machz990

Excerpt from recent ALPA communication:

"On Thursday and Friday of last week, ALPA representatives met with the fact-finding team that has been tasked by the European Commission with exploring airline labor concerns arising out of the ongoing U.S.–European Union (EU) air service negotiations."

This reminded me of a 20 minute news piece I saw approx. 3 months before Phase 1 of the Open Skies agreement went into effect. I was in Paris on a layover and the program I saw was similar to a Dateline or 20/20 show. In this 20 minute segment were interviews with the head of Ryan Air, Richard Branson from Virgin and the equivalent of the head of the FAA for the EU.

I watched the entire piece which said Phase 1 would go into effect (which it did in March of 08) followed by Phase 2 approximately 2 years later. Phase 1 was lopsided because it favored the US and handed U.S. carriers their main wish of gaining unlimited access to London Heathrow airport. This was achieved through allowing EU and U.S. carriers to fly from any point in the United States to any point in the European Union.

Phase Two is scheduled for introduction by November 2010 but has yet to be agreed upon, and the European Union wants to achieve its two principal aims of loosening restrictions on foreign ownership of airlines and allowing onward services within the United States.

Most airline pilots in the US are fully aware of the Open Skies agreement and it's potential implications to our career. As a group I think we can agree that we don't want Open Skies in the US. However after watching this news piece while across the pond in Europe I found out that Phase 1 is part of a building block approach. If Phase 2 isn't passed then Phase 1 will be rescinded by the EU. After watching the interviews of the above 3 mentioned individuals they felt that Phase 2 was a forgone conclusion. They sounded so matter-of-fact about it that it concerned me. Do they know something that we don't know. Has the train already left the station? Have deals already been cut behind closed doors and the two parties are simply going through the motions?

wheresmyplane

I haven't really followed this issue, so please forgive my ignorance, but what are the chances that foreign operators in this country will force the US carriers to get their act together? For example: If PAX start flying on BA or the like because of better service or just because the flying public seems to be fed up with US carriers in general, will it influence the US companies in any way? Also, is there anything saying that US pilots would not be eligible for jobs with EU carriers? After all, they'll be flying in our airspace, not the EU - will a JAA license still be a prerequisite to get a job there? Just wondering, like I said I haven't followed this issue really.

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

I too am very concerned about the phase II. IF open sky agreement were to apply to the western parts or "old" Europe only I wouldn't have a problem with it since most of those pilots make our wages if not better (depending on exchange rate) already. I'm talking Lufthansa, Air France, BA, etc.

However, this is an agreement with the entire EU, including all central and eastern European states - total of 27 countries (I think?) and possibly non-EU states of Iceland (seeking EU membership now), Norway and Switzerland will try to be linked to the agreement.

We all know the prices, salaries and taxes are higher in New York and California than in South Carolina and West Virgina for example. Those differences are much greater within the European Union or as some call it U.S.E. - the United States of Europe.

A pilot flying an A320 for WizzAir (Hungarian LCC start-up) for example makes in a year what a pilot with similar seniority makes in a month or maybe two at Lufthansa. The quality of life and cost differences accross Europe are huge and therefore a straight "open sky" agreement would be disastrous for pilot jobs in "high salary" countries of Western Europe and the US.

There's a reason why new airlines in eastern European countries keep expanding while Al Italia, etc. are slowly bleeding to death. Poor service might be one reason but more and more EU companies shift their work force to newer EU states to save money on labor costs. An article in FT a while back called it "insourcing" - it's still outsourcing but the jobs stay inside the EU - for now.

Lostairplane - as far as your question about bidding European jobs - well, it'll still be US airlines with US pilots flying to EU and also within EU. For example a US airline, let's say AA might choose to fly JFK - Paris - Cologne - London - JFK. Likewise, an EU airline, let's say Iberia might choose to fly Madrid - ORD - ATL - MIA - Madrid.

