Look at the Australian approach.
Foreign airlines cannot carry domestic traffic. But foreign investors/airlines can 100% own or establish an Australian entity that operates a domestic airline and is subject completely to Australian AOC/licensing/safety laws.

YIMBY wrote:

Abusive, non-informational messages do not give positive contributions to the discussion.

Let's not pointlessly exaggerate, shall we.

If my intent was to be "abusive," then I could do a better job of such than simply telling you that you lack effective knowledge on the topic you're speaking about. Most notably from the perspective of practical application.

For example:

YIMBY wrote:

Note that any law can be changed as easily as the law that requires the national majority.

"Easily" you say??

Do you not realize that the law in question (Defense Production Act) has not only stood for 67 years, but in its only two amendments (both, interestingly enough, by Democrats) it was actually made MORE difficult to repeal?

Right, of course you did.

But by all means, tell us how you're going to rescind an act that (in its 2009 amendment) cedes massive authority to the Executive (read that: "guaranteed veto to anyone attempting to change it").......

.......or better yet, explain to us how you'd rally sufficient votes in the Senate, particularly among Republicans, to alter a military provision in favor of foreign interests. That one I've GOT to hear.

rbavfan wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Yes, of course it should be allowed. But, who wants the customer to win?

If US administration really takes such a decision, it will have to fight very heavy lobbies.

TWA772LR wrote:

US law currently allows for up to 25% foreign ownership. If any foreign airline really wanted to own a US airline, wouldn't they already own the max they can on one? The US airlines are strong enough without foreign ownership and show no signs of needing it.

Existing US airlines serve on the motto of "pay more to avoid hell". A new foreign owned airline can change that.
US airlines are strong because of no competition. That can also change.

You realize the airlines profiting best in the EU are Easyjet, Ryanair and other ultra low cost nickle and dime you airlines. Not the one giving full service people are now inwilling to pay for. Gow will that make the passenger first.

I agree. If the US opened up to foreign airlines, the full service airlines won't be coming. It will be Norwegian 737s using foreign crew to undercut labor costs. We might also Air Asia start a Guam division and start marching across the Pacific to Hawaii and beyond. It would be ultra low cost airlines.

The regulatory side of it would be challenging. I doubt Air Asia or someone like that is prepared to handle a US FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector tearing apart their airplane records.

I can't see a full service coming into the United States and improving service. The US 3 have their loyalty programs and people don't switch often. The customers most likely willing to switch are the ones who travel infrequently and are the lowest yielding. A Foreign entity would have to be competing with Spirit, Allegiant and Frontier for passengers. Do we not remember how much of a disaster Virgin America was when they started up regarding losses? They had pretty planes and good service but lost a lot of money.

ua900 wrote:

US airlines offer a wide array of choices, everything from basic economy to domestic lie flats / DL Private Jets. Access to these products is more democratic than in any other country, all it takes is money. The official motto of all US airlines, from the US 3 to NK is "anything for a buck". For the right price, they will treat you like royalty, including Porsche Cayenne transfers, very private handling, top notch facilities, concierges, porters, anything you want. Most people wanted prices to stay the same or fall slightly, and that explains today's product mix. Something for everyone.

In the U.S., one doesn't need to be a member of parliament to fly first class, we don't have an Air India that can be commandeered on the whim of a local politico. We also don't require the intervention of national aviation authorities to better cater to the needs of political representatives or let them onboard again after slapping people. Many other countries have that as well btw, not just India.

As for outfits like Virgin America, while it's disappearing it was a great example of an essentially foreign operation acting through U.S. straw men. While they turned out to be unreliable from Branson's point of view, he (and others) are certainly welcome to do another incarnation of Virgin America. The success of the innovation to brought to the table shows that you can still be successful when you have a different product for which there is no direct substitute.

If anyone thinks that a domestic Norwegian or Ryanair would be successful, think again. That business model depends on slave labor and skirting U.S. regulations as much as possible. Had that been feasible in the U.S., then someone like Irelandia Aviation would have found a local straw man and started something stateside, as they did in Mexico through VivaAerobus or in Colombia through VivaColombia.

Perfectly stated!!!

flyingcat wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

I did some research and found it is voluntary. There are at least three airlines operating domestic flights that are not included (and this doesn't count the regionals).

If you are not in CRAF you can forget about bidding for the GSA program which cuts you off from Federal employees and the Military. In addition contractors associated with the government won't touch you with a 10 foot pole. Plus CRAF participation or lack thereof definitely comes up if you are competing for slots or international access.

Is this a deal breaker though? F9, NK, and VX all seem to do ok and win their fair share of slots/international authorities.

ua900 wrote:

If anyone thinks that a domestic Norwegian or Ryanair would be successful, think again. That business model depends on slave labor and skirting U.S. regulations as much as possible. Had that been feasible in the U.S., then someone like Irelandia Aviation would have found a local straw man and started something stateside, as they did in Mexico through VivaAerobus or in Colombia through VivaColombia.

What is the difference between a domestic Ryanair and Spirit?

cledaybuck wrote:

ua900 wrote:

If anyone thinks that a domestic Norwegian or Ryanair would be successful, think again. That business model depends on slave labor and skirting U.S. regulations as much as possible. Had that been feasible in the U.S., then someone like Irelandia Aviation would have found a local straw man and started something stateside, as they did in Mexico through VivaAerobus or in Colombia through VivaColombia.

What is the difference between a domestic Ryanair and Spirit?

Ryanair doesn't have employees, they use staffing agencies to staff their aircraft with contractors. Everyone: pilots, flight attendants, mechanics etc.. are contractors.

Doesn't fly in the United States. Norwegian is attempting the staff their 737's in PVD and SWF with contractors and can't do it. Nobody worth their weight in poop would work for a contractor on a year-year basis with no raises or employee protections when full employment alternatives exist.


The contractor situation in europe is completely out of control. It's a product of the welfare state picking up the pieces.

Should US allow foreign owned domestic airlines?
NO the airlines should just be held to some types of rules that are fair and common sense.

