Norwegian Deny NAI / now DOT-approved

[Seggy]

The flip side is to look at how many more jobs were created. I offer that transportation sector jobs have increased to the point of a rather large domestic truck driver shortage (I saw a stat of a 240,000 trucker shortage by 2020... these are $100K/year jobs for hard work. Compare that to this "airline pilot shortage" of about 2,000 new hires at the majors per year). On the rail side, there's a reason why Warren Buffet, the Sage from Omaha, bought BNSF (a business as unionized as any airline) in 2009. I offer that the domestic transportation sector's economic gains have far eclipsed the losses specific to the merchant marine sector. Here's the changes in truck tonnage:


View attachment 37129
(source: http://www.roadscholar.com/investigative-report-2016-trucking-industry-forecastexpectations/)

Here's where I think we do Americans wrong: we don't help those hurt by industry shifts reposition themselves into growth sectors. As an example: coal miners can't magically become solar panel install technicians overnight without some type of help.

US Airlines account for more than 10 million jobs and 5% of the GDP. They aren't a small work force or a small part of the GDP and they are already creating jobs. With one airplane coming on property at a large legacy carrier it creates probably close to 50 new jobs with flight crew, mechanics, crew schedulers, etc. If an airline like NAI gets a new airplane they can off shore that work.

From a national security perspective, I believe trade to be a very stabilizing force. The threat country I am most worried about is North Korea -one who has chosen to not be part of a globalized system of trade and information. But what do I know? I'm only a national security professional tasked to take a strategic view of the world and then position my organization accordingly.

The Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Do we want a carrier flagged in another country flying around our troops?

 

[Seggy]

Realistically, can this be battle be fought and won?

Yes.

There are small battles being won in the war, like Brexit. But I think ultimately globalization is going to happen. When and how soon? Who knows. Too much transfer of wealth to be made off the common man for the oligarchs, in a globalized society. This is more evidenced IMO by the cost of education continuing to rise. The cost of living rising, and salaries going down not up to match. And also the slow but assured death of the middle class. Unfortunately I think that this is inevitable.

Once again, it all comes down to money and engagement. There are 24,000 pilots at United and Delta combined. If everyone at those airlines gave $1000.00 a year to the ALPA PAC, not including the donations from those at other airlines, we would be by far the largest hard money PACs out there. That doesn't even include those donations from other airlines. Then, we need a higher percentage of engagement on these issues from the members. That is one of the reasons why the NRA has been so successful, member engagement.

 

[Gonzo]

@Seggy Yet the ALPA PAC will not take my money. Just saying, I have talked to Zack and was told I can't give as a past ALPA member.

 

[amorris311]

@Seggy Yet the ALPA PAC will not take my money. Just saying, I have talked to Zack and was told I can't give as a past ALPA member.

That is a problem I agree. I just flew with a guy who is about to retire and contributes. He was asking how he can continue contributing once he's out. I didn't have an answer but there has got to be a way for ALPA members past to contribute.

 

[Gonzo]

That is a problem I agree. I just flew with a guy who is about to retire and contributes. He was asking how he can continue contributing once he's out. I didn't have an answer but there has got to be a way for ALPA members past to contribute.

Zack said they aren't allowed to take money from past members that had given money in the past. It is a messed up system.

 

[hook_dupin]

US Airlines account for more than 10 million jobs and 5% of the GDP. They aren't a small work force or a small part of the GDP and they are already creating jobs. With one airplane coming on property at a large legacy carrier it creates probably close to 50 new jobs with flight crew, mechanics, crew schedulers, etc. If an airline like NAI gets a new airplane they can off shore that work.

It sounds as if this is an argument against any foreign flagged carrier landing at a US port of entry.

Separately, you've got the facts wrong. Or at least not interpreted correctly.

Those 10M jobs and 5% of GDP are those that are "commercial aviation dependent" and not "US Airlines." Most of those jobs are domestic, not directly employed by a large carrier, and not even related to the international travel segment.

I'm sure my source is the same as yours:

My argument is that international LCCs will increase the number of jobs and economic production of US aviation just as changes to international shipping have led to dramatic gains in the American transport sector. The Brookings Institute believes that Open Skies agreements generated at least $4 billion in passenger savings.

When it gets down to brass tacks, I believe this whole "Deny NAI" campaign is really about US carriers who are locked into wide-body aircraft and an expensive hub structure for their international service. The emergence of the international LCC is poised to upset that.

The Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Do we want a carrier flagged in another country flying around our troops?

Nobody from TRANSCOM got up and said "Don't do this...we're concerned about aircraft in the CRAF!"

If anything, the current feeling in the defense logistics world is that CRAF is outdated. We've only ever used it twice. At the same time, the DoD has essentially fed an entire sub-set of the industry dedicated to contract airlift that operates through service contracts vice CRAF activation. I think there will be major changes to how CRAF operates now that "continuous conflict" is the posture vice "train and mobilize." From what I've seen, TRANSCOM is most concerned with the segment of the industry that focused on DoD contracts that is now shrinking due to reduced commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. CRAF is treated essentially as "selective service for airplanes." The real airlift work goes to firms we've contracted to do it, and the decline of those contracts is a real concern.

 

[Seggy]

It sounds as if this is an argument against any foreign flagged carrier landing at a US port of entry.

No it isn't.

Separately, you've got the facts wrong. Or at least not interpreted correctly.

Those 10M jobs and 5% of GDP are those that are "commercial aviation dependent" and not "US Airlines." Most of those jobs are domestic, not directly employed by a large carrier, and not even related to the international travel segment.

I'm sure my source is the same as yours:
View attachment 37153

No, you interpreted what I said wrong. You want a strong US Airline segment so that portion of the GDP is buoyed by these airlines.

My argument is that international LCCs will increase the number of jobs and economic production of US aviation just as changes to international shipping have led to dramatic gains in the American transport sector. The Brookings Institute believes that Open Skies agreements generated at least $4 billion in passenger savings.

When it gets down to brass tacks, I believe this whole "Deny NAI" campaign is really about US carriers who are locked into wide-body aircraft and an expensive hub structure for their international service. The emergence of the international LCC is poised to upset that.

This is about the scheme and it's threat. International LCC is nothing new, most have failed, miserably as a matter of fact. Why did Laker Airways and People's Express Fail? Even higher end International Carriers have failed. Look at MaxJet, EOS, SilverJet, and the last La Compagnie was just merged. Why did all of these carriers fail. Will NAI be different? History doesn't give it a chance, but once again, it isn't about that. It is about the scheme. You can't tell me with a straight face that these loss of jobs in the marine industry is good for anyone.

Nobody from TRANSCOM got up and said "Don't do this...we're concerned about aircraft in the CRAF!"

If anything, the current feeling in the defense logistics world is that CRAF is outdated. We've only ever used it twice. At the same time, the DoD has essentially fed an entire sub-set of the industry dedicated to contract airlift that operates through service contracts vice CRAF activation. I think there will be major changes to how CRAF operates now that "continuous conflict" is the posture vice "train and mobilize." From what I've seen, TRANSCOM is most concerned with the segment of the industry that focused on DoD contracts that is now shrinking due to reduced commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. CRAF is treated essentially as "selective service for airplanes." The real airlift work goes to firms we've contracted to do it, and the decline of those contracts is a real concern.

Doesn't matter if you feel it is outdated, it is a real concern, unless you want foreign flagged airlines to be responsible to transport our troops in time of need. Even without CRAF US Flagged Airlines do a ton of AMC Charter work.

 

[Seggy]

@Seggy Yet the ALPA PAC will not take my money. Just saying, I have talked to Zack and was told I can't give as a past ALPA member.

Yes, I completely agree. It is a problem and I wish it would be corrected. Thank you for your willingness to support the cause though!

 

[obx]

It sounds as if this is an argument against any foreign flagged carrier landing at a US port of entry.

Separately, you've got the facts wrong. Or at least not interpreted correctly.

Those 10M jobs and 5% of GDP are those that are "commercial aviation dependent" and not "US Airlines." Most of those jobs are domestic, not directly employed by a large carrier, and not even related to the international travel segment.