If the pilots and the FAs make similar wages the competition is about the quality of service and smart management. If the pay and benefits differ too much, no matter how good the quality of service gets - you'll never be able to compete and to survive.

The worst case scenario would be if most EU airlines were to open new domiciles in low cost EU countries (ie. Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc) and hire pilots and FAs for their "open sky" routes. Imagine if DHL started up a Bucarest main hub and started flying 747s or whatever airplanes they choose to and from the US but also within any US city of their choosing. Or Blue Air, a Romanian LCC pax airline, purchased 747s to fly to & from the US. Now imagine those 747 captains to be making a 'respectable' wage (in Romania) of $50k a year and you tell me why any EU airline would want to hire a "high cost" pilot from the western parts of EU or from the US? The answer is - they wouldn't.

The phase II of the "Open Sky" agreement might make age-65 ruling look like a picnic for junior pilots here on the US.

Buck92

Yeah, under the EU, there's NO WAY it's gonna be limited to "old" Europe. Ask the Irish, who only 3 years ago were touted as the shining example of booming economy... only problem was, along with the generous tax cuts (compared to other 'socialist' regimes in Europe) they kept the high minimum wage, universal heathcare, and generous unemployment benefits. A major problem with EU (and why we don't want an American Union with Canada and South America) is the effective lack of borders with an EU passport -- the UK is glad they didn't jump on that bandwagon. Anyway, former East Bloc countries like Poland joined the EU and their citizens freely traveled to Ireland to take the jobs "the Irish wouldn't do." Long story short, the economy tanked, everyone lost their jobs, and the Polish figured out that they could 1. go back to Poland and probably be unemployed or 2. stay in Ireland, collect unemployment benefits and make more than they could make even with a job in Poland.

Open skies USA will result in Polish 767 Captains flying around the States making $60K a year and loving it.

iarapilot

Someone who is familiar with the NAU....AKA SPP. That is good.

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Yeah, we don't want NAU - we'd have to ditch our soon to be severly deflated dollars for ameros...

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Open skies USA will result in Polish 767 Captains flying around the States making $60K a year and loving it.

Probably not Polish captains as they're actually surprisingly well compensated compared to other eastern and central European countries. I'd bet on Romanian and Bulgarian or Turkish if Turkey ever becomes a member state. I agree with your overall point though.

Poland btw is probably the most pro-American country in Europe but that's a different story.

captjns

Phase II can be more damaging to the US pilot than you may realize. Who knows… this could be an incentive for US carriers to scale back their domestic long haul flying since the EU airlines are willing to do it. There could be a ramping up of regional and commuter airlines with lower paid crews in the US. Thus more puddle jumping rather than long haul flying. That’s where the money is. It’s working in the EU. In the US, the Dashes, and RJs are virtual money making machines with relatively high fares charged versus salaries paid.

At the end of the day, do you really envision an EU carrier operating, say, from Sofia to Newark and on to Allentown with a 767? Remember the EU carrier will have to be competitive with US carriers too… which means them losing money on those routes too.

When and if Open Skies Asia-US commences, cargo flying will feel the impact more so than passenger flying. A number of formidable carriers have been established in China. Who knows… US low cost cargo carriers may be on the horizon too, with foreign investors. At the end of the day… which cargo carrier are shippers, and freight forwarders going to use?

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

I might have gotten it all wrong but a while back I thought you worked for an Asian carrier? If so, imagine that the labor costs in some of the new eastern and central EU countries are lower than in China and even the Philippines. So yes, I'd answer yes to your question above. The airplane might be slightly "oversized" for the market you mentioned BUT the super low labor costs would make up for that.

Buck92

I have no issue with Poland or Polish people and you're right: there are perhaps better Eastern European examples. I used Poland only because the people I stayed with in Ireland in May specifically referenced Poland as a source of workers who came, got unemployed, and didn't leave. I had no means to independantly verify their accounts and the foreign workers to which they referred may well have been from somewhere other than Poland. But hey, they're caucasian, so at least I can't be accused of being a racist!