No, in fact private airlines should be banned completely. American Airlines should be made the national carrier of the US, like Aeroflot once was in Soviet Union.

pvjin wrote:

No, in fact private airlines should be banned completely. American Airlines should be made the national carrier of the US, like Aeroflot once was in Soviet Union.

Woah, woah, woah! Slow your role, pal. First of all, DL is probably a better choice, but still it just wouldn't be. You do understand that the CCCP was communist and the USA is a democracy, right? American Airlines IS a private airline, so are just about all of the other airlines here in the US. As, I previously stated, there are so many other airlines based right here, in the US, it's absurd. We should let those airlines fly rather than another airline that isn't based here. Anyways, let's steer this thread away from politics, please. FGS, we have to listen to MSNBC, ABC and CNN babble a bunch of BS, to some airliners.net is, well, some where to get away from all of it, and talk about something that can actually contains interest to some of us.

aviationaware wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

All restrictions for ownership is just protectionism for the companies instead of citizens. There is no justified reason for artificial restrictions of ownership or cabotage, neither related to safety, security, military, environment, health or economy. It is enough to require that foreign companies operate with the same standards as the local ones.

This concerns also my country and EU.

Hindering government owned entities from other countries from entering the market is protecting the citizens' right to free enterprise. You may call it protectionism, I call it protecting our freedom.

The rest of the world is not communistic. There are very few government owned airlines in Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia, and all those are by laws required to behave like private companies. None of those is big and wealthy enough to dream about US markets (not sure about AY but its mindset is set to the east). Do not expect LOT or TAP to enter the US domestic market even if allowed. The airlines mentioned in this thread, like Norwegian, Ryanair, EasyJet, Virgin are completely private.

P.S. Not so long ago cars made by a government owned entity in the US entered international markets. Would it have protected the citizens' right to free enterprise to ban those.

YIMBY wrote:

The rest of the world is not communistic. There are very few government owned airlines in Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia, and all those are by laws required to behave like private companies. None of those is big and wealthy enough to dream about US markets (not sure about AY but its mindset is set to the east). Do not expect LOT or TAP to enter the US domestic market even if allowed. The airlines mentioned in this thread, like Norwegian, Ryanair, EasyJet, Virgin are completely private.

The "rest of the world" consists of far more than Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. You will find plenty of government owned airlines in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, including...China. China especially would probably love to have reign over the US domestic air market.

Also government owned airline does not automatically equal communism.

LAX772LR wrote:

But by all means, tell us how you're going to rescind an act that (in its 2009 amendment) cedes massive authority to the Executive (read that: "guaranteed veto to anyone attempting to change it").......

.......or better yet, explain to us how you'd rally sufficient votes in the Senate, particularly among Republicans, to alter a military provision in favor of foreign interests. That one I've GOT to hear.

Come on, if there is enough political will, such law can be made. There is no technical obstacle. It is just a standard political procedure. Making and revising laws is never trivial, but this case is not particularly difficult just because an old law is very old. All you need is a majority supporting it, or triple majority because of the complicated legislative structure. Much more challenging and controversial laws have been made in the US congress (like ObamaCare).

Of course, the current administration of Trump would not propose anything against the benefits of the grand enterprises even if it were in favour of national citizens.

Foreign interests are not involved here. That is just paranoia, or straw man to hide the economic interests of the owners and employees of the US air lines.

I would hope that EU opens first, but because of current issues EU won't be able to make any major decisions beyond the obligatory.

ZyreaxPlayz wrote:

pvjin wrote:

No, in fact private airlines should be banned completely. American Airlines should be made the national carrier of the US, like Aeroflot once was in Soviet Union.

Woah, woah, woah! Slow your role, pal. First of all, DL is probably a better choice, but still it just wouldn't be. You do understand that the CCCP was communist and the USA is a democracy, right? American Airlines IS a private airline, so are just about all of the other airlines here in the US. As, I previously stated, there are so many other airlines based right here, in the US, it's absurd. We should let those airlines fly rather than another airline that isn't based here. Anyways, let's steer this thread away from politics, please. FGS, we have to listen to MSNBC, ABC and CNN babble a bunch of BS, to some airliners.net is, well, some where to get away from all of it, and talk about something that can actually contains interest to some of us.

I see you're new here... Not meant to be sarcastic, I really did notice that lol. If you want to see the way he really is, take a stroll over to non-av and just glance at a thread about Trump.

Welcome to the crack pipe!

Norway's Pensionfund ( former oil fund ) has Investments in almost 9000 companies around the world aswell as corporate bonds and realestate. Among the almost 9000 Companies one also finds some Investments in airlines and aviation related companies. They are minor amount of Stock though, as the policy of the Norwegian pensionfund is to spread it's investmens over a large number of companies arouhd the world so as not to lose too much if one Investment goes bad. Most of them are under 1%. As of 2016 it included:

Investments in Stock:

* Delta Airlines Inc: Ownership: 0.39 % Voting rights: 0.39 % Investment: USD 142 888 932
* American Airlines Group Inc: Ownership: 0.39 % Voting rights: 0.39 % Investment: USD 93 292 456
* Southwest Airlines Co: Ownership: 0.24 % Voting rights: 0.24 % Investment: USD 72 899 423
* Spirit Airlines Inc: Ownership: 0.36 % Voting rights: 0.36 % Investment: USD 14 285 345
* JetBlue Airways Corp: Ownership: 0.62 % Voting rights: 0.62 % Investment: USD 44 734 222
* Alaska Air Group Inc: Ownership: 0.37 % Voting rights: 0.37 % Investment: USD 40 841 709
* Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings Inc: Ownership: 0.1 % Voting rights: 0.1 % Investment: USD 1 267 766
* Aircastle Ltd: Ownership: 0.61 % Voting rights: 0.61 % Investment: USD 10 050 826
* Air Lease Corp: Ownership: 0.41 % Voting rights: 0.41 % Investment: USD 14 466 010
* Air Methods Corp: Ownership: 0.07 % Voting rights: 0.07 % Investment: USD 859 982
* Wesco Aircraft Holdings Inc: Ownership: 0.95 % Voting rights: 0.95 % Investment: USD 14 083 528
* WestJet Airlines Ltd: Ownership: 0.06 % Voting rights: 0.06 % Investment: USD 1 225 249
* Allegiant Travel Co: Ownership: 0.43 % Voting rights: 0.43 % Investment: USD 11 705 741
* Copa Holdings SA: Ownership: 0.34 % Voting rights: 0.34 % Investment: USD 12 896 588
* FedEx Corp: Ownership: 0.58 % Voting rights: 0.58 % Investment: USD 288 802 903
* Hawaiian Holdings Inc: Ownership: 1,34 % Voting rights: 1,34 % Investment: USD 40 925 316

