10 Responses

  1. Andrew C
    Andrew C 26 November 2012 at 8:53 am |

    FWIW, it’s Dr. Winston, and he’s a very well known transport economist. But, in any case, he is totally off base with this idea.

  2. Miguel
    Miguel 26 November 2012 at 8:54 am |

    “Well, we can start with the part about how that isn’t actually a “real free market” based on a lack of reciprocity in the other countries.”

    Actually, the Open Skies agreement with Europe allows cabotage in both markets, and it’s only waiting for the USA to decide to implement it (they’ve been trying to get europeans to allow it first, but they are not so stupid), and then all american airlines could fly anywhere between 2 points inside the EU (plus Norway and Iceland, I believe).
    As for the rest, it’s exactly what was said before the deregulation here in the US (as well in Europe). No need to say what happened to that doomsday view (and Ryanair might be awful – it certainly is in many regards – and flying to place in the middle of nowhere, but the customers (those damn fools that do not know what’s best for them!) apparently keep giving them their business and making it one of the biggest – and more profitable – airlines in the world).

  3. Miguel
    Miguel 26 November 2012 at 8:58 am |

    Additionally, the aviation market is not free at all in the US because it does not allow more than 25% of foreign capital in each airlines. A country that puts limit on foreign investments (de facto exports) is not very smart (if people want to leave their money here with us the only thing we should say is “well sir, go ahead and bring your friends with you”).

  4. Scottrick
    Scottrick 26 November 2012 at 9:14 am |

    Amusing. The article’s comment about lower wages and higher employment seems to miss a larger point. If we wanted full employment, we could cut everyone’s wage to a dollar and hour and guarantee a position doing something–anything. But underemployment is not much better than unemployment. Better to pay people more to do a better job with fewer employees and redistribute labor elsewhere.

  5. timmer1001
    timmer1001 26 November 2012 at 9:30 am |

    I for one have no problem with SQ or AZ for example serving domestic US routes. A free market society should allow them to do so. They will cherry pick and maybe be profitable or maybe not. But, the role of US government should not be protectionism. There is no national security threat if CA flies from LAX to NYC. Let the market decide

  6. oliver2002
    oliver2002 26 November 2012 at 9:48 am |

    Hahaha! The European airlines wouldn’t touch the US domestic market with a 747ft pole if they were even allowed to. Virgin supports VX but that is badly flopping as no one wants to pay for decent service. People may rack up debts to get an iphone, but run when air prices go up by 10 LH supports B6, but mainly due to the cherry picking and the top operation they run. EU & Asian legacy carriers will perhaps add transcon tag on flights if at all. A company investing billions in hundreds of plans to start another southwest/ryanair is highly unlikely. The money is much better invested in some emerging market :p

  7. NB
    NB 26 November 2012 at 9:49 am |

    It’s an academic argument as it’s never going to happen, whatever treaties the US signs. The USA is one of the most protectionist countries in the western world, tending only to sign trade agreements to bolster its exports, and then doing its best to obstruct imports.

    Open skies could be a huge step forward, and the signs are that the EU is keen to implement it when the US does (simultaneously, so that works just fine) but the US seems to have no intention of living up to the treaty.

    If you look at what open skies did in Europe, you will see that, whilst it has not revolutionised the aviation market, it is having a significant effect as airlines are beginning to see where it will work for them. The AF/KLM and BA/Iberia mergers are two examples of its effect, and an AA/IAG merger would be an outcome that would please many. Of course SQ is not going to fly from Syracuse to Miami but it might want to provide some form of feed for its premium passengers to important destinations which does not mean they have to suffer a domestic US airline.

  8. Brian L.
    Brian L. 26 November 2012 at 10:59 am |

    This will NEVER happen. Irrespective of whether or not it’s a good idea, politicians and unions will scream bloody murder about American jobs and money going overseas. That would not necessarily be the reality, but that’s what would dominate the headlines and the talk shows. In the current economic state, it would be political suicide for any political figure to try to advance it. Even if the economy were thriving, it would be the hottest of political hot potatoes.

  9. We Should Allow Singapore Airlines to Operate Flights to Sarasota! - View from the Wing

    [...] Aramean‘s writings on the airline industry to be insightful and often spot-on, even, his response to Winston is way off the [...]

Comments are closed.