Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
You make some very good points, but I'd wager that the political calculation for US politicians probably leans in favor of being more protectionist, especially if the rationale can be tied directly to safety.
Given your two examples, first, it would be very interesting to know what their required staffing is on those longer segments. Second, I would imagine that the revenue from Siberian overflight permits are more valuable to Russia than the cost of adding an RFO to some of their Aeroflot flights.
It's probably a tactic that's more effective against the ME3 (and certainly more relatable than the whole subsidy argument) although, as you point out, not without risks.
if I read you correctly you kind of prove my points...its more valuable for the foreign carriers(some) to get in a tic for tac with US over regulations, ie the overflight income vs adding an RO to flights. I doubt that congress is more concerned over "safety" then they are disrupting global economics. In their eyes unless there is a fire it doesn't matter if there is smoke, when it comes to safety...it took a terrible accident(Buffalo) for them to even consider changing the
US standards and only after a ton of lobbying by family victims and incredible public support. I think they would see a foreign carrier crash as nothing more than a chance to say, "see you should fly american carriers". ie. the SFO crash...same thing with the 737Max it took what, 2 or 3 foreign crashes for Congress to finally intervene. Even then they seemed hesitant bc it was foreign carriers not US. Pretty sure it was only after US pilot unions stepped up and said hey there is a problem here did something happen. Getting ICAO to agree on higher standards would be much more impactful then the US unilaterally changing the rules to incoming foreign carriers IMHO.