Investments in Corporate Bonds:

* American Airlines Group Inc: USD 74 095 419
* United Airlines Inc: USD 48 003 768
* Air Lease Corp: USD 95 161 193
* Air Canada: USD 9 894 217

Outside the Americas:

* Aegean Airlines SA: Ownership: 0,35 % Voting rights: 0,35 % Investment: USD 1 689 298
* Asiana Airlines Inc: Ownership: 0,61 % Voting rights: 0,61 % Investment: USD 4 386 872
* China Airlines Ltd: Ownership: 0,86 % Voting rights: 0,86 % Investment: USD 13 600 647
* China Eastern Airlines Corp Ltd: Ownership: 0,08 % Voting rights: 0,08 % Investment: USD 5 063 219
* China Southern Airlines Co Ltd: Ownership: 0,26 % Voting rights: 0,26 % Investment: USD 13 128 824
* International Consolidated Airlines Group SA: Ownership: 1,09 % Voting rights: 1,09 % Investment: USD 124 602 351
* Japan Airlines Co Ltd: Ownership: 0,39 % Voting rights: 0,39 % Investment: USD 33 075 155
* Latam Airlines Group SA: Ownership: 0,47 % Voting rights: 0,47 % Investment: USD 21 839 390
* Shandong Airlines Co Ltd: Ownership: 0,63 % Voting rights: 0,63 % Investment: USD 5 387 443
* Singapore Airlines Ltd: Ownership: 0,9 % Voting rights: 0,9 % Investment: USD 71 302 659
* Spring Airlines Co Ltd: Ownership: 0,5 % Voting rights: 0,5 % Investment: USD 21 197 867
* Air Arabia PJSC: Ownership: 0,94 % Voting rights: 0,94 % Investment: USD 15 887 966
* Air Berlin PLC: Ownership: 0,09 % Voting rights: 0,09 % Investment: USD 69 760
* Air China Ltd: Ownership: 0,12 % Voting rights: 0,12 % Investment: USD 9 987 915
* Air France-KLM: Ownership: 0,89 % Voting rights: 0,72 % Investment: USD 14 586 634
* Air New Zealand Ltd: Ownership: 1,11 % Voting rights: 1,11 % Investment: USD 19 087 995
* Air Partner PLC: Ownership: 1,4 % Voting rights: 1,4 % Investment: USD 909 192
* AirAsia Bhd: Ownership: 0,99 % Voting rights: 0,99 % Investment: USD 14 091 361
* AirAsia X Bhd: Ownership: 1,48 % Voting rights: 1,48 % Investment: USD 4 913 751
* Bangkok Airways PCL: Ownership: 2,56 % Voting rights: 2,56 % Investment: USD 34 071 077
* Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd: Ownership: 0,68 % Voting rights: 0,68 % Investment: USD 35 267 625
* Cebu Air Inc: Ownership: 1,13 % Voting rights: 1,13 % Investment: USD 12 810 468
* Enter Air SA: Ownership: 2,13 % Voting rights: 2,13 % Investment: USD 2 282 318
* Eva Airways Corp: Ownership: 0,6 % Voting rights: 0,6 % Investment: USD 10 922 276
* Finnair OYJ: Corp: Ownership: 1,65 % Voting rights: 1,65 % Investment: USD 8 992 196
* Jazeera Airways Co KSC: Ownership: 0,99 % Voting rights: 0,99 % Investment: USD 4 992 342
* Jet Airways India Ltd: Ownership: 0,04 % Voting rights: 0,04 % Investment: USD 204 473
* Korean Air Lines Co Ltd: Ownership: 0,72 % Voting rights: 0,74 % Investment: USD 12 136 399
* Qantas Airways Ltd: Ownership: 0,89 % Voting rights: 0,89 % Investment: USD 39 714 463
* Ryanair Holdings PLC: Ownership: 0,88 % Voting rights: 0,88 % Investment: USD 166 965 638
* Thai Airways International PCL: Ownership: 0,24 % Voting rights: 0,24 % Investment: USD 3 305 685
* Wizz Air Holdings Plc: Ownership: 1,67 % Voting rights: 2,97 % Investment: USD 37 742 801

seat38a wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

These statements, you clearly demonstrate that you no clue what you're talking about in this regard.

If you have any clue, it would be fair that you share that with us. In another post you are using word like "ridiculous" without giving any factual support for that. Abusive, non-informational messages do not give positive contributions to the discussion.

LAX772LR wrote:

...via the legal mechanism that you just (erroneously) referred to as "obsolete."

Would you kindly revise your logic, to capture where the error is.

Note that any law can be changed as easily as the law that requires the national majority. We are not talking about amending the constitution. It is very typical that a change of a paragraph in one law requires changes in other laws so that the legislation is consistent. That is everyday job for the law-makers.

Well where the hell is your "factual support" for your assertion:

Civil Reserve is an obsolete and flawed excuse. First, it is not needed for any reasonable case, as most civil airliners are not suitable for military use and the US military particularly has a huge supply of military transport planes. They could even make their own reserve from outdated airliners converted to reserve transport planes.

These statements, you clearly demonstrate that you no clue what you're talking about in this regard.

Just because you spout crap out without factual support does not make it right and others wrong. I see nothing "abusive" calling out your BS. According to the Air Force:

A unique and significant part of the nation's air mobility resources is the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, or CRAF.

Care to backup your claim with facts????

Maybe you want to send a letter to the DOD letting them know that they've been doing it all wrong in YOUR EXPERT opinion.

