NAI just got approved...
#71
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 44
Hey genious, a large portion of the uber drivers are ex yellow cab drivers. Horrible comparison..Also, you losers who are talking trash against Norwegian, first try to fix your own airline problems at home..Last I checked, the regionals still pay crap and so do many other flying jobs in the U.S...
#72
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
Posts: 3,655
They are the most profitable (for now), and that is a good thing. But, let's not be hypocritical about how they got there. They wouldn't exist in many other parts of the world.
Perhaps the service gap will widen or close. Use that to tackle the problem, instead of crying foul.
As for me, I have 5 years in the airline industry, this year I'll average at least $15,000 after tax each month, working 12-14 days a month, have never earned less than $100,000 a year since my short stint as an instructor, and I never had to suffer the indignity of the US 'ladder climbing' in the hope of a livable job. So no, you won't hear me complaining.
But, thanks for bringing me into it.
NAI and its conditions suck. I wish the best for everyone in the industry, no more so than in the biggest aviation market in the world, the US. There may well be a global race to the bottom in progress, but it's going to be hard to stop on the basis of falsely claiming rules are being broken.
My point is that nothing illegal is going on with NAI. Rules vary between countries, and companies exploit where they can. If the US carriers could exploit loopholes elsewhere, they would. Stop crying foul and let the market speak. When it speaks, adapt to it.
Perhaps the service gap will widen or close. Use that to tackle the problem, instead of crying foul.
As for me, I have 5 years in the airline industry, this year I'll average at least $15,000 after tax each month, working 12-14 days a month, have never earned less than $100,000 a year since my short stint as an instructor, and I never had to suffer the indignity of the US 'ladder climbing' in the hope of a livable job. So no, you won't hear me complaining.
But, thanks for bringing me into it.
NAI and its conditions suck. I wish the best for everyone in the industry, no more so than in the biggest aviation market in the world, the US. There may well be a global race to the bottom in progress, but it's going to be hard to stop on the basis of falsely claiming rules are being broken.
My point is that nothing illegal is going on with NAI. Rules vary between countries, and companies exploit where they can. If the US carriers could exploit loopholes elsewhere, they would. Stop crying foul and let the market speak. When it speaks, adapt to it.
What you espouse will catch up to you eventually as well. For many years I knew pilots flying at ATLAS for 18 days on the road (every month) as 747 captains making less than a SWA 737 FO!
Nothing is static and the labor market won't suffer in a big event, it will be a generation of little cuts like this development that will really effect the future viability of pilot as a career.
#73
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
Posts: 3,655
Hey genious, a large portion of the uber drivers are ex yellow cab drivers. Horrible comparison..Also, you losers who are talking trash against Norwegian, first try to fix your own airline problems at home..Last I checked, the regionals still pay crap and so do many other flying jobs in the U.S...
So yes they are working on it.... now about this international cabotage Flag of Convenience operation NAI has set up. I'm really surprised the EU is so willing to allow one of their own countries to set up such a shell operation, but I guess if your Ireland, hey you get the taxes but don't have any responsibility of regulation, so for them it's a win-win.
#75
Do I think my contract is a product of market forces? Yes, I do. I don't live or work in the US. At this stage, I have the right to, though I have no desire to. Personal choice. I also have the right to live in the UK and New Zealand. I'm British by upbringing, and lived in the states (the greatest country in the world, apparently) for a few years.
My earnings have zero to do with generations of US legacy pilots doing the lifting. Sorry, but l have to remind that poster that there are other nations outside the four soon-to-be-walls of the US. I work in a country that has loose employment laws, for a company which is majority owned by a British family business conglomerate, and unions have limited power or effectiveness. So, yes, my contract is a product of market forces. For some, it's not enough to stay, and for others it is. The package will adjust accordingly. It certainly isn't driven by my esteemed piers in the US, nor has it anything to do with collective bargaining. I wish we had more collective bargaining procedures and laws to protect us, but we don't.
I'm not even pretending it's great. I enjoy it, I think I make a fair pay check, but it has its issues. I mentioned it, as I said, because of something inferred by another poster. Not to swing my gland around.
Back on topic - and for the avoidance of doubt - I'm hugely against what NAI are doing. My point is, they aren't breaking any rules. The rules suck, I agree, but it's pretty clear cut.
The contract? It's sh!te, but it's market forces at work. In Europe, there is currently a large glut of qualified pilots. Just like there was in the US a few short years ago. Now the roles are reversed. No need to go all 'tall poppy', but it's clearly a case of oversupply. This has happened on both sides of the pond.
When they run out of 787 candidates (and attrition kicks in, in earnest), they'll have to do something to react to the market.
I'm in no way dancing on the graves of the legacies in the US. I have the UTMOST respect for the guys there. Most have been through hell and back, and I'm delighted to see the contracts getting back in the right direction. Not a minute too soon, and not a penny too much.
My slight against them, was that they unfortunately can't compete at the moment. The overheads are high, the product isn't good, etc. Unfortunately, NAI can (quite legally) fill their (better) seats up with happy customers, feed them better food, and offer better service for far less. It sucks, but it's legal. Just like Starbucks and their tax fiasco. You know all of this. It's up to guys far above our pay grades to decide whether you tackle them and squeeze NAI out of the market by loss leading (which would be great, but cut into someone's bonus), drastically improve product to justify price (a slow and very expensive process), or alter the model to generate money in other markets. For example, the (rightly) protected domestic market.
Hopefully I've clarified my opinion on the subject. I apologise if I came across as bragging - I really wasn't, it's nothing to brag about, trust me. Nobody on the coal face of this industry makes what they should. I was merely countering a point. We're all professionals, and deserve professional cash, but globally, a lot stands in our way.
And the kicker? It's all legal.
Cheers fellas. I'll buy any one of you guys a few beers when you pass through HKG, and be delighted to chat with you about many things, including this. That way, perhaps what I say may be better understood than what I type. It'll be you Southern boys that'll need to speak slower for me!
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,545
Move over legacy incumbents. If someone can provide a service that is both better and cheaper, then they deserve to gain market share, even if it's at the expense of an old entrenched company.
Netflix did it to Blockbuster. Uber is doing it to taxi cab companies. Tesla is doing it to other automakers (particularly autodialers). I don't see the issue with NAI...
Netflix did it to Blockbuster. Uber is doing it to taxi cab companies. Tesla is doing it to other automakers (particularly autodialers). I don't see the issue with NAI...
#77
Move over legacy incumbents. If someone can provide a service that is both better and cheaper, then they deserve to gain market share, even if it's at the expense of an old entrenched company.
Netflix did it to Blockbuster. Uber is doing it to taxi cab companies. Tesla is doing it to other automakers (particularly autodialers). I don't see the issue with NAI...
Netflix did it to Blockbuster. Uber is doing it to taxi cab companies. Tesla is doing it to other automakers (particularly autodialers). I don't see the issue with NAI...
When the US airline senior managements started crying bloody murder about this and the ME carriers, they weren't doing it for the good of their crew. They did it because they can't compete, simple as that. The laws may suck, but they are adhered to.
There are no laws that say state-owned carriers can't operate into the US. There are no laws that say any carriers entering the US must be profitable by US accounting standards. Nor are there laws to stop lower paid crew operating into the US. Nor are there laws to stop NAI operating under the shonky model they've chosen.
If you operate globally, you have to accept variances in law. If you don't accept that, or can't compete, then there is proven profit to be made domestically.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post