Open skies hopes fade
 

Open skies hopes fade as Congress, Spinetta, weigh in on DOT proposal
Friday June 16, 2006
The tentative open skies agreement negotiated last year between the US and EU was dealt a potentially fatal blow Wednesday when the US House of Representatives voted to delay by a year a DOT rulemaking that is seen as key to winning European support for the air service agreement, while Air France-KLM Chairman Jean-Cyril Spinetta said he does not believe European policymakers will find the rulemaking palatable in the wake of recent changes by DOT.

The department's proposal, which was introduced last year and amended in May, aims to permit non-US citizens to exercise day-to-day authority over many aspects of airline operations while leaving issues pertaining to safety, security and matters of national interest, such as the CRAF program, in the hands of US nationals. It does not address the limit on foreign ownership, set at 25% voting control--which has been a stumbling block in the past for the EC--as this may only be changed by an Act of Congress.

DOT hoped that the proposed rule would satisfy European demands for an easing of the ownership limit and lead to European acceptance of the open skies deal. However, speaking in New York, Spinetta said, "I do not think the language in the [DOT proposal] will be found acceptable to the EU side in its present form."

Meanwhile, on Wednesday the House approved an amendment to a funding bill that blocks DOT from spending any money on implementing the proposed rule. The Senate version of the legislation does not contain similar language so the two sides will have to work out a compromise, a process that may take months. The EU Council of Transport Ministers has made it clear it will not even consider the open skies agreement until after the DOT rule is finalized.

by Perry Flint

Thanks for posting that weasil.

I have never been able to get it clear just how the implications of an "open skies" agreement would affect me!

Since such innocuous sounding international political agreements on trade issues are usually of primary benefit to someone other than myself, I am understandably skeptical about the ramifications and motives of any such agreement or treaty. I guess I should learn more about this one so I may be more conversent on the subject. The difficulty seems to be in sorting through the rhetoric and disinformation promulgated by those on both sides of the issue. Is there a draft of the proposed agreement along with some kind of relatively objective analysis of the implications that you know of?

In any case, it appears to be a dormant issue for the time being. Congress appears to have reached a standstill on most things at the moment.

Best regards,

Westhawk

You make some good points, I'm not sure exactly what the impact would be either. My gut feeling is that this is the kind of thing that is good for corporations and the people running them - not the line pilot like us.
The interesting part for me is the pure politics - the executive trying to change the rules via the DOT rulemaking process without consulting congress. This seems to be a recurring theme with our current administration.

Good - we don't want any Open Skies agreement. It would cause widespread job losses throughout the industry (the well-paid jobs anyway - plenty of crap jobs with the Lo-Cos would be created I suppose.)

Our North American BA flights , protected as old British Caledonian's routes by the Bermuda 2 agreement, would be moved to Heathrow. Continental, NorthWest, Delta, US Airways and all would also move to Heathrow leaving Gatwick as a Low, Low Cost Airline Hub!

I doubt if it would be any good for the USA long term either!

The fear on the US side of the pond, at least among labor and those who support a rational sort of policy in the foreign relations arena, is that the George Bush method of market integration is Chaos. When the neo-cons see slaughter and confusion and collusion in the market place, they say isin't this great, isn't this the creative destruction of capitalsim?

The US congress doesn't want this subject simply signed away by the executive. Kemo Sabe, Bwanna Massa King George Bush the first, thinks that he has the power to simply sign Bermuda 2 off the map and create something new or just say it will be a "free for all", with of couse a few cutouts for his good Texas buddy's at American. King George has made many"signing statements" that he attaches to leglislation. Many of these signing statements are opnions, given by his legal advisors, that simply preempt or remove the Government's role or very responsibility enacted in the leglislation.

We don't torture! But the Government reserves the right, through other governments and proxies, to use very coercive forms of interrogation to get information from suspected terrorists who are not US citizens. Some people and other governmental agencies and civil rights groups might construe these agressive forms of interrogation as torture, but my lawyers tell me that is not the case, and I am the president, I am the decider. I decide that it isn't torture so there! Blah Blah Blah Blah etc ect.

The congress has derailed this plan at least for now so that a new agreement can be hammered out.

I wish the Monty Python 16 ton weight would fall on him, then it would be time for something completely different.

Well said!