When the “Open Skies” treaty was signed between the United States and the European Union, the most immediate change was that airlines from both sides of the pond could fly internationally into many more airports. A French airline could fly from London to Los Angeles. A British airline could fly from New York to Amsterdam. And a number of American airlines could fly into London-Heathrow, which had previously been tightly limited to a small oligopoly.

But the treaty wasn’t supposed to end with a few new routes across the Atlantic. European airlines in particular are hoping to move into the North American market in a way they’ve never been allowed to before.

The Europeans are prepared to lobby vigorously for the part of Open Skies they see as far more crucial: relaxed ownership rules. In 2010, a year that will likely inflict further financial stress on a global airline industry struggling under recession, expect a new push to soften the 25% cap the U.S. imposes on foreign investment in airlines. It’s no secret to anyone that among the developed world’s airlines, U.S. carriers are the unfortunate, pitied cousins, their service and finances both in shocking disrepair. Most U.S. airline executives would welcome a strong financial partner, or the ability to sell out to one of them. And Europeans want greater access to fly domestic U.S. routes and to acquire airlines here.

But those who are salivating at the prospect of an Air France or Lufthansa flying into Toledo or Raleigh, wipe the spittle off your chin and stop dreaming. It’s not happening. Especially with this guy in a position of power:

In the U.S., Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee, reaffirmed his support for tightening foreign-ownership restrictions by inserting protectionist language in legislation to reauthorize FAA funding.
[...]
Labor has also cultivated a warm relationship with Oberstar and has voiced support for his tougher language on control.

Capt. John Prater, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, said, “ALPA strongly backs language in the bill affirming that U.S. citizens must control key operational aspects of U.S. airlines. This bill does that by identifying fleet composition, route selection, pricing and labor relations as among the operational elements that the Department of Transportation must ensure U.S. citizens control.”

Oberstar’s language would require U.S. citizens to “control all matters pertaining to the business and structure of the air carrier, including operational matters such as marketing, branding, fleet composition, route selection, pricing and labor relations.”

I understand that the airline industry is critical for the movement of goods and services in the country. And as such, the government takes a special interest in its ownership. But the 25% limit on ownership is overly restrictive, and actually hurts American airlines’ access to global capital.

Oberstar’s efforts to add conditions to expanded ownership will make US airlines less attractive to foreign investors. That’s intentional. And it’s dumb. Short-term it “protects” the companies from control by outsiders, but long-term it makes these American companies — already a laughing stock in the global marketplace — increasingly irrelevant.

Frankly, I don’t think most passengers care much, one way or the other, who owns the airline they’re flying. JetBlue is 19% owned by Lufthansa; does that make you more or less likely to fly them? How about Virgin America, whose nationality is perpetually being challenged, with its high-quality inflight product?

So, as much as I’d enjoy the prospect of a high-quality international carrier coming in and serving domestic cities, it’s not going to happen. And it looks increasingly unlikely that American carriers will get to partner with stronger international partners. And that, in particular, is a shame.