Because the US doesn't want to give Chinese airlines a competitive advantage? The Chinese airlines will be able to offer lower prices and get to destinations faster.

That's the reason, yes; but it's still ridiculous and childish, IMO.
It's asking other airlines to deliberately fly a longer route and burn tons more fuel, just because they themselves have to do so.
Surely there could be other 'arrangements' made to accommodate the competitive advantage?

Huh? You're ceding market share to the Chinese airlines. That doesn't make any sense at all. The US airlines are asking for a level playing field, which is reasonable. Not everyone is chasing or even cares about status. Why fly a US airline if the Chinese can get there faster and cheaper?

The same pressure is being brought to bear and It's not the US per se. It is an industry lobby called A4A and they are lobbying hard that all flights into the US meet the same restrictions and avoid Russian airspace. This will immediately become an issue with any other country's air services agreement if it comes up for renewal. China is an easy political target and the logical first step for A4A.

A lot of stuff in international trade does not make sense.

Remember that when China restarted international flights they allowed all airlines to resume flights if they were flown on a certain day. Only no US and nearly no European airlines were flying that day. That was beyond petty and the FAA will not quickly forget it.

Earlier this year it looked like there was a window of opportunity to approve more flights but there were too many conflicting interests on the US side. I actually think a US ban on all flights to the US that overfly Russia could be a way forward. It removes the biggest obstacle to increasing flights at the moment.

Why is there zero news or articles about why China- Canada flights are not increasing?. Is it the same issue here?. Remember Air Canada and Air China have a joint venture.

It's difficult to see how a ban on flights would lead to more flights. IMO, China will treat a ban on their Russia overflight flights (1x weekly JFK-CAN and 2x weekly JFK-PVG) like an economic sanction, and retaliate accordingly by reducing US flights by the same amount. China has not capitulated to any US sanctions and won't start doing so here.

​​​​​​Source?

The US government also won't subject its airlines to unfair competition.

​​​​​​​Make sense and it would level the playing field.
​​​​​​​

A Russian airspace ban on all flights to/from the US would level the playing field, and China would no longer to be able to argue it was being discriminated against.

It'll piss off India and the UAE, but it's not like either of those countries are close US allies. I suppose if the Chinese can convince the Russians to let US airlines use their airspace, then this dispute can be resolved as well.

The US is currently sanctioning Russia on 100+ fronts. Its airlines will not operate flights in Russian airspace until this is no longer the case, whether or not they are welcome (they're not).

Sure, all that may be true, but my original point is that a ban is not going to lead to more flights. It'll lead to even fewer.

If a succeeds in getting China to take issue off the table, it would increase the odds of an agreement (entailing more flights) moving forward.

A unilateral ban on (certain) Chinese flights, like all other unilateral American sanctions over the last half-decade, is not going to get China to "take the issue off the table" (i.e. capitulate to American demands). It'll instead lead China to adopt retaliatory sanctions. Unilateral attempts to coerce after negotiations have failed always lead to even worse outcomes.

edit: I'm defining worse outcomes here as fewer flights, since that was my original point--that an unilateral ban is going to lead to fewer, not more, flights. If one's primary concern is about having a level playing field, then a unilateral ban might result in a better outcome from that point of view, even if it leads to fewer flights. No flights for either side is perhaps the most equitable outcome possible in the current environment, and I'm sure there are politicians on both sides that would prefer a "no flights at all" result--although I'm not sure that would be the preferred outcome for A4A.

I agree that a targeted ban wouldn't hold water; in fact, that's the type of manoeuvre that could end up in WTO arbitration BUT, we are discussing a ban that applies evenly to all airlines (i.e. NOT singling out China).

I'm just saying that it's nonsensical to ask any airline to purposely fly an extra 1000 miles (or whatever it is) for the sole reason of oneself having to do so.
This is just something that will never happen, and if it's a point of contention, the people at the negotiation table just need to get creative and come up with another solution that both parties can agree on.
That's what they get paid for after all!