Middle East carrier subsidies
03-06-2015, 05:04 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 474
Middle East carrier subsidies
Worth a read.....It was put out by the "Big 3" in the US with the backing of organized labor so there's bias there of course. However, even if half of it is true, the growth of these carriers could adversely affect everyone's careers, right down to the guys/gals just starting out in the profession right now.
http://openfairskies.wpengine.com/wp...hite.Paper.pdf
http://openfairskies.wpengine.com/wp...hite.Paper.pdf
03-06-2015, 06:38 PM
#3
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,722
Remember the US Cruise Ship Industry and all those jobs?
No? Well what about Textiles? Or manufacturing jobs?
No?
Ok, how about Tech? Where are iPhones made? Anyone?
Oh, those industries got off-shored years ago, just like the ME carriers are going to do to the US International Carriers in the next 10 years, unless we can convince the idiots who are supposed to be 'representing' us in Washington DC, that American Jobs matter.
No? Well what about Textiles? Or manufacturing jobs?
No?
Ok, how about Tech? Where are iPhones made? Anyone?
Oh, those industries got off-shored years ago, just like the ME carriers are going to do to the US International Carriers in the next 10 years, unless we can convince the idiots who are supposed to be 'representing' us in Washington DC, that American Jobs matter.
03-06-2015, 07:36 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 474
Originally Posted by Timbo
Oh, those industries got off-shored years ago, just like the ME carriers are going to do to the US International Carriers in the next 10 years, unless we can convince the idiots who are supposed to be 'representing' us in Washington DC, that American Jobs matter.
Here's an interesting statement from the Emirates Airline Chairman:
"We are buying a product from their countries. So why would they not allow us to fly to these airports? If they don't, they can take their planes back," he said.
The rest of the article that comment came from can be read here.
The Emirates Chairman (and most certainly his buds at Qatar and Etihad) is referring to the VERY LARGE aircraft orders he and his pals have on Boeing's and Airbus' books, but of note Boeing. He's basically saying, "Hey, if you don't let us fly to the US or Europe, then you (Airbus and Boeing) can take your aircraft orders back."
Now "us" takes a different meaning. "Us" airline people see these subsidies as something that will pretty much be impossible to compete against, service quality or not. US airlines are lean machines, but even in the (rare) best years, they can't compete against a highly subsidized competitor. Airline typically operate on extremely narrow profit margins, so any distortion of the marketplace in a competitor's favor pretty much screws the non-subsidized carriers.
"Us" at Boeing doesn't want to lose all those juicy widebody orders. And Boeing will certainly be up on the Hill telling our legislators about the billions upon billions these orders are worth, and all the good paying, union US jobs (both secondary and tertiary) these widebody orders support and create.
Then of course there's "us" the US airline customer, who hate the airlines, hate their fees, hate the poor service, and hate the lack of legroom (even though the consumer is what created all of the above- but I digress). They could care less who flies them from JFK to CDG, as long as there is a perception of safety and the tickets are cheap. What? You're going to make me pay $1200 for a ticket on United when I could pay $1199 on Emirates? ***?
Read the comments under the articles that are being written currently about the whole subsidized Middle East airline topic. Consumers could CARE LESS about the US airlines, you, or me. They don't care if these Middle East Airlines are subsidized. I've read more than once comments such as, "If prince so-and-so in Dubai wants to support his state airline and it gets me a cheap ticket, let them!"
So we definitely have lots of "us's," but unfortunately I think there are more of the "other us's" then the airline employee us's
Yet another reason young people thinking about entering the profession should carefully consider their choice.
03-07-2015, 01:20 AM
#5
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Position: CA
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by globalexpress
He-he....define "us."
Here's an interesting statement from the Emirates Airline Chairman:
"We are buying a product from their countries. So why would they not allow us to fly to these airports? If they don't, they can take their planes back," he said.
The rest of the article that comment came from can be read here.
The Emirates Chairman (and most certainly his buds at Qatar and Etihad) is referring to the VERY LARGE aircraft orders he and his pals have on Boeing's and Airbus' books, but of note Boeing. He's basically saying, "Hey, if you don't let us fly to the US or Europe, then you (Airbus and Boeing) can take your aircraft orders back."
Now "us" takes a different meaning. "Us" airline people see these subsidies as something that will pretty much be impossible to compete against, service quality or not. US airlines are lean machines, but even in the (rare) best years, they can't compete against a highly subsidized competitor. Airline typically operate on extremely narrow profit margins, so any distortion of the marketplace in a competitor's favor pretty much screws the non-subsidized carriers.
