State should examine
merger of airlinesThe issue: The lack of competition will
have profound effects on Hawaii's
economy and passenger service.The proposed merger of Hawaii's two interisland airlines warrants the unease it has caused among local consumers and businesses who are almost completely dependent on interisland air service because of geographic confines. It is imperative that state leaders, the attorney general and Hawaii's congressional delegation prescribe measures that would assure the monopolistic operation will keep fares and freight charges reasonable.
While state and federal laws provide the attorney general and the Justice Department with the authority to block the merger, this is unlikely, given the shaky financial conditions of the two air carriers, Aloha Airlines and Hawaiian Air. However, because a spectrum of enterprises -- from small farmers to the behemoth tourism industry -- relies on adequate air service, state officials are duty-bound to assess the repercussions on the economy.
With a captive consumer market, the merged airline company will become, in essence, a public utility. Although government regulation may be undesirable and unwarranted at present, the state should hold that card in the deck just in case.
At the same time, Hawaii's congressional representatives should begin serious consideration of a notion that has been bantered about previously, that of a special use of federal highway funds to subsidize interisland air travel. The reasoning is that Hawaii, as part of the United States, is entitled to its share of transportation dollars that have built interstate highways across the country to ease citizens' movement. The unique characteristics of Hawaii should not stand in the way of its getting fair allocation.
Greg Brenneman, who will head the new operation, says optimistically that the airline will be far healthier than the money-losing Aloha or Hawaiian. To reach its target of 7 percent to 10 percent growth, however, the company probably will trim the marginally profitable interisland service, while raising fares and cargo rates. Its hopes for increased revenues will likely be through expanded routes to the mainland and the Pacific region. However, Brenneman, the former Continental Airlines president credited with turning that company around, should remember that Aloha and Hawaiian ran into trouble when they attempted to do the same.
Although it will have no competition, the new airline cannot assume success. Raising freight rates too high could suffocate local businesses already pinching pennies. It would be a mistake for the company to consign interisland passengers to a subsidiary role in its reach for a wider market. Even an 800-pound gorilla is vulnerable if it alienates the rest of the pack.
Denial of jury trials does
not serve justiceThe issue: The state Supreme Court
has denied jury trials to defendants
accused of driving under the influence
of alcohol or other drugs.THE Legislature and the state Supreme Court don't really mean that driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a "petty" offense. They understand that it is a quite serious crime with severe consequences even for first-time offenders. The denial of jury trials in such cases is intended only to prevent the courts from being clogged with empaneling people for DUI jury trials.
The high court seven years ago denied jury trials for drunken-driving defendants and extended that policy this week to defendants charged for the first time with driving under the influence of drugs. The rulings don't reflect societal values but are legal double-talk with specific objectives that pay little homage to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury does not apply to petty crimes. After the Legislature increased the penalties for DUI offenders in the 1980s to as much as six months imprisonment, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled the right to jury trials extended to DUI defendants. A huge backlog of cases ensued.
The Legislature in 1990 reduced the potential jail time for first-time offenders to 30 days. However, the state's high court still refused to deprive defendants of the right to jury trials, citing the "mix" of other penalties.
In 1993, the Legislature enacted a law that accused the Supreme Court of erring and made itself clear: "It is the intent of the Legislature that individuals charged with the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor as a first-time offender shall not be entitled to a jury trial." Legislators pointed out that drug-influence cases be treated similarly.
Delighted to accommodate legislators' political agenda and at the same time conveniently get rid of the judiciary's backlog, the court in 1994 agreed to regard such cases as "constitutionally petty."
Constitutionally, perhaps, but Kevin A. Sullivan knows otherwise. Following his conviction by a judge of driving under the influence of drugs, Sullivan was fined $400, ordered to perform 72 hours of community service and enrolled for 14 hours of drug-abuse rehabilitation. The serious punishment, of course -- not written into law -- is a huge increase Sullivan must pay for car insurance, a penalty unmentioned in the high court's 16-page rejection of Sullivan's appeal.
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, managing editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, assistant managing editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, assistant managing editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comRichard Halloran, editorial page director, 529-4790; rhalloran@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
John Flanagan, contributing editor 294-3533; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
