Okay, so we gave in to APL and Sea-Land back when they were American-owned international carriers. In 1998, deregulation was a high enough priority that keeping them at the table was a worthwhile concession. After all, these were American concerns in a competitive international market that, by and large, endorses carrier antitrust immunity.
So we shrugged our shoulders, bit the bullet, and said "fine."Carrier antitrust immunity stays. Not that many folks stateside were particularly happy about it, but compromise was the name of the game.
In the fifteen months since deregulation was implemented, circumstances have changed. Foreigners have purchased both Sea-Land and APL, leaving no international carriers sailing under the stars and stripes. By keeping antitrust immunity in place, we're no longer protecting American business interests. At least not directly.
Antitrust immunity was designed to foster and protect a U.S.-flagged fleet. Back in 1916, when the first Shipping Act bestowed antitrust immunity on carriers participating in international trade, our merchant fleet wasn't particularly impressive. To encourage the huge investment needed to operate ocean-going vessels in a regulated tariff system, we made life easier for those interested in the shipping business.
"Let's face it,"we said. Ocean shipping is different than other industries, and allowing carriers to compete in arenas other than pricing would avoid mergers and the creation of a monopoly. So we created a system whereby carriers compete only in service options and quality. May the best man win, but may the others survive!
|