"Us" at Boeing doesn't want to lose all those juicy widebody orders. And Boeing will certainly be up on the Hill telling our legislators about the billions upon billions these orders are worth, and all the good paying, union US jobs (both secondary and tertiary) these widebody orders support and create.
Then of course there's "us" the US airline customer, who hate the airlines, hate their fees, hate the poor service, and hate the lack of legroom (even though the consumer is what created all of the above- but I digress). They could care less who flies them from JFK to CDG, as long as there is a perception of safety and the tickets are cheap. What? You're going to make me pay $1200 for a ticket on United when I could pay $1199 on Emirates? ***?
Read the comments under the articles that are being written currently about the whole subsidized Middle East airline topic. Consumers could CARE LESS about the US airlines, you, or me. They don't care if these Middle East Airlines are subsidized. I've read more than once comments such as, "If prince so-and-so in Dubai wants to support his state airline and it gets me a cheap ticket, let them!"
So we definitely have lots of "us's," but unfortunately I think there are more of the "other us's" then the airline employee us's Yet another reason young people thinking about entering the profession should carefully consider their choice.
Here's an interesting statement from the Emirates Airline Chairman:
"We are buying a product from their countries. So why would they not allow us to fly to these airports? If they don't, they can take their planes back," he said.
The rest of the article that comment came from can be read here.
The Emirates Chairman (and most certainly his buds at Qatar and Etihad) is referring to the VERY LARGE aircraft orders he and his pals have on Boeing's and Airbus' books, but of note Boeing. He's basically saying, "Hey, if you don't let us fly to the US or Europe, then you (Airbus and Boeing) can take your aircraft orders back."
Now "us" takes a different meaning. "Us" airline people see these subsidies as something that will pretty much be impossible to compete against, service quality or not. US airlines are lean machines, but even in the (rare) best years, they can't compete against a highly subsidized competitor. Airline typically operate on extremely narrow profit margins, so any distortion of the marketplace in a competitor's favor pretty much screws the non-subsidized carriers.
"Us" at Boeing doesn't want to lose all those juicy widebody orders. And Boeing will certainly be up on the Hill telling our legislators about the billions upon billions these orders are worth, and all the good paying, union US jobs (both secondary and tertiary) these widebody orders support and create.
Then of course there's "us" the US airline customer, who hate the airlines, hate their fees, hate the poor service, and hate the lack of legroom (even though the consumer is what created all of the above- but I digress). They could care less who flies them from JFK to CDG, as long as there is a perception of safety and the tickets are cheap. What? You're going to make me pay $1200 for a ticket on United when I could pay $1199 on Emirates? ***?
Read the comments under the articles that are being written currently about the whole subsidized Middle East airline topic. Consumers could CARE LESS about the US airlines, you, or me. They don't care if these Middle East Airlines are subsidized. I've read more than once comments such as, "If prince so-and-so in Dubai wants to support his state airline and it gets me a cheap ticket, let them!"
So we definitely have lots of "us's," but unfortunately I think there are more of the "other us's" then the airline employee us's
Yet another reason young people thinking about entering the profession should carefully consider their choice.
03-07-2015, 02:48 AM
#6
SDQ Base Chief
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 5,583
Originally Posted by globalexpress
He-he....define "us."
Here's an interesting statement from the Emirates Airline Chairman:
"We are buying a product from their countries. So why would they not allow us to fly to these airports? If they don't, they can take their planes back," he said.
The rest of the article that comment came from can be read here.
The Emirates Chairman (and most certainly his buds at Qatar and Etihad) is referring to the VERY LARGE aircraft orders he and his pals have on Boeing's and Airbus' books, but of note Boeing. He's basically saying, "Hey, if you don't let us fly to the US or Europe, then you (Airbus and Boeing) can take your aircraft orders back."
Now "us" takes a different meaning. "Us" airline people see these subsidies as something that will pretty much be impossible to compete against, service quality or not. US airlines are lean machines, but even in the (rare) best years, they can't compete against a highly subsidized competitor. Airline typically operate on extremely narrow profit margins, so any distortion of the marketplace in a competitor's favor pretty much screws the non-subsidized carriers.
"Us" at Boeing doesn't want to lose all those juicy widebody orders. And Boeing will certainly be up on the Hill telling our legislators about the billions upon billions these orders are worth, and all the good paying, union US jobs (both secondary and tertiary) these widebody orders support and create.
Then of course there's "us" the US airline customer, who hate the airlines, hate their fees, hate the poor service, and hate the lack of legroom (even though the consumer is what created all of the above- but I digress). They could care less who flies them from JFK to CDG, as long as there is a perception of safety and the tickets are cheap. What? You're going to make me pay $1200 for a ticket on United when I could pay $1199 on Emirates? ***?
