|
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
(Post 2255881)
Funny how ALPA and mainline pilots get upset about this....Welcome to the regional hell you all helped create for your benefit. Sorry if I don't give a crap. These jobs will be filled by regional pilots you all crapped on for years.
|
Originally Posted by nedude
(Post 2255997)
nai has not violated the open skies treaty. | | | | | | | | | v 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 Right or wrong, no one here is interested in you defending flag-of-convenience in this forum. Stop it. |
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
(Post 2255931)
No, some of you mainline and ALPA national types just don't realize how little the regional guys care about this issue. We have been dealing with it for decades and nobody cared. Now everyone is in a tizzy because of low cost competition. Welcome to our world. When you want to treat us like partners instead of servants, then we can talk....Until then enjoy the competition...
The fact that you think the loss of mainline pilot jobs will not have a downward push on regional pilot QOL and pay is evidence of either your stupidity or your jealousy induced myopia. All of the bonuses, first year pay raises, commuter hotels, etc are BECAUSE the legacy carriers are hiring so many regional pilots away from the regionals. If the legacy carriers suffer and hiring slows, what do you think happens to all of that soft money? If you're at a regional for more than five years in this environment your either there by choice (nothing wrong with that) or you're unhirable by a legacy or LCC. Based on your pathological level of jealousy, I'm guessing you're not still there by choice. Either way, your refusal to accept that the NAI threat is a threat to ALL of our jobs is alarming. |
|
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 2255102)
If there's no strike, there are no picket lines to cross, therefore no scabs. Guy stuck at a regional wants to get out but Delta/AA/UA don't call, so I can see someone applying to NAI out of FLL for the 787 FO position. It does not mean he'd cross a picket line and scab.
To this day, there is still a controversy (among those of us old enough to remember) surrounding whether the New York Air pilots were scabs or not. They never crossed a picket line. But, they flew aircraft that had been taken from an ALPA carrier, resulting in the furlough of ALPA pilots, and which had been used to start a non-union "alter-ego" airline by the same management team that had furloughed those ALPA pilots at Texas International and Continental. And just like the forced CAL/TIA strike which led to the furloughs, NYA was formed at the perfect time, when many pilots were furloughed and/or otherwise unemployed; with ALPA carriers Braniff and Air New England already having shut down, most major airlines not hiring, and several with pilots on furlough. Those pilots were the equivalent of the regional pilots today that ShyGuy refers to. (And there were no "regional airlines" flying jets then, as we know them today. There were only small "commuter airlines" flying piston twins and small turboprops.) Frustrated by not getting a call from a legit major airline, they went for the first jet job that was available to them. |
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
(Post 2255913)
Not if we fly code share for foreign carriers who don't limit us and pay us more. Maybe it will, but it can't be any worse than what we have been dealing with ALPA should have formed partnerships with us. They didn't. They shunned us and treated us like crap. Karma is a *****. Welcome to what the regionals have been dealing with.
You think foreign carriers will pay you more? You already make more than their pilots. Lol@ the bitter regional lifer you are. |
Originally Posted by Packrat
(Post 2255106)
Know someone who had to come from Rome on short notice...NAI - $400, DAL - $2000. Guess who she chose?
Why would ANY passenger choose Delta (or any US based Legacy) when they put out a far inferior product while paying 5x the money? I wouldn't. Would you pay 5x the money to stay at a crappy, outdated hotel when you can get a much cheaper, nicer hotel with hotter maids and front dest clerks? I'm not saying that NAI has the right to circumvent labor laws but what I am saying is that the Legacy carriers should be doing something to adapt to ever changing market besides lobbying. I no loner have a fight in the regional world, but I do think it's ironic that ALPA is fighting to deny companies like NAI/Emirates while at the same time allowing regional ALPA carriers to continue to whipsaw each other to take concessionary contracts and lowering the bar in pay/QOL? It's a good time to be at a Legacy carrier.....for now. Meanwhile, LCC/ULCC carriers will continue to grow and gain market share. We will all be replaced by robots one day anyway.....So, in the meantime, invest wisely and enjoy your off days. |
Originally Posted by intrepidcv11
(Post 2256025)
My gawd this dude is still around. For some reason Joe hundreds of FO's you have flown with have moved on to better options. You on the other hand are a fine example of how not to manage an airline pilot career.
|
Originally Posted by obx41
(Post 2256055)
As a former regional guy myself I can say that your petulance and outright ignorance are an embarrassment and likely the reason that you've been unable to advance your career.
The fact that you think the loss of mainline pilot jobs will not have a downward push on regional pilot QOL and pay is evidence of either your stupidity or your jealousy induced myopia. All of the bonuses, first year pay raises, commuter hotels, etc are BECAUSE the legacy carriers are hiring so many regional pilots away from the regionals. If the legacy carriers suffer and hiring slows, what do you think happens to all of that soft money? If you're at a regional for more than five years in this environment your either there by choice (nothing wrong with that) or you're unhirable by a legacy or LCC. Based on your pathological level of jealousy, I'm guessing you're not still there by choice. Either way, your refusal to accept that the NAI threat is a threat to ALL of our jobs is alarming. |
Originally Posted by SayAlt
(Post 2256036)
|
| | | | | | | | v Right or wrong, no one here is interested in you defending flag-of-convenience in this forum. Stop it. The labour protections are spelled out in Article 17 bis. It specifically states that a company cannot use a provision of the treaty to reduce labour standards. So please, tell me which provision of the Open Skies treaty did they use? Has ALPA named the provision? I am also flabbergasted that anyone finds the argument that they are using flag of convenience to violate EU labour standards by using an AOC in an EU country that complies with EU laws and is a party to the Open Skies treaty, a sane argument. So please, for the love of God, tell me which provision of the Open Skies treaty did they use to violate Article 17 bis. And please tell me how they are getting around EU labour laws by using an EU based AOC in a country that complies with EU labour laws and is a party to the Open Skies treaty. |
Originally Posted by animation
(Post 2256175)
I think what Joe really means is that the business tactics NAI is using are not new to regional airline crewmembers because we're desensitized to the subject. It's always been a "race to the bottom". The cheap regionals get the bases and the equipment. I surely don't want anyone to lose their jobs.
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 2255992)
The EU don't go to bat to defend a fake flag of convenience airline that only exists to circumvent labor markets. If they want to sue let them. They need the "open skies" every bit as much as we do and no way will they fall on their swords protecting those scabs.
The EU most certainly did go to bat for NAI, by filing for independent arbitration, as called for in the Open Skies treaty, on behalf of NAI. It was this filing for arbitration that caused the US DOT to finally relent because, in their own words, there was no legal grounds to deny the approval. The DOT knew they would lose in arbitration because NOBODY has cited which provision NAI used to violate Article 17 bis of the Open Skies Treaty. If you know which provision they used, I am sure ALPA and the US DOT would love to know because they have yet to name it. I still want to know how anyone can argue that NAI is circumventing EU labour laws by sneakily registering in an EU country. |
Originally Posted by NEDude
(Post 2256195)
Wait, what?!
The EU most certainly did go to bat for NAI, by filing for independent arbitration, as called for in the Open Skies treaty, on behalf of NAI. It was this filing for arbitration that caused the US DOT to finally relent because, in their own words, there was no legal grounds to deny the approval. The DOT knew they would lose in arbitration because NOBODY has cited which provision NAI used to violate Article 17 bis of the Open Skies Treaty. If you know which provision they used, I am sure ALPA and the US DOT would love to know because they have yet to name it. I still want to know how anyone can argue that NAI is circumventing EU labour laws by sneakily registering in an EU country. As for "which provision" the entire scheme is set up to avoid labor markets. Why else would they be on foreign contracts? |
Lakerthem....
|
Originally Posted by NEDude
(Post 2255997)
On what legal grounds?!
NAI has not violated the Open Skies treaty. The treaty does not prevent a European company applying for an AOC in another European country. What everyone is confusing is that the labour provision in the Open Skies treaty (Article 17 bis) states that a carrier cannot use provisions of the treaty to undermine labour standards. So which provision of the treaty have they used to undermine labour standards? Please cite which provision exactly. |
|
Originally Posted by iceman49
(Post 2256216)
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 2256203)
And the USA, which is a sovereign nation, can easily say no. Their only remedy at that point would be to threaten to cut all US-EU flying. You think they'll do that to protect these scabs? HAHAHAHA! Not a chance.
As for "which provision" the entire scheme is set up to avoid labor markets. Why else would they be on foreign contracts? As for cutting off all US-EU flying to "protect these scabs" (seriously, where is the strike?), clearly they would not do that. But they certainly would begin a tit for tat reduction, perhaps reducing US rights to Heathrow as an example. So tell me, who benefits from an EU-US Open Skies war? And again, please tell me which provision of the Open Skies treaty did NAI use to violate Article 17 bis? You'd think if you were so sure that they did, it would be easy to cite which provision. |
Originally Posted by NYGiantsFan
(Post 2256214)
Since Bush signed this agreement for the US-EU treaty, Trump has the power to get out of the treaty with a stoke of a pen. Congress wasn't involved so Trump doesnt need congress. Alot of people think that this treaty can just stay and we have to follow the rules... we can get out of this treaty just as easy as they got in...
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2256222)
That's the good Norwegian, NAI is the bad one.
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2256222)
That's the good Norwegian, NAI is the bad one.
http://cde.cinescape.com.pe/ima/0/0/1/1/9/119255.jpg |
Originally Posted by NEDude
(Post 2256238)
And who do you think you would benefit from that? Kill the treaty and go back to what you had before and Heathrow becomes restricted to only American and United again. Delta has to head back out to Gatwick as they were before the treaty. You honestly think that would be good for business?
|
Originally Posted by NYGiantsFan
(Post 2256265)
Where you live NEDude? and all I said is that Trump can reverse it by stroke of a pen...
|
Originally Posted by NEDude
(Post 2256234)
The UK is still part of the EU. If your argument that The contracts are based in the UK (which they are - Ipswich, UK to be exact) but the airline is in Ireland, and that is the reason they should be denied, then you lose on the principle of precedent. Brussels Airlines has DOT approval yet hires pilots on Contracts based in the UK. WOW Airlines has DOT approval and yet despite being an Icelandic airline, hires pilots on contracts with agencies based in the UAE, Isle of Man, and Germany. Even further they use a subcontract Lithuanian airline to do some of their flying which uses contracts based out of Cyprus and Malta.
