Ukridge
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 0
Many of you who read The Economist are well familiar with the coverage this august publication has lent to the airline industry over the past few years. In mid November, the Economist ran an article that predicted vigorous growth in the world’s air markets. They freely admitted that this was not revelatory, but something that has been long predicted in contemplative and reasoned comment on the topic.
What piqued my interest was the continued opinion by the E’s staff of the importance of the United States dropping its limits on foreign ownership. There are two rather difficult questions that I was troubled by in this reading upon which perhaps someone could render clarification.
First, I thought it was nowadays jejune to use the word “foreign†when referring to those like me from distant shores. The U.S. government still refers to these as “foreign†ownership limits but did not CNN discontinue the use of the word in preference of “international?†So when I arrive in the FCs am I a “foreigner†and foul of manner and unclean of body? Or am I rather an Internationalist? How does one alight on “international shores†as opposed to the more lyrical “foreign shores? Does one master an “international tongue†or a “foreign tongue?†Are there “foreigners†in the land or “internationalists?†Is something “foreign to you,†“strange to you,†or “international to you? The problems are legion are they not? Are these laws not better referred to as “international ownership limits?†Ah, the Yanks are getting hoisted on their own petard with the language.
OK, joking aside, the real question is why there is such a drumbeat within the Economist’s editorial staff and other publications for the adjustment of ownership rules within the U.S. I can fully understand the argument for the free movement of capital across borders to enhance investment and growth. Where I stumble is that it seems that raising capital has never seemed to have been a problem in the U.S. air industry before. In other words the airlines have not come-a-cropper heretofore by a lack of investment monies at hand. Why then the constant push for “foreign†ownership? Is it purely a managerial skill issue? Can “foreign†managers better run what seems to be an extraordinarily vicious industry any better than the corps of current executives? Specifically just what would “foreign†ownership bring to the table? This has become a mantra but without detailed reasoning to back it up. Perhaps it would be good for the U.S., but if so, how? Why?
There is something odd about the amount of newsprint devoted to the need to change this law. Again, if finding investment capital is not (or has not been) an issue, why the need for any change.
The mid-November article was quite good and foresaw the emergence of Emirates as a powerful player in the field. The content was marred somewhat by the failure to explain the question I have laid out.
Any ideas?
Cheers
What piqued my interest was the continued opinion by the E’s staff of the importance of the United States dropping its limits on foreign ownership. There are two rather difficult questions that I was troubled by in this reading upon which perhaps someone could render clarification.
First, I thought it was nowadays jejune to use the word “foreign†when referring to those like me from distant shores. The U.S. government still refers to these as “foreign†ownership limits but did not CNN discontinue the use of the word in preference of “international?†So when I arrive in the FCs am I a “foreigner†and foul of manner and unclean of body? Or am I rather an Internationalist? How does one alight on “international shores†as opposed to the more lyrical “foreign shores? Does one master an “international tongue†or a “foreign tongue?†Are there “foreigners†in the land or “internationalists?†Is something “foreign to you,†“strange to you,†or “international to you? The problems are legion are they not? Are these laws not better referred to as “international ownership limits?†Ah, the Yanks are getting hoisted on their own petard with the language.
OK, joking aside, the real question is why there is such a drumbeat within the Economist’s editorial staff and other publications for the adjustment of ownership rules within the U.S. I can fully understand the argument for the free movement of capital across borders to enhance investment and growth. Where I stumble is that it seems that raising capital has never seemed to have been a problem in the U.S. air industry before. In other words the airlines have not come-a-cropper heretofore by a lack of investment monies at hand. Why then the constant push for “foreign†ownership? Is it purely a managerial skill issue? Can “foreign†managers better run what seems to be an extraordinarily vicious industry any better than the corps of current executives? Specifically just what would “foreign†ownership bring to the table? This has become a mantra but without detailed reasoning to back it up. Perhaps it would be good for the U.S., but if so, how? Why?
There is something odd about the amount of newsprint devoted to the need to change this law. Again, if finding investment capital is not (or has not been) an issue, why the need for any change.
The mid-November article was quite good and foresaw the emergence of Emirates as a powerful player in the field. The content was marred somewhat by the failure to explain the question I have laid out.
Any ideas?
Cheers
