Foreign Ownership/Open Skys Bill On Way To Pres — Civil Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Foreign Ownership/Open Skys Bill On Way To Pres

Lowecur From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 585 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1696 times:

Looks like Foreign ownership will get a shot in the arm. It will also allow open skys between US and other foreign countrys. Hold onto your hats.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....news-7/1149745621241310.xml&coll=1

6 replies: All unread, jump to last

USAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1411 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1676 times:

Lowe let's be clear about this issue. The new rules still maintain that foreign investment is limited to 25%, IIRC. To increase that to even 49% ownership would require Congressional approval which is as likely to happen as revisiting the Dubai Ports deal... Not likely anytime soon. The major American legacy carriers are going to have to figure out a way to profitability the old fashioned way... Earn it. New aircraft and ways of doing business is working very well at CO. They're an excellent example of a airline looking forward and making the necessary investments for future growth and profitability.
What the rule changes do address is the Open Skies Agreement which both sides desperately want and need.

Regards,
Sal

336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB

Centrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3597 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1649 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 1):
What the rule changes do address is the Open Skies Agreement which both sides desperately want and need.

What are the BOTH sides...the US and...?

Is there a draft of this bill available?

Does this Open Skies allow for flights to more destinations in the US from other countries? Sorry for some ignorance but totally not sure what this is all about.

Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!

SeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1275 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1640 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 1):
Lowe let's be clear about this issue. The new rules still maintain that foreign investment is limited to 25%, IIRC. To increase that to even 49% ownership would require Congressional approval which is as likely to happen as revisiting the Dubai Ports deal... Not likely anytime soon.

I agree. The moment the Dubai Ports Deal hit the airwaves, this foreign ownership issue hit the rocks. In an election year, it is unlikely Congress could muster the votes necessary to pass legislation. Every member of Congress running for relection (468 or 469 of the total 535 Members of the House and Senate) fear becoming vulnerable to a high profile advertisement against them by their opponents on this issue, regardless of the merits of the proposed change.

Lowecur From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 585 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1628 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 1):
The new rules still maintain that foreign investment is limited to 25%, IIRC. To increase that to even 49% ownership would require Congressional approval which is as likely to happen as revisiting the Dubai Ports deal..

I haven't seen the bill, so I assume there will be further journalistic comments once more study has been made. So how does this bill make it easier for foreign ownership in US carriers as the article states? What are the key parts of the bill that allow this?

Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

I think you've misread the article. All that has happened are that proposed DOT rule changes (which have not yet been adopted) will not be blocked, at this time, by congressional action. This is not a bill to change either foreign ownership or the Open Skys regime. To be honest, I'm a little bit surprised that the blocking provisions were stripped from the spending bill, but in retrospect I shouldn't be. It's classic congress. They get to puff their chest and claim they were defending the country (the jingoistic quotes by the two congressmen are downright embarassing), but then reverse themselves in committee where it's hidden from public view.

"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"

ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1503 times:

There is no law to go the GWB - The house has just decided that they will not pass a law that would require the DOT to suspend their rulemaking activity on how they interpret 'control'. Why? I guess the figured out, like we all did some months ago, that the DOT 'interpretation' actually doesn't do anything.

DOT recently watered down their weak new rules recently to the effect that a non-US owner (limited to 25% voting rights) can have no oversight what-so-ever over their investment. With these rules I cannot see anyone wanting to invest substantial sums in a US airline. We have already seen this with BA/US and KL/NW under the existing rules and the DOT's interpretations actually make the situation worse, rather than better.

What remains to be seen is the European side consider the DOT's new interpretations as being sufficient to allow them to accept the proposed US-EU open skies agreement. They shouldn't, but I fear they will.

Top Of Page

Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: