DOT to Virgin America: That $#!+ won't fly here

[thatcrazycajun]

Time magazine this week has an interesting story I had not been previously aware of, concerning Virgin America Airlines' problems in getting the U.S. Dept. of Transportation to allow it to operate in our airspace despite a significant chunk of it being owned by legendary multi-gazillionaire daredevil—and British subject—Sir Richard Branson. (The website has the story here.) Seems that even though all the planes (and swanky ones they are!) are ready, the gate space at major airports leased, Federal Aviation Administration approval secured, the employees hired and the stationery printed, those darned shirty folks at DOT insist that Virgin America comply with a federal law prohibiting any U.S.-based passenger air carrier from being more than one-quarter owned by foreign interests.

What makes it more interesting is that VA has decided to go over the heads of the bureaucrats, to their (putative) bosses—you and me, i.e., the taxpaying, domestic-flying public. They have a political advocacy website up, www.LetVAFly.com, and are seeding Web 2.0 mainstays like YouTube, Flickr and Digg with promotional material aimed at ginning up a "viral" movement among would-be customers to pressure regulators to let the would-be airline take off.

And although conservatives and/or Republicans (yeh, I know, that's a redundancy these days) are supposedly all for more competition in the free market, the Bush Regime has been cool to VA's pleas for intervention, particularly since the Dubai ports deal went south last year. Old-line carriers like Delta, based here, and Continental (and, perhaps more to the point, their employee unions) have been egging DOT on to deny VA permission to fly, perhaps out of fiduciary self-interest; after all, the very last thing any of the struggling established airlines need just now is another upstart low-cost competitor entering the field.

Personally, I have felt since the sad demise of short-lived Independence Air that another really-cheap way to fly has been direly needed for those of us who don't fly anywhere near frequently enough to make use of loyalty-club miles. If Virgin can do it and not charge an arm and a leg—or end up ditching in a sea of red ink (seeing their amenities, I have to wonder if that is even possible)—I say more power to 'em. Anyone else care to weigh in?

Comments

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

And although conservatives and/or Republicans (yeh, I know, that's a redundancy these days) are supposedly all for more competition in the free market, the Bush Regime has been cool to VA's pleas for intervention, particularly since the Dubai ports deal went south last year.

The Bush Administration and their backers aren't conservatives. Not in any meaningful sense of the word.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

If it's a law, can the administration waive it?

If they have the power, and they did, I can guarantee that the next thing we'd hear would be howls of condemnation from the Democrats, and perhaps congressional action to reverse the decision. Are you sure you wouldn't be joining in it?

This presidents free trade creds haven't been stellar (cf steel tariffs), but he's been about average for presidents. The way it works in USA politics is that presidents are usually free trade even if they're democrats, while congressional democrats, and a significant minority of congressional republicans, are protectionist. That's because dealing with foreigners is the president's job, while congressmen answer only to the people back home.

All that said, however, autographedcat is right that calling this administration's domestic policies "conservative" is a stretch. Bush has always championed big government, he never hid it (which is one big reason why I did not vote for him in 2000).