Bill Overview
Title: Fair and Open Skies Act
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Transportation (DOT) from issuing a foreign air carrier permit or an exemption from certain air carrier certificate requirements under the United States-European Union Air Transport Agreement of April 2007, unless DOT finds that issuing the permit or exemption would be consistent with Article 17 bis of the agreement, which provides that opportunities created by the agreement do not undermine labor standards or the labor-related rights and principles contained in the laws of the respective parties to the agreement; and imposes conditions on the permit or exemption necessary to ensure compliance with Article 17 bis . The bill modifies policy considerations relating to air carrier certificates to require DOT to consider preventing entry into U.S. markets by flag of convenience carriers (i.e., foreign air carriers established in a country other the home country of their majority owner in order to avoid regulations of the home country) and preventing the undermining of labor standards. In carrying out such air carrier certificate requirements, DOT must consider preventing entry of flag of convenience carriers into U.S. markets as being in the public interest and consistent with public convenience and necessity for safety in air transportation and air commerce. In formulating U.S. international air transportation policy relating to the elimination of discrimination and unfair competition, the Department of State and DOT must include in their considerations the undermining of labor standards.
Sponsors: Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals using international air travel services
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill directly affects international air carriers seeking permits or exemptions under the US-EU Air Transport Agreement.
- Foreign air carriers operating under flags of convenience could be restricted from entering U.S. markets, impacting their business operations.
- Efforts to uphold labor standards could impact both international and local labor markets, affecting airline employees globally.
- Travelers using international airlines could see changes in service availability or pricing due to shifts in carrier market presence.
Reasoning
- A diverse range of individuals are impacted by this policy, from airline employees to international travelers.
- The budget constraints mean that major changes in the short term are limited by funding capacity, focusing on regulatory enforcement rather than market transformation.
- The policy mainly targets labor standards and regulatory compliance, which have implications for job security and corporate practices rather than consumer prices directly.
- Restrictions on flag of convenience carriers will lead to stronger local labor markets, but could also increase operational costs for airlines.
- Service availability might change due to a reduction in international competition, affecting travelers who seek affordable options.
Simulated Interviews
Pilot for a major U.S. airline (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the bill. It's crucial for securing our jobs and ensuring fair wages.
- The bill might increase U.S. carriers' market share, which is good for us.
- I'm concerned about potential retaliation affecting international routes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Aviation analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy strengthens labor protections, which is essential.
- I foresee a shift in airline market shares towards U.S. carriers, which could impact competition negatively.
- There might be some short-term disruptions in availability of flights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Tech consultant (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If foreign carriers are restricted, I might see higher travel costs.
- Less competition could reduce flight options.
- I hope any labor gains are worth potential travel inconveniences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
CEO of a travel agency (New York, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could shift flight dynamics, affecting our business.
- While labor standards are important, I worry about service disruptions.
- We may need to adjust our international partnerships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Flight attendant for a budget carrier (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could bring more job stability and better conditions.
- We need to see if airlines truly enforce labor standards.
- Flag of convenience has affected our wages negatively in the past.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired logistics manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy levels the playing field without creating flight shortages.
- Stock performance might reflect operational changes.
- I expect more national flight availability, which is beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support stronger labor standards but am concerned about cost increases.
- Travel opportunities might decrease due to policy restrictions.
- Access to affordable international flights is crucial for my aspirations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
HR manager at a U.S. airline (Denver, CO)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will create a more competitive labor market here.
- Ensuring labor standards can prevent high turnover.
- Training costs might rise if international dynamics shift.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Independent travel blogger (Houston, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to various carriers enriches travel experience, so I'm concerned by restrictions.
- Sponsored trips might get affected.
- However, ensuring fair labor practices is important for industry health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Junior executive at an international airline (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our airline must adapt to new regulatory environments.
- This could open opportunities to renegotiate market access.
- Maintaining compliance will help secure future routes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $31000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $42000000)
Year 3: $32000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $44000000)
Year 5: $34000000 (Low: $23000000, High: $47000000)
Year 10: $37000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $51000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $140000000)
Key Considerations
- Compliance with international agreements and maintaining diplomatic relations with the EU are critical components.
- Balancing labor rights with free market competition poses inherent challenges.
- Implementation would require careful regulatory coordination to avoid disruptions in international air travel.
- Potential unintended consequences on air travel prices and service availability.