Letters to the Editor
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
‘Peters’ Protectionism’
Your December 29 editorial on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Virgin America decision takes issue with the laws that require that American airlines be controlled and substantially owned by American citizens [Editorial, “Peters’ Protectionism,” December 29, 2006]. Twice over the past five years, DOT has faced withering criticism and heated opposition for trying to update decades-old rules governing the ownership of American airlines. However, as you have previously reported, the department’s efforts have not been successful. And while it is easy to criticize a tough decision in a complicated case on policy grounds, DOT’s policy options are constrained by the obligation to obey the laws enacted by Congress.
DOT has often stated publicly that it fully supports giving American airlines complete access to the world’s capital markets. It also wants to open foreign aviation markets to investments by Americans, including our airlines. However, Congress, not the Department of Transportation, wrote the current laws, and DOT has a legal obligation to enforce them. The department has repeatedly indicated its willingness to work with Congress and the aviation industry to find new ways to make it easier for our airlines to raise money from global investors.
The bottom line is that DOT’s recent decision was dictated by the current law, and those who want change can best accomplish their goals by persuading the Congress that the law unnecessarily limits American airlines’ access to the global capital markets. Rather than excoriating the department, a more productive course would be to promote and participate in an ongoing dialogue regarding the potential benefits of opening our airlines to new sources of global capital.
KIRK VAN TINE
Former general counsel and deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation
McLean, Va.
‘Why Boxer, Not Rice, Was Right’
Let’s be grateful that we live in a society that has made it possible for two smart women, Secretary of State Rice and Senator Boxer, to openly debate [New York, “Why Boxer, Not Rice, Was Right,” January 19, 2007]. They are in powerful government positions. They have the overwhelming responsibility of endeavoring to stop the horrific slaughter of men, women, and children in Iraq.
It is tragic that Shiite and Sunni mothers in Iraq are denied the freedom to do the same. These women do not have the luxury of being paranoid, they are just trying to stay alive and keep their children safe. Or are they? For every suicide bomber, every insurgent, every terrorist, there is “a mother.” Where is that instinct to throw out the arm, and pull him back? Is it crushed? Abandoned in a bottomless pit of despair?
ANNE-MARIE JANNUZZO
New York, N.Y.
Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, by facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.