Would you kindly tell a single case when US government has had to mobilize a major part of the civil jetliners for military purpose and would not have been able to make that using normal voluntary commercial contracts. Could you describe a possible scenario where that would be needed, and where foreign ownership would prevent that. Does the US law protect "enemy-owned" US registered aircraft from confiscation? Is there a law against leasing airliners from foreign-owned leasing companies?

Why do you assume that your airlines would collapse if foreign-owned airlines would be allowed to compete within US, with the same standards for safety and labour protection as the national airlines, paying all the same taxes and fees? What would be so catastrophic if e.g. BA (IAG) and AA or DL and AF/KL merged? (Not that I would endorse megamergers, though)

I cannot imagine that foreign air lines would ever be even close to achieve a majority of American air business. Passengers have the option to decide, and in many European countries the passengers support their national carrier even if that is in an inferior condition compared with any major airline in the US. Half of the fleet would be certainly sufficient to take care of that CRAF. No other country needs anything even close to that.

You have the burden of proof if you want to claim that a restriction against all economic theory is beneficial for your people.

I think alot of Y'all may be missing the point. If forgin ownership/cabotage were to happen. all you wold get is about 4 global carriers, as star would merge, skyteam would merge, etc. and while the names may change the pricipal players and employees would not.

YIMBY wrote:

seat38a wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

If you have any clue, it would be fair that you share that with us. In another post you are using word like "ridiculous" without giving any factual support for that. Abusive, non-informational messages do not give positive contributions to the discussion.



Would you kindly revise your logic, to capture where the error is.

Note that any law can be changed as easily as the law that requires the national majority. We are not talking about amending the constitution. It is very typical that a change of a paragraph in one law requires changes in other laws so that the legislation is consistent. That is everyday job for the law-makers.

Well where the hell is your "factual support" for your assertion:

Civil Reserve is an obsolete and flawed excuse. First, it is not needed for any reasonable case, as most civil airliners are not suitable for military use and the US military particularly has a huge supply of military transport planes. They could even make their own reserve from outdated airliners converted to reserve transport planes.

These statements, you clearly demonstrate that you no clue what you're talking about in this regard.

Just because you spout crap out without factual support does not make it right and others wrong. I see nothing "abusive" calling out your BS. According to the Air Force:

A unique and significant part of the nation's air mobility resources is the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, or CRAF.

Care to backup your claim with facts????

Maybe you want to send a letter to the DOD letting them know that they've been doing it all wrong in YOUR EXPERT opinion.

Would you kindly tell a single case when US government has had to mobilize a major part of the civil jetliners for military purpose and would not have been able to make that using normal voluntary commercial contracts. Could you describe a possible scenario where that would be needed, and where foreign ownership would prevent that. Does the US law protect "enemy-owned" US registered aircraft from confiscation? Is there a law against leasing airliners from foreign-owned leasing companies?

Why do you assume that your airlines would collapse if foreign-owned airlines would be allowed to compete within US, with the same standards for safety and labour protection as the national airlines, paying all the same taxes and fees? What would be so catastrophic if e.g. BA (IAG) and AA or DL and AF/KL merged? (Not that I would endorse megamergers, though)

I cannot imagine that foreign air lines would ever be even close to achieve a majority of American air business. Passengers have the option to decide, and in many European countries the passengers support their national carrier even if that is in an inferior condition compared with any major airline in the US. Half of the fleet would be certainly sufficient to take care of that CRAF. No other country needs anything even close to that.

You have the burden of proof if you want to claim that a restriction against all economic theory is beneficial for your people.

CRAF has been activated once as part of Operation Desert Shield and once as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

YOU stated that it is no longer needed and outdated, SO YOU prove it. Prove that Emirates or whoever would gladly and willingly allow their aircrafts to be used to say deploy massive amounts of troops to the Middle East. YOU are claiming what has worked is outdated so YOU prove it with quotes and facts from the government and statistics that my national security is better by letting a bunch for foreigners run our airlines. YOU prove it that Air China, Aeroflot etc. would gladly allow us to confiscate their aircraft in the USA's national interest when the conflict is with their home country. YOU think its better to change what we currently have now SO YOU provide proof and not just the "mental diarrhea" you keep writing and then trying to put the burden of proof on others.

scbriml wrote:

Yes, of course it should be allowed. But, who wants the customer to win?

TWA772LR wrote:

US law currently allows for up to 25% foreign ownership. If any foreign airline really wanted to own a US airline, wouldn't they already own the max they can on one?

I read the question more as allowing non-US airlines to operate domestic flights rather than take ownership of an existing US airline.

Air travel has consistently gotten cheaper and cheaper over the decades since deregulation. There are currently 12 (11 now with the AS/VX) merger "mainline" carriers operating in the United States with a host of smaller regional carriers that are unaligned with the majors. How much competition do feel the US should have in the domestic market? Do you truly feel that having 30 carriers, foreign and domestic operating in the US is a good thing? I have seen you make numerous comments about the airlines consolidation hurting the customer. Do you understand how expensive it is to run an airline? I had no clue until I started working for one. Do you realize that the 12 (11) major US airline employ hundreds of thousands of employees domestically and abroad? Flooding the domestic market with capacity creating low double digit fares all around the country wouldn't be good for any of the airlines and puts tens of thousands of jobs on the line. All for what? So you can fly cross country in a few hours for the price of an Uber ride?

77H

seat38a wrote:

YOU stated that it is no longer needed and outdated, SO YOU prove it. Prove that Emirates or whoever would gladly and willingly allow their aircrafts to be used to say deploy massive amounts of troops to the Middle East. YOU are claiming what has worked is outdated so YOU prove it with quotes and facts from the government and statistics that my national security is better by letting a bunch for foreigners run our airlines. YOU prove it that Air China, Aeroflot etc. would gladly allow us to confiscate their aircraft in the USA's national interest when the conflict is with their home country. YOU think its better to change what we currently have now SO YOU provide proof and not just the "mental diarrhea" you keep writing and then trying to put the burden of proof on others.

In this case there is no difference between Emirates (US subsidiary) and United: neither of them will gladly and willingly give their aircraft free of charge to deploy troops, but both of them will obey, if officially and legally required to do so. Owners of both will whine, but that is just noise, nothing else. Indeed, the owners of United will be heard louder.