I'm sure my source is the same as yours:
View attachment 37153

My argument is that international LCCs will increase the number of jobs and economic production of US aviation just as changes to international shipping have led to dramatic gains in the American transport sector. The Brookings Institute believes that Open Skies agreements generated at least $4 billion in passenger savings.

When it gets down to brass tacks, I believe this whole "Deny NAI" campaign is really about US carriers who are locked into wide-body aircraft and an expensive hub structure for their international service. The emergence of the international LCC is poised to upset that.




Nobody from TRANSCOM got up and said "Don't do this...we're concerned about aircraft in the CRAF!"

If anything, the current feeling in the defense logistics world is that CRAF is outdated. We've only ever used it twice. At the same time, the DoD has essentially fed an entire sub-set of the industry dedicated to contract airlift that operates through service contracts vice CRAF activation. I think there will be major changes to how CRAF operates now that "continuous conflict" is the posture vice "train and mobilize." From what I've seen, TRANSCOM is most concerned with the segment of the industry that focused on DoD contracts that is now shrinking due to reduced commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. CRAF is treated essentially as "selective service for airplanes." The real airlift work goes to firms we've contracted to do it, and the decline of those contracts is a real concern.

So, to summarize--and I mean this respectfully as you seem to have a well thought out and articulate position--the NAI scheme, while potentially disastrous to at least the airline pilot community in the US is, in fact, beneficial to the overall US economy and is a jobs creator in spite of the loss of US airline pilot jobs?

Your position seems to be: "yes, this is a potential and eventual decimation of well-paying US airline pilot jobs, but the bigger picture is that it's a job creator by expanding travel to the US via this new model."

I'm curious to know how you reconcile that position with your own desires to advance--at least at the CFI level. Surely you see the deliterios impact of such a stance. Perhaps you're okay with that as you feel that it serves a greater common good.

I do take exception to your position that US carriers are locked into wide-body aircraft and expensive hub structures for their international service. The legacy airlines in the US enjoy a fleet and slot diversity that would allow a narrow body product from the same airports as NAI to Europe. They don't, however, enjoy the same freedom of labor, certificate, and flag mobility that the NAI scheme affords. Therein lie the unfair advantages that we are extending to the NAI business model.

Respectfully . . .

 

[Cazadores]

Ownership and where an aircraft is flagged are entirely different.

A good example to see how this could play out would be look at who owns Costa Cruises...

Or the Bolivian flagged, Venezuelan owned airline with a recent part distribution operation in Colombia.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Cazadores]

So, to summarize--and I mean this respectfully as you seem to have a well thought out and articulate position--the NAI scheme, while potentially disastrous to at least the airline pilot community in the US is, in fact, beneficial to the overall US economy and is a jobs creator in spite of the loss of US airline pilot jobs?

Your position seems to be: "yes, this is a potential and eventual decimation of well-paying US airline pilot jobs, but the bigger picture is that it's a job creator by expanding travel to the US via this new model."

I'm curious to know how you reconcile that position with your own desires to advance--at least at the CFI level. Surely you see the deliterios impact of such a stance. Perhaps you're okay with that as you feel that it serves a greater common good.

I do take exception to your position that US carriers are locked into wide-body aircraft and expensive hub structures for their international service. The legacy airlines in the US enjoy a fleet and slot diversity that would allow a narrow body product from the same airports as NAI to Europe. They don't, however, enjoy the same freedom of labor, certificate, and flag mobility that the NAI scheme affords. Therein lie the unfair advantages that we are extending to the NAI business model.

Respectfully . . .

There is the airline pilot angle, and there is the continuously destabilizing effect of usurping trade agreement intent for the sake of hoarding of production wealth, which of course is a security issue he as security professional has advised his employers of.

It's becoming a real issue, and no amount of bus tours filled with dwindling cheap ticket passengers in Europe is going to save his employers, in the long term.

But I wish him the best.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[hook_dupin]

So, to summarize--and I mean this respectfully as you seem to have a well thought out and articulate position--the NAI scheme, while potentially disastrous to at least the airline pilot community in the US is, in fact, beneficial to the overall US economy and is a jobs creator in spite of the loss of US airline pilot jobs?

Your position seems to be: "yes, this is a potential and eventual decimation of well-paying US airline pilot jobs, but the bigger picture is that it's a job creator by expanding travel to the US via this new model."