As for cutting off all US-EU flying to "protect these scabs" (seriously, where is the strike?), clearly they would not do that. But they certainly would begin a tit for tat reduction, perhaps reducing US rights to Heathrow as an example. So tell me, who benefits from an EU-US Open Skies war? And again, please tell me which provision of the Open Skies treaty did NAI use to violate Article 17 bis? You'd think if you were so sure that they did, it would be easy to cite which provision. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable on this and not biased. In your opinion is this going to crush US airlines like we've been led to believe? |
Originally Posted by mainlineAF
(Post 2256289)
You seem to be pretty knowledgeable on this and not biased. In your opinion is this going to crush US airlines like we've been led to believe?
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2256302)
It will be the Southwest effect, but this time on the international market.
Hopefully our airlines can adapt to the changing times and be proactive. Whether that be the ME3, NAI or whatever pops up next. Our careers depend on it. |
Originally Posted by NYGiantsFan
(Post 2256265)
Where you live NEDude? and all I said is that Trump can reverse it by stroke of a pen...
|
Originally Posted by mainlineAF
(Post 2256315)
Hopefully our airlines can adapt to the changing times and be proactive. Whether that be the ME3, NAI or whatever pops up next. Our careers depend on it.
|
Originally Posted by mainlineAF
(Post 2256289)
You seem to be pretty knowledgeable on this and not biased. In your opinion is this going to crush US airlines like we've been led to believe?
|
Originally Posted by NEDude
(Post 2256364)
Absolutely not. I think it overblown hype by the US legacy airlines and ALPA. If you have been around long enough you have heard this refrain before. JetBlue was going to destroy the legacy airlines and drive down wages. Virgin America was a major threat as well, so much so that ALPA went to court in an attempt to prevent them from operating (http://www.airlineinfo.com/ostpdf64/569.pdf). Now both JetBlue and Virgin America are part of the ALPA fold. Neither killed the legacy airlines despite the pronouncements that they would. This is just another example of this. Even if Norwegian grows to their fully projected size, they will still be a drop in the bucket of the transatlantic traffic.
That's good to hear. Guys (me included) get so worked up and emotional about this because we have so much to lose. Appreciate your insight from the other side of the world. |
|
Originally Posted by NEDude
(Post 2256364)
Absolutely not. I think it overblown hype by the US legacy airlines and ALPA. If you have been around long enough you have heard this refrain before. JetBlue was going to destroy the legacy airlines and drive down wages. Virgin America was a major threat as well, so much so that ALPA went to court in an attempt to prevent them from operating (http://www.airlineinfo.com/ostpdf64/569.pdf). Now both JetBlue and Virgin America are part of the ALPA fold. Neither killed the legacy airlines despite the pronouncements that they would. This is just another example of this. Even if Norwegian grows to their fully projected size, they will still be a drop in the bucket of the transatlantic traffic.
Soon there will be self driving cars, then self flying aircraft, machine learning will kill most of the jobs in this country. The current regulations do not allow a 121 aircraft with less than two pilots be certified, FoC removes that requirement. That's our only protection, as this technology is available today, not in the future. |
Originally Posted by Csy Mon
(Post 2256383)
Why on earth would anyone want to quit a US legacy airline for NAI???? :confused: |
Originally Posted by NEDude
(Post 2256341)
I live in the EU. That is as specific as I will get.
I was just wondering... so I understand now why you think the way you do. |
Originally Posted by Tomhawker
(Post 2256063)
Point of note. His post isn't necessarily a demonstration of an ad hominem fallacy. He referenced future statements made, not an arbitrary negative quality. All ad hominem isn't fallacious. That gets misused a lot on forums.
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2256384)
FoC allows aircraft manufactures to explore other options, such as machine learning, and other drone technologies. I've said before on here, machine learning, and FoC is the death of the pilot profession. Today we have this
Soon there will be self driving cars, then self flying aircraft, machine learning will kill most of the jobs in this country. The current regulations do not allow a 121 aircraft with less than two pilots be certified, FoC removes that requirement. That's our only protection, as this technology is available today, not in the future. I agree with you. However, getting on a plane with no pilot will be a bridge to far for some people. After the German wings incident I'd say a plane with two pilots will be required for a while. AI will be able to replace us, but I'd give it 20-30 years before we need to worry about it. Now if I were a truck driver I'd be cr@piping my pants right now. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2256384)
Soon there will be self driving cars, then self flying aircraft, machine learning will kill most of the jobs in this country.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EQNQqwFK-OM |
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
(Post 2256539)
Here is a link to a company that is replacing legal clerks with AI. http://www.rossintelligence.com Here is video of a fully autonomous Tesla today. https://youtu.be/C3DbrYx-SN4 Experts give it about 20 years until AI is smarter than us. Here is a great article about it. Mind bending stuff. http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:54 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands