Ports or Airlines - What's the big deal now?

[BlueCollar]

They've been trying to give foreign corporations control of US Airlines for some time now. I guess that's OK as long as the fares are low...




http://www.ttd.org/pressrel/2006/pr010906_FC.pdf



:hide:

[Erika]

1. Why not have the Muslims take over airport security?

W says it will save us $. You know what we must worry about as the bottom line.

[BlueCollar]

2. beats me

I have no idea what the hell is going on around here. UAL and NWA are having their aircraft overhauled in the far east now...thousands of airline employees out of work...CEO's making a fortune for dismantling the industry

[regnaD kciN]

3. Let's go beyond that...

By the same "national security" standards for blocking the ports deal, we should also prevent Emirates from providing air service to and from the U.S. After all, even though it is one of the top-rated airlines in the world, you never know when one of their crew or technicians might be al-Qaeda. How can we be sure that their next flight ostensibly headed into JFK might not be carrying a nuclear weapon in the cargo hold, timed to go off as they circle NYC?

As a matter of fact, we should not only block Emirates, but any airline from the Arab world. Or any country where Muslims are a majority, which knocks out lots of the Far East as well.

Or, for that matter, any other foreign airline which might be providing connections to flight from those countries, to prevent a nuke originally slipped on-board in Indonesia from being transferred, say, to a KLM flight to the U.S.

After all, we can't be too careful!

:sarcasm:

[BlueCollar]

4. I get your point

I just think it's ludicrous to hold the shipping industry to one standard when the airline industry is quietly going through the transformation already

[Erika]

5. That's what W has taught We're now in the post 9/11 era

He's stuck in the prior era.

[MADem]

8. Flying a plane into an airport is NOT the same as running the airport

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:L35l8PlBm9UJ:www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/dubai/transshipment-milestones.html+The+Dubai+Ports+Authority&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=20

Take a look at what our "friends" in Dubai have been up to, and tell me honestly if you think these guys will always have our best interests at heart (this is just a small sample of their transshipment activity of late):

October 2003: Five containers of centrifuge components, sent by B.S.A. Tahir and shipped through Dubai, are seized en route to Libya. The items are part of four shipments made by Malaysia's Scomi Precision Engineering (SCOPE) between 2002 and 2003 to Dubai's Aryash Trading Company. One of the four consignments lists the addressee as Gulf Technical Industries, but is diverted to Desert Electrical Equipment Factory, also based in Dubai.

October 2003: According to B.S.A. Tahir, the BBC China, the ship carrying the seized centrifuge components, was also transporting an aluminum casting and dynamo for Libya's centrifuge workshop. The consignment was allegedly sent via Dubai by TUT Shipping on behalf of Gunas Jireh of Turkey.

October 2003: Two weeks after the seizure of the centrifuge components, B.S.A. Tahir arranges the transshipment to Libya, via Dubai, of an electrical cabinet and power supplier-voltage regulator on behalf of Selim Alguadis, an associate of A.Q. Khan.

December 2003: Hamid Fathaloloomy, principal of Dubai's Akeed Trading Company, allegedly attempts to export U.S. pressure sensors to Iran....

April 2004: Elmstone Service and Trading FZE is sanctioned for two years by the United States for transferring to Iran equipment and/or technology of proliferation significance since 1999....

August 2004: The U.S. indicts Khalid Mahmood, of Dubai, for breaking the U.S. embargo to Iran. Mahmood allegedly attempted to arrange the sale of forklift radiators from the U.S. to Iran, by concealing the final destination in the sale.

September 2004: The I.S.G. lists 20 U.A.E. firms that are suspected of having acted as intermediaries or front companies for Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and says that the U.A.E. was a transit location for prohibited goods, with companies using deceptive trade practices. The I.S.G. also concludes that the U.A.E. and Iran were the most frequent destinations for Iraqi smuggled oil and owned the majority of smuggling vessels involved....

2005: More than 300 Iranian companies are known to have operated in Dubai's Jebel Ali Free Zone...

