Middle East carrier subsidies
03-09-2015, 08:23 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
Well I suppose the simple answer is while in the rest of the world you can roll into an A320/330 or 777 at 250-500 hrs, in the US most civilian pilots have work at the regional airlines which have ALPA-sanctioned poverty wages. If Delta/American/United hired pilots at 250-500 hrs then the regional stepping-platform wouldn't exist.
No airline should be hiring 250-500 hour pilots. At least US carriers are able to uphold standards. Do you really think the carriers hiring low time pilots would do that if they had any other choice? Once any pilot begins an airline job flying the type of highly automated aircraft you mention, he is basically done building flying skills. Whatever he shows up with is going to be the foundation for the rest of his career.
If you think a 250 hour pilot coming through the civilian pipeline has got anything close to a worthwhile foundation of skills by that point, you're kidding yourself.
Just because other airlines have taught their button pushers the basics by that point doesn't make it a good plan. Guess where many of those 250 hour wonders go after IOE? To the RFO seat where they get to watch someone else takeoff and land and watch the autopilot fly at cruise. Those airlines are simply betting their passengers lives on the hope that most flights can get by with the automation and that events will stay on script. We've seen numerous recent events that show us when stick and rudder skills are actually needed, that type of gamble is a very, very bad bet.
There simply is no substitute for actual flying experience. 14 hours on a 777 with half of it in the bunk and the other half watching someone else fly doesn't count. No matter how many times you do it.
03-09-2015, 08:42 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot
No question that QR and EY receive significant support from their respective government, EK less so.
That's quite a departure from your stance that EK took NO subsidies from their government. I believe in the past you have even stated that they are paying the government.
That said, there are some slightly arrogant and ignorant assumptions in the majority of talk on this subject. "We have the biggest travel market in the world and therefore deserve to remain the biggest carriers". Well, not anymore you don't. Look at these charts to see some interesting statistics:
World's busiest passenger air routes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What's your point with this chart? It seems to me that you would need cabotage in many many countries to profit from the data.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will be able to see that world travel trends are changing, and not in favor of the U.S. or European legacy airlines.
Then why are the jihadis so hell bent on getting in to the US market?
There are only 1 billion people in all of the Americas and only 1 billion people in all of Europe (including eastern Europe). There are 4 billion in Asia and 1 billion in Africa. Asia is going to add another 1 billion and Africa is likely to add another 2 billion by 2100. This while the population in Europe and the Americas is likely to decline.
So where is the growth and who is positioned to benefit from it?
A little less whining and a little more vision from the leaders of the U.S. and European legacy carriers would go a long way towards confronting the problems they will face with changing global demographics and global travel trends.
I don't proclaim to know how best to respond to the "threat" of the Middle East carriers, but can almost certainly guarantee that protectionism is not the answer.
You are right but a fair level playing field would be a good start.We don't have that right now.
It's interesting to see that management at FedEx and Atlas is vocally against what the Legacy 3 and ALPA are supporting. FedEx and Atlas pilots would be adversely affected by any protectionist measures adopted by the USA in the form of reprisals. They fly significant 5th or 7th freedom type routes and their business model depends heavily on that. UPS can be included in there too, I guess. JetBlue and a few others code share with the some of the Middle East three. So doesn't that benefit their pilots with increased connecting traffic?
Be careful what you wish for, it may not be exactly what you think it will be.
But that's pretty typical of anything that ALPA touches. It was partially their arrogance that subjected us to twenty plus years of RJs and super low wages for a significant number of professional pilots in the USA.
Typhoonpilot
That's quite a departure from your stance that EK took NO subsidies from their government. I believe in the past you have even stated that they are paying the government.
That said, there are some slightly arrogant and ignorant assumptions in the majority of talk on this subject. "We have the biggest travel market in the world and therefore deserve to remain the biggest carriers". Well, not anymore you don't. Look at these charts to see some interesting statistics:
World's busiest passenger air routes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What's your point with this chart? It seems to me that you would need cabotage in many many countries to profit from the data.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will be able to see that world travel trends are changing, and not in favor of the U.S. or European legacy airlines.
Then why are the jihadis so hell bent on getting in to the US market?
There are only 1 billion people in all of the Americas and only 1 billion people in all of Europe (including eastern Europe). There are 4 billion in Asia and 1 billion in Africa. Asia is going to add another 1 billion and Africa is likely to add another 2 billion by 2100. This while the population in Europe and the Americas is likely to decline.
So where is the growth and who is positioned to benefit from it?
A little less whining and a little more vision from the leaders of the U.S. and European legacy carriers would go a long way towards confronting the problems they will face with changing global demographics and global travel trends.
I don't proclaim to know how best to respond to the "threat" of the Middle East carriers, but can almost certainly guarantee that protectionism is not the answer.
You are right but a fair level playing field would be a good start.We don't have that right now.
