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.

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.

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.

You think foreign carriers will pay you more? You already make more than their pilots. Lol@ the bitter regional lifer you are.

Easy choice.
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.

He's too god for Delta, remember? No interest. He'd rather be bitter.

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.

I don't really care if you like it or not.

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.

You and nearly every other rational pilot feels the way you've described. I get that. However Joe is clearly basking in the idea that this could lead to job losses. He has a personal vendetta and the idea job losses at the legacies delights him.

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.