphon passengers from their national airline. Consider the protests in Rome in 2014 when Emirates acquired fiſth-freedom rights between Milan and New York, for example. What’s more, not all fiſth-freedom routes are successful.
Fiſth freedom benefits travellers by providing more choice and, oſten, cheaper fares
Tere are plenty of examples of airlines abandoning certain routes because they were unprofitable. Recently, Ethiopian Airlines dropped Dublin-Los Angeles, to be replaced later by Dublin-Madrid, although the latter did not last long, either – according to its website, the route ceased last month. At the time of writing, meanwhile, Emirates is seeking
to drop its fiſth-freedom Singapore-Brisbane flight because it says it is making “substantial losses”. And now, facing tougher times, Cathay Pacific has decided to abandon Vancouver-New York next year, disappointing Vancouverites and New Yorkers who chose the flight for its higher standards when compared with North American carriers.
Over the decades, many airlines have had to surrender these “rights” when new ASAs (air service agreements) were drawn up. Because ASAs are conducted behind closed doors we cannot say for certain but it’s believed that both Air India and El Al surrendered some or all transatlantic flights from London. Singapore Airlines no longer operates as many transpacific flights from Hong Kong as it did in days gone by. In the 1970s, Japan Airlines operated the Silk Route
between London and Tokyo. Having fiſth-freedom rights enabled JAL to carry passengers between London and Rome, Delhi and Bangkok. JAL also had rights to transport passengers between Delhi and Bangkok.
NOV EMB E R 2 0 19
PASSENGER GAINS How does fiſth freedom benefit travellers? In short, it provides more choice and, oſten, cheaper fares. Examples here would include Taiwan’s EVA Air, which links London with Bangkok, Singapore Airlines (SIA), which plies the transpacific from both Hong Kong and Tokyo, and KLM, which links Singapore and Denpasar. One also invariably gets to sample a modern wide-body jet that they might not otherwise get to experience on the route – think of Emirates, whose A380s fly Bangkok-Hong Kong and Milan-New York, which are more commonly served by narrow-body aircraſt. Sometimes an airline gains fiſth-freedom rights for a
route neglected by the national carrier. Would SIA have gained Manchester-Houston rights were that route served by any UK or US airline? Or would Emirates have secured rights for Barcelona-Mexico City if it was already served
→ bus ine s s tr a v el ler .c om
NATHAPHAT/ISTOCK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160
