Airline Protection Bill (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 03:04:19 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Airline Protection Bill (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Airline Protection Bill  (Read 3046 times)
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

« on: January 04, 2007, 08:51:27 AM »

I've by-passed the Atlasian Iraq Free Trade Bill to move the following Bill onto the floor since the former Bill, in the event of the Atlasian-Kuwait Free Trade Bill failing, shall be withdrawn

Airline Protection Bill

1. No airline may receive federal subsidies in any circumstance.
2. Atlasian airlines are free to operate domestic routes at their discretion, and may terminate them at any time without notice.
3. If an airline wishes to fly an international route, it is subject to any restrictions regarding air travel between that country and Atlasia.
4. No foreign individual or corporation may own more than 49% of an airline registered in Atlasia.
5. No foreign airline may operate domestic routes in Atlasia.




Sponsor: Sen. Brandon W
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2007, 09:11:48 PM »

Senator Brandon W raised a very fair point and in answer to his question. They shouldn't Wink

It's time Atlasia started to put the interests of our domestic airlines first and foremost. Perhaps closing our domestic routes to foreign airlines will, how shall I put it, persuade those governments to open their domestic routes to ours. There's too much give, on our part, and not enough take. As the old proverb goes "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". In instances like this, such protectionism is justifiable

'Hawk'
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2007, 09:32:23 PM »

Actually, it would just persuade the foreign countries to keep their domestic routes closed.

But, as things stand, closing our domestic routes to foreign airlines (i.e. depriving them of something they already have) might give foreign countries food for thought. Either way our airlines gain, theirs lose, since their domestic routes are closed to our airlines anyway

I see no reason why our airlines can't operate profitable, low cost to the consumer, domestic routes. We could consider giving them tax breaks if it helps to ensure that they do

Perhaps, the Gray Plantation Company can diversify into domestic air travel, once I'm back as Chairman and majority shareholder. Won't be too long now Wink

'Hawk'
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2007, 09:38:40 PM »

I intend to vote against this bill because of the last two sections. They come across as being far too protectionist and possibly even vaguely xenophobic when seen from a foreigner's perspective.

I disagree with placing restrictions on foreign airlines simply because they are foreign. If we are attempting to persuade foreigners into opening their domestic routes to our airlines, closing our domestic routes to them is not going to accomplish that. Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong with allowing foreigners to own more than 49% of airlines registered in Atlasia; again, if we are trying to convince foreigners to start allowing Atlasians to own large portions of foreign airlines (or companies), preventing them from owning Atlasian companies won't encourage progress.

But as things stand, it's our airlines which are at a disadvantage Sad here.  It's the fact that Atlasian-owned airlines are prohibited from operating domestic routes in foreign countries, which is the issue here. And that to me is fundamentally wrong Sad

'Hawk'
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2007, 10:15:29 PM »

But as things stand, it's our airlines which are at a disadvantage Sad here.  It's the fact that Atlasian-owned airlines are prohibited from operating domestic routes in foreign countries, which is the issue here. And that to me is fundamentally wrong Sad
Thats exactly how I feel.  If our airlines were allowed to operate domestic routes in other countries, I would not be opposed to letting that countries airline operate domestic routes in Atlasia.

Quite Wink

'Hawk'
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2007, 10:25:21 PM »

Well first off my amendment was completely ignored by both the former PPT and by the Vice President in clear violation of the rules.

I'd have had a very difficult job bringing your amendment to the vote Senator, considering I left office noon January 5 Grin. I couldn't have called a vote any earlier than 24 hours after you introduced it

I would like to propose an amendment:

Sections 4 and 5 are struck and replaced with:

4. There are to be no limits upon airline investment by foreign corporations or persons in Atlasia.

5. Any airline, whether foreign or domestic, has the right to fly on domestic routes unless prohibited through government action by the Republic of Atlasia.

Unfortunately, had I noticed I'd have advised the Vice President of this. My apologies for not paying much attention to the Senate since I left office

Dave 'Hawk'
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 13 queries.