P.S. How many airliners used for domestic traffic in the US can be used to deploy troops to Middle East?

YIMBY wrote:

seat38a wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

If you have any clue, it would be fair that you share that with us. In another post you are using word like "ridiculous" without giving any factual support for that. Abusive, non-informational messages do not give positive contributions to the discussion.



Would you kindly revise your logic, to capture where the error is.

Note that any law can be changed as easily as the law that requires the national majority. We are not talking about amending the constitution. It is very typical that a change of a paragraph in one law requires changes in other laws so that the legislation is consistent. That is everyday job for the law-makers.

Well where the hell is your "factual support" for your assertion:

Civil Reserve is an obsolete and flawed excuse. First, it is not needed for any reasonable case, as most civil airliners are not suitable for military use and the US military particularly has a huge supply of military transport planes. They could even make their own reserve from outdated airliners converted to reserve transport planes.

These statements, you clearly demonstrate that you no clue what you're talking about in this regard.

Just because you spout crap out without factual support does not make it right and others wrong. I see nothing "abusive" calling out your BS. According to the Air Force:

A unique and significant part of the nation's air mobility resources is the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, or CRAF.

Care to backup your claim with facts????

Maybe you want to send a letter to the DOD letting them know that they've been doing it all wrong in YOUR EXPERT opinion.

Would you kindly tell a single case when US government has had to mobilize a major part of the civil jetliners for military purpose and would not have been able to make that using normal voluntary commercial contracts. Could you describe a possible scenario where that would be needed, and where foreign ownership would prevent that. Does the US law protect "enemy-owned" US registered aircraft from confiscation? Is there a law against leasing airliners from foreign-owned leasing companies?

Why do you assume that your airlines would collapse if foreign-owned airlines would be allowed to compete within US, with the same standards for safety and labour protection as the national airlines, paying all the same taxes and fees? What would be so catastrophic if e.g. BA (IAG) and AA or DL and AF/KL merged? (Not that I would endorse megamergers, though)

I cannot imagine that foreign air lines would ever be even close to achieve a majority of American air business. Passengers have the option to decide, and in many European countries the passengers support their national carrier even if that is in an inferior condition compared with any major airline in the US. Half of the fleet would be certainly sufficient to take care of that CRAF. No other country needs anything even close to that.

You have the burden of proof if you want to claim that a restriction against all economic theory is beneficial for your people.

As previously stated, operation Enduring Freedom and Desert Storm. US Civil Aircraft were used in other operations such as the Berlin Airlift, etc... However, the Berlin Airlift was before both CRAF and common jetliners.

ZyreaxPlayz wrote:

pvjin wrote:

No, in fact private airlines should be banned completely. American Airlines should be made the national carrier of the US, like Aeroflot once was in Soviet Union.

Woah, woah, woah! Slow your role, pal. First of all, DL is probably a better choice, but still it just wouldn't be. You do understand that the CCCP was communist and the USA is a democracy, right? American Airlines IS a private airline, so are just about all of the other airlines here in the US. As, I previously stated, there are so many other airlines based right here, in the US, it's absurd. We should let those airlines fly rather than another airline that isn't based here. Anyways, let's steer this thread away from politics, please. FGS, we have to listen to MSNBC, ABC and CNN babble a bunch of BS, to some airliners.net is, well, some where to get away from all of it, and talk about something that can actually contains interest to some of us.

I think it's obvious he was joking...

BobPatterson wrote:

C010T3 wrote:

The US should allow 100% foreign ownership by nationals of countries with which the US reaches a a bilateral agreement for reciprocity.
US airlines are currently in the best position to drive global consolidation.

What do you intend to mean by "global consolidation"? US airlines taking over foreign airlines and their route systems?

Global consolidation is about multinational airline holdings. It would allow airlines the same liberty that most businesses already have. We already have this today with IAG, Lufthansa and LATAM etc.

YIMBY wrote:

if there is enough political will

Which there isn't.

YIMBY wrote:

Foreign interests are not involved here.

Are you joking, or are you TRULY that oblivious?

YIMBY wrote:

I would hope that EU opens first, but because of current issues EU won't be able to make any major decisions beyond the obligatory.

Good luck with that, considering that the EU did allow cases of it not that long ago, and rescinded it as they saw no compelling interest in allowing it to continue.

YIMBY wrote:

Would you kindly tell a single case when US government has had to mobilize a major part of the civil jetliners for military purpose

Well, not kindly... as I'll tell you you're looking even less educated on the topic than you were when you started (a difficult threshold to surpass), when you presumptively ask questions like this.

But yes, it's been mobilized twice under the current statute (both Iraqi operations under both Presidents Bush), and multiple times before the 1950 governance.

YIMBY wrote:

seat38a wrote:

YOU stated that it is no longer needed and outdated, SO YOU prove it. Prove that Emirates or whoever would gladly and willingly allow their aircrafts to be used to say deploy massive amounts of troops to the Middle East. YOU are claiming what has worked is outdated so YOU prove it with quotes and facts from the government and statistics that my national security is better by letting a bunch for foreigners run our airlines. YOU prove it that Air China, Aeroflot etc. would gladly allow us to confiscate their aircraft in the USA's national interest when the conflict is with their home country. YOU think its better to change what we currently have now SO YOU provide proof and not just the "mental diarrhea" you keep writing and then trying to put the burden of proof on others.

In this case there is no difference between Emirates (US subsidiary) and United: neither of them will gladly and willingly give their aircraft free of charge to deploy troops, but both of them will obey, if officially and legally required to do so. Owners of both will whine, but that is just noise, nothing else. Indeed, the owners of United will be heard louder.

P.S. How many airliners used for domestic traffic in the US can be used to deploy troops to Middle East?

Jesus dude, you can answer your own dumb questions by using google. HERE: https://www.transportation.gov/mission/ ... llocations

Indy wrote:

They should absolutely be allowed. As long as they comply with all U.S. rules and regulations I really don't care who owns them. Of course competition means legacy carriers cannot get away with treating their customers like crap. Competition is good for consumers and will hopefully weed out the poorly run airlines.

