Ask the pilot

With the Democrats in power can we look forward to flying with our liquids and gels again? Is civil aviation even affected by the political tide?

By Patrick Smith

Read more: Republican Party, Democratic Party, Technology & Business, Business, P. Smith, Ask the Pilot, 2006 Elections

Nov. 17, 2006 | "Now that we're fully briefed on the arcana of turbulence and wingtip vortices," the letter began, "how about getting on to something meatier, such as how last week's Democratic wipeout of the U.S. House and Senate might impact commercial flying. Will it?"

This is Salon, after all, and admittedly my last two columns were non sequiturs amid the magazine's clamorous gear-up to the midterms (and the subsequent after party). I'm a born contrarian, so the diversions were somewhat intentional. Besides, if you remember my pre-election special from 2004, you know that I'm a political bad luck charm. But the question above is a good one, and presumably others are wondering the same thing. Therefore, my eagerly anticipated column on the comparative aesthetics of in-flight cutlery will have to wait.

Several aspects of civil aviation are influenced in some way by the political tide. On Capitol Hill, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have dedicated aviation subcommittees that meet regularly and wield considerable influence over policies of the FAA, TSA, NTSB and other acronymic entities that mind and monitor our skies. (Not that anything particularly radical seems to emerge from their meetings, and I wouldn't recommend sitting in on one unless you're one of those people who read legal briefs for fun or enjoy getting up early to watch C-SPAN.) The subcommittees are formally bipartisan, but it stands to reason that regime change in Washington would have meaningful implications for airlines and their passengers. True?

The short answer is no, not really. For one thing, the airline business exists in a parallel universe of sorts -- an oddly transpartisan (that's not the same as bipartisan) world where traditional party-line decision making doesn't always apply. It's hard to forget Ronald Reagan's mass firing of on-strike air traffic controllers in 1981, an antilabor salvo that paralyzed airports for days and threw thousands of government professionals -- albeit illegally picketing ones, in the eyes of some -- out of work. Then again, it was Bill Clinton who stopped American Airlines pilots from striking in 1996, using executive power to force a 60-day mediation period. Another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, signed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, unshackling domestic airlines from their government minders and letting loose a hurricane of free-market competition that revolutionized the way people fly. Three decades later, for all its pro-American rhetoric and big-business bluster, the Bush administration and Republican Congress haven't been friendly to the airlines, their employees or their customers.

A panel of congressional staff members, subcommittee members and airline notables is set to convene in Washington on Nov. 21 to discuss a variety of aviation-related matters. The panel, scheduled in advance of the elections, will be moderated by Perry Flint, editor in chief of Air Transport World, the airline industry's magazine of record and preeminent statistical storehouse. I asked Flint if he believes anything exciting is in store, and what he thinks the subcommittees' priorities ought to be for the immediate future.

In his opinion, the most crucial issues aren't necessarily the sexiest ones. Dealing with the airline pension fund messes, for instance. Another issue with significant ramifications: the Department of Transportation's proposal to partly liberalize the laws limiting foreign ownership and control of U.S. airlines. Currently, outside influence of a domestic carrier is held to a maximum of 25 percent control of its voting board, and 49 percent of its total equity. The DOT's plan to amend these constraints is for now dormant and fraught with complications, but the rules are seen by many, including Flint, as parochial anachronisms in a growingly globalized economy. "The rest of the world is moving one way," says Flint, "while we're not moving at all."

On the surface, our largest airlines present powerful multinational pretensions, but in truth they are purely domestic entities, beholden to local investors and stockholders, tightly monitored (and sometimes abused) by federal agencies, and hostage to the regulatory whims of the countries to which they fly. Conceivably, greater foreign investment would result in better and healthier airlines. It could allow for cross-border mergers and eliminate obstacles toward establishing a so-called Open Aviation Area across the Atlantic (and potentially elsewhere), providing consumers with considerably more choices for international travel.

Nonetheless, there hasn't been a groundswell of support among America's airlines. It's hard to say, really, if they stand to lose more than they'd gain. An influx of non-U.S. capital would be welcome by some, but that doesn't mean they'd get it. "There are two things here," says Flint. "First, airlines probably figure they've done enough in the past five years to anger labor. Plus, if you're a European billionaire looking to invest in an airline, chances are you're not going to sink your money into a network carrier; you're going to give it to a low-cost newcomer like Virgin America." That'd be Richard Branson's latest brainchild, tentatively headquartered in San Francisco, that may or may not be flying soon.

More vocal opposition to change comes from organized labor. Upstarts in the mold of JetBlue, AirTran, et al. are almost guaranteed to be nonunion companies, and America's beleaguered majors aren't eager to be set upon, on their home turf, by solidly financed rivals from overseas. The idea of devil-horned foreigners stuffing their pockets while thousands of U.S. workers head for the unemployment lines has an element of caricature (nobody has played the Dubai Ports card yet, knock on wood, dragging terrorism and national security into the mix), but for the time being, one has to admit, anything that might sucker-punch the majors, still bandaged and wobbly after posting a combined $35 billion in losses since 2001, would seem a bit cruel.

Prior to the elections, some analysts saw the Republican dominance of Washington as the best chance for partial or full relaxation of ownership prohibitions. There wasn't much movement, and any radical changes are especially doubtful now. "I don't see it happening," concedes Perry Flint. "I think the issue is dead."

Next page: Our irrational approach to safety goes straight across party lines