The recent departure of Norman Mineta, who resigned as US Secretary of Transportation in July after a six-year tenure, provides a much-needed opportunity for the Bush Administration to take a fresh look at how it is managing issues affecting international aviation relations. Cabinet officials serve at the will of the President and Secretary Mineta left of his own volition, so we will not use this space to criticize him for actions undertaken by DOT with the approval or at least the knowledge of the White House.

Nevertheless, we believe that in matters of aviation transportation policy and enforcement, the Bush Administration has taken a few wrong turns on some major issues. Now is the opportunity for a mid-course correction.

Most importantly, the government appears to be on the verge of missing an opportunity to overhaul outdated US rules on foreign ownership and control owing to its unwillingness to fight the political battle that legitimately is required given the scale and scope of the changes contemplated. We are, of course, referring to DOT's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking intended to make it easier for non-US citizens to exert control over domestic carriers and the subsequent Supplemental NPRM on the same subject.

While we applaud the intent of the rule changesboth the stated purpose of encouraging foreign investment in US airlines and the unspoken goal of removing a roadblock to achieving a transatlantic Open Aviation Areawe believe the current approach will yield neither. As Air France-KLM Group Chairman and CEO Jean-Cyril Spinetta suggested in June, the modifications contained in the SNPRM likely have rendered the proposal unpalatable to the EU side. This is understandable, since the SNPRM effectively gives US interests the right to revoke any control delegated to non-US investors. Furthermore, using the administrative rules process means that foreign investors will be held hostage to US policy changes, as might occur with a change in administrations.

Meanwhile, DOT's attempt to stretch the regulatory system to effectively rewrite US law has angered politicians on both sides of the aisle in Congress and resulted in legislation being introduced that will, if passed, block it from implementing the rulemaking.

We find DOT's approach particularly puzzling in light of the political realities that existed at the time of the original NPRM. As former US chief international aviation negotiator Allan Mendelsohn noted in a recent article, "There is no reason . . . why, with a Republican White House, a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives, the Administration could not have launched a serious and studious effort to educate the Congress as well as the American public, to persuade them that our restrictive ownership laws in aviation should be substantially amended or entirely repealed. Moreover, if they had gone the legislative route and then discovered that Congressional opposition was so serious and pervasive as to make legislation impossible to achieve, then I think it would have ill behooved the Administration then, or now, to have so assiduously tried to avoid the Congressional process."

DOT has lost its way in at least two other matters involving international aviation relations. The first was last year's decision to deny transatlantic antitrust immunity to six SkyTeam members. We believe the ruling, which regrettably we did not criticize at the time, is inconsistent with past DOT actions and ignores the fact that alliances are still the next best thing this industry has to true cross-border mergers, at least for carriers based in North America. The decision also has grave implications for the Northwest-KLM joint venture, generally accepted as the most successful international partnership in the industry.

Lastly, we believe DOT should have encouraged FAA to end its civil enforcement case against British Airways over BA's decision to continue a 747-400 flight in February 2005 following the loss of an engine shortly after takeoff. FAA's own rules on such situations contain enough ambiguity to justify the captain's action, while UK aviation authorities, who conducted their own investigation, declined to find fault. Frankly, given these facts, we are mystified that FAA continues to pursue this matter. Its assumption of jurisdiction has the potential to undo much progress to date in harmonizing international aviation regulation. It has opened a Pandora's Box and DOT needs to close it.