Breaking up may be hard to do, but it appears especially tough for the government and the airline industry.
Since deregulating the industry a quarter-century ago, the federal government has struggled to map out a consistent approach for handling it. Should it let market forces dominate, even if that means a decline in the number of flights and an increase in fares as airlines fail or consolidate? Should it take a role in the industry's usually fractious labor negotiations? Should it let foreign investors own controlling interests in domestic airlines?
These questions have taken on added urgency in the last few months as airlines have sought wage and benefit concessions from their employees and made cutbacks in an effort to reduce their costs. Two major airlines, United and US Airways, sought bankruptcy protection and a third, American, is still struggling to avoid it. Arguing that assistance was needed to avoid financial disaster, the industry persuaded the government to come up with a US$3.8 billion aid package.
What has contributed to the crippling of the airlines is the inability of the government and the industry, like heartbroken lovers, to let go of each other, according to economists, executives and lawmakers.
Few agree on what the government's policy should be, but they generally contend that officials should take a more sanguine view toward market forces. Government policy should remain consistent through downturns and boom years, they say, and avoid treating companies differently, whether they are reaping profits or in danger of collapsing.
"It is largely start and stop right now," said Representative James Oberstar, who is the minority ranking member on the House Transportation Committee.
Clifford Winston, an economist at the Brookings Institution who studies the industry, said that "the idea would be these policies would be harmonized along with what deregulation was expected to do; the fundamental criticism is that government has failed to do that."
The government's "residual presence" in the industry, he added, has created "a mindset that you can use the government for your own purposes" and "has diverted the carriers' attentions from working out their problems themselves."
Last month, US President George W. Bush approved, as part of the supplemental spending budget for the war in Iraq, the US$3.8 billion in aid, with US$500 million of that coming in the form of a suspension of security taxes for four months ending in September. The Transportation Security Administration is now working to split that money among 71 airlines by May 16. But the debate over how much aid to hand out -- and whether to give any at all -- has been heated and could intensify as the government tries to figure out what to do about the taxes after September.
The industry already received one aid package, when Congress approved US$15 billion in cash and loan guarantees after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. Then, in the last six months, it began to look as if federal officials were slowly coming around to adopting a liberalized attitude toward the airlines. Last December, they denied United Airlines a US$1.8 billion loan guarantee, saying United had to repair its broken business model. On March 31, the Transportation Department approved a marketing partnership between Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines and Continental Airlines, after easing stringent conditions it had initially required for the partnership.
But the US$3.8 billion in aid raises questions of whether the government is distorting market forces in an industry that experts say needs a good shaking out. Of the total package, US$2.3 billion is partial reimbursement for security-related taxes and costs incurred by the industry after the Sept. 11 attacks -- most of which came from a new US$2.50-a-leg tax that passengers paid, not the carriers. The airlines argue, though, that that tax imposition made it harder for them to raise ticket prices.
"It is Congress' responsibility post Sept. 11 to assume the security costs as a part of national defense," said Jim May, chief executive of the Air Transport Association, the industry's main trade group.
May said the government should permanently rescind the security taxes even after the suspension period ends.
But many critics of the tax relief say the airlines should contribute something to airport security costs. First, they say, it is spurious to argue that the protection of airlines is a national defense issue because many other industries -- trucking, arms manufacturing and so on -- could just as easily argue their security measures should be financed by taxpayers to keep their products away from terrorists.
Second, critics say terrorism will continue to be a fact of life in commercial aviation, and costs related to it should now be considered part of doing business, just like paying to have planes tuned up.
"They have to address those new risks and those new requirements in order to service their customers," said Kevin Mitchell, president of the Business Travel Coalition, an advocacy group for business travelers. "That seems to be an identifiable new part of the environment. Why are taxpayers funding that?"
Oberstar was among the first lawmakers to propose an aid package for the airlines to alleviate effects from the US-led invasion of Iraq, but he did not support the suspension of security taxes.
"That's puzzling to me how that worked out," he said, adding that he thinks passengers are willing to pay the equivalent of a latte at Starbucks on each leg of a flight to support security.
Winston, the economist at the Brookings Institution, said the government's role in security was another example of it getting "involved in areas where it doesn't have expertise." Instead, he said, airports should oversee security - they have more expertise than either the government or the airlines, and they would have more market-driven incentive than the airlines to keep the premises safe.
There are certain regulations that executives and industry analysts say are hampering the financial health of the airlines. They point to the Railway Labor Act, which they argue leads to prolonged negotiations that give the unions too much leverage. But this is a politically divisive issue, and there is no clear-cut opinion on it among experts. Few of them expect the act to be overhauled anytime soon.
Many people in the industry agree, though, that the government should lift limits on foreign investment in domestic airlines. The law prevents foreign investors from owning more than 25 percent of the voting stock of an airline or 49 percent of total equity. Those restrictions originated in an era when federal officials were more concerned about national security issues related to foreign investment, experts say.
"You can't allow people not to buy into US airlines that operate subject to US labor laws," said Michael Levine, a former airline executive who is now a professor at Yale Law School. "I don't see any reason why we should prevent them."
Stephen Garrett, a 27-year-old graduate student, always thought he would study in China, but first the country’s restrictive COVID-19 policies made it nearly impossible and now he has other concerns. The cost is one deterrent, but Garrett is more worried about restrictions on academic freedom and the personal risk of being stranded in China. He is not alone. Only about 700 American students are studying at Chinese universities, down from a peak of nearly 25,000 a decade ago, while there are nearly 300,000 Chinese students at US schools. Some young Americans are discouraged from investing their time in China by what they see
MAJOR DROP: CEO Tim Cook, who is visiting Hanoi, pledged the firm was committed to Vietnam after its smartphone shipments declined 9.6% annually in the first quarter Apple Inc yesterday said it would increase spending on suppliers in Vietnam, a key production hub, as CEO Tim Cook arrived in the country for a two-day visit. The iPhone maker announced the news in a statement on its Web site, but gave no details of how much it would spend or where the money would go. Cook is expected to meet programmers, content creators and students during his visit, online newspaper VnExpress reported. The visit comes as US President Joe Biden’s administration seeks to ramp up Vietnam’s role in the global tech supply chain to reduce the US’ dependence on China. Images on
New apartments in Taiwan’s major cities are getting smaller, while old apartments are increasingly occupied by older people, many of whom live alone, government data showed. The phenomenon has to do with sharpening unaffordable property prices and an aging population, property brokers said. Apartments with one bedroom that are two years old or older have gained a noticeable presence in the nation’s six special municipalities as well as Hsinchu county and city in the past five years, Evertrust Rehouse Co (永慶房產集團) found, citing data from the government’s real-price transaction platform. In Taipei, apartments with one bedroom accounted for 19 percent of deals last
US CONSCULTANT: The US Department of Commerce’s Ursula Burns is a rarely seen US government consultant to be put forward to sit on the board, nominated as an independent director Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電), the world’s largest contract chipmaker, yesterday nominated 10 candidates for its new board of directors, including Ursula Burns from the US Department of Commerce. It is rare that TSMC has nominated a US government consultant to sit on its board. Burns was nominated as one of seven independent directors. She is vice chair of the department’s Advisory Council on Supply Chain Competitiveness. Burns is to stand for election at TSMC’s annual shareholders’ meeting on June 4 along with the rest of the candidates. TSMC chairman Mark Liu (劉德音) was not on the list after in December last