Read the comments under the articles that are being written currently about the whole subsidized Middle East airline topic. Consumers could CARE LESS about the US airlines, you, or me. They don't care if these Middle East Airlines are subsidized. I've read more than once comments such as, "If prince so-and-so in Dubai wants to support his state airline and it gets me a cheap ticket, let them!"
So we definitely have lots of "us's," but unfortunately I think there are more of the "other us's" then the airline employee us's Yet another reason young people thinking about entering the profession should carefully consider their choice.
Here's an interesting statement from the Emirates Airline Chairman:
"We are buying a product from their countries. So why would they not allow us to fly to these airports? If they don't, they can take their planes back," he said.
The rest of the article that comment came from can be read here.
The Emirates Chairman (and most certainly his buds at Qatar and Etihad) is referring to the VERY LARGE aircraft orders he and his pals have on Boeing's and Airbus' books, but of note Boeing. He's basically saying, "Hey, if you don't let us fly to the US or Europe, then you (Airbus and Boeing) can take your aircraft orders back."
Now "us" takes a different meaning. "Us" airline people see these subsidies as something that will pretty much be impossible to compete against, service quality or not. US airlines are lean machines, but even in the (rare) best years, they can't compete against a highly subsidized competitor. Airline typically operate on extremely narrow profit margins, so any distortion of the marketplace in a competitor's favor pretty much screws the non-subsidized carriers.
"Us" at Boeing doesn't want to lose all those juicy widebody orders. And Boeing will certainly be up on the Hill telling our legislators about the billions upon billions these orders are worth, and all the good paying, union US jobs (both secondary and tertiary) these widebody orders support and create.
Then of course there's "us" the US airline customer, who hate the airlines, hate their fees, hate the poor service, and hate the lack of legroom (even though the consumer is what created all of the above- but I digress). They could care less who flies them from JFK to CDG, as long as there is a perception of safety and the tickets are cheap. What? You're going to make me pay $1200 for a ticket on United when I could pay $1199 on Emirates? ***?
Read the comments under the articles that are being written currently about the whole subsidized Middle East airline topic. Consumers could CARE LESS about the US airlines, you, or me. They don't care if these Middle East Airlines are subsidized. I've read more than once comments such as, "If prince so-and-so in Dubai wants to support his state airline and it gets me a cheap ticket, let them!"
So we definitely have lots of "us's," but unfortunately I think there are more of the "other us's" then the airline employee us's
Yet another reason young people thinking about entering the profession should carefully consider their choice.We (airline employees) are a relatively unimportant, poorly funded in terms of lobbying power, weak group in the scheme of things. I don't see any way in hell that the open skies policy will be changed.
The Gulf carriers may be subsidized, but they now subsidize Boeing.
03-07-2015, 05:08 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 1,216
Originally Posted by Flyby1206
You nailed it.
We (airline employees) are a relatively unimportant, poorly funded in terms of lobbying power, weak group in the scheme of things. I don't see any way in hell that the open skies policy will be changed.
The Gulf carriers may be subsidized, but they now subsidize Boeing.
We (airline employees) are a relatively unimportant, poorly funded in terms of lobbying power, weak group in the scheme of things. I don't see any way in hell that the open skies policy will be changed.
The Gulf carriers may be subsidized, but they now subsidize Boeing.
03-07-2015, 05:31 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 174
To play devil's advocate, this is hypocritical. Major airline ops have been "subsidized" by regional ops for decades now.
And talking about textile workers and sailors, it requires a wee bit more training and experience to be a pilot in today's world.
We should focus an equal amount of energy on multi crew licenses ..... Canada recently condoned this crap.....how long before USSA goes the same route?
And talking about textile workers and sailors, it requires a wee bit more training and experience to be a pilot in today's world.
We should focus an equal amount of energy on multi crew licenses ..... Canada recently condoned this crap.....how long before USSA goes the same route?
03-07-2015, 08:18 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,898
Originally Posted by Drofdeb
To play devil's advocate, this is hypocritical. Major airline ops have been "subsidized" by regional ops for decades now.
And talking about textile workers and sailors, it requires a wee bit more training and experience to be a pilot in today's world.
We should focus an equal amount of energy on multi crew licenses ..... Canada recently condoned this crap.....how long before USSA goes the same route?
And talking about textile workers and sailors, it requires a wee bit more training and experience to be a pilot in today's world.
We should focus an equal amount of energy on multi crew licenses ..... Canada recently condoned this crap.....how long before USSA goes the same route?
