WASHINGTON (Map, News) - This fall the United States will celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 — and the nation does have reason to celebrate because airline deregulation has benefited both travelers and carriers. Among the most important benefits: Fares have fallen significantly, flight frequency has increased and carriers have become more efficient. Moreover, these benefits have been realized while air travel safety continues to improve. However, it would be misleading to conclude that the industry’s adjustment to deregulation — and the extent of deregulation — is complete. Airline industry earnings have fluctuated greatly since deregulation and the industry has yet to earn a normal rate of return on invested capital on a consistent basis. …

With one swift stroke, deregulation of international markets would spur competition on international routes and possibly eliminate a major motivation for some prospective mergers. The recent Open Skies agreement with the EU is a positive step that should be replicated by the United States with all regions of the world. Government-mandated limits on foreign ownership of U.S. carriers should be eliminated, which would make it easier for struggling U.S. carriers to attract foreign capital to help solve their financial problems and possibly eliminate another major reason that carriers seek a merger. Allowing foreign carriers to serve U.S. domestic routes would provide another source of competition that would benefit air travelers. Think of how foreign transplants have transformed the automobile and steel industries to the benefit of consumers. Still another source of competition could be developed by allowing foreign investors to establish a new U.S. carrier without any limits on foreign ownership of the carrier. Finally, policymakers could potentially stimulate airline competition by experimenting with privatization of some U.S. airports, thereby allowing them to compete aggressively for air carrier service.

brookings.edu/testimony/2008/0424_airlines_winston.aspx

Comments from Examiner Readers

2:54 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 17, 2008 re: "Douglas Elmendorf: Tackling the mortgage mess"

Examiner Reader said:
The notion that deadbeats should get renters' tax money because "homeownership encourages responsible citizenship' is insane. My decision not to enter the real-estate market the last five years was based on responsible citizenship. The people who bought with no money down and interest-only loans are not, and never will be, responsible. "Homeownership' is not a virtue. It's elitist to say so. And untrue. In SF, the Bayview has one of the highest levels of owner-occupied properties, and it's a cesspool of violence.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

7:31 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 2, 2008 re: "Jordan Ballor: Tithing is about giving, not getting"

BennyFactor said:
As Christians really study the new Covenant and early Christian history, we find that tithing was required onlty in the old Covenant, where Priests were solely responsible for interceding and praying to God on behalf of all Jews. Priests were required to share excess tithes with the poor and were forbidden from any and all ownership. But, in the new Covenant we have Jesus to replace the priests and we can talk to Him ourselves. This is why institutional tithing was not practiced for the first 800 years of Christianity. Now, and particularly in America, church is just another capitolist (worldly) entity and callings have morphed into careerism, requiring salary and benefits, but no taxes or accountability. Likee the drug trade, the only way to save the church from careerist leaders is to take the Prophet motive out of it, teach the truth that soliciting tithes is out of Christian order. Then we will cease to attract church leaders in need of worldly self-enrichment and ego-stroking.

120 agree | 98 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:25 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 6, 2007 re: "Independent Institute: Blame political parties, not the voters, for bad leaders"

Examiner Reader said:
No License if you dont vote... End of story

128 agree | 131 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:19 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 28, 2007 re: "The Hoover Institution: No Child Left Behind�s unpredictable future"

Examiner Reader said:
NCLB was doomed from the beginning. Education in the 1950's was completely dummed down to accomodate the desegregation of the public schools and to make sure the black students were not overwhelmed by the white schools' advanced curriculums. What should have occurred at that time was to start integrating the schools beginning with Kindergarten. The old reliable method of teaching would have continued thus at the end of the senior year of high school, the diploma would represent a real 12 year education instead of a high school diploma in this day and age only representing the equivalent of a sixth grade education at the most. Compared to today's standards, my 1952 high school diploma is equivalent to a four year college degree. Common sense was not the rule when desegregation took place.

184 agree | 130 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:44 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 12, 2007 re: "Philip H. Gordon: The Bush administration is fighting the wrong war"

Examiner Reader said:
It is amazing how the wearers of the tinfoil hats protect yourselves from sunburn,just stick your head down a hole,and let the world and reality pass you by. The trouble with your naive "Chamberlin "like "attitude is that when Osabama etal.,arrive on our shores, as they surely will if we tuck tail and run, is that your ilk will be the first to go. Your lack of social and moral values will excite his need to slowly saw off your heads to improve his surroundings!

304 agree | 224 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:32 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 15, 2007 re: "Matthew Spalding: A way forward for Bush regarding immigration"

Examiner Reader said:
Your Aug. 15 �Scoop� remind us that Cameron Diez was making Chinese propaganda in Peru, at the time of the last immigration debates in congress in June/07. Latin Americans won�t pay to see her movies, no chin-chin and no moral support.

376 agree | 202 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate