madeinUSA

Excuse me for my lack of insight and ignorance on the issue, but as a regional airline pilot, wouldn't we be better off with more options than 3 legacy carriers and a few good paying majors? I get an ALPA email every week about how we need to protect our jobs against this foreign "threat". Personally I would have gone to Emirates a long time ago if I didn't have to move to the Middle East. Wouldn't it be nice to have a Chicago or NY base? I know Toyota employs thousands of US workers here with good pay and benefits. I can see how if you are a legacy pilot it would be against your better judgment but as a regional pilot the more options the better right?

Bobs98tlr

I see your point and can relate, however I find this ironic coming from a guy that has a forum name of "madeinUSA." That's the short answer in itself!

Would you support working for a carrier who's earnings mainly go back to a foreign nation?

madeinUSA

Opposed to going to a foreign country and working for them? My name has more to do with where my patents procreated than my patriotism. I guess my point would be that more competition is better for us because it gives us more options but I do have a problem with the free market being skewed by subsidies.

Adlerdriver

There is no restriction against a foreign airline basing pilots in the U.S. Cathay Pacific uses several US cities as pilot domiciles (not sure about any other airlines). I don't think that's the case with Emirates yet, but given their expansion plans I wouldn't rule it out. So, go get hired if that suits you.

You're confusing the "threat" in the ALPA magazine and emails with where pilots are based. There are several "threats" the magazine talks about, but basing pilot in the U.S. isn't one of them. Some of the issues ALPA is concerned with are: Cabotage (foreign airlines flying from US destination to another US destination), foreign ownership of US airlines, US government contracts being awarded to foreign airlines and a US sponsored security screening streamline plan in the UAE which would benefit local airlines and put US airlines at a competitive disadvantage.

todd1200

From ALPA:

"Cabotage would mean that a foreign airline does business in the U.S. domestic market subject to the laws of its own country rather than U.S. laws. If Air China were permitted to operate cabotage service, for example, it would be doing business in the U.S. domestic market as a Chinese business, subject to Chinese tax law, not U.S. tax law, Chinese labor law, not U.S. labor law, Chinese environmental law, not U.S. environmental law, etc. We don’t permit this in any other business sector: if Toyota wants to build cars in the U.S. it must set up a U.S. corporation to do so and have its U.S. plants be subject to U.S. laws; if Airbus want to build planes here it must do the same."

Cabotage service is not the answer | Pilot Partisan

flyingreasemnky

That's really the rub isn't it? Foreign carriers are subsidized by their governments and there is nothing we can do in the US to prevent them from continuing to do so. There is no way an airline like Emirates would exist without massive amounts of money pouring into it. They would have had to grow organically like the US carriers over several years and not just start off buying wide-bodies. Its not a free market as long as subsidies exist.

Pogey Bait

Resign now. You are a moron.

Pogey Bait

NO, less options, gives you MORE OPTIONS.

Geardownflaps30

While potentially true, not particularly helpful.