International Aviation
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
weiss, You might want to take a look at how the treaties, confederate and federal systems are being used to go down the "world domination" path.mweiss said:There's a big difference among treaty, confederate, and federal systems. You might want to consider the subtleties there before you go down the "world domination" path.
Might as well be.
jimntx
Veteran
Look, INSP89's mind is made up. Do not attempt to confuse him with facts.
A treaty is a contract among nations. Just as with any contract, the parties enter into it because it is mutually beneficial. The parties remain sovereign, and either party can abrogate the contract. If they do, however, the contract becomes null and void, thus invalidating the parts that are advantageous to the abrogator as well as those that are disadvantageous.
A confederate system involves sovereign states overseen by a rather weak government. Unlike treaties, however, that government does have a small set of clearly delineated powers. The EU is a good example of this. As was illustrated by the initial post in this thread, the central government can request, cajole, or even demand that the UK give up their sovereignty in something as innocuous as landing rights at LHR. Parliament is not obligated to concede, however. Note that each state maintains separate armed forces.
A federal system has a powerful government overseeing less sovereign states. Generally, a federal system has a single, centralized military. Power is consolidated in a single location. The United States is a good example of a federal system.
What we have on a global scale is a treaty system, mostly. Among the nations of the European Union, there is a confederacy, but its primary raison d'être is economics, not the criminal system. Just like a workers' union, the European Union has more bargaining power with the rest of the world than they would have as separate nations.
A confederate system involves sovereign states overseen by a rather weak government. Unlike treaties, however, that government does have a small set of clearly delineated powers. The EU is a good example of this. As was illustrated by the initial post in this thread, the central government can request, cajole, or even demand that the UK give up their sovereignty in something as innocuous as landing rights at LHR. Parliament is not obligated to concede, however. Note that each state maintains separate armed forces.
A federal system has a powerful government overseeing less sovereign states. Generally, a federal system has a single, centralized military. Power is consolidated in a single location. The United States is a good example of a federal system.
What we have on a global scale is a treaty system, mostly. Among the nations of the European Union, there is a confederacy, but its primary raison d'être is economics, not the criminal system. Just like a workers' union, the European Union has more bargaining power with the rest of the world than they would have as separate nations.
The EU has said that it is illegal to discriminate against other EU nationals.
I.e. the the clauses in aviation agreements that restrict AMS-USA (or AMS-MOW) flights to just Dutch owned airlines are illegal. The bit saying just US airlines remains legal.
What the EU is asking for (and will get at some point) is that any EU airline can fly anywhere in EU to anywhere in US (or Canada, or Brazil...) So if Lufthansa wanst to fly Paris - Pitsburgh, or Brussels-Kinshasa they can. I believe the US will agree to this, because impact on US airlines is limited
The rest of what they are asking for (ownership limits lifted/ Fly America policy/ cabotage) is a wish list that they don't have much hope of getting. They are asking to make a point - that they would like to see the future as one aviation area. If US govt doesn't want this, fine, the EU will settle for multi designation
The stciking point is LHR. Because there is no more room at the inn. US and EU will insist that liberalisation is not enough, present airlines there must give up access (to allow NW to fly DTW-LHR, and KLM to fly LHR-MSP for example) The UK government will tell both the EU and the US to get lost - because there is no gain for the UK (just subsituting one airline for another gives no consumer benefit)
So a mini deal might be done, without forcing incumbent airlines in LHR (including UA and AA) to transfer their semi-private property to other airlines. Or we wait for the fourth LON airport to be built, and access to LHR to cease to be an issue. But US airlines haven't shown much interest in going to STN rather than LGW or LHR.
The present LHR impasse suits AA and UA as well, so don't expect much movement soon.
As for the rest of the globalisation debate. You can rant and moan as much as you like. But since 1989 about 2-3 billion people have been added to capitalism (China, India, and the Warsaw Pact nations) This is having a massive effect, and will continue to do so, as they enter the economic system. You can try and refuse to trade with them, but won't get you very far.
I.e. the the clauses in aviation agreements that restrict AMS-USA (or AMS-MOW) flights to just Dutch owned airlines are illegal. The bit saying just US airlines remains legal.
What the EU is asking for (and will get at some point) is that any EU airline can fly anywhere in EU to anywhere in US (or Canada, or Brazil...) So if Lufthansa wanst to fly Paris - Pitsburgh, or Brussels-Kinshasa they can. I believe the US will agree to this, because impact on US airlines is limited
The rest of what they are asking for (ownership limits lifted/ Fly America policy/ cabotage) is a wish list that they don't have much hope of getting. They are asking to make a point - that they would like to see the future as one aviation area. If US govt doesn't want this, fine, the EU will settle for multi designation
The stciking point is LHR. Because there is no more room at the inn. US and EU will insist that liberalisation is not enough, present airlines there must give up access (to allow NW to fly DTW-LHR, and KLM to fly LHR-MSP for example) The UK government will tell both the EU and the US to get lost - because there is no gain for the UK (just subsituting one airline for another gives no consumer benefit)
So a mini deal might be done, without forcing incumbent airlines in LHR (including UA and AA) to transfer their semi-private property to other airlines. Or we wait for the fourth LON airport to be built, and access to LHR to cease to be an issue. But US airlines haven't shown much interest in going to STN rather than LGW or LHR.
The present LHR impasse suits AA and UA as well, so don't expect much movement soon.
As for the rest of the globalisation debate. You can rant and moan as much as you like. But since 1989 about 2-3 billion people have been added to capitalism (China, India, and the Warsaw Pact nations) This is having a massive effect, and will continue to do so, as they enter the economic system. You can try and refuse to trade with them, but won't get you very far.
