Now that Americans are officially into the holiday season, everyone is reminded of the old adage that there’s no place like home for the holidays. The only question is how to get there. If the Bush administration gets its way, we’ll be able to travel one day on any number of new airlines drawing on capital from around the world, but some in Congress are trying to ground even a modest attempt to free up air travel.

The sticking point this time is a rule dating back at least to the 1940s that bars non-citizens from owning greater than a 25% voting share in any domestic carrier and requires that the top executives and a majority of the boards of these airlines be American. The status quo draws support from many quarters, including Democrats on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; their spokesman, James Berard, told us that the domestic ownership rule protects “economically and strategically important” interests, such as the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, a program under which airlines commit their craft for use during national emergencies.

The transportation department recently proposed modifications to the current rules that would liberalize how the department defines the “actual control” the rule wants Americans to exercise over air carriers. Under the new rules, foreigners would be able to have a greater say in decisions about marketing, routes, and fleets. American citizens would still have to take responsibility for safety and security, and only American citizens would be able to oversee contracts with the Pentagon. The net effect would be to make it a little bit easier for foreigners to invest in domestic airlines.

The proposal is disappointing for what it will not do. It will not change the requirement that Americans hold 75% voting stakes in American airlines. It will not lead to struggling American carriers being bought out by cash-flush foreigners. It will not spur a proliferation of new carriers financed with foreign money. One of the highest profile foreign attempts to start an airline here, Richard Branson’s long-running effort to bring his Virgin brand to our shores as low-cost carrier Virgin America, won’t benefit from the rule change because America doesn’t have an open-skies agreement with Mr. Branson’s native United Kingdom.

So why the fierce opposition, including a letter to the secretary of transportation from a bipartisan list of 85 representatives? Congress in 2003 passed legislation reiterating its commitment to maintaining the status quo, and the proposed rule is undeniably an attempt to bend that mandate. Why is Congress so wedded to the old regime? No doubt it’s because both organized labor and American carriers support the current system, organized labor because it restricts the entry of unknown managers and non-unionized competitors and carriers because American executives fear competition.

None of which strike us as reason to deny American travelers better service. Between 1995 and 2004, average ticket prices declined 20% after adjusting for inflation. Over roughly the same time, low-cost carriers increased their passenger loads, to 25% of all domestic traffic in 2003 from 7% in 1991. Fliers are benefiting from a liberalized air travel market. Allowing in foreign capital is the next logical step to expanding those options. It’s mile-high time the current restrictions were eased.