China Might Finally Abolish Their “One Route, One Chinese Airline” Policy

The Chinese aviation industry is growing at a rapid pace, and we’ve seen so many new routes added lately. By 2024 China is expected to overtake the US as the world’s largest passenger market, and by 2035 they expect to transport 1.3 billion passengers per year.

While a lot of airlines in China are government owned, they operate a bit differently than elsewhere in the world. While many countries have just one government owned airline, China has many government owned airlines that essentially compete with one another. Well, sort of. On one hand China makes these airlines compete, while on the other hand they put policies in place that set airlines up for failure.


Hainan 787-9

I’m referring to China’s “one route, one Chinese carrier” policy. Under this rule, only one Chinese airline can operate each longhaul route. There are a few markets where there are exceptions, but in 95% of longhaul markets that policy exists.


Air China 747-8

On one hand I see the logic, in that they don’t want airlines competing too heavily against one another. The problem is that it’s causing airlines to operate routes that are tough to turn a profit on, and also causing airlines to preemptively launch routes to prevent their competitors from operating them lately. The policy simply doesn’t make sense to me, especially as multiple foreign airlines are allowed to compete in many of these markets.

Just to give an example, if you want to fly Sichuan Airlines between Shanghai and Los Angeles (two of the biggest cities in their respective countries) you’d have to connect twice.

Similarly, Hainan is based in Beijing, and most of their longhaul routes are out of Beijing. However, Air China already operates many routes out of Beijing, so Hainan isn’t allowed to fly from Beijing to Los Angeles or New York, so instead they fly from Changsha to Los Angeles and Chongqing to New York. Want to get from Shanghai to New York on Hainan? You’ll have to connect twice or have a ~27 hour layover.

The counter argument is that this policy causes airlines to provide longhaul service to secondary cities with a lot of demand, which is true, though it also creates some of the most inefficient route networks you’ll find anywhere in the world.

It looks like China is finally reconsidering their “one route, one Chinese carrier” policy. Per ch-aviation, the Civil Aviation Administration of China has released a draft regulation that would open up some longhaul routes to more Chinese airlines, as a way to increase international competitiveness:

Under the new proposal, routes that are currently limited to one carrier would be opened up to competition by domestic carriers.

As part of the reforms, long-haul routes would be classified into two types, depending on how open the Bilateral Air Services Agreement (BASA) is with the destination country. Open or partly open routes will be unrestricted on the number of carriers, routes and capacity. All other routes will only be partly restricted, with long-haul routes open to more than one carrier.

I wouldn’t count on any changes until the proposal is officially approved, but I certainly support it. It doesn’t make sense that three US airlines can fly nonstop from Los Angeles to Shanghai, while only one Chinese airline can. While there are tons of huge markets in China, there are only a few with decent yields, so a modified aviation policy seems like it would be in everyone’s best interest.

What do you make of China changing their “one route, one Chinese carrier” policy?

Conversations (26)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Laurel Member

@valium It's the other way around...the small cities want access to Vancouver so they can show off that their local airport is so important that they have long haul flights to North America.

0
‼ 0
Iamhere Gold

It is important to remember that this policy does not apply to code share flights. For example, both United and Air China fly between PEK and SFO. Air China can sell seats on both it's flight and the United Flight. According to the rule, another Chinese airline cannot fly within that route, but if another route is taken by another Chinese carrier and they sell seats on a partner's flight, that is okay. The reason behind this, I think, is to make more Chinese airports and cities on the map.

0
‼ 0
callum Guest

Kris Moen - Why exactly should China's priority be to give Vancouver access to loads of secondary Chinese cities?

0
‼ 0
Kris Moen Guest

Removing one route one airline policy only makes sense for China-USA routes. YVR has exploded with access to secondary Chinese cities under this policy. Vancouver is the best city to catch a flight Anywhere in a China. My home port of Calgary has YYC-PEK largely because HU can't get into YVR. Would HU shift flights to YVR-PEK if allowed? My guess would be yes. At a minimum The YYC route is toast as the aircraft could probably be deployed more profitably elsewhere. I will go out on limb and say chine- Europe is a lot more like China-Canada than China-USA. It's better off forcing airlines to serve secondary markets beyond LHR, CDG, FRA, and AMS.

0
‼ 0
Nick in Chicago Member

@notbad41 thank you for your input, I'm booking Air China after all. Thank you, Nick

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published