NOT Good!

[Propilot]

I understand the sentiment that, on a moral level, one shouldn't be able to condemn outsourcing American jobs while hailing or even being nonchalant about other countries doing to same towards us (ie, Delta flying inter Asia routes).

There are two issues with this sentiment.


1) Not much we can do about other countries end of it --- We are Americans, we really can't do much about other countries laws. While perhaps we should be more vocal in supporting the end of open skies both ways, I think we can all understand why it is easier to be concerned when it negatively impacts us. Also, it really is up to those countries respective citizens to fight for change, I don't expect anyone to become an international lobbyist. It is our responsibility to fight open skies here in the U.S.

2)Regardless of how you feel, it is not good for American pilots ---- Irrespective of how you feel about the issue, most with open eyes should not be hard pressed to realize that Open Skies allows U.S. carriers to get around SCOPE. As if this Irish deal wasn't bad enough in itself, consider the slippery slope argument...where does it stop? Perhaps in a few years, the legacy carriers will be nothing but a name brand, a booking agency.



Globalization of jobs can be great for business. But competing with the international work force is not something the American worker should feel good about.

Good luck to us all, for we will surely need it.

 

[mrivc211]

Again as I said above, currently there are American 747/777/A330 pilots flying to and from Asian cities. It doesn't matter under what regulations these flight s are operated, the fact is there are US pilots flying what could be flown by the countries respective pilots. It's not fair to be outraged at what might happen here when we are already doing the same thing to other foreign countries and airlines. You can't have it both ways.

You just don't get it do you? My friend you needs to get edumacated in this biz and fast. That is if you wanna have a career that will pay the bills.

 

[Polar742]

Fly8slep:

You are not well versed in history. 5th freedom out of Japan is a long running historical right that was given many years ago...currently Northwest (now to be inherited by Delta) and United only have 5th freedom rights. This is a restricted amount of slots that must be fully utilized or they are forever forfeited.



Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

A couple cargo airlines, one of which pays my bills, also has 5th freedom rights.

But you are ABSOLUTELY correct about the limited number. And the Japanese are VERY zealous about making sure EVERYONE complies with the law. I know one company that tried to substitute one of the other subsidiary's airplanes for the one that had landing rights.

The first time they were fined. The second time the Japanese shackled the nosegear to the pavement for, I think, 6 days. The included a warning that if it happened again, the airplane would be returned in containers.

Needless to say, when we flew an airplane operated in said paint, the Japanese police and aviaiton authorities met the plane on the taxi in, and there took a lot of explaining.

 

[Velocipede]

I'm beginning to think that fly8slep, jhugz, and aloft are all the same guy. They all make the same inane arguments.

You may be onto something there.

In my short time in the 121 world here is what I've learned...

# 1 "No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood"

and

# 2 For those who understand no explanation is needed, and for those who don't understand, no explanation is possible.

Amen, bro, amen. This is exactly why every Union pilot needs to stop gratutiously giving non-Union pilots access to Union negotiated benefits.

You are not well versed in history....Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it."

2)Regardless of how you feel, it is not good for American pilots ---- Irrespective of how you feel about the issue, most with open eyes should not be hard pressed to realize that Open Skies allows U.S. carriers to get around SCOPE. As if this Irish deal wasn't bad enough in itself, consider the slippery slope argument...where does it stop? Perhaps in a few years, the legacy carriers will be nothing but a name brand, a booking agency.

It amazes me how many people don't appreciate the wisdom of what you've just said.

Globalization of jobs can be great for business. But competing with the international work force is not something the American worker should feel good about.

Unless, of course, you WANT American labor reduced to the status of a 3rd world country. As you so aptly point out, that is only good for the corporate bottom line. However, they seem to forget that without decent wage jobs, they lose the consumer of their product.

You just don't get it do you? My friend you needs to get edumacated in this biz and fast. That is if you wanna have a career that will pay the bills.

We actually had a VP who would tell his F/Os that $100K a year was plenty for an airline pilot because it was such a great job. Of course as VP of Ops HE was making $350k a year plus stock options.

 

[OldTownPilot]

Whats the difference between this and DL flying PHL-CDG on a revenue sharing agreement with Air France?

If It was Iberia instead of Aer Lingus would it be any more kosher?

There isn't any alter ego seniority list being created as far as I can see.

International revenue sharing agreements have been around since the early 90's when NW and KLM hooked up. I don't see anything that is different than that.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

You must have missed the part where Aer Lingus isn't using their own pilots, but creating a new seniority list of non-union pilots to handle this route.

 

[OldTownPilot]

Which article was that?

The article in reply #9 says that they won't be UA crew, which makes sense, as it is an Aer Lingus airplane

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

From the ALPA FastRead:

"The day after reporting one of its worst quarterly financial results in history and after furloughing an additional 254 pilots (bringing the total to 606 pilots), United Airlines announced today that it has entered into what it calls an 'innovative' partnership with Aer Lingus," said Capt. Steve Wallach, United MEC chairman, in a press release distributed yesterday.

"Aer Lingus has advised the Irish press that this joint venture will operate an Aer Lingus aircraft with neither United nor Aer Lingus employees, under a separate operating certificate and under newly established wages and working conditions. Obviously, this partnership will be accomplished at the expense of United's and Aer Lingus's own pilots and other employees.

"This development, where United attempts to establish an airline operation without the use of United aircraft or employees, is nothing less than the outsourcing of jobs to an international company and clearly demonstrates that this management continues to make business decisions without regard to its pilots and other employees.

