Dubaija vu: Now it's the airlines.

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of proposed regulations allowing foreign investors to have more influence over U.S. airlines, particularly concerning national security and the potential for xenophobia in investment policies. Participants explore the balance between foreign investment and national interests, with a focus on the airline industry.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that allowing foreign investors to influence U.S. airlines could pose national security risks, emphasizing that corporate interests should not override security considerations.
  • Others challenge the notion that concerns about foreign investment are inherently xenophobic, questioning whether similar concerns would arise if the investors were from different countries, such as China.
  • One participant argues that the discussion of foreign control should extend to other critical sectors, questioning where the line should be drawn regarding foreign influence in national security matters.
  • Another participant raises the issue of outsourcing and foreign ownership in U.S. industries, expressing worry about the long-term implications for national sovereignty and security.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are competing views on the appropriateness of foreign investment in U.S. airlines and the implications for national security, with some advocating for caution and others questioning the motivations behind such caution.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about national security and the role of foreign investment, but these assumptions are not universally accepted or clarified, leading to unresolved questions about the implications of the proposed regulations.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
...Under the existing regulations, foreign investors can have no influence on any operations of a U.S. airline in which they invest. Under the proposed rule, the majority U.S. investors could delegate to foreign investors control over some commercial decisions, such as what routes to fly and what aircraft to buy and sell, Shane said.[continued]
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=May&x=20060509174659ebyessedo0.882229&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html

I can appreciate the desire for foreign investment, but again this gets into issues of national security. And the amount invested is still limited, which really makes one wonder. In any event, what's good for the corporations is not what's important, what matters is what's best for US security.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I thought we already came to the conclusion that xenophobia was a bad thing. This sounds like a Nazi talking-point, "foreigners need not apply".
 
Pengwuino said:
I thought we already came to the conclusion that xenophobia was a bad thing. This sounds like a Nazi talking-point, "foreigners need not apply".

What if this involved China and our airlines instead of Islamics. Would it still be a xenophobic Nazi talking-point?
 
I do believe China is a foreign country...sooooo...
 
Pengwuino said:
I do believe China is a foreign country...sooooo...

China didn't have any luck with Unocal or Maytag. There must be a lot of xenophoobicals out there somewhere.:smile:
 
Oops, China did get the maintenance contract on the new Boeing 777's.
 
Pengwuino said:
I thought we already came to the conclusion that xenophobia was a bad thing. This sounds like a Nazi talking-point, "foreigners need not apply".

Okay then you tell me, where is the end of the free-for-all? Which of the following should yield control to a foreign agency? Should we job out the Presidency; how about the CIA or NSA; the military; police and fire services; immigration and border control; Airport security; weapons factories; FBI? Do you agree that in some cases there can be issues of national security, or do you think that we should just hand over anything to anyone willing to pay? Do we need to demonstrate that airlines are a national security issue?

And if you compare me or anyone else here to the Nazis again you will be penalized.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
Okay then you tell me, where is the end of the free-for-all? Which of the following should yield control to a foreign agency? Should we job out the Presidency; how about the CIA or NSA; the military; police and fire services; immigration and border control; Airport security; weapons factories; FBI? Do you agree that in some cases there can be issues of national security, or do you think that we should just hand over anything to anyone willing to pay? Do we need to demonstrate that airlines are a national security issue.

Good points and something that really bothers me. With all of the outsourcing combined with foreign companies, sometimes even state owned companies, buying into U.S. industries and services, what will we have left? At what point do we just say no.
 

Similar threads

News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
News Federal Insurance Office: Addressing Health Insurance Head On
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
28K
News An integrated North-American super-state
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
News Is Re-Electing Bush a Mistake Given His Presidential Record?
  • · Replies 90 ·
4
Replies
90
Views
10K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K