5 ms·

I wish we'd get rid of this rule entirely. Just seems like naked protectionism, no? If a non-US carrier abides by local regulations, I don't see an issue with

I wish we'd get rid of this rule entirely. Just seems like naked protectionism, no? If a non-US carrier abides by local regulations, I don't see an issue with letting them run domestic flights.

josephcsible 3y ago
You make it sound like that's a US-specific rule, but there's an equivalent rule in basically every country (with some exceptions, the main one being between EU member states).
- silverpepsi 3y ago
  Two wrongs don't make a right?
  - maxcan 3y ago
    No, but they often add up to a stable Nash equilibrium.
fransje26 3y ago
It's better than that. Those are IATA rules, and IATA has been functioning as a cartel more or less since it has been founded..
- realityking 3y ago
  They‘re actually defined by ICAO, a UN agency with states as members. And the actual restrictions are of course a matter of domestic legislation stemming out countries sovereignty over their airspace. These restrictions largely don‘t exist among European Union member states and between Australia and New Zealand. IATAs cartel like behavior was due to them regulating airline prices and services. This started at a time when governments where still regulating domestic prices thinking that competition on price or service would lead to cutting corners on safety.
zoky 3y ago
Given that many foreign airlines are at least in part government owned, this could be problematic. Do we really want Air China to come in and drastically undercut US based carriers in order to drive them out of business?
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >Do we really want Air China to come in and drastically undercut US based carriers in order to drive them out of business? Given just how horrifically awful the American carriers are, I don't see how this would be a bad thing: Air China couldn't possibly be any worse.
- nl 3y ago
  Sure? If the Chinese government (or more realistically Qatar or UAE etc) wants to subsidize US business and tourism by making it cheaper to fly within the US it seems like a good thing for the US. As we've seen, anytime an airline raises prices it is pretty easy for another carrier (or even a brand new carrier) to come in and replace them. So it isn't like a hypothetical foreign government owned carrier could somehow make long term sustained profits. Let them spend their money on that if they are that dumb!
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    We don’t want to be in a situation where Beijing can turn off American flights because someone said mean things about Xi.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      Unless they are the only option - which should be a matter for the antitrust regulators - it's not really a threat, just an inconvenience.
    - nl 3y ago
      If there was a monopoly situation (which of course is a big "if") then it's reasonable to have laws requiring specific levels of service from the airline. It's fairly easy to write those laws to force the airline to fly. If the Chinese state intervenes in US domestic travel affairs then the US has the option to nationalize their fleet. All their assets and operational staff are in the US and the staff aren't going to oppose keeping their jobs...
maxcan 3y ago
In the past you could have made an argument about foreign airlines not being held to FAA standards. But today, FAA knows exactly which jurisdictions regulate airlines to a comparable standard and which don’t. Denying cabotage and other higher rights to those airlines is 100%, as you say, naked protectionism.

I wish we'd get rid of this rule entirely. Just seems like naked protectionism, no? If a non-US carrier abides by local regulations, I don't see an issue with letting them run domestic flights.

josephcsible 3y ago

You make it sound like that's a US-specific rule, but there's an equivalent rule in basically every country (with some exceptions, the main one being between EU member states).

silverpepsi 3y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right?
- maxcan 3y ago
  No, but they often add up to a stable Nash equilibrium.

fransje26 3y ago

It's better than that. Those are IATA rules, and IATA has been functioning as a cartel more or less since it has been founded..

realityking 3y ago
They‘re actually defined by ICAO, a UN agency with states as members. And the actual restrictions are of course a matter of domestic legislation stemming out countries sovereignty over their airspace. These restrictions largely don‘t exist among European Union member states and between Australia and New Zealand. IATAs cartel like behavior was due to them regulating airline prices and services. This started at a time when governments where still regulating domestic prices thinking that competition on price or service would lead to cutting corners on safety.

zoky 3y ago

Given that many foreign airlines are at least in part government owned, this could be problematic. Do we really want Air China to come in and drastically undercut US based carriers in order to drive them out of business?

midoridensha 3y ago
>Do we really want Air China to come in and drastically undercut US based carriers in order to drive them out of business? Given just how horrifically awful the American carriers are, I don't see how this would be a bad thing: Air China couldn't possibly be any worse.
nl 3y ago
Sure? If the Chinese government (or more realistically Qatar or UAE etc) wants to subsidize US business and tourism by making it cheaper to fly within the US it seems like a good thing for the US. As we've seen, anytime an airline raises prices it is pretty easy for another carrier (or even a brand new carrier) to come in and replace them. So it isn't like a hypothetical foreign government owned carrier could somehow make long term sustained profits. Let them spend their money on that if they are that dumb!
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  We don’t want to be in a situation where Beijing can turn off American flights because someone said mean things about Xi.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Unless they are the only option - which should be a matter for the antitrust regulators - it's not really a threat, just an inconvenience.
  - nl 3y ago
    If there was a monopoly situation (which of course is a big "if") then it's reasonable to have laws requiring specific levels of service from the airline. It's fairly easy to write those laws to force the airline to fly. If the Chinese state intervenes in US domestic travel affairs then the US has the option to nationalize their fleet. All their assets and operational staff are in the US and the staff aren't going to oppose keeping their jobs...

maxcan 3y ago

In the past you could have made an argument about foreign airlines not being held to FAA standards. But today, FAA knows exactly which jurisdictions regulate airlines to a comparable standard and which don’t. Denying cabotage and other higher rights to those airlines is 100%, as you say, naked protectionism.