Deny NAI failed, given final approval by DOT
12-04-2016, 09:39 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Position: B777 CA
Posts: 736
UAL NYC ALPA Council 5 update on NAI,
Ladies and Gentlemen of Council 5,
By now, most of you know that the Obama Department of Transportation (DOT) has approved Norwegian Air Internationals (NAI) application for an air carrier permit. We are appalled by this decision and will do everything in our power to reverse it. An accurate assessment of the situation is in the Dec 2nd MEC Master Chairman update (see attached).
The NAI Flag of convenience scheme violates the U.S. / E.U. Open Skies agreement, in that, it completely ignores the labor protections spelled out in it. Oddly, the European Commission (executive body of the E.U. responsible for upholding treaties) approved NAI's application three years ago. NAI is a European carrier, which may put some money in its European owners' pockets, but it will not create the jobs as promised.
The sales pitch of how NAI will create jobs on both sides of the Atlantic is a complete sham. Sure, a handful airport jobs might be created, but in the long run this scheme sets the stage for an offshoring of the entire American aviation industry. It is analogous to saying that jobs were created in the U.S. maritime industry just because someone was hired to clean the docks and turn off the lights after the last ships sailed away, permanently.
Our UPA scope provisions currently prohibit United Airlines from planting a Flag outside the U.S. however; the approval of NAI has set up a destructive precedent. We expect dozens of similar applications to be submitted, eventually forcing every U.S. carrier to follow suit. The President of the United States can disapprove the DOTs decision within 60 days. While it was the Obama administration that approved this ruling, despite labor's objections, our Union will vigorously lobby the incoming Trump administration to right this wrong. Be assured, your leadership will be working with our Legislative Affairs Committee and ALPA-International to reverse this absurd ruling. If we were in charge, we would immediately begin picketing at both the White House and Trump Tower to seek help.
Please stay tuned in the days and weeks ahead on this issue, and be prepared to act.
Fraternally,
Glenn, Mark, and Phil
Ladies and Gentlemen of Council 5,
By now, most of you know that the Obama Department of Transportation (DOT) has approved Norwegian Air Internationals (NAI) application for an air carrier permit. We are appalled by this decision and will do everything in our power to reverse it. An accurate assessment of the situation is in the Dec 2nd MEC Master Chairman update (see attached).
The NAI Flag of convenience scheme violates the U.S. / E.U. Open Skies agreement, in that, it completely ignores the labor protections spelled out in it. Oddly, the European Commission (executive body of the E.U. responsible for upholding treaties) approved NAI's application three years ago. NAI is a European carrier, which may put some money in its European owners' pockets, but it will not create the jobs as promised.
The sales pitch of how NAI will create jobs on both sides of the Atlantic is a complete sham. Sure, a handful airport jobs might be created, but in the long run this scheme sets the stage for an offshoring of the entire American aviation industry. It is analogous to saying that jobs were created in the U.S. maritime industry just because someone was hired to clean the docks and turn off the lights after the last ships sailed away, permanently.
Our UPA scope provisions currently prohibit United Airlines from planting a Flag outside the U.S. however; the approval of NAI has set up a destructive precedent. We expect dozens of similar applications to be submitted, eventually forcing every U.S. carrier to follow suit. The President of the United States can disapprove the DOTs decision within 60 days. While it was the Obama administration that approved this ruling, despite labor's objections, our Union will vigorously lobby the incoming Trump administration to right this wrong. Be assured, your leadership will be working with our Legislative Affairs Committee and ALPA-International to reverse this absurd ruling. If we were in charge, we would immediately begin picketing at both the White House and Trump Tower to seek help.
Please stay tuned in the days and weeks ahead on this issue, and be prepared to act.
Fraternally,
Glenn, Mark, and Phil
12-04-2016, 10:22 AM
#112
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by typeunkwn
Looking through your post history, I'd say you are the least likely to be able to understand economics. You are a bumbling fool and should focus on getting from 250tt to 500tt
12-04-2016, 10:23 AM
#113
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by Nantonaku
This isn't a reason to stop the fight for fair competition. America is a huge aviation market, you want to fly to America? Then play by the same rules as American airlines, no government subsidies, no shady out sourcing international agencies. If you just sit back and relax then you almost guarantee that America won't be able to compete in their own market. Why would you sit back on this? It is fight worth fighting.
