"Oversupply" has the same negative connotations that I used to hear among lobbyist friends in DC (e.g. "Hyundai is dumping those things"). Whether or not the term is applicable in any given case, consumers always seem to benefit.

If Sichuan Airlines is able to fly HGH-LAX again, they may well do so. The price wouldn't be $400 RT this time around, but they would definitely undercut United by a significant margin...without flying over Russia. But, at least United would be in a position to fight back. American and Delta, by contrast, are going into this battle with severely clipped wings, and they comprise 2/3 of the DOT's influencers (if we ignore consumers).

From what I can tell, the Russia issue is a red herring. MU isn't going to voluntarily lengthen its flagship route by 3 hours westbound, but would do so if compelled by law. Similarly, United could swing EWR-PVG without flying over Russia (e.g. check out the range specs of its planes).

Beijing routes are a little more problematic because many optimal flight paths utilize Russia in both directions. That being said, Russia was commonly avoided for 20+ years after KE007.

If PEK-NYC proves to be impossible without Russia, so be it. Maybe we'd get more SFO and LAX...annoying for those of us with east coast origins/destinations, but not the end of the world.

Thing is, I prefer doing Eastcoast to Japan/Korea then to Beijing, than Eastcoast to Westcoast to Beijing.
If only the connections would be better for NRT/HND/ICN/GMP - Beijing though!

I disagree with this prediction. I don't think it matters, from China's point of view, whether the US is targeting just Chinese airlines, or China+India+ME3. China will see this as another attempt by the US to impose unilateral restrictions on Chinese businesses for geopolitical reasons. Since Trump started the trade war, China has not acquiesced to any US demands despite constantly escalating US pressure. There's no reason to think it'll be any different in this case--an unilateral decision by the US to ban some of China's flights, as currently flown, will be met with reciprocal retaliation, not capitulation.

Honestly, I think this type of mentality has been a significant contributor to the current dismal state of US-China relations. A lot of Americans--even those who are knowledgeable about China and are acting in good faith--seem to think that, if China won't agree to something though negotiation, China can be made to do that thing by unilateral American force. No, it never worked like that, and definitely not now. Bans and sanctions will lead to counter-bans and counter-sanctions and decoupling (and if that's the desired end state, sure, keep going). But bans and sanctions aren't going to make China to submit to US demands after negotiations have failed.

If they make it ILLEGAL, it's conceivable that we will end up with zero flights for short period of time. But, after the message sinks in, negotiations would restart.

Grandfathering China's existing rights would result in 8 flights to/from NYC (not going to happen).

Again, I disagree. Since Trump started the trade war half a decade ago, China has not acquiesced to any US demands despite constantly escalating US pressure. China's response to US bans and sanctions has been finding substitute products and alternative markets, even if there's short term loss of profit. There's no reason to think it'll be any different in this case--an unilateral decision by the US to ban some of China's flights, as currently flown, will be met with reciprocal retaliation, not capitulation. Chinese airlines will redeploy their jets to alternative, less profitable destinations, and that'll be that. CAAC isn't going to run back to US DOT in a month waving a white flag.

If a ban happens, there will be zero direct US-China flights for a long time. Cf. tarriffs, Chengdu/Houston consulates.

You can disagree until the cows come home, but if Russia overflights were deemed illegal, this topic would not be subject to negotiation.

Why would China agree to further negotiations after the US unilaterally declares that it won't negotiate on a key issue by passing a law about it? There simply won't be any more negotiations.

If the US passes a ban on some Chinese flights, regardless of how the ban is packaged, there will fewer/no US-China flights. There won't be more flights. This should not be a surprise. To argue otherwise and claim that China will yield, especially given recent experience, borders on nonsensical.

-China's current objection justifiably hinges upon the fact that it is being singled out wrt Russia
-the US is in a position to allay this concern
-the DOT (on its own accord) is not

That's not China's main concern. From the FT article I posted earlier:

The primary disagreement is "China did not accept that its carriers should have to avoid flying over Russia," because "[a]n issue between the US and Russia is not one between the US and China." In other words, it's the same type of dispute as all the other trade/tech disputes - China does not want Chinese business to be subject to America's unilateral geopolitically-motivated restrictions.

The issue regarding India and ME3 is just "another reason"--not the main one. A law codifying a ban may resolve the secondary issue, but further inflames the primary dispute.

-The trade war precedes Trump (read this: )
-If the new US-China travel environment (e.g. JL, NH, BR, CI) ends up excluding US/Chinese airlines, there WILL be a resolution at some point

This is a US-China travel thread. I was clearly referring to the recent US-China trade war. However, I will stop this digression as it's veering into Omni territory.

Back on topic, sure, even if a ban passes, there will be probably a eventual resolution at some point. But it won't be after a "short period of time." The time for resolution will be measured in years, and may be well after the end of the Ukraine-Russia war. Tarriffs are still in place 5 years later. The Chengdu/Houston consulates are still closed 3 years later.

Of course, they don't like it, but that shouldn't preclude the US from taking a firm stance. Look, EWR-PEK isn't happening anytime soon, so why not let them duke things out?

Assuming the US makes Russia off-limits within 2 months, I predict there will be meaningful progress by the end of Q3.

Nothing wrong with that. As I said previously: 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.

I was merely disagreeing with the assertion that a ban on certain existing Chinese flights will somehow lead to more flights. No, a ban will lead to fewer/no flights.

I'm not saying whether or not the proposed ban is good or bad overall. Just that I disagree with the idea that a ban will lead to faster negotiations and more flights.

I predict otherwise, that if the US unilaterally institutes a ban on Russia overflights, China will not comply, and US-China flight frequencies will be reduced accordingly to an even lower number, or zero. If the ban happens, there will be fewer, not more US-China direct flights, at a minimum until an armstice or peace treaty is signed in the Russia-Ukraine war.

And I think this conversation has run its course--I'm sure upcoming events will show who's reading of the situation is more accurate.