4 ms·

Will US airlines also propose to get rid of rules preventing foreign airlines from competing with domestic flights? http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_sc

Will US airlines also propose to get rid of rules preventing foreign airlines from competing with domestic flights? http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/transportation/2013/08/cabotage_will_revive_airline_competition_foreign_airlines_should_be_able.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/transportat...

Someone1234 9y ago
Which may actually reduce costs and increase consumer choice, their stated goal of this whole imitative. Somehow I don't expect that to be one of the cut regulations.
- nradov 9y ago
  An "open skies" rule allowing foreign carriers to operate flights would reduce prices and increase consumer choice, however the restriction exists primarily for national security reasons. The federal government needs a large domestic airline industry as a strategic transportation reserve that they can commandeer to move troops during a war or other large emergency.
  - smnrchrds 9y ago
    I imagine in those cases the government can and will force any airplane in American soil or airspace to act like this, whether they are owned by an American or foreign corporation.
    - rgbrenner 9y ago
      Sure for a minor incident. But any foreign airline would immediately move their planes out of the US if war broke out. And there would generally be warning signs before it happens, giving them plenty of time to discontinue flights.
    - nradov 9y ago
      Your imagination is not realistic. There's no legal way to require foreign pilots who are citizens of another country to follow US government orders. And it's not possible in the short term to put US pilots on those airplanes because each airline has a unique combination of airframes, engines, and avionics. Plus if the maintenance and logistics infrastructure aren't located in the USA then those airplanes would quickly become inoperable.
      - an_account 9y ago
        A foreign airline operating domestic routes in the US would likely use many US pilots/employees.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - sorenjan 9y ago
    That seems as anachronistic as the second amendment. The US military has its own logistics, and that's an understatement. 45 C-5, 222 C-17, 333 C-130. It's nothing but a pretext to protect domestic companies instead of doing what's best for the citizens.
    - nradov 9y ago
      Protectionism is certainly a factor but you don't seem to understand how much airlift is required to sustain an expeditionary military in the field. Current transport capacity has been stretched for years with the ongoing conflicts. At any given time many of those aircraft are out of service for maintenance.
      - sorenjan 9y ago
        To quote the Slate article linked above: > In practice, despite fighting two wars simultaneously for a decade, CRAF seems to have been activated just once at the very beginning of the Iraq War when the Pentagon activated 47 passenger aircraft and 31 wide-body cargo planes. > On the other hand, as a 2006 Congressional Research Service report on the program observed, “the program is voluntary” and domestic airlines participate in it because it’s financially beneficial to them. But my main gripe with it is that the US government apparently thinks it more important to maintain a military airlift reserve to be able to quickly fly soldiers and equipment to other parts of the world in a hypothetical future war than to let their own citizens have a well functioning free market that would give them more affordable transportation everyday. It's nothing but corporations first, citizens last, under the guise of national security. Just like the new steel tariffs are said to be because of national security.
        nradov 9y ago
        Some things are more important than well-functioning free markets. The recent wars have actually been relatively small with only a small fraction of the total military deployed at any given time. CRAF is an insurance policy for a potential major future conflict that requires transporting the bulk of the military around the world on short notice. All wars are hypothetical ... until someone starts shooting.
bbarn 9y ago
It was a sad day when Virgin was sold out from underneath Branson, because of this very regulation.
rayiner 9y ago
When foreign countries stop heavily subsidizing their airlines, sure. It’s not free trade to allow subsidized products into your country, it’s economic lunacy.

Someone1234 9y ago

Which may actually reduce costs and increase consumer choice, their stated goal of this whole imitative. Somehow I don't expect that to be one of the cut regulations.

nradov 9y ago
An "open skies" rule allowing foreign carriers to operate flights would reduce prices and increase consumer choice, however the restriction exists primarily for national security reasons. The federal government needs a large domestic airline industry as a strategic transportation reserve that they can commandeer to move troops during a war or other large emergency.
- smnrchrds 9y ago
  I imagine in those cases the government can and will force any airplane in American soil or airspace to act like this, whether they are owned by an American or foreign corporation.
  - rgbrenner 9y ago
    Sure for a minor incident. But any foreign airline would immediately move their planes out of the US if war broke out. And there would generally be warning signs before it happens, giving them plenty of time to discontinue flights.
  - nradov 9y ago
    Your imagination is not realistic. There's no legal way to require foreign pilots who are citizens of another country to follow US government orders. And it's not possible in the short term to put US pilots on those airplanes because each airline has a unique combination of airframes, engines, and avionics. Plus if the maintenance and logistics infrastructure aren't located in the USA then those airplanes would quickly become inoperable.
    - an_account 9y ago
      A foreign airline operating domestic routes in the US would likely use many US pilots/employees.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- sorenjan 9y ago
  That seems as anachronistic as the second amendment. The US military has its own logistics, and that's an understatement. 45 C-5, 222 C-17, 333 C-130. It's nothing but a pretext to protect domestic companies instead of doing what's best for the citizens.
  - nradov 9y ago
    Protectionism is certainly a factor but you don't seem to understand how much airlift is required to sustain an expeditionary military in the field. Current transport capacity has been stretched for years with the ongoing conflicts. At any given time many of those aircraft are out of service for maintenance.
    - sorenjan 9y ago
      To quote the Slate article linked above: > In practice, despite fighting two wars simultaneously for a decade, CRAF seems to have been activated just once at the very beginning of the Iraq War when the Pentagon activated 47 passenger aircraft and 31 wide-body cargo planes. > On the other hand, as a 2006 Congressional Research Service report on the program observed, “the program is voluntary” and domestic airlines participate in it because it’s financially beneficial to them. But my main gripe with it is that the US government apparently thinks it more important to maintain a military airlift reserve to be able to quickly fly soldiers and equipment to other parts of the world in a hypothetical future war than to let their own citizens have a well functioning free market that would give them more affordable transportation everyday. It's nothing but corporations first, citizens last, under the guise of national security. Just like the new steel tariffs are said to be because of national security.
      - nradov 9y ago
        Some things are more important than well-functioning free markets. The recent wars have actually been relatively small with only a small fraction of the total military deployed at any given time. CRAF is an insurance policy for a potential major future conflict that requires transporting the bulk of the military around the world on short notice. All wars are hypothetical ... until someone starts shooting.

bbarn 9y ago

It was a sad day when Virgin was sold out from underneath Branson, because of this very regulation.

rayiner 9y ago

When foreign countries stop heavily subsidizing their airlines, sure. It’s not free trade to allow subsidized products into your country, it’s economic lunacy.