"Globalisation", "competitiveness", protectionism" - all words I could pick up too if I read Idiot's Guide to Economics. Seen a lot of buzz words but no substance to support the argument for SIA.
To all of you who quote economic textbooks for your arguments, let me ask you this - is economics a science? To be a science, your hypotheses or theories need to accurately predict an outcome based on a set of circumstances. My experience of economics (very limited as it might be) is that it may be very good at explaining why something happened, but it certainly cannot accurately predict future occurences. Truth is, no one can give an accurate prediction of jobs created or effect on GDP from allowing SIA to do SYD-LAX because you do not know! I'm sure the economists on this website in ten years time will be able to give us an outstanding account of why the predicted jobs growth or economic growth from allowing SIA to fly the route did not eventuate.
Show me proof that opening up the route to SIA will benefit Oz and I might listen. Don't give me buzz words. Put up or shut up!