• Home
  • About

Evan Sparks's Aviation Policy Blog

A wonk's-eye view of everything in the sky.

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« So, what’s new in Congress? Today, elderly pilots
Surprise: travelers don’t hate air travel as much as you might think »

The “homegrown” fallacy

December 12, 2007 by Evan Sparks

My exchange with Daniel Hall earlier this week made it onto The Economist‘s Free Exchange, which was in turn picked up by Megan McArdle’s Asymmetrical Information.

The Economist writer brings in the intervention dimension:

[S]o politicised an industry as air travel need not fear dislocations in any case; governments would react incredibly quickly to pull back on any part of an agreed-upon energy bill that appeared to cause significant damage to airlines or aeroplane manufacturers. This, in fact, is one of the arguments made by carbon pricing sceptics–that governments will not allow the necessary pain to be felt.

McArdle follows this with

[G]overnments will not allow anything to harm the airline industry.

What I don’t quite understand is why this is so. Why is everyone obsessed with having protected domestic airlines, and indeed, airplane manufacturing capacity? . . . Now China, too, wants its own airframe manufacturer. And everyone wants to protect their national airlines.

 

Why is flying so emotional? And so heavily, heavily protected by the heavy hand of the state?

Two things to say about this: amen, but things may be looking up.

Aviation remains one of the most nationalized industries on the planet. British author Simon Calder once wrote, “For most of the first century of powered aviation, the traveller was expected to subsidise a hopelessly inefficient industry. Aviation grew as an adjunct to individual governments, a symbol of nationhood as crucial as a flag and an anthem–though considerably more expensive.”

Aerospace is also highly nationalist. Although the media (especially the Wall Street Journal) dramatically overstate the extent to which this is true, Airbus and Boeing are perceived as national proxies for the EU and the United States. Canada subsidizes Bombardier, and Brazil subsidizes its innovative entry Embraer (although both seem more and more willing to play by the rules of international free trade). The Soviet Union was the gold standard for national aircraft: produce Western knockoffs and sell them to state-run airlines in client states. Putin is following this playbook, recently consolidating the Soviet-era aircraft “design bureaus” in a single state-owned company, the United Aircraft Building Corporation. And China may be the worst of all, as I wrote last summer on TCS Daily. Japan and India are working on homegrown aircraft, too.

The reasons for this have a lot to do with national prestige (as regular readers know, I consider the pursuit of prestige to be a great bogeyman of sound aviation policy). But what I suggest in the TCS article is that the increasing nationalism of aerospace may have troubling geopolitical origins:

[W]e should be wary of China’s ambitions. Unlike Boeing and Airbus, ACAC and other Chinese aerospace companies are likely to be centrally managed by Beijing. And through its foreign activities, it has not only a huge domestic market but also a network of global buyers who would need little soft persuasion to buy a particular plane, lest the supply of Chinese money be shut off.

On the brighter side, airline nationalism is receding in some places. One of the great geniuses of Boeing has been its global supply chain. Its newer aircraft are not manufactured at the Everett, Washington, plant–they are manufactured by subcontractors all over the world and assembled at the Boeing factory. The 787 is not really a U.S.-made plane. It has a wide range of international stakeholders. Airbus practices this within Europe, but the falling dollar is threatening Airbus and has caused it to actually consider manufacturing in Alabama! The globalization of aerospace will continue as manufacturers seek further efficiencies, I suspect.

Airline nationalism is receding somewhat, too. While open skies deals with the U.S. don’t go as far as they could, Europe has successfully opened its airspace, at the expense of national airlines. Once-protected flag carriers have privatized (British Airways), merged (Air France-KLM), or restructured (Swiss). Belgium allowed its legendary Sabena to go under. Even Italy is seeking a buyer for its perpetual state-owned basket case Alitalia (named the “worst airline ever” by the Cranky Flier). And low-fare carriers like Ryanair, GermanWings, and easyJet have challenged the dinosaurs. I see this trend continuing, not being reversed.

Nationalism in air travel isn’t good, but it is slowly dying out.

Fear of flying [Megan McArdle]

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Evan's Debates | Tagged aerospace, asia, competition, environment, europe, nationalism, open skies, prestige, regulation, usa, world |

  • Recently on the APB

    • America vs. Europe: who overrates whom?
    • Scare headline not so scary in article
    • Crew rest and training, new ATC contract, and more
    • The solution to NYC’s airport woes?
    • And… I’m back
    • Nothing to see here
    • Let your left hand not know what your right hand is doing….
    • Evan around the web
    • This is just ridiculous
    • Liveblogging Randy Babbitt’s confirmation hearing
  • 2008 aerospace airports air traffic control alitalia american asia ata atsb australia pacific Aviation08 BAA british airways budget airlines business canada competition congress consumer advocacy continental delays delta Deregulation 2.0 dot emirates energy environment europe faa fedex general aviation geography health history humor iata icao klm korean labor latin america lufthansa media Merger Mania 2008 mergers meta middle east middle east/africa military misc. nationalism network airlines northwest open skies politics prestige regulation ryanair safety sarcasm security small communities southwest Southwest and the FAA space tax transit travel tsa united usa us airways virgin virgin america world
  • Archives

    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
  • Find me on Facebook!
  • Banner photo: Washington during landing at National Airport, November 2007. © Rachel Ayerst. Used by permission.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Evan Sparks's Aviation Policy Blog
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Evan Sparks's Aviation Policy Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: