08-02-2016, 09:20 PM
(08-02-2016, 02:00 PM)MidTowner Wrote: It's actually a neat reason (well, I think it's neat, anyway).
From this Industry Canada page:
Quote:International air relations are governed largely by bilateral air agreements, which have the status of treaties and which, for the most part, incorporate national designation clauses that state only air carriers that are "substantially owned and controlled" by their government or home country nationals may be designated to operate air services under these agreements. There is no single internationally agreed upon definition for the concepts of "substantial ownership and effective control," and contracting states have discretion in choosing how to interpret it...
...Internationally, some states have eased restrictions to allow up to 49 percent foreign ownership of their carriers. China and India are such examples. In addition, some also permit 100-percent foreign ownership for carriers offering domestic services only, such as Australia and New Zealand (subject to a national interest test) and the European Union (internal market).
All that is correct. I don't think it's actually a rationale, though. You could say "national interest" but I'm not sure that having an airline 75% owned by nameless Canadian shareholders is more valuable to the country than having more alternatives for the consumers.