Bob Would not the benefits really accrue to the Canadians here? They have the least amount of choice now. I bet more than a few people would fly YVR to YYZ thru ORD for a better price while AC charges more for the non-stop. -----Original Message----- From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU]On Behalf Of RWM Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 5:12 AM To: AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Cabotage Antoin, Going back to the Chicago Convention, every signatory nation agrees it starts with certain rights, one of which is control over cabotage. Over the years since, many nations have allowed layers of their trade "onion" to be peeled away -- and not just in relation to air services. The US has permitted substantial flesh, in terms of rights, to be traded away in this respect, to nations which do not offer comparable markets or the potential in the future for comparables. That's a call to be made by someone above my pay grade (though I would certainly hope to influence same). To the extent that new U.S. flag entrants like JetBlue continue to offer nonstop services in multiple frequencies at attractive prices, incumbents are disciplined and the consumer benefits. I see no way that allowing cabotage would substantially improve consumer welfare. For example, AC does not have the cost structure, while WestJet is focused elsewhere. In fact, were the growth of U.S. new entrants to be impeded by allowing cabotage, consumer welfare would be damaged, not enhanced To the extent that new entrants were no longer able to improve consumer welfare, the equation should be re-evaluated. That is not a present concern, and likely not in the foreseeable future, however. But it is one of the factors US DOT has historically viewed as important. To my mind, the airframe argument turns on dumping and subsidies than any other factor. Like steel, grain and many other commodities. However, air services are not presently in the WTO sphere of influence or control. (Not that WTO wouldn't like to gain control of air...) - Bob Mann Antoin Daltun wrote: > > Might there not be be benefits for customers? If there are not customer > benefits, then Canadian ventures can scarcely damage the US airlines. > > Why should the US airlines have protection agaisnt cabotage anyway? I can > never understand why the US welcomes (insists on) free trade in aircraft > manufacture, but not in their operation. > > Antoin Daltun > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "RWM" <RWM@RWMann.com> > There's no fair value trade for U.S. carriers in a > > North American common aviation area. > > > > - Bob Mann > > -- > > - R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. >> Airline Industry Analysis > > Port Washington, NY 11050 >> tel 516-944-0900, fax -7280 > > mailto:RWM@RWMann.com >> URL http://www.RWMann.com/ > > > > -- - R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. >> Airline Industry Analysis Port Washington, NY 11050 >> tel 516-944-0900, fax -7280 mailto:RWM@RWMann.com >> URL http://www.RWMann.com/