Most, if not all, of the carriers based overseas, could not deal with the US bureaucracy esp when dealing with US Employee labor laws.

While I appreciate all the in-depth relies, there's no way the U.S. will allow a foreign owned airline to operate domestically.

No... Unless the US Government will subsidize dumping excess capacity into every foreign market opened. This is a ridiculous question. Should we just outsource EVERY American job to a foreign country? I think you would not like the result.

fly4ever78 wrote:

No... Unless the US Government will subsidize dumping excess capacity into every foreign market opened. This is a ridiculous question. Should we just outsource EVERY American job to a foreign country? I think you would not like the result.

and why would any foreign company dump money in US domestic market?

How is allowing foreign airlines domestically outsourcing the jobs?

anshabhi wrote:

fly4ever78 wrote:

No... Unless the US Government will subsidize dumping excess capacity into every foreign market opened. This is a ridiculous question. Should we just outsource EVERY American job to a foreign country? I think you would not like the result.

and why would any foreign company dump money in US domestic market?

How is allowing foreign airlines domestically outsourcing the jobs?

I think you need to research the practices of the Middle East carriers and their government subsidized tactics.

Foreign airlines add competing flights, (EX: DXB-ATL) and then discount the seats so much that the other airline cannot compete. Their government pays the loss they suffer and the competitor (that doesn't get free government money) drops their flight because they are losing too much money. This is called dumping.

Airlines like NAS hire crews from developing countries under low pay, poor work rules and then use them to fly to the US to undercut the US airlines labor laws. If they were allowed to fly intra US, guess where all the jobs would go... to developing countries.

Read some history on the US maritime industry if you don't understand what can happen.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

jeffrey1970 wrote:

I don't think the US will allow it unless another country agrees to allow Americans to own one of their airlines. Earlier someone said that Switzerland and India allow for foreign ownership of their airlines. I think that India might be an interesting market. I think Asia or South America would interesting.

You can add Brazil to the list of countries that allow full foreign ownership. At least, they're planning to. It doesn't cost any problems there as these airlines are still Brazilian registered and bound to Brazilian laws. Only the owner is foreign. If it works over there, why shouldn't it work in the US?

Many people here immediately shout no without even thinking what is actually being proposed. Suppose an American airline is in financial trouble and they need an investor to keep them from going belly-up? Then a foreign investor shows up and says he wants to invest money and save the airline, but the US law says no. No foreign investors allowed. The result could be that the airline is not being saved. An unnecessary loss for the American aviation business and a missed chance for the foreign investor.

I do not think foreign ownership of a US airline is totally out of the question, but I think it would have to be quid pro quo. I think part of the problem is that a number of Americans simply do not trust foreigners.

fly4ever78 wrote:

Foreign airlines add competing flights, (EX: DXB-ATL) and then discount the seats so much that the other airline cannot compete. Their government pays the loss they suffer and the competitor (that doesn't get free government money) drops their flight because they are losing too much money. This is called dumping.

Actually, this is a question of whom do you want to protect- customers or companies.
I can say Uber & Amazon are deploying similar capital dumping practices in India. We the consumers are benefitting a lot, but homegrown startups like Ola & Flipkart are suffering.
US govt needs to decide whom does it wants to protect.

Airlines like NAS hire crews from developing countries under low pay, poor work rules and then use them to fly to the US to undercut the US airlines labor laws. If they were allowed to fly intra US, guess where all the jobs would go... to developing countries.

Read some history on the US maritime industry if you don't understand what can happen.

I think there's something like a "visa" which is required to bring in foreign workers, and the govt has full control over it.

caverunner17 wrote:

grbauc wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

2. Lack of competition- really? we have 4 national airlines (AA,DL,UA,WN) that have a balanced national domestic route map. We also have two large regional airlines (AS,B6) west and east coast centric route maps. ULCC Spirit airlines, allegiant airlines and maybe another I'm forgetting.
Lack of competition I don't think so. We just have a very well-balanced airline route map in the country and airfares are as low as they were 15 to 20 years ago.

The US , China and Europe are roughly the same square mileage (3.7 million, 3.7 million vs 3.9 million)

Europe has EI, BA, IB, LH, SN, LX, AY, AZ, AF, KL, LO, TP, OS, SK as major long-haul international flag carrier airlines. Not to mention a number of LCC's and ULCCs.

China has CA, MU, CZ, HU, MF, FM, ZH, and CX/BR if you want to include legal Chinese territories along with a number of smaller international and domestic airlines.

The US has AA, DL, UA, and WN, along with a few small regional players (Alaska/Virgin and Jet Blue) and 2 main ULCC's (F9 and NK)

You can't tell me that the US has competition.

Sorry, it's not that simple in Europe. EI, BA and IB (along with LCC VY) all belong to the same group; LH, SN, LX, and OS (along with LCCs EW and 4U) all belong to the same group; AF and KL are in fact one business with two AOCs. Some of the LCCs are in fact bigger than most of the flag carriers.

fly4ever78 wrote:

Airlines like NAS hire crews from developing countries under low pay, poor work rules and then use them to fly to the US to undercut the US airlines labor laws. If they were allowed to fly intra US, guess where all the jobs would go... to developing countries.

I think you don't understand the point here. If a foreign airline would be allowed to own a US-based airline that airline would still be bound to the US laws regardless of who owns it. That means this kind of thing would not be allowed on that airline, same as it is not allowed on a US-owned airline. Suppose Norwegian would own an airline in the USA, let's call it "Norwegian USA". Then Norwegian USA would be required to hire US staff and pay them the same as any other airline under US airlines labor laws. The fact that they do use staff from developing countries on their international flights would be totally irrelevant because these flights are not operated by Norwegian USA.

seat38a wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

seat38a wrote:

YOU stated that it is no longer needed and outdated, SO YOU prove it. Prove that Emirates or whoever would gladly and willingly allow their aircrafts to be used to say deploy massive amounts of troops to the Middle East. YOU are claiming what has worked is outdated so YOU prove it with quotes and facts from the government and statistics that my national security is better by letting a bunch for foreigners run our airlines. YOU prove it that Air China, Aeroflot etc. would gladly allow us to confiscate their aircraft in the USA's national interest when the conflict is with their home country. YOU think its better to change what we currently have now SO YOU provide proof and not just the "mental diarrhea" you keep writing and then trying to put the burden of proof on others.

