matrixwalker2012

Since cabotage laws prohibit foreign carriers from transporting domestic pax, and imposes a fine for violations that may happen from time to time. I'm sure there are some foreign carriers that can "afford" the fines, so why not let the govt monetize cabotage rights and just make foreign carriers pay a "fee" for cabotage rights? Carriers that are willing to pay for it can then offer domestic US services and the money they pay can be extra revenue for the govt to share with the U.S. flagged airlines. Why not "protect" the domestic industry by simply making outsiders pay good money to use the system? Kinda like out of state tuition at a public school, it's intended for state residents but outsiders willing to pay the higher fees are also welcome.

cbn42

If such a system were to be implemented, it would only be a matter of time before foreign airlines convinced the government to abolish the fees. By that time, they would have the support of the passengers.

sannmann

Plus, the U.S.-based airlines depend upon this principle as a form of protectionism. The U.S. carriers probably would not be able to compete against foreign airlines, many of which are so heavily subsidized by their flag countries that they would not otherwise be in business.

pinniped

They'd have my support! ^ Of course this will never happen...

We take care of our legacy carriers in different ways as well...

It would be nice if we even took the first baby step and had open competition across U.S./Canada/Mexico. But I doubt that will even happen...airlines, and the politicians they own and operate, like to protect their own turf.

ESpen36

Because then I suspect that Chinese carriers would be operating quite competitively on domestic US routes. And those regional routes in the Midwest would be operated by carriers owned by Chinese holding companies.

There is no way that a bloated, cash-poor domestic U.S. airline could compete against an efficient, cash-rich Chinese airline looking to expand.

Hint: Go into a Walmart and look at the labels showing where everything is made. There is a reason.

Box5

Airlines nickle and dime (or dollar) us with fuel surcharges and same day standby that they won't absorb a cabotage fee.

Instead, cabotage should be allowed if an equivalent country or block of countries mutually allow it. I would consider it fair if there is:
1. cabotage for airlines from the EU in return for U.S. rights in the EU.
1a. allow Iceland, Norway, Switzerland to be included as long as the U.S. can fly EU-Iceland/Norway/Switzerland

2. Canada

3. block of countries such as Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Brunei, Japan, maybe Korea and Taiwan. However, not just one country, such as New Zealand, because the U.S. wouldn't get much in return. Furthermore, rights between those blocks of countries would be included so the U.S. could fly between Australia and New Zealand.

matrixwalker2012

What if the Chinese carriers had to pay whatever amount the govt decides to charge them for a "cabotage permit"? The govt could even charge the permit on a route by route basis. And that permit fee could be whatever the govt deems necessary for that route with that carrier. Say on a JFK-LAX route at noon, BA could be charged a set fee, Air China could be charged a variable fee, Qantas could be charged a different fee. I don't see what's the big deal, the foreign carriers would be assessed fees that the govt feels like charging them and if they feel that they can still compete with that fee, then they stay, otherwise, they go home! Plus, the foreign carriers would be stuck with operating these domestic tags with their international equipment, which would drive up their costs more, and their route timings may not suite O/D pax on the domestic routes. The domestic carriers would be protected with these fees, and a largely apathetic domestic pax market won't pay more for better service on these comparatively shorter flights. Just look at the east coast to Hawaii nonstops, the carriers all operate it with their intl equipment, and their pax still aren't willing to pay the premium for the enhanced soft product. Could SQ do any better operating a 77W on HNL-EWR as far as commanding a revenue premium?

valdor

Or just open the market like they did in Europe.