BillLumbergh
Veteran
Thank you peasant for so concisely stating the crux of the EU issue.
The antiglobalists can post follow ups in the Just Conversation forum.
The antiglobalists can post follow ups in the Just Conversation forum.
ITRADE
Veteran
Peasant pretty much summed up the situation on the E.U. AMS and LHR are the lynchpins for the Europeans. Its effect on the U.S. is minimal.
As to treaties and whatnot, I'm going to say this and get out as its clear the Powers want this discussed in a more appropriate forum.
No treaty to which U.S. is a member is enacted without the consent of the United States. The 1947 GATT, the NAFTA, the Uruguay Round were all approved by Congress before the United States could officially become a signatory. Congress had extensive hearings and sessions on the NAFTA and Uruguay Round, and debated the two matters for months. If you want, read HR Doc. 103-316 on the URAA. So, HighIron's assertion that "does not a treaty technically overrule the US' own laws" is incorrect. A treaty becomes part of U.S. law as approved by Congress.
As to treaties and whatnot, I'm going to say this and get out as its clear the Powers want this discussed in a more appropriate forum.
No treaty to which U.S. is a member is enacted without the consent of the United States. The 1947 GATT, the NAFTA, the Uruguay Round were all approved by Congress before the United States could officially become a signatory. Congress had extensive hearings and sessions on the NAFTA and Uruguay Round, and debated the two matters for months. If you want, read HR Doc. 103-316 on the URAA. So, HighIron's assertion that "does not a treaty technically overrule the US' own laws" is incorrect. A treaty becomes part of U.S. law as approved by Congress.
4merresrat
Veteran
- Apr 3, 2003
- 548
- 0
Too funny!!!BillLumbergh said:
I agree the UK will tell everyone to get lost about increasing LHR access, but I disagree that substituting one airline for another will have no consumer benefit.peasant said:
Presently only four airlines have any significant rights to fly between LHR and the US (BA, VS, AA, and UA), and among those four BA is dominant. (NZ, AI, and I believe SQ and probably some others have some limited rights to do so, but no "significant" ones.) Allowing more airlines to have significant rights to operate between LHR and the US would provide more competition for the LHR-4 and fares would probably come down, benefitting the consumer.
The UK government will tell the others to get lost because of the influence of BA. Don't underestimate their political influence-- ask Richard Branson about it.
I'm somewhere between the black helicopters crowd, and the all-is-well crowd.
A small example.
In the US, we made a sovereign decision to ban dolphin bycatch in our tuna fleet. And, IIRC, only dolphin-friendly tuna can be sold here.
The Mexican government is in an uproar over this.
http://www.tomzap.com/tuna1.html
Imagine if Mexico were to prevail in the WTO. The US would have to comply, or withdraw from the treaty. I have serious doubts, with globalism and the marketplace being the new religion, that the US would withdraw. And I am enough of a nationalist to be concerned about these kinds of influences on sovereign decisions.
Another example.
Under current treaties, sooner or later, Mexican trucks will be operating in the US. Many of these trucks will not meet US safety standards. Yet they must be allowed, under current treaty, to operate, or it will be considered restraint of trade.
http://www.amo-union.org/Newspaper/Morgue/...News/border.htm
And with Mexico being a major entry point into the US for the drug trade, how much easier will this make it for the drug lords?
Not to mention security in the post 911 era. US Customs already cannot properly search the trucks, ships, planes and railcars laden with imports. This will just overtax them further.
One last example.
Mexican produce on US grocery shelves, and in school lunches.
http://www.sustainable-city.org/articles/mexican.htm
http://www.american.edu/TED/strwberr.htm
My overarching point is, foreign economic interests will frequently collide with US law. And while treaties and agreements must be given due consideration, US law and interests must eventually trump such concerns.
A small example.
In the US, we made a sovereign decision to ban dolphin bycatch in our tuna fleet. And, IIRC, only dolphin-friendly tuna can be sold here.
The Mexican government is in an uproar over this.
http://www.tomzap.com/tuna1.html
Imagine if Mexico were to prevail in the WTO. The US would have to comply, or withdraw from the treaty. I have serious doubts, with globalism and the marketplace being the new religion, that the US would withdraw. And I am enough of a nationalist to be concerned about these kinds of influences on sovereign decisions.
Another example.
Under current treaties, sooner or later, Mexican trucks will be operating in the US. Many of these trucks will not meet US safety standards. Yet they must be allowed, under current treaty, to operate, or it will be considered restraint of trade.
http://www.amo-union.org/Newspaper/Morgue/...News/border.htm
And with Mexico being a major entry point into the US for the drug trade, how much easier will this make it for the drug lords?
Not to mention security in the post 911 era. US Customs already cannot properly search the trucks, ships, planes and railcars laden with imports. This will just overtax them further.
One last example.
Mexican produce on US grocery shelves, and in school lunches.
http://www.sustainable-city.org/articles/mexican.htm
http://www.american.edu/TED/strwberr.htm
My overarching point is, foreign economic interests will frequently collide with US law. And while treaties and agreements must be given due consideration, US law and interests must eventually trump such concerns.
Of course they will. And US economic interests will frequently collide with other countries' laws. And Arizona economic interests will collide with California's laws. So? That's part of the nature of trade.diogenes said:
US law dictates that treaties are to be given equal consideration to the Constitution; "must" or not, that's how it is. And it makes sense; the contract is between Congress and another nation.