It's interesting to see that management at FedEx and Atlas is vocally against what the Legacy 3 and ALPA are supporting. FedEx and Atlas pilots would be adversely affected by any protectionist measures adopted by the USA in the form of reprisals. They fly significant 5th or 7th freedom type routes and their business model depends heavily on that. UPS can be included in there too, I guess. JetBlue and a few others code share with the some of the Middle East three. So doesn't that benefit their pilots with increased connecting traffic?
Be careful what you wish for, it may not be exactly what you think it will be.
But that's pretty typical of anything that ALPA touches. It was partially their arrogance that subjected us to twenty plus years of RJs and super low wages for a significant number of professional pilots in the USA.
Typhoonpilot
03-09-2015, 08:56 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
Again, no one put a gun to anyone's head to fly at regionals. A good friend and former colleague in '04 looked at the regionals and said, "no, thanks". While you can have your opinions on corporate flying, he's in his mid-thirties knocking down 200k per year, working 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off without commuting. Now many RJ guys will do that after 10 years and how many will be B777 captains?
GF
GF
03-09-2015, 09:57 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Originally Posted by zoomiezombie
Even this normally biased-against-America magazine seems to agree this time.
Airline subsidies in the Gulf: Feeling the heat | The Economist
Airline subsidies in the Gulf: Feeling the heat | The Economist
03-09-2015, 10:00 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Originally Posted by RemoveB4flght
Um, that would be me, I did exactly that. Thank you Middle East big 3 carrier.
03-09-2015, 10:07 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,898
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I'm surprise everyone let this gem slide under the radar.
No airline should be hiring 250-500 hour pilots. At least US carriers are able to uphold standards. Do you really think the carriers hiring low time pilots would do that if they had any other choice? Once any pilot begins an airline job flying the type of highly automated aircraft you mention, he is basically done building flying skills. Whatever he shows up with is going to be the foundation for the rest of his career.
If you think a 250 hour pilot coming through the civilian pipeline has got anything close to a worthwhile foundation of skills by that point, you're kidding yourself.
Just because other airlines have taught their button pushers the basics by that point doesn't make it a good plan. Guess where many of those 250 hour wonders go after IOE? To the RFO seat where they get to watch someone else takeoff and land and watch the autopilot fly at cruise. Those airlines are simply betting their passengers lives on the hope that most flights can get by with the automation and that events will stay on script. We've seen numerous recent events that show us when stick and rudder skills are actually needed, that type of gamble is a very, very bad bet.
There simply is no substitute for actual flying experience. 14 hours on a 777 with half of it in the bunk and the other half watching someone else fly doesn't count. No matter how many times you do it.
No airline should be hiring 250-500 hour pilots. At least US carriers are able to uphold standards. Do you really think the carriers hiring low time pilots would do that if they had any other choice? Once any pilot begins an airline job flying the type of highly automated aircraft you mention, he is basically done building flying skills. Whatever he shows up with is going to be the foundation for the rest of his career.
If you think a 250 hour pilot coming through the civilian pipeline has got anything close to a worthwhile foundation of skills by that point, you're kidding yourself.
Just because other airlines have taught their button pushers the basics by that point doesn't make it a good plan. Guess where many of those 250 hour wonders go after IOE? To the RFO seat where they get to watch someone else takeoff and land and watch the autopilot fly at cruise. Those airlines are simply betting their passengers lives on the hope that most flights can get by with the automation and that events will stay on script. We've seen numerous recent events that show us when stick and rudder skills are actually needed, that type of gamble is a very, very bad bet.
There simply is no substitute for actual flying experience. 14 hours on a 777 with half of it in the bunk and the other half watching someone else fly doesn't count. No matter how many times you do it.
Just wait until a real pilot shortage happens here. It'll be back to these days:
03-09-2015, 10:34 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
Has nothing to do with standards and everything to do with supply of pilots. We just happen to have the biggest and most active GA in the world. There is really no GA in the UAE, Qatar, China, etc. That's why they have their shortages. Pilots come from the military or a select few from other civilian jobs here and there. For the most part these airlines have to rely on foreign/expats and their own ab-initios.
Just wait until a real pilot shortage happens here. It'll be back to these days:
Just wait until a real pilot shortage happens here. It'll be back to these days:
You were the one who indicated it should be an option for US carriers as a choice rather than a necessity. Somehow you've managed to convince yourself that if all the flying currently done by regionals was back at the mainline, they would start hiring 250 hour pilots. Bzzzzt. They'd still hire the same types of candidates they hire now. All it would mean for the low time guys is that they would have to go get a job somewhere else until they had the quals.
Uh, yeah a budding airline industry in the 1950-60s is such an accurate comparison to today
- I won't hold my breath on that "real" pilot shortage. Plus, ATP mins for future airline hiring (even regionals) seems about right.
03-09-2015, 11:17 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,898
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I don't care why US airlines don't have to hire 250 hour simulated pilots. I'm just happy they don't. It is about standards. Whatever reason forces other country airlines to min run the pilots they hire doesn't make it a good idea.
