So I take that instead of legislative action you’re advocating for industry wide illegal job actions. Good luck with that.

Truckers are a VERY bad comparison because all you need is a Class A CDL and a bank loan on a truck and just like magic; you’re a trucking company. Despite some large layers in that market, there are a HUGE number of independents that make that analogy closer to Pt 91 flying than anything resembling an airline.

As to things getting worse, sure, that’s entirely possible, but because the supply of pilots is semi constrained, and currently we have a bunch hitting mandatory retirement, supply issues should be working in our favor for a while now. The trick will be to avoid some kind of MPL scheme that makes junior pilots very beholden to their employers. I confident that we can avoid that.

As to foreign work rules, the idea of making them have to comply with 117 for US routes is simply to add another regulatory cost to operating in the US, one that US carrriers have to comply with as well.

As you rightly point out, pilots can be our own worst enemies, but might I suggest that if you ever hit the casinos in Vegas, play the hand you actually have, not the one you WISH you had.

 

I don't get it. I read the union's email about CKA working conditions. At what point are you willing to sell your soul just to wear a name tag on your uniform? Maybe I should wear a hat when I fly now, just to feel a little more superior. What's next? Uniform Nazis? ("I noticed your sock attire is in violation with company manual, and not to mention Al's 'I love the 737' tie & blablabla" ).
​​​
Never a dull moment around here.

 

Little pecker, big watch, and a name tag

 

 

The mistake is forgetting that people look out for themselves, regardless of if it benefits the greater good. Get in now while it’s low hanging fruit mentality. Akin to speeding on your drive to work. Benefit yourself, just don’t get caught. Nothing new here. Human nature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Some foreign nations could turn right around and "change the rules" on US carriers flying into or over their countries(case in point Russia and our India flight), ALOT faster than the speedy US congress can wipe their own *****. Point is, you have to be careful of the anything you can do I can do better mentality taking over...The US could ABSOLUTELY strong arm every other country in the world not named China for a longer time, but at what cost?

 

You make some very good points, but I'd wager that the political calculation for US politicians probably leans in favor of being more protectionist, especially if the rationale can be tied directly to safety.

Given your two examples, first, it would be very interesting to know what their required staffing is on those longer segments. Second, I would imagine that the revenue from Siberian overflight permits are more valuable to Russia than the cost of adding an RFO to some of their Aeroflot flights.

It's probably a tactic that's more effective against the ME3 (and certainly more relatable than the whole subsidy argument) although, as you point out, not without risks.

 

if I read you correctly you kind of prove my points...its more valuable for the foreign carriers(some) to get in a tic for tac with US over regulations, ie the overflight income vs adding an RO to flights. I doubt that congress is more concerned over "safety" then they are disrupting global economics. In their eyes unless there is a fire it doesn't matter if there is smoke, when it comes to safety...it took a terrible accident(Buffalo) for them to even consider changing the US standards and only after a ton of lobbying by family victims and incredible public support. I think they would see a foreign carrier crash as nothing more than a chance to say, "see you should fly american carriers". ie. the SFO crash...same thing with the 737Max it took what, 2 or 3 foreign crashes for Congress to finally intervene. Even then they seemed hesitant bc it was foreign carriers not US. Pretty sure it was only after US pilot unions stepped up and said hey there is a problem here did something happen. Getting ICAO to agree on higher standards would be much more impactful then the US unilaterally changing the rules to incoming foreign carriers IMHO.

 

Let us remember the Boston Tea party when the fathers of revolution said "NO way, this is like illegal right? Better the devil you know than the one you don't, and I for one welcome our demonic overlords!"

Then George Washington crossing the Delaware saying "Oh crap they might shoot back! Also, this is technically illegal!"

Pilots can fly a thousand ton machine through the air everyday and believe they can do it safely, but not change the laws in their own country, because only one involves them being told what to do. They can be the deciding factor, with no outside help, to change the course of life and death when things go wrong in their machine, but they can't change what words go on a piece of paper to decide what they can say to other pilots, while they have the support of thousands of other pilots.

Yea, things that get you more power are going to be illegal, because otherwise you'd have more power already. That's the point. The point of the RLA was not to benefit workers. It was to curtail them, it was to make sure they kept working and making money, there was no give to workers because they were already organizing and disciplining business. Infrastructure is a powerful area to place a lever. If pilots start thinking outside their 401ks the way Amazon started thinking outside books, we can make things change for everyone benefit, including ours.