In this case there is no difference between Emirates (US subsidiary) and United: neither of them will gladly and willingly give their aircraft free of charge to deploy troops, but both of them will obey, if officially and legally required to do so. Owners of both will whine, but that is just noise, nothing else. Indeed, the owners of United will be heard louder.

P.S. How many airliners used for domestic traffic in the US can be used to deploy troops to Middle East?

Jesus dude, you can answer your own dumb questions by using google. HERE: https://www.transportation.gov/mission/ ... llocations

Thanks for the link. While it is not related to your "intelligent" reply to the given question, it tells, that the number of passenger airliners allocated currently for CRAF is 147 long-hauler and 134 short-haulers. That is very marginal of all civil airliners flying in the US, and the long-haulers do not even count here.

Case closed: It has been proven that CRAF is an irrelevant argument for the ownership restrictions.

Varsity1 wrote:

No.

Foreign airlines have worse safety records, worse working conditions and are less profitable.

Nonsence

I think it would be a fantastic Idea. The world is bigger than just the USA and more competition would be great for consumers. I mean how many major airlines are there in the USA for passengers? 6? American, Delta, United, Alaska, Southwest and Jetblue? In europe which is about the size of north america there is 6 in one country!

YIMBY wrote:

seat38a wrote:

YOU stated that it is no longer needed and outdated, SO YOU prove it. Prove that Emirates or whoever would gladly and willingly allow their aircrafts to be used to say deploy massive amounts of troops to the Middle East. YOU are claiming what has worked is outdated so YOU prove it with quotes and facts from the government and statistics that my national security is better by letting a bunch for foreigners run our airlines. YOU prove it that Air China, Aeroflot etc. would gladly allow us to confiscate their aircraft in the USA's national interest when the conflict is with their home country. YOU think its better to change what we currently have now SO YOU provide proof and not just the "mental diarrhea" you keep writing and then trying to put the burden of proof on others.

In this case there is no difference between Emirates (US subsidiary) and United: neither of them will gladly and willingly give their aircraft free of charge to deploy troops, but both of them will obey, if officially and legally required to do so. Owners of both will whine, but that is just noise, nothing else. Indeed, the owners of United will be heard louder.

P.S. How many airliners used for domestic traffic in the US can be used to deploy troops to Middle East?

So are you saying that if US Airlines was asked to provide aircraft, that the US government wouldn't reimburse them at some point later ?

B777LRF wrote:

Owning 25% of a company buys you all the trouble with none of the benefits.

Of course the US should be open to foreign competition on domestic routes, same as e.g. the EU should allow it.

But it's not going to happen, the lobbyism of EU and US airlines will prevent that from happening - regardless of which administration is at the helm.

In the USA? We have to follow Federal Air Regulations FARs.
We're also subject to FAA audits which could actually Ground ANY Airliner or AIRLINE found to be lacking.
So?? If they want to fly in the USA? As long as they have to jump through the same regulations hoops (IN their Entirety) as US Airlines do?.
They should also have to comply with the US Airworthiness directives as well.
THEN we'll see if they REALLY want to fly Domestically in the USA. If they do that??
I've got no problem because they'd have to follow the SAME safety rules as WE do. No Shortcuts!!
They will SOON find that flying the USA domestically is as expensive as flying Internationally TO the USA.

I've worked on foreign registered aircraft and their equipment requirements in their home country are for the most part a couple of cuts below what the USA FAA requirements are. So there is the COST of complying with the US Federal Air Regulations..
Don't take my word for it, Check it out for yourselves.

strfyr51 wrote:

I've worked on foreign registered aircraft and their equipment requirements in their home country are for the most part a couple of cuts below what the USA FAA requirements are. So there is the COST of complying with the US Federal Air Regulations..
Don't take my word for it, Check it out for yourselves.

What equipment are lacking or are below standard on foreign companies ? Please eloborate. I would think that European Airlines atleast have the same standard as airlines in the US does.

strfyr51 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Owning 25% of a company buys you all the trouble with none of the benefits.

Of course the US should be open to foreign competition on domestic routes, same as e.g. the EU should allow it.

But it's not going to happen, the lobbyism of EU and US airlines will prevent that from happening - regardless of which administration is at the helm.

In the USA? We have to follow Federal Air Regulations FARs.
We're also subject to FAA audits which could actually Ground ANY Airliner or AIRLINE found to be lacking.
So?? If they want to fly in the USA? As long as they have to jump through the same regulations hoops (IN their Entirety) as US Airlines do?.
They should also have to comply with the US Airworthiness directives as well.
THEN we'll see if they REALLY want to fly Domestically in the USA. If they do that??
I've got no problem because they'd have to follow the SAME safety rules as WE do. No Shortcuts!!
They will SOON find that flying the USA domestically is as expensive as flying Internationally TO the USA.

If non-Americans were allowed to set-up an airline shop in the US, operating N-registered aircraft, obviously they would have to comply with all applicable FAR and FAA legislation, rules and procedures. Nobody's suggestion someone should be allowed to spawn a domestic airline in the US operating e.g. D- registered aircraft.

But you do raise a valid point: Is it ok for a US-registered airline to operate intra-EU without complying with EASA rules?

By the way, I can assure you that operating an airline under EASA rules and regulations is neither cheaper, simpler or less bureaucratic than under FAA rules.

There's certainly a case that where there is reciprocity (such as between the FAA and EASA, or Japan's authorities for instance) then rules concerning shareholdings should be harmonised.

I recall some years back BA was invested in US Airways but couldn't build it up to a meaningful level because of the rules. Later on there was talk of Lufthansa maybe investing in United (pre-Continental times) and of course LH had a chunk of JetBlue but not enough to be able to affect its management. Now we have Delta who own 49% of Virgin Atlantic but if it was the other way around, VS couldn't own that much stock in Delta.