Yeah.. I believe that international LCCs make the pie bigger, as do most barrier-reducing trade deals. I also think "decimation" and "disastrous" are a bit over-blown... this isn't an argument for cabotage. The international market will become more segmented with the legacies targeting the business traveler segment. The legacies are now competing well against LCCs in the domestic market... I see no reason why the legacies can't compete well against international LCCs. I actually think the number of pilot jobs will grow as a result because these international LCCs will partner with domestic LCCs on code share agreements, but the market shares of three specific carriers is likely to shrink.

I'm curious to know how you reconcile that position with your own desires to advance--at least at the CFI level. Surely you see the deliterios impact of such a stance. Perhaps you're okay with that as you feel that it serves a greater common good.

I don't know when and how it happened, but my path is now as an organizational leader vice line aviator. In terms of "advance," I probably don't become anything more than a part-time CFI and 135 pilot on the civilian operations side. Flying is now my recreation and escape vice profession. I don't ever see myself following the 121 path as I'm too far along the road I'm on to set it down and go to the regionals. The only way for me to fly a 787 is to take a position at Boeing.

They don't, however, enjoy the same freedom of labor, certificate, and flag mobility that the NAI scheme affords. Therein lie the unfair advantages that we are extending to the NAI business model.

My view is that the United States made a trade deal with the European Community on international air transport and we should honor it. An Irish carrier requested a foreign carrier permit, and Ireland is an EU-member state. We should (and did) grant that just as we should grant a foreign carrier permit to any other carrier from an EU state.

There is the airline pilot angle, and there is the continuously destabilizing effect of usurping trade agreement intent for the sake of hoarding of production wealth, which of course is a security issue he as security professional has advised his employers of.

The number of air transportation professionals who don't believe in free trade is shocking to me. The volume of global air traffic and demand for pilots has exponentially increased as a result of trade.

I firmly believe that an interconnected and globalized world is a stable one, and the biggest security threats are those who seek to disrupt the global flow of goods and information be they North Koreans or ISIS. Though many see China as a security threat, there's just too much to be lost in an armed conflict with China. It's also why I think the Iran nuclear deal is a good thing: if we create a middle class there by opening up trade, then there will be stronger internal conflict if that trade flow is threatened.

Wealth distribution and economic gains/losses are a real issue, but that should be a taxation and role of government debate vice a trade policy debate.

 

[gotWXdagain]

If this has already been asked, feel free to summarily flog me, but if they are employing US pilots in accordance with US labor law then what is to stop the pilot group from unionizing?

 

[Der rote Baron]

If this has already been asked, feel free to summarily flog me, but if they are employing US pilots in accordance with US labor law then what is to stop the pilot group from unionizing?

"They" do not employ any pilot. Those pilots are employed by OSM Aviation, a Cyprus or Singapore based Company. And the contract is according to those labour laws.

 

[chrisreedrules]

http://democrats.transportation.hou...hort-sighted-dot-decision-allow-norwegian-air

 

[hook_dupin]

http://democrats.transportation.hou...hort-sighted-dot-decision-allow-norwegian-air

With likely two weeks left in this session of Congress, I don't see HR 5090 making it out of committee, to a floor vote, over to the Senate, up, and out. The president would veto it anyway.

Rep Shuster, the T&I Committee Chair isn't a co-sponsor, and there's no more committee time on the schedule. This one's dead.

 

[Hacker15e]

I forget, who was it exactly that was being mocked with the, "they're taking our jerbs!" bit on South Park?

 

[saxman]

So why aren't pilot's in the EU crying foul on this issue as well? Or are they? Seems they have more to lose over flags of convenience carriers than we do.

 

[Seggy]

So why aren't pilot's in the EU crying foul on this issue as well? Or are they? Seems they have more to lose over flags of convenience carriers than we do.

The pilots in Europe are against this and actually commented against this application with the DOT.

 

[gotWXdagain]

"They" do not employ any pilot. Those pilots are employed by OSM Aviation, a Cyprus or Singapore based Company. And the contract is according to those labour laws.

I have no words for why the DOT would allow such nonsense.