However, it is important to fight as an informed body. We know what the result of arbitration would be. As a result, what is our backup plan? If it were up to me, my backup plan would be a strengthening of the domestic networks and shrinking of the regional airline industry. Look what has happened while the major carriers have ignored domestic routes. Southwest became the largest volume domestic carrier, Spirit, Frontier, Virgin America, JetBlue all have come into a space that the major carriers have ceded to them.
The United States is a geographically vast country which necessitates domestic air travel, which is easiest to protect from foreign competition (cabotage). Long ago I planned to fly at a 121 operator. If that were still my mindset, I would be looking at Southwest above any legacy carrier. They are most insulated from foreign competition.
Now, look at the legacy carriers. They are making record profits. Instead of reinvesting those profits in the company (New Aircraft, Infrastructure Improvements, etc.) they are rewarding their shareholders (a short-term reward) with a share buyback (Delta Airlines alone is spending 5 billion to buy back shares). Now, this is great news if you own shares of Delta. However, if you are employed by Delta (just using Delta as an example) you may be asking "Why do I care what Delta's STOCK price is?" Would you rather have a company that is better positioned to compete on a global level going forward or would you rather have the stock price end the 4th quarter up an additional 3%?
Dividends and stock repurchase programs do not help your carrier compete globally. Capital expenditures do.
The use of Maritime analogies are interesting. Again I'd ask individuals to read about the Jones Act, which was designed to be a protectionist policy that has had little positive effect on the domestic maritime industry.
Rather than flinging arguments about Clinton and/or Trump back and forth lets learn some facts and lets come up with actionable plans. Again, I admire the fight to keep out NAI. Keeping them out as long as possible will be a benefit to our industry. Please understand that it is not a long term solution as it is an inevitability that operators like NAI will continue to come to the United States so long as markets exist to support them. That is the "problem" with living in a free-market capitalistic society. However, with the alternative being something like Aeroflot, I think I'm happy to be here.
12-04-2016, 11:44 AM
#115
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by DFWAviatior
Of course he gets it. How can anyone logically claim that a pilot flying for NAI is a scab and should be denied a jump seat when regional pilots are allowed on that same jump seat?
I am a corporate pilot, and I fly to and from my aircraft several times a month to get home for days off etc. I have flown from city pairs on mainline 737's and the same exact city pairs on 175's. You mainline pilots do realize that these regional pilots are flying routes that should be mainline routes and both regional pilots are likely getting combined pay of less than what the 737 FO makes?
If you want to know what your greatest threat is...it is regional carriers and LCCs. Cabotage prevents foreign carriers from encroaching on your domestic routes. Those are the routes your unions should have fought to the bitter end to protect. Alas, what is done is done.
Now, I am certainly not advocating denying regional pilots a jump seat. I'm simply trying to illustrate a point.
Now lets talk about protectionism and capitalism. I have flown on foreign carriers (Korean Air, Emirates, Qatar) on international routes. The equipment was better, the service was better, and the cost of my tickets were always around 30% less expensive than US based carriers.
Lets say the next administration or the one after that kicks out all of these carriers (which won't happen). How do you think the flying public will react to suddenly having to pay significantly higher fares? Fares that would then face even higher price pressure as there is less competition to keep prices in check (The answer: The public WILL NOT like it)?
Now, guess what population in the United States is a larger group: Those that fly in the back of airplanes or those that fly in the front of them? The politicians will try to appeal to the largest of these groups, and the flying public by far outnumbers those employed by the airline industry.
You may think that I am pro NAI, but I am not. If it were up to me, I'd love the United States to have a strong airline industry with no competition from foreign carriers. I'd love mainline crews to make 500k+ per year too. The reality is globalization happens...and funny enough it is the prevalence of rapid transport across the globe (aircraft!) that has been one of the key components of the increase in globalization.
If you drive a car, you are participating in globalization (even a ford or a chevy, as I've flown parts from Mexico and Canada to Ford and Chevy plants). If you fly an Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, and even a Boeing, a lot of your components come from abroad. Thanks for helping crush the US aerospace components and manufacturing industry!
Do you wear clothes? Literally any article of clothing at all? Thanks for destroying that industry too!
Have you shopped at Walmart? Do you put gas in your car? Do you drink almost any brand of Vodka? Tequila? Scotch?
Our industry has so far been relatively insulated from globalization. Being prepared for a shift is smart. Clumsy arguments are not.
I am a corporate pilot, and I fly to and from my aircraft several times a month to get home for days off etc. I have flown from city pairs on mainline 737's and the same exact city pairs on 175's. You mainline pilots do realize that these regional pilots are flying routes that should be mainline routes and both regional pilots are likely getting combined pay of less than what the 737 FO makes?
If you want to know what your greatest threat is...it is regional carriers and LCCs. Cabotage prevents foreign carriers from encroaching on your domestic routes. Those are the routes your unions should have fought to the bitter end to protect. Alas, what is done is done.
Now, I am certainly not advocating denying regional pilots a jump seat. I'm simply trying to illustrate a point.
Now lets talk about protectionism and capitalism. I have flown on foreign carriers (Korean Air, Emirates, Qatar) on international routes. The equipment was better, the service was better, and the cost of my tickets were always around 30% less expensive than US based carriers.
Lets say the next administration or the one after that kicks out all of these carriers (which won't happen). How do you think the flying public will react to suddenly having to pay significantly higher fares? Fares that would then face even higher price pressure as there is less competition to keep prices in check (The answer: The public WILL NOT like it)?
Now, guess what population in the United States is a larger group: Those that fly in the back of airplanes or those that fly in the front of them? The politicians will try to appeal to the largest of these groups, and the flying public by far outnumbers those employed by the airline industry.
You may think that I am pro NAI, but I am not. If it were up to me, I'd love the United States to have a strong airline industry with no competition from foreign carriers. I'd love mainline crews to make 500k+ per year too. The reality is globalization happens...and funny enough it is the prevalence of rapid transport across the globe (aircraft!) that has been one of the key components of the increase in globalization.
If you drive a car, you are participating in globalization (even a ford or a chevy, as I've flown parts from Mexico and Canada to Ford and Chevy plants). If you fly an Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, and even a Boeing, a lot of your components come from abroad. Thanks for helping crush the US aerospace components and manufacturing industry!
Do you wear clothes? Literally any article of clothing at all? Thanks for destroying that industry too!
Have you shopped at Walmart? Do you put gas in your car? Do you drink almost any brand of Vodka? Tequila? Scotch?
Our industry has so far been relatively insulated from globalization. Being prepared for a shift is smart. Clumsy arguments are not.
Globalization was a political choice we made. It hasn't worked, unless you were already rich. Time to roll it back.
Last edited by PasserOGas; 12-04-2016 at 12:15 PM.
12-04-2016, 12:45 PM
#116
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by PasserOGas
Globalization makes the argument that it's better for comsumers. Lower prices help the public! The problem is when applied to the whole economy the comsumer base dries up as all thier jobs are shipped overseas. Economists would say new jobs will form in response. That hasn't happened.
As lower level more simple jobs gets outsourced, that frees up resources to work on other higher level things.
The CEO of a small business might take out his own trash. However when the company grows he probably ends up paying someone else to do it because his time is more valuable. Countries are the same way.
When lower level tasks can be done more efficiently, they will be, market forces demand it.
12-04-2016, 01:43 PM
#120
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
This NAI thing gets crushed by the new Admin. Then, it will be vetted thoroughly and once the actual practices (jumping loopholes) of NAI come to light, NAI will have 2 options:
1)fold
2)comply
My vote is on option 2. That's it, nothing more.
1)fold
2)comply
My vote is on option 2. That's it, nothing more.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
