before it could even take off on Richard Branson's plans to start Chicago O'Hare to London Heathrow service in 2007.

But 'Sir' Richard's plans have run a foul of US laws requiring majority ownership of the airline, finding that Branson's company does not fulfill ownership requirements and corporate structure...under US law the airline must be 75% owned and controlled by Americans and the Dept of Transportation says Branson's airline does not meet those qualifications.
Virgin America, based in Burlingame, California, plans to appeal and has 14
days to do so...claims that they do meet the requirements and will present evidence to that effect.
THE FACTS
Branson's Virgin Group put up 25% of initial $177 million investment to start the airline and gave it a $53 million loan.
But DOT says airline does not meet requirement of having a president and 2/3's of board of directors U.S. citizens and that at least 75% of the voting interest be owned or controlled by U.S. citizens.
DOT says that new airline's close relationship to British Virgin Group and active involvement of officials from that group in the new airline "indicated that the new airline is not under the control of American citizens." and went on to cite interlocking financial agreements and the Virgin Group's heavy influence over the airline's board and says that less than 75 % of voting interest in Virgin America is owned or controlled by US citizens..that most of its voting equity is held by companies majority-owned by non U.S. citizens."

What a bunch of crap - the passenger paying the price of such sheer protectionism - let's let anyone fly who wants to and can meet safety requirements and get landing slots. Let's give Sir Richard a chance to put more competition on trans-Atlantic routes, hopefully with Virgin's much touted level of service.

Virgin America isn't trying to start transatlantic flights. No doubt Virgin would like to fly ORD-LHR, but that's a side issue, and if Virgin America (as distinct from Virgin Atlantic) really wanted to fly it, they'd be in the bizarre position of the UK refusing them rights because it'd be another US airline on a route strictly allocated by nationality.

And, as long as the US continues to be protectionist about this, Britain won't be making any concessions to any American company, even one controlled by a Tony crony.

Branson wants to run a US domestic airline, centred on San Francisco. I doubt he's got a cat in hell's chance.

US trade policy has always been based on the &quot;put the consumer last&quot; principle. After all, no other nation - not even North Korea - celebrates a popular protest <b> against the abolition of import duty </b> as the seminal event in its foundation.

Ask - as I occasionally need to - any US trade official why the country consistently puts the interests of a small producer group (or, in the case of bras, a non-existent producer group) before 300 million consumers, and they look at you as if you'd suggested they might murder their mother in public.

And Branson knows all this. I think the whole exercise is a promotional stunt for his transatlantic airline and his record stores.

&gt;no other nation ....celebrates a popular protest **against the abolition of import duty** as the seminal event in its foundation.&lt;

Please explain, flanner.

Flanner- there is a huge picture of Sir Richard in Chicago in front of the Chicago skyline with the caption: Richard Branson, part owner of Virgin America was in Chicago to announce that his airline would begin service between London's Heathrow Airport and Chicago's O'Hare next year&quot;


As usual yes Richard promoting himself and Virgin Group myriad businesses.

Personally it's a shame to me that Virgin will not be able to offer more service in the US. Virgin Atlantic is a top notch airline from my experience, and I try to fly with them when it's possible.

&quot;&gt;no other nation ....celebrates a popular protest <b>against the abolition of import duty</b> as the seminal event in its foundation.&lt;

Please explain, flanner.&quot;

What do you think the Boston Tea Party was all about?

&quot;Flanner- there is a huge picture of Sir Richard in Chicago in front of the Chicago skyline with the caption: Richard Branson, part owner of Virgin America was in Chicago to announce that his airline would begin service between London's Heathrow Airport and Chicago's O'Hare next year&quot;&quot;

That's Virgin Atlantic.

British owned. And so unaffected by the fantasy that Virgin America (75% US owned) is unAmerican

Oh. I thought he was talking about current events.

ira - wouldn't that be the Boston Tea Party?

flanner - yes a very poorly written (and even more poorly read perhaps) caption - his airline if read correctly in this context would seem to imply Virgin America the waya it was written --- but no doubt you have it right..right?

Thank you.

Here's the rest of the story:

&quot;Hancock organized a boycott of tea from China sold by the British East India Company, whose sales in the colonies then fell from 320,000 pounds (145,000 kg) to 520 pounds (240 kg). By 1773, the company had large debts, huge stocks of tea in its warehouses and no prospect of selling it because smugglers such as Hancock were importing tea without paying import taxes. The British government passed the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea to the colonies directly, thereby allowing them to sell for lower prices than those offered by the colonial merchants and smugglers&quot;.

The real issue was, of course, being ruled by Parliament without representation in Parliament.

When the UK allows an American-owned airline fly domestically within the UK then I guess we can talk about &quot;protectionism.&quot;

If they need an American on their board to make it legal in the USA, I'm willing. What's the salary and perks for a board member for Virgin America?

perks - a night with Sir Richard on his canal boat in Little Venice.

Thank you, Dukey. Sour grapes, Flanner?

'When the UK allows an American-owned airline fly domestically within the UK then I guess we can talk about &quot;protectionism.&quot;'

Fair point as far as it goes, Dukey, but I very much doubt that the US would be interested in a bilateral agreement even if it could get one.

The US is the most vocal proponent of the dismantling of barriers to free trade - until an American interest group looks like being affected, then all bets are off. The rest of us have to put up with insistent American demands to change the way we do things because they may put some limits on American companies' ability to do business as and how they like within our countries. A case in point are the pressures to dilute national health schemes that constrain the worst excesses of US drug companies' pricing. All perfectly understandable, but let's drop the pretence.

Perhaps we could hear the US government's views about the impending leveraged takeover (and long-term gutting) of Qantas by a private equity consortium that includes Texan interests.

protectionism is a snake pit of deals, trade-offs, retaliations, complex tariffs, subsidies (hidden and open), currency manipulation, and protecting one's interests whilst keeping up appearances.

neil is quite right that the free-trade rhetoric rarely matches reality. the US is not nearly as free-trade as she makes herself out to be.

however, to explore this topic fully, one needs to consider all of the variables to have an intelligent debate about this...all the modes of 'protection'...VAT rebates for export goods, currency manipulation, etc, etc.

this is probably not the best forum for this kind of debate as throwing around 'your protective tariff here' vs. 'my VAT rebate here', vs. 'the currency manipulation over there' vs. 'your subsidy over there' hardly would be productive.

Travel Weekly Magazine says: (5/28/07) issue

&quot;Virgin America is expecting the final go-ahead from DOT to begin selling tickets within the next two weeks...

on May 18 the DOT granted domestic airline rights to Virgin America, allowing it to start operations after three years of struggling to convince government officials that the airline is under the control of U.S. citizens&quot;

service is scheduled to be launched between its SF base and JFK NY

and SF to LA, Wash Dulles, S diego and Vegas within the next nine months

Virgin America has ordered 31 Airbus a320s and A319s and has taken delivery of about a dozen of these.

Trying to organise a charter from St Johns, USVI, to St Barts, FWI. for some German clients.

No American airline is licensed for the route and the French airline that is, isn't allowed to do it because the clients aren't Americans.

Nuts, in every sense of the word.

I have THE answer:

&quot;Flanner for President!!!!&quot;

at least he speaks decent English!