CousinEddie

On January 7th ALPA and SWAPA along with Airlines for America sent a letter to Congress to again follow up on opposition to the opening of a Customers pre-clearance facility at Abu Dhabi International Airport. This facility, where no US airlines operate, would provide a direct competitive advantage to state backed foreign carriers. Worse yet, our own tax dollars are being diverted away from improving our often lengthy Customs wait times here in the U.S.

I was happy to see SWAPA sign the letter but was rather dismayed to see that APA did not. With 100s of billions worth of widebody jets on order and governments determined to make their carriers successful with whatever it takes, we face an enormous threat. Is APA engaged at all in these issues? Why didn't they sign the letter?

CousinEddie

Here is the letter:

January 7, 2014 Dear Senator:
As you consider fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations legislation, we respectfully ask that you oppose efforts by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to open a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) preclearance facility at the Abu Dhabi International Airport in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
A CBP preclearance facility in Abu Dhabi is not a prudent use of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Preclearance is designed to make air travel more convenient and efficient by allowing passengers to clear U.S. customs at their place of departure, typically foreign destinations served by U.S. airlines. Unlike the 15 existing preclearance facilities located in Canada, Ireland and the Caribbean, no U.S. passenger airline currently provides direct scheduled service between the United States and Abu Dhabi. And yet, DHS appears intent on opening a preclearance facility at an airport from which one foreign airline competitor provides just three daily flights to the United States.
The U.S. airline industry plays a critical role in the U.S. economy, driving nearly 10 million U.S. jobs and $1 trillion in annual economic activity. However, U.S. airlines are facing strong competitive headwinds in the global marketplace due to direct and indirect financial and policy support that foreign airline competitors receive from their respective governments. Our own government should not exacerbate this competitive imbalance by opening a preclearance facility in Abu Dhabi, which will solely benefit a foreign airline that competes with U.S. airlines not just for travel between the United States and Middle East, but also for transit from key emerging markets, including India and Asia. In this respect, opening a preclearance facility in Abu Dhabi would provide a competitive advantage to a foreign airline competitor at the expense of the U.S. aviation industry and its workers.
Moreover, when customs wait times at major U.S. airports can exceed several hours during peak travel periods, DHS should not be using any resources to open new preclearance facilities overseas. Excessively long customs wait times discourage international travel to the United States and lower demand for international flights on U.S. airlines, thereby costing U.S. airlines and the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost revenue. Reducing wait times at U.S. airports should take priority over expansion of CBP preclearance facilities at foreign airports, particularly at those locations not served by U.S. airlines.
We appreciate that Congress has taken action in opposition to planned CBP preclearance in Abu Dhabi in both the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-6,
Section 560(f)) and the House version of the FY 2014 Department of Homeland Security appropriations legislation (H.R. 2217). However, we are dismayed that DHS is finalizing plans to open a preclearance facility in Abu Dhabi, perhaps as early as this month.
Given the adverse economic consequences that would result from opening a CBP preclearance facility in Abu Dhabi and the significant federal budget constraints, we respectfully ask that you to support a funding prohibition on the Abu Dhabi preclearance facility in any final FY 2014 appropriations package.
Thank you for your commitment to U.S. airlines, the U.S. travel industry and U.S. aviation industry workers.
Sincerely,
Lee Moak
President, Air Line Pilots Association, International
Nicholas E. Calio
President & CEO, Airlines for America
Mark Richardson
President, Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association

ForeverFO

I don't know the answer. I DO know the APA, and my gut tells me they'd be on-board with this.

There is a lot on all of our plates right now. Maybe this one slipped through the cracks.

I'll ask a few guys and see what's up.

CousinEddie

Understood. Here is another issue raising its ugly head. More evidence of why we need input from all the US pilot unions in Washigton. If all this stuff continues to gain traction, the benefits of consolidation may end up being lost by another race to the bottom on a global scale:

New Reason DOT Must Deny Norwegian Air’s Scheme In the latest indication that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) must immediately deny Norwegian Air International’s (NAI) foreign air carrier permit application, a recent filing by the company at the DOT appears to confirm that it is attempting to evade Norway’s national laws and regulations to gain an unfair economic advantage over U.S. airlines.
On Tuesday, ALPA submitted a reply to NAI’s filing. ALPA asserted that NAI’s proposed operation is contrary to U.S. aviation statutes and to the intent of the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement. “The U.S.-EU air services agreement was not intended to allow companies to cheat the system to gain an unfair economic edge,” said ALPA President Capt. Lee Moak. “The U.S. government must unequivocally reject the NAI application, and the Irish government should not allow itself to be complicit in NAI’s scheme.”
“Norwegian Air International seeks to compete unfairly with U.S. airlines for international passengers by sidestepping its national laws and regulations and creating a race to the bottom on labor and working conditions,” said Capt. Moak. “Permitting NAI to engage in this kind of labor law shopping is not in the public interest, and it runs contrary to our air service agreement with the EU. It must not be allowed to stand.”

PurpleTurtle

If ALPA national is for it then there is a 90% chance there are loopholes for the average pilot to get screwed if ALPA National gets what they want.

CousinEddie

Do you work for the Export-Import Bank handing out taxpayer subsidies to help Emirates and others buy Boeing widebodies? While denying those same subsidies to US carriers?

Delta sues Ex-Im Bank over loan guarantees for foreign airlines | Reuters

PurpleTurtle

No. I was a victim of ALPA "protections". There is always a chance that ALPA is on the right side of an issue that could help the average pilot, but mistakes happen, and there is no cause for alarm.

ShyGuy

Yup, now that ALPA has brought back the profession to pre-9/11 wages and benefits adjusted for inflation, fixed the regional airline whipsaw, paid off the TWA pilots, now they can take on the serious problem of a customs facility at Abu Dhabi.

CousinEddie

That is a rather interesting critique coming from a VX pilot.

ShyGuy

Was at an ALPA carrier before and wasn't impressed. ALPA has more pressing issues they should be looking at instead of some customs facility in Abu Dhabi.