[sandnsea]

6. airlines aren't airpots

Just like ships aren't ports.

The proposal is to open up investment to 25% of a US airline, not to allow a state owned company control of 6 of our major airports.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/011606p2.xml

[BlueCollar]

7. the parallel is here...from your link

The department's sentiments and position were clear when it issued the proposal in the first place. The new rules are intended to preserve statutory requirements that a foreign investor's voting power be limited to one-fourth of a U.S. airline's stock, and that its representation on the U.S. airline's board of directors or top management be no more than one-third. But within those limits, the foreign entity would be allowed to take control of virtually any and all purely commercial decisions, reserving only safety, security and national defense--participation in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)--for U.S. citizens' control.

[sandnsea]

9. No, that's the clear distinction

A foreign investor voting power would be limited to 1/4 of an airline's stock. Representation on a board or in top management would be limited to 1/3. Safety, security and national defense would be reserved for US citizens' control.

Completely opposite of the port operations sale.

[BlueCollar]

10. if the foreign investors

decided that from a "business sense" it was more economical to outsource the maintenance to a foreign maintenance facility...it is not a safety issue is it?

The simple fact is that this ports thing is a done deal...and the airline business is going the same way

[sandnsea]

13. They wouldn't have majority control

So I don't think they could make that kind of decision anyway.

But yeah, they're doing away with the idea of American economic power, and replacing it with global economic power. Will America figure it out and come together to stop it, before it's too late.

[Bluebear]

11. Current law limits foreign ownership of U.S. airlines to 25 percent.

Current law limits foreign ownership of U.S. airlines to 25 percent. Airlines also must be controlled and operated by U.S. citizens, either individuals or corporations.

Various proposals have been offered to increase the ownership limit to as much as 49 percent. In theory, U.S. airlines would benefit from fresh investment capital while the 49 percent limit would maintain U.S. control.

Both of these assumptions are questionable at best. Few foreign investors have taken advantage of even the 25 percent limit. The airline industry is volatile and airline stocks are not good performers. The few exceptions in the airline sector already are well capitalized and would not benefit materially from an increased limit. The airlines most in need of additional capital are unlikely to attract foreign investment for the same reasons that U.S. investors have shunned them.

The argument that a 49 percent limit would preclude control is a mathematical fiction based on the unlikely presumption that all 51 percent of those holding the remaining control would be in a position to effectively oppose proposals from the foreign owner(s). Indeed, it is quite possible to effectively control a corporation with far less than 49 percent ownership.

While it may be possible to structure stocks so that 49 percent ownership does not equate to the ability to cast 49 percent of votes on corporate matters, that ignores a fundamental business question: Why would anyone take such a large position in a company if they could not exert some amount of control over that company’s operations?

One obvious economic implication of foreign control is the concern that a foreign airline could divert the U.S. airline’s international operations to the foreign airline. The U.S. carrier would lose those operations and the accompanying revenues and jobs and be relegated to acting as a feeder service for passengers who would be shunted to the foreign carriers’ flights.

There are other concerns over foreign ownership, some of which overlap with issues raised by cabotage. For example, there are national security interests at stake. U.S. airlines that participate in the government’s Civil Reserve Aircraft Fleet (CRAF) program pledge the availability of portions of their fleet to provide airlift capacity to the military in times of war or other emergencies. Foreign airlines may be reluctant to put the aircraft of their U.S. subsidiary at risk or have them taken out of their service to promote U.S. interests. In an extreme case, a foreign government might pressure a foreign airline to withhold CRAF aircraft because of foreign policy differences with U.S. government actions.

ALPA is opposed to changing the current rules on foreign ownership

http://www.alpa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=237

[BlueCollar]

12. the last paragraph is telling

what about a scenario where the aircraft are "grounded for maintenance" during a "National Emergency"?

Personally, I think a nation's transportation infrastructure, along with its communications and energy infrastructure are not well served by deregulation and foreign ownership.