"The United pilots are exploring every option to put an end to the company's blatant disregard for and lack of loyalty to the United Airlines brand," concluded Wallach.

 

[OldTownPilot]

Don't get the fastread so I was basing that from the press releases that have been in the news that only referenced the UAL crews. With that considered, I'll agree with you that it's not cool. Of course that is Aer Lingus' scope problem, not United's. (unless they go back on the LH and CAL deal and the rest of the Star Alliance, which a lot of people would not complain about).

It was a matter of time before we got some weird ass codeshare deal with the EU open skies.

 

[fly8slep]

will operate an Aer Lingus aircraft with neither United nor Aer Lingus employees, under a separate operating certificate .

Why would an Aer Lingus aircraft be operated by United crews......

The way I look at this thread, it seems like those flights we do in Asia are ok because there are no unions to fight them and they've been going on for a long long time. But this openskies agreement is not OK since this time, this will affect our backyard. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just seemed like a lot of the guys where outraged at this when we are doing the same thing abroad. But it seems like as usual, the illogical prevail under the guidance of ALPA.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Why would an Aer Lingus aircraft be operated by United crews......

The flying shouldn't be outsourced to Aer Lingus in the first place. It's being operated with UA code, so it should be a UAL crew in a UAL airplane. But it gets even worse, since the flying is being outsourced to another airline, Aer Lingus, but even that airline is outsourcing it again to a new subsidiary under a different operating certificate with non-union crews. It's a double-outsourced, union-busting venture.

The way I look at this thread, it seems like those flights we do in Asia are ok because there are no unions to fight them and they've been going on for a long long time.

If pilots in other countries don't want to fight something, then that's their business. I can't force another man to stick up for himself. When they do want to stick up for themselves, I'll be standing right there beside them to offer whatever help I can.

 

[ClearedToThe]

Yeah maybe Teamsters is the answer...

Fly:
You seem to keep blissfully burying your head in the sand to the fact that US airlines are not the only airlines operating flights abroad... See my post re: Malaysian. So please don't make it sound like the asian carriers are the victim here and are "oh so holy".

 

[kellwolf]

Why would an Aer Lingus aircraft be operated by United crews......

But it should be operated by Aer Lingus crews. It's not even getting that.


Basically, here's what I see happening. United sees a market where they can make money. Instead of using their planes and pilots to make money, they actively seek a partner in the deal to go with cheaper labor. They partner up with Aer Lingus and take it even one more step further by starting another list with off the street pilots rather than existing Aer Lingus pilots.

If it were just a codeshare, I'd have zero problem with it. It looks like a whole new start up airline, though, using United and Aer Lingus to draw money from. Another danger on this one is United going to its pilots saying they're in the poor house and need concessions/furloughs/downgrades/etc while they make $$$ hand over fist off the Aer Lingus deal. Aer Lingus could possibly even do the same with their pilots.

 

[Minuteman]

I guess it's worth mentioning that Ryanair owns 29.4% of Aer Lingus (the Irish government owns another 25.4%).

 

[fly8slep]

Basically, here's what I see happening. United sees a market where they can make money. Instead of using their planes and pilots to make money, they actively seek a partner in the deal to go with cheaper labor. They partner up with Aer Lingus and take it even one more step further by starting another list with off the street pilots rather than existing Aer Lingus pilots.

I don't know, I just don't see the conspiracy theory. It's a codeshare for UA but a startup for AerLingus. This is AerLingus pilot's problem. AL is obviously in trouble and they're trying to get creative. They see, not UA, that they can succeed in this new venture but need some sort of support in the U.S. UA has no interested in this route otherwise they would have already started their own ops. For some extra cash they're providing customers. If IAD to MAD was already a UA route, then I would understand. This is all speculation and it's still way too early. Seems like people are viewing this as a United Airlines startup when it's an AerLingus startup and UA is just providing customers and support with codesharing.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

This is AerLingus pilot's problem.

"When one pilot has a problem, all pilots have a problem." - Captain John Prater

UA has no interested in this route otherwise they would have already started their own ops.

If UAL had no interest in the route, then they wouldn't be code sharing for it. No, they're interested in the route, they just want to do it cheaper by outsourcing it. The UA code will be affixed to the route.

UA is just providing customers and support with codesharing.

Providing customers? That's called selling tickets, and it means that UAL does have an interest in the route. Do you not understand what a code share is? :banghead:

 

[fly8slep]

No, they're interested in the route, they just want to do it cheaper by outsourcing it.

So you're saying UA doesn't have an extra 75 or 76 and a few guys to fly IAD to MAD, if they were so interested that they would help with a startup? Not even for a month? To see how it goes? I don't buy it.

 

[N826AW]

It will be interesting to see what grows from this. You don't need 3 '330s to fly IAD-MAD.

Edit: Let's hope nothing grows from this. Just wanted to add that clarification.

 

[mikecweb]

So you're saying UA doesn't have an extra 75 or 76 and a few guys to fly IAD to MAD, if they were so interested that they would help with a startup? Not even for a month? To see how it goes? I don't buy it.

We're getting closer. Why would they use their plane, then they'd have to pay union pilots a negotiated wage.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

So you're saying UA doesn't have an extra 75 or 76 and a few guys to fly IAD to MAD, if they were so interested that they would help with a startup? Not even for a month? To see how it goes? I don't buy it.

We're getting closer. Why would they use their plane, then they'd have to pay union pilots a negotiated wage.

:yeahthat: It ain't too often that mikecweb comes along and backs me up, but the guy is absolutely right. It seems that you don't understand the whole allure of outsourcing, fly8slep.