ZChannel From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 185 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
With all of the recent rumblings of individual states moving to secede from the union (most notably Texas), what would happen to US aviation in the unlikely event one or more states go through with it? At this point, this is a hypothetical scenario, but, using Texas as an example, every flight into DFW (intra-Texas excluded) would be an international flight. Would treaties/bilaterals need to be negotiated? Or would the impact be negligible? Curious as to your thoughts...
RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4620 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
If it was Texas, Im sure Delta would have no problem with that!
Im sure if they said " You are welcome to seceed provided that you take your share of the national debt with you and repay the non-depreciated ballance on federal investment" that all the secession talk would end real fast.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5364 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1113 times:
I am as enthusiastic as you're likely to find in my love of my home state, but I find all this blather and babble about secession to be so much mental masturbation. Ain't gonna happen, nothing in law allows for it to happen (contrary to commonly-held belief), and while it may be interesting to talk about as an intellectual exercise, that's all it is.
It is the United States of America; while we are in desperate need of better recognition of the sovereignty of the various states, we stand stronger together than apart.
Nothing to see here, move along.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
OzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4843 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
Supposing the improbable, but:
AMR and LUV would become foreign carriers, with no cabotage rights within the remaining Union unless said companies relocate out of the Republic of Texas. Even with an open skies treaty, AA and WN are crippled vis-à-vis their non-Texas networks. The reverse holds true for UAL as they are forced to close the IAH hub as they are now a foreign carrier.
It would be an economic calamity for both the US and the RoT based just on the aviation industry alone, without even factoring in any other businesses. Now factor in the US military bases throughout Texas that would immediately close and a few hotheads are willing to destroy millions of lives because of an election that didn't go their way? Insanity.
LAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7262 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1113 times:
There is no way it will happen:
1) 42% of Texans voted for Obama, meaning that they (mostly) approve of the current political situation. Of the 58% that voted for Romney, you would need almost all of them to vote for secession. Truth is, I doubt 1/4 of them would vote for secession. No way would 50% or better of Texans vote for secession.
2) Even if, by some impossible circumstance, 50% did vote for secession and the state assembly followed in kind, Gov. Goodhair has already promised a veto.
3) Even then, there is some misconception that Texas has the right to secede. They dont. What Texas has the right to do is break off into 5 smaller states, not simply leave the union.
falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5949 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
One only has to look at Canada to see how secession talk doesn't really mean people want it. People in Quebec have been talking about it for decades and Quebec is still in Canada. They even went as far as voting for it, in 1980, but 60% of the people voted to keep Quebec in Canada.
Every so often a group of Michiganders, from the Upper Pennisula, wants to seceed from Michigan; a petition circulates, the Michigan media picks it up, reports it and that is as far as it goes.
bhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
Yep, Texas would have to start, and pay for, their own TAA, ATC systems...and pray they have saved up enough funds for a "rainy" day when hurricane season starts....but we will be more than happy if they want to "hire" the United States' military to hep em out....I wonder how long it would take for Texas to be absorbed by Mexico?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7038 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
Quoting ZChannel (Thread starter): With all of the recent rumblings of individual states moving to secede from the union
Really? Rumblings? I bet you under Ronald Reagan I could still find a bunch of conservatives wanting to secede. This secession talk is pretty overblown
A fun topic though I guess. If there was secession, I believe there would be very close ties to the US still. Most of the gripes would be left in the US, trading with a "liberal" US wouldn't really do much to enrage right-wingers in the new country.
Foreign ownership might become an issue with hubs, but again, I'm sure the 2 countries would have treaties causing very little changes. That's JMO
us330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3836 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 7):
That right was eliminated with the readmission of Texas in 1870.
Even if some fancy legal wrangling found that right was still in effect, a simple vote of Congress to repeal that right is all that is needed.
Source? Not saying that you are wrong, I've just read several articles on the subject by journalists who did research and maintain that the provision in question still stands--it just hasn't been tested legally.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7217 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1111 times:
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 4): What Texas has the right to do is break off into 5 smaller states, not simply leave the union.
The provision was for the time of admission to the union - not a perpetual provision for eternity. Texas explicitly chose to not divide into 5 states with the citizens vote to become one state of the United States.
Quoting us330 (Reply 10): I've just read several articles on the subject by journalists who did research and maintain that the provision in question still stands--it just hasn't been tested legally.
Like a lot of things at the time - what was part of the process was not actually codified. But that would still be a part of the decision making in a court challenge.
Secondly - the 'readmission' of Texas and the other states to the Union in 1870 and their removal of the military governments after the corrupt election of 1876 - explicitly required those states to start from scratch and renounce all pre-Civil War special provisions.
Lastly, Texas declaration of secession in 1861 explicitly renounces the statehood agreement - so the state of Texas has already renounced the 'right to form four additional states'
That said - the impact upon civil and cargo aviation would be massive.
A lot of people in Texas work in the receipt and distribution of auto parts which are trucked across the border from Mexico, clear customs and are flown out of Del Rio, El Paso, Laredo, McAllen and Brownsville. They are flown by night cargo companies to auto assembly plants and plants which assemble automotive components across the US.
If Texas is not part of the US, that business moves into Mexico because the parts have to clear customs someplace besides Texas.
Passenger traffic cabotage rights become a problem.
Some airline, or two, will have a great opportunity to become a Republic of Texas internal airline - but AA, WN and UA (CO ex) will all have to either give up their US cabotage or give up Texas cabotage.
I suppose Texas could allow cabotage by foreign carriers. But they would certainly lose tremendous amounts of tax money as those airlines will have to move their HQ out of Texas to ensure they are US airlines.
Texas of course will either have to setup its own ATC system or make an agreement to 'rent' those services from the US. I would not see the US selling those services for anything except a premium price.
Texas will have to establish its own FAA to simply register all the aircraft in the state. A tremendous amount of property tax money for schools and local governments in Texas comes from aircraft based in the state.
Certainly to retain US cabotage, AA and WN would have to register and set the 'home' of their aircraft in the US. Tarrant County (Fort Worth) gets $13 million per year for property taxes on 365 AA aircraft. AA pays $5.09 million per year in school property taxes on its aircraft to the Grapevine-Colleyville school district.
I won't even get into the mess GA will become as people have to get new pilots licenses, new aircraft registrations - and have to clear CBP whenever they fly out of or into the state.
A quick check of the FAA registrations database shows 31,655 registered aircraft in Texas. Let's be generous about reserved numbers and commercial aircraft. There have to be at least 25,000 GA aircraft registered in Texas.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3314 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
Quoting ZChannel (Thread starter): At this point, this is a hypothetical scenario, but, using Texas as an example, every flight into DFW (intra-Texas excluded) would be an international flight. Would treaties/bilaterals need to be negotiated?
If secession was done peacefully I assume yes all of that would have to be negotiated. More likely there would be an embargo on Texas such as what is done with Cuba if they ever seceded as it is treason.
Quoting falstaff (Reply 5): One only has to look at Canada to see how secession talk doesn't really mean people want it. People in Quebec have been talking about it for decades and Quebec is still in Canada. They even went as far as voting for it, in 1980, but 60% of the people voted to keep Quebec in Canada.
They also voted for it in 1995 and IIRC was much closer and the separatist party just won power provincially recently. Quebec knows that if they ever seperate from Canada we would likely cut them off entirely and I would be cheering on Stephen Harper to do so.
As said about Texas 42% voted for Obama and it is slated to be a possible swing state in the next election or 2020 with the growing Latino population in the state, it isn't going anywhere as Rick Perry has learned his lesson on this.