My track record when I was at a regional. AA - crickets, US - crickets, DL - crickets, UA - crickets. Qatar - heard back in 6 months and Emirates - heard back in 4 months. For many pilots, it's the same as a legacy airline not existing if they can't even get an interview. It's hard to bite the hand that is actually willing to feed you. Plenty went overseas to those ME carriers because they got called/hired and had bills to pay. If the legacy carriers were really concerned, they could put a hurt on the ME carriers by instantly hiring every single American pilot back. There is a large quantity of American pilots at EK, QR, and EY. Hiring all back in a very short timeframe would put a hurt on the pilot manpower of the ME carriers.
But instead, some vocal legacy pilots here are adamant about putting those American pilots at ME carriers on some sort of "no-hire" list for their "betrayal" of the US industry. With BS talk like that, good luck getting any unity. I will conclude by saying I honestly don't care and I have no problem walking away from a US carrier into a ME carrier if I had to. Good luck in your fight because lets face it, it is just your fight. You made it this way by letting a regional outsource model continue and pushing away expat American pilots instead of wanting them to come back and work here.
Last edited by ShyGuy; 03-07-2015 at 08:34 AM.
03-07-2015, 09:10 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
Thank you. I don't know how anyone making $100k-$200k+ (which is pretty much every legacy pilot in the US) can expect sympathy from those making $20k-$65k flying the same metal around for the same airline system when they want to talk about "subsidies."
My track record when I was at a regional. AA - crickets, US - crickets, DL - crickets, UA - crickets. Qatar - heard back in 6 months and Emirates - heard back in 4 months. For many pilots, it's the same as a legacy airline not existing if they can't even get an interview. It's hard to bite the hand that is actually willing to feed you. Plenty went overseas to those ME carriers because they got called/hired and had bills to pay. If the legacy carriers were really concerned, they could put a hurt on the ME carriers by instantly hiring every single American pilot back. There is a large quantity of American pilots at EK, QR, and EY. Hiring all back in a very short timeframe would put a hurt on the pilot manpower of the ME carriers.
But instead, some vocal legacy pilots here are adamant about putting those American pilots at ME carriers on some sort of "no-hire" list for their "betrayal" of the US industry. With BS talk like that, good luck getting any unity. I will conclude by saying I honestly don't care and I have no problem walking away from a US carrier into a ME carrier if I had to. Good luck in your fight because lets face it, it is just your fight. You made it this way by letting a regional outsource model continue and pushing away expat American pilots instead of wanting them to come back and work here.
My track record when I was at a regional. AA - crickets, US - crickets, DL - crickets, UA - crickets. Qatar - heard back in 6 months and Emirates - heard back in 4 months. For many pilots, it's the same as a legacy airline not existing if they can't even get an interview. It's hard to bite the hand that is actually willing to feed you. Plenty went overseas to those ME carriers because they got called/hired and had bills to pay. If the legacy carriers were really concerned, they could put a hurt on the ME carriers by instantly hiring every single American pilot back. There is a large quantity of American pilots at EK, QR, and EY. Hiring all back in a very short timeframe would put a hurt on the pilot manpower of the ME carriers.
But instead, some vocal legacy pilots here are adamant about putting those American pilots at ME carriers on some sort of "no-hire" list for their "betrayal" of the US industry. With BS talk like that, good luck getting any unity. I will conclude by saying I honestly don't care and I have no problem walking away from a US carrier into a ME carrier if I had to. Good luck in your fight because lets face it, it is just your fight. You made it this way by letting a regional outsource model continue and pushing away expat American pilots instead of wanting them to come back and work here.
Delta has hired ~1300 pilots in the previous 15 months. Maybe not all, but a SIGNIFICANT number of those have been far more qualified than you! Since you and presumably the "other's who were just putting food on the table" needed to cross that 'line in the sand' (pun intended), I think the US legacies are NOT hiring them en mass for a reason. There are still BETTER applicants in the 10,000 applicant pool.
We've heard you loud and clear that you'd go to a ME carrier in a heartbeat. "It's hard to bite the hand that feeds you." - mentality. Guess what other pilot group(s) in the '80's had that same self-justification to walk by their brethren standing in a picket line?
Lastly, why is it that there is signficant exodus from American-made pilots at the three ME carriers? Maybe because those that went over in the first place are realizing they 'sold their soul' and didn't realize it until after they spent a few months, year at the most, with those sand-flea, wearing man-dresses.
You're welcome to quit your ULCC at any time if you have such devout loyalties to the ME carriers. Let me know how that goes for you? Personally, I've been over there and unless called upon again, have little to zero desire to go back.
Elliott
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