You were the one who indicated it should be an option for US carriers as a choice rather than a necessity. Somehow you've managed to convince yourself that if all the flying currently done by regionals was back at the mainline, they would start hiring 250 hour pilots. Bzzzzt. They'd still hire the same types of candidates they hire now. All it would mean for the low time guys is that they would have to go get a job somewhere else until they had the quals.
Uh, yeah a budding airline industry in the 1950-60s is such an accurate comparison to today - I won't hold my breath on that "real" pilot shortage. Plus, ATP mins for future airline hiring (even regionals) seems about right.
You were the one who indicated it should be an option for US carriers as a choice rather than a necessity. Somehow you've managed to convince yourself that if all the flying currently done by regionals was back at the mainline, they would start hiring 250 hour pilots. Bzzzzt. They'd still hire the same types of candidates they hire now. All it would mean for the low time guys is that they would have to go get a job somewhere else until they had the quals.
Uh, yeah a budding airline industry in the 1950-60s is such an accurate comparison to today
- I won't hold my breath on that "real" pilot shortage. Plus, ATP mins for future airline hiring (even regionals) seems about right.
03-09-2015, 12:04 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Right Seat 737, Front seat T-6
Posts: 536
Honest Questions
I am trying to understand some of the arguments here, so please use non-emotional arguments in response. I do understand the emotion, as jobs are at stake, but I honestly don't think that will sell the American public or politicians, whereas honest and open discussion is more likely to win people over.
So, it does seem that the ME carriers have received some subsidies, but the amount may be questionable. For instance, what is the difference between "$2.3bn of savings from artificially low airport charges" and what some US carriers receive? Specifically, do US carriers get charged the same landing fees, handling fees, airport passenger fees, TSA fees, etc. at LAX or Atlanta as does a foreign carrier? I honestly don't know ...
Further, how is "$1.9bn of savings from Emirates’ non-unionised workforce" different than non-unionised US airlines (JetBlue until recently or Delta's Flight Attendants, for instance)? Or, how is that different than the savings Delta and United realised when they handed their retirement obligations to the U.S. government, thus massively reducing their debt and future expenditures?
Foreign airlines receive interest-free loans from their government ... And US airlines benefit from the falsely low interest rates that derive from the U.S. Fed setting the prime interest rate. Not the same, I know, but without government backed-loans at artificially low interest rates, what would be the status of some legacy carriers today?
I have been scolded here for not understanding the importance of the CRAF fleet (which I do, btw!), but do US airlines receive money to be part of the CRAF fleet? Is this money only if they are used, or is some money paid to the airline each year for being part of the CRAF Fleet, regardless of whether or not they are used? Was the importance of the CRAF fleet and the U.S. airline industry some of the rationale to have government-backed loans to keep the US big three from going out of existence when they went bankrupt?
The Economist article was a thoughtful piece. It brought up a good point about US Chapter 11 laws not quite equating to subsidies. (Although that didn't completely answer the questions I asked above.)
So, it does seem that the ME carriers have received some subsidies, but the amount may be questionable. For instance, what is the difference between "$2.3bn of savings from artificially low airport charges" and what some US carriers receive? Specifically, do US carriers get charged the same landing fees, handling fees, airport passenger fees, TSA fees, etc. at LAX or Atlanta as does a foreign carrier? I honestly don't know ...
Further, how is "$1.9bn of savings from Emirates’ non-unionised workforce" different than non-unionised US airlines (JetBlue until recently or Delta's Flight Attendants, for instance)? Or, how is that different than the savings Delta and United realised when they handed their retirement obligations to the U.S. government, thus massively reducing their debt and future expenditures?
Foreign airlines receive interest-free loans from their government ... And US airlines benefit from the falsely low interest rates that derive from the U.S. Fed setting the prime interest rate. Not the same, I know, but without government backed-loans at artificially low interest rates, what would be the status of some legacy carriers today?
I have been scolded here for not understanding the importance of the CRAF fleet (which I do, btw!), but do US airlines receive money to be part of the CRAF fleet? Is this money only if they are used, or is some money paid to the airline each year for being part of the CRAF Fleet, regardless of whether or not they are used? Was the importance of the CRAF fleet and the U.S. airline industry some of the rationale to have government-backed loans to keep the US big three from going out of existence when they went bankrupt?
The Economist article was a thoughtful piece. It brought up a good point about US Chapter 11 laws not quite equating to subsidies. (Although that didn't completely answer the questions I asked above.)
03-09-2015, 12:06 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
I never said that. I stated the B-scale outsourced regional operation at less than half the mainline wages wouldn't exist.
What you said was this:
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
If Delta/American/United hired pilots at 250-500 hrs then the regional stepping-platform wouldn't exist.
The simple fact is that driven pilots who really want a job at a major airline will always find a way to get the quals. There just aren't that many major airline jobs available during any given year to require lowering standards in the USA. We'll always have qualified pilots to fill them. Attempting to come up with an unlikely scenario that would suddenly require majors to hire 250 hour pilots is a waste of time. They won't do it because it's a bad idea and they don't need to.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
