Originally Posted by likeitis

So I'm assuming that Delta, United, BA, LH and AF are all paying and treating their employees in Dubai much better than EK? Well they aren't because if I recall last time I was there Dnata, which is owned by EK, does all their ground handling. EK engineers most likely provide all their technical support as well.

So to play by your rules I guess EK should pay a living wage for where? New York, Cleveland? Sure in a perfect world and in a perfect world the iPad your grimy fingers is clutching shouldn't be made with the blood of Asians.

Originally Posted by MaxQ

"a capitalist will sell you the rope that will be used to hang him"

The above quote is from memory, so it might be off a little, but it is a condensed version of your post.

This is our system and how it works. As the limits that came to be (largely due to the great economic crash and ensuing world catastrophe of WWII) from the 30's through the 60's are dismantled one by one, the protections that pilots have had from overseas competition will probably suffer the same fate that most other workers already have.
Most people I know are very supportive of this system and will react vehemently at any suggestion of reining it in. (even as they bemoan the fact that they can't make ends meet with his job at BassPro and his wife's job at Wallmart....and both of their employers subsidized from their property taxes)
There will be no public outcry, as we have come to accept that worker drones are to be sacrificed in the name of the free market. (besides, thoseairline jerks should finally be made to live like the rest of us, overpaid bus drivers and all)

The airlines themselves wil buy the airplanes from the manufacturer that gives them the best deal/mission capable product. If it is Boeing, they will buy from Boeing no matter what. There will be no boycott as that would imply both a long term vision and a short term interuption of the present gravy train(for senior Mgmt and institutional shareholders such as hedge funds)

Carl, while you are correct on the threat, without a sea-change in public attitudes we are bystanders and can only hope that these 3 ave bit off more than they can chew and it will overwhelm them.

As an aside, I see ALPA magazine just did a short mention of the US Merchant Marine fleet and it's demise as a world player. I have been citing what happened to them for at least 20 years, maybe 25.(also how they handled the training and certification of officers and ONE list of officers and sailors) Only as the threat looms closer to us, do we finally consider what we have been supporting for the last 30 plus years.

Sorry for the ramble, but the above doesn't even scratch the surface as to how deep the problem(s) are and how precarious is our collective economic future.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

What makes it different in this case is that public opinion isn't really the major factor here. This is one of those issues where labor and management's interests align. There are airlines (and their managers) that will not be here if we don't act soon. Management would never consider a boycott of Boeing if it only benefitted labor, but I believe they would consider it if we all worked together...and they knew they were saving their own skin.

Boeing can sell all the airplanes they want in the free world market. But now Boeing is making promises to Middle East carriers that their aircraft purchases will come with access to the world's most lucrative market. And Boeing is using this as leverage against congress to go along, or lose all those great paying Boeing jobs.

Boeing is playing a game that has never been played before. We have to expose it, and make them pay a price that is too high for them

Carl

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot

It still doesn't address this statement with any evidence:

Nor is there any proof in there of this rather inflammatory accusation:

Originally Posted by EYBusdriver

To make a point, should I resign my job, on principle , just because Boeing is selling aircraft to the airlines in the gulf?

Originally Posted by EYBusdriver

Would it be okay if they bought A350's and 380's only?

Originally Posted by EYBusdriver

I don't consider what I am doing as prostituting, I worked for an airline that failed, I have children to support and a retirement to plan for, I accepted a good job, with relatively good pay because it's better than having to work at Walmart or Publix, paper or plastic?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

What makes it different in this case is that public opinion isn't really the major factor here. This is one of those issues where labor and management's interests align. There are airlines (and their managers) that will not be here if we don't act soon. Management would never consider a boycott of Boeing if it only benefitted labor, but I believe they would consider it if we all worked together...and they knew they were saving their own skin.

Boeing can sell all the airplanes they want in the free world market. But now Boeing is making promises to Middle East carriers that their aircraft purchases will come with access to the world's most lucrative market. And Boeing is using this as leverage against congress to go along, or lose all those great paying Boeing jobs.

Boeing is playing a game that has never been played before. We have to expose it, and make them pay a price that is too high for them

Carl

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot

Carl is advocating a boycott on Boeing products by U.S. airlines because they sell those same airplanes to foreign competitors and sometimes they are financed with Ex Im financing.

Let's just take a look at the ridiculousness of that line of thought. Yes, I do fly for Emirates but I am also an American and I believe that Boeing is one of the last remaining manufacturing companies that made America great. Any move to hurt them financially by Americans must be looked at closely.

The U.S. import/export gap has a profound effect on every American. Boeing makes up a huge dollar amount of U.S. exports. A negative trade balance adversely affects the value of the U.S. dollar. Any move to further erode the trade balance will also further erode the value of the U.S. Dollar.

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot

Okay now for some of the assertions in the ALPA white paper. Anyone ever read the book, " How to Lie with Statistics"? The white paper is guilty of that in this statement, paraphrased. Since the beginning of Open Skies negotiations ( 1992 ) the U.S. share of the International Widebody Fleet has decreased from 45% to 17 and is forecast to drop to 5% by 2025. Sounds ominous doesn't it? All those widebody jobs lost to foreign competition. Anyone want to bet the U.S. majors have more widebody airliners in their fleet now than in 1992? Those percentages that ALPA chose to use do not take into account the incredible growth in air travel since 1992, especially in foreign countries. In China, for example, there were only a little over 400 commercial aircraft as late as 1996. Today there are over 2000, including a substantial increase in widebody airliners, that amazingly are not all used on services to the USA.

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot

Since I do know Emirates fairly well lets look at the ALPA argument closer in respect to them. Emirates operates to 7 U.S. cities, soon to be 8. Those would all be considered Ultra Long Haul routes which require 2.5 aircraft per city pair per frequency. So that means if they were all served by Boeing aircraft and including the double daily to JFK the total requirement would be 22.5 aircraft. Ah, but JFK is served by the A380 and LAX goes to the A380 on December 2nd. So, even after Boston is added the total number of Boeing 777s required for Emirate's services to the USA is 15 aircraft. That is out of a fleet of 130+ B777s.

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot

So just to get this straight. There are some here who advocate penalizing a great U.S. manufacturer; all their employees; and the employees in the USA of all of their supply chain affiliates just because a foreign competitor is using a little more than 10% of the planes they buy from them to serve the USA.

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot

I just want to make sure that is correct, because I am having a difficult time getting my mind around the concept and how this benefits America or the airline pilots of the USA.

Originally Posted by Scoop

The point I got from Carls original post, and I believe the most important one is this: that they are buying the aircraft with the "understanding" that if they don't obtain rights to the US markets then the deal is off.

Call it a "quid pro quo" or "blackmail" or even" buying influence" either way it reeks of politics. If the ME oil Sheiks can publicly exert political influence that blatantly than I wonder what if anything will they not be able to buy in the future?


This is all wrong.

Scoop - Just my 2 Cents.