The threat from state-subsidized Etihad, Qatar, Emirates, etc. is well documented and growing. We need to take some ownership to preserve our stake in this industry.

A4A, etc. is doing what it can on the political side. Let's see what kind of leadership ALPA and other unions have on the labor side.

No way those mideast carriers have enough local talent to staff their airlines. Money is not a limiting factor, but trained pilots are. They hire a large number of expat pilots (US, UK, Australia, Canada, etc). Many of these pilots don't intend to make a career in the mideast, and wish to return to their home countries to work when "times get better." The problem is, they are contributing to entities trying ensure that times don't "get better" for US carriers (or the US in general, for that matter).

We should stigmatize folks who get hired in the mideast (or other such state-subsidized carriers) and then try to get hired here. Let's see some leadership from our unions--ALPA, SWAPA, APA, etc.

It would sound something like this: "Starting today, no one who takes a job at [Etihad, Qatar, Emirates, etc] will be allowed to join our unions if they are ever hired in the US."

It wouldn't be appropriate to use the term "scab," but there needs to be some kind of black mark on folks who enable foreign carriers' attempts to destroy our careers.

I have no beef against those folks who choose to work there to provide for their families. But there must be consequences. What they're doing is potentially affecting our ability to provide for our families. You want to work there, go for it. But you're not welcome to continue your careers here in the US down the road.

ALPA, let's stop farting around. Take the lead. Get your counterparts in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc on board. Team up with SWAPA, APA, etc.

Will it deter everyone from working over there? No. But it can't hurt. There needs to be a penalty for contributing to those behemoths the mideast, even if it's just a minor embarrassment. The more we can do to defend our national airlines against foreign airlines, to make it more painful for those helping erode our careers, the better.

Who knows, maybe airline hiring departments will take note, and similarly penalize those making the choice to enable those carriers.

 

Are we to label these folks some sort of "scab"?

 

I can't say I've thought about this enough to have a well formed opinion about it... but....

Every qualified pilot that leaves the US decreases the supply here. Decreases in the pilot supply benefit everyone who stays. The better the foreign carriers are for pilots, the better domestic carriers will have to be in order to be able to attract pilots.

Say you have an RJ pilot. They can't get a job at a mainline in the US. Nobody is hiring because all the mainlines have outsourced so much. But they can get a job at Emirates. They leave. Said regional has to replace them. Everyone knows the regional pilot source is drying up. Maybe this happening enough will help cost the regional model out of existence.

 

Guess who leases Emirates 777 sim time and provides a place to interview candidates?

 

We are worried because they provide a superior product. We can try and battle them legally, but I think we need to up our product pure and simple.

 

Unless you are trying to get to the Middle East from the US and vice versa, these companies don't really compete for passenger traffic with US carriers, do they? I mean, living in Europe, if I want to travel back and forth to Asia, a US carrier isn't even an option for me. The options are East Asian carriers, Aeroflot, Western European carrier, or a Middle Eastern carrier.

Also, Emirates does not receive state subsidy, unlike Qatar and Etihad which are state owned.

 

American airlines suck so horribly by comparison. Maybe is US carriers worked on improving their product the problem would fix itself. I don't see that happening therefore US airlines will earn their fate. You have to look at thing from the customers perspective. We suck!!!!

 

When did Emirates become a private company? Last I heard they were owned by the government of Dubai.

 

@ the OP

Have you ever flown as a passenger in any one the "Percieved Serious Threat" airlines that you mentioned???

If you have, then travel in one of the US airlines like UA, AA as a passenger, DON'T TELL THE FA'S THAT YOU ARE FLIGHT CREW & Just observe how a common man is treated in a US airline versus the carriers you percieve as a threat.

I have..... on both the US & Middle eastern carriers. And once I tasted the product of Emirates & Qatar, I never went back to any US carrier.

We, meaning the US companies, have simply forgotton how to treat the most valuable part of our business, THE CUSTOMER....

They, both the airline management & staff on board, have simply forgotton that "because they (the customers) are here, that is why we, the airlines, are here.

The US airlines are too busy in making money from extra fees from the customers using the "nickle & dime approach".

For example, imagine a family of 4 going to India.

UAL flies direct non stop to Delhi, emirates & Qatar fly via Dubai & Doha.

But Emirates, Qatar & Singapore airlines allow 2 bags 50 lbs each per passenger. UA / AA / DAL allow 1 bag.

For a family of 4, it is extra $200 for one way

AA gives only 1 free drink of scotch/ Wine per passenger, 2nd drink is $8.00.....

Does it matter to a person who is buying a ticket for $1,500. May be. May be not. BUT it definitely leaves a bad taste....

Comparing the attitude & body language of FA's, DON'T EVEN GO THERE......

QATAR, EMIRATES treat even a economy class passenger very decently.

No one will ever fly a Middle Eastern airline with a 3 or 5 hours stopover & an additional flight if we, our own airlines treated the customers right.

Improve the product, improve the service quality, the passengers will return....

The fuel may be expensive but a smile doesn't cost anything...

Then, the middle eatern airlines will never be a threat.....

Till then......

 

Yep, the biggest carrier in the world's busiest airport.