How the situation developed

Today (June 5), the U.S. Department of Transportation responded to the Civil Aviation Administration of China’s notice, concluding that the arrangement is still not reciprocal, and ordered that mainland Chinese airlines be allowed to retain a total of 2 weekly passenger flights between China and the U.S.

U.S. Department of Transportation: Order

  • June 5: The U.S. Department of Transportation ordered approval for Chinese airlines to resume two weekly China–U.S. flights
  • June 3: The CAAC issued a notice allowing all airlines to operate under the “Five One” policy
  • June 2: The U.S. Department of Transportation ordered that all Chinese airlines be barred from U.S. routes
  • Earlier: United and Delta wanted to resume China–U.S. service, but were denied because of the “no increase, only decrease” rule under the “Five One” policy
As discussed below, the U.S. Department of Transportation is modifying the decision reached in Order 2020-6-1 to permit Chinese carriers to operate, in the aggregate, a total of two weekly round-trip scheduled passenger flights to and from the United States, an aggregate level of scheduled passenger services that would be equivalent to that permitted by Chinese aviation authorities for U.S. carriers. This order will be effective immediately.

Likewise, at the end, USDOT said that if China changes its policy again, it may adjust this decision at any time.

Why?

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s reasoning appears to be this: the total number of flights requested by United and Delta was far greater than 4 weekly flights in total (United requested 5 weekly flights, and Delta requested 2 weekly flights), but under China’s new rule they would still be allowed to operate only 2 weekly flights. Meanwhile, under the same new Chinese rule, Chinese airlines would be able to get 4 weekly flights. So even under the new rule, the arrangement would still be unequal.

Historically, reciprocity in traffic rights has generally meant parity in the total number of flights, rather than each airline having the same number of flights. This is especially relevant because some countries have only one major international airline (for example, Singapore, Canada, France, the Netherlands, and Qatar). If China’s big three airlines, plus Hainan Airlines and other smaller carriers, all operated one weekly flight, then the total number of flights by Chinese airlines could be many times higher. In other words, it would not be normal if simply splitting one airline into many airlines created the right to add more service. Other countries may also want to add more flights but do not want to openly escalate the dispute; this could give them an opportunity to benefit if the U.S. pushes the issue and wins, while risking little if it loses.

What happens next?

We do not know either. If more U.S. airlines (American Airlines?) apply to operate China–U.S. routes, this issue might be resolved without a direct confrontation. But for now, that does not seem to be the case.

Will China approve 2 weekly flights for U.S. airlines to resume service? Reversing the new CAAC rule so quickly would probably be difficult politically. For now, all anyone can do is wait and see how both sides handle it. And for travelers who bought tickets on Chinese airlines for travel after June 16, it is a bit like Russian roulette, with a 50% chance the flight will actually operate. We can only wait for the next development.