In all those cases there isn't any kind of showstopper I could see that would prevent those airlines having a level playing field regarding cross-investment; for instance if the occasionally discussed AAL-IAG linkup was to happen down the road. If there is a situation where the investor is an airline that has wide reciprocity with the FAA thanks to its home operations, then relief for that 25% rule should be there.

11725Flyer wrote:

While I appreciate all the in-depth relies, there's no way the U.S. will allow a foreign owned airline to operate domestically.

Exactly. This entire conversation is academic. This is not going to happen. There are reasonable arguments both ways, but the bottom line is that there is essentially no political interest in opening the U.S. domestic airline industry up to foreign competition.

Andy33 wrote:

caverunner17 wrote:

grbauc wrote:

The US , China and Europe are roughly the same square mileage (3.7 million, 3.7 million vs 3.9 million)

Europe has EI, BA, IB, LH, SN, LX, AY, AZ, AF, KL, LO, TP, OS, SK as major long-haul international flag carrier airlines. Not to mention a number of LCC's and ULCCs.

China has CA, MU, CZ, HU, MF, FM, ZH, and CX/BR if you want to include legal Chinese territories along with a number of smaller international and domestic airlines.

The US has AA, DL, UA, and WN, along with a few small regional players (Alaska/Virgin and Jet Blue) and 2 main ULCC's (F9 and NK)

You can't tell me that the US has competition.

Sorry, it's not that simple in Europe. EI, BA and IB (along with LCC VY) all belong to the same group; LH, SN, LX, and OS (along with LCCs EW and 4U) all belong to the same group; AF and KL are in fact one business with two AOCs. Some of the LCCs are in fact bigger than most of the flag carriers.

They can be owned by the same company, but operated completely differently. You get different pricing if you fly EI vs IB. You get different service, food, etc.

Fly AA from DFW or AA from JFK, and it's the same.

For purposes of competition, they are different.

Mortyman wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

I've worked on foreign registered aircraft and their equipment requirements in their home country are for the most part a couple of cuts below what the USA FAA requirements are. So there is the COST of complying with the US Federal Air Regulations..
Don't take my word for it, Check it out for yourselves.

What equipment are lacking or are below standard on foreign companies ? Please eloborate. I would think that European Airlines atleast have the same standard as airlines in the US does.

It's not equipment. Its training, experience, rules and procedures. The list would be longer than the FAR AIM. European commercial aviation today is about where the US was in the 1980's.

AF447 would not happen in a modern US crewed environment. Neither would QZ981 (euro pilots). European and foreign pilots are short on experience (most start at 200 hours OR LESS) and heavily reliant on automation. The only countries that I have seen that come close to US safety and training standards are Austrailia, South Africa and Canada.

The lack of pilot experience becomes a problem as it matures. A 200hr FO with little hand flying and decision making experience can probably take orders and swing gear for a captain just fine. The problem arises when that 200hr FO upgrades to CA and has a 200hr FO on his side. Throw in a couple systems failures and you have a recipe for a tragedy.

Mortyman wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

I've worked on foreign registered aircraft and their equipment requirements in their home country are for the most part a couple of cuts below what the USA FAA requirements are. So there is the COST of complying with the US Federal Air Regulations..
Don't take my word for it, Check it out for yourselves.

What equipment are lacking or are below standard on foreign companies ? Please eloborate. I would think that European Airlines atleast have the same standard as airlines in the US does.

well?? for one GPWS . the US FAA requires EGPWS up to mode 7. I haven't looked lately but Non-US was at mode 4. (the later modes came as a result of American's Crash in South America ) But what is it you think to DO?? OR?? Are you just looking for Cheaper fares? Because you think the USA airlines charge too much??

In WW2 all of the carriers had parts of their fleets absorbed into the war effort. The restrictions on foreign ownership remain to keep these fleets available. Can you imagine what would happen if the Ukraine situation would have developed if Aeroflot had control over one of the US3? Unlike most industries an airline fleet can be moved rapidly to another country. It would not take long to turn air travel upside down in this country by even a partial fleet relocation.

The size of the countries and the numbers of carriers have been mentioned, does anyone want to speculate why WN for example has a fleet of over 500 a/c, is there a comparable carrier in Europe or China?
US carriers for the most part have very large fleets because they are serving a market whose size and numbers may be comparable but population density to Europe for example differs widely. Consolidation has taken place in Europe but because they were previously carriers of individual nations before single market EU, the names remain, example, DL merged with NW eliminating NW, why does BA and IB or AF and KLM exist, is it fair to count them individually, how about their regional airlines within an airline?

par13del wrote:

The size of the countries and the numbers of carriers have been mentioned, does anyone want to speculate why WN for example has a fleet of over 500 a/c, is there a comparable carrier in Europe or China?
US carriers for the most part have very large fleets because they are serving a market whose size and numbers may be comparable but population density to Europe for example differs widely. Consolidation has taken place in Europe but because they were previously carriers of individual nations before single market EU, the names remain, example, DL merged with NW eliminating NW, why does BA and IB or AF and KLM exist, is it fair to count them individually, how about their regional airlines within an airline?

The one carrier that is most comparable to Southwest is Ryanair with an almost as big fleet as Southwest and comparable business model.

European flag carriers that have been integrated into a group maintain their own name because that name sells in their country and a foreign name doesn't. Suppose Air Canada or Aeromexico would start bases in the USA and operate out of there, sure many Americans wouldn't think of it because it's a foreign carrier. They associate it with flights to that country, but not with flights to everywhere from their own country. It wouldn't sell. Same thing happens in Europe. The name Air France wouldn't sell in the Netherlands because Dutch people tend to associate Air France with flights to France only. The name KLM sells far better in the Netherlands because it is Dutch. On the other hand, the name KLM wouldn't sell in France so they keep the name Air France for their French airline. Air France is a name that sells in France, but not outside France.

Of course there are a good number of non-flag carriers that have an international image and thus don't have the problems that a flag carrier has. Ryanair and EasyJet are the best examples of that. Also Norwegian has a pretty international name by now, that's probably because they're not a real flag carrier. SAS is the real flag carrier of Norway.