amorris311
Well-Known Member
The Indian students I had, that weren't sponsored by an airline, were exactly like that.
Our Careers Could Hang in the Balance
- Thread starter jwp_145
- Start date
Jafari RastaMan
Well-Known Member
Actually I went on a cruise a while back and the drink ladies and waitresses were all from the Philippines, Russia, Bulgaria, or Indonesia. I think the ship was registered in Panama, and the Captain was from Italy and went to a highly regarded maritime academy.
Jafari RastaMan
Well-Known Member
Morris, if the students were willing to pay $100,000 for flight training from you, I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that you were a top notch instructor.
amorris311
Well-Known Member
No they weren't paying me. They were paying for the opportunity. I think I saw 0.0000000009% of that. They had fees like handling to get visas, the school (which included flight training) lodging, food, etc.
SteveCostello
My member is well-known.
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Please explain which government and how they "subsidize airplanes".
At $300,000/year+ for Captains, including all pay and benefits, one really wonders when the protections will kick in without labor laws. I really feel underpaid and under-appreciated for my efforts.
TP
When you want to run a daily A380 from YYZ (or a 777 from other Canadian cities) to Dubai where capacity on the route would be more than those that would actually fly it, that is one of the many subsidies we can talk about.
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
What about the huge tax incentives from the US EX-IM bank for foreigners to purchase American-made products? Delta Air Lines doesn't get the same deal for 777s as Emirates. And they aren't extended the same deal for A320s as Air France.
Level playing field... Not! And who pays for it? American labor. Yay.
Level playing field... Not! And who pays for it? American labor. Yay.
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
You're kidding right? The reason an A380 runs that route is that it is full every time it departs, The protectionist Canadian government will not grant additional landing rights to allow daily service, If/when they do it will still be full everyday, Since Air Canada does not fly YYZ-DXB nor to any points beyond DXB there is little reason to not give the slots.
TP
TP
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
Tax incentives is clearly the wrong term,
This has been gone over before. The Ex-IM bank is set up to help U.S. manufacturers sell their goods to foreign companies. This helps the American worker ( read unionized American worker ) by providing more jobs in America.
Not sure what A320s for Air France has to do with anything since the Ex-Im bank wouldn't have anything to do with the financing of those aircraft. As to Delta's purchase price and financing for B777s. Delta might pay more per airframe because they do not buy in bulk during a financial crisis. Emirates has smart management who look out in the future and make very intelligent purchase decisions at the absolute best time. They get good deals because they buy in bulk and they buy when no one else is buying. If U.S. airline management could be a little more visionary they might be able to get similar deals.
Stop echoing the hollow arguments of ALPA that the Ex-Im bank is bad for U.S. airlines. Do a little research on the subject and take a larger world view. The Ex-Im bank is good for America because it is good for American manufacturing. Those highly paid union workers who build those planes in Seattle take vacations on U.S. airlines ( usually domestic ).
On the other side of the coin, U.S. airlines get good deals on Airbus aircraft. The original USAirways purchase of A320s and A330s was a bulk buy with incredibly good terms. Airbus practically gave airplanes away in the beginning. Many U.S. airlines took advantage of this, including NWA and UAL.
Contrary to the complaints of ALPA, the Ex-Im bank in not the boogie man.
Typhoonpilot
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
Saw the same thing at WMU. Air Lingus, Emirates, and British Airways all sent students over to WMU to get all their ratings. The airlines paid for tuition, rental fees, housing and food. The school even gave them bumping rights on aircraft over the US students if there was an availability conflict.
Airbus receives millions a year from the EU in the form of subsidies.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
jwp_145 said:
Keep in mind, he works for Emirates. He has a vested interest in our careers being destroyed, and he has a deep-seated hatred of ALPA because he erroneously believes that ALPA screwed him over when he worked in the States. He's a good source of information for expat aviation, but that's about it.
It's tremendously difficult to compete with government-sponsored carriers.
For example JFK-GEO. my company developed the route, worked to make it profitable only to have Guyana turn around and give Caribbean Airlines a fat check to compete and undercut our prices.
Now if we have, say Turkish Airlines flying a bit sweet airplane the government bought with EU subsidies, further subsidized by the Turkish government, no US carrier is going to be able to compete.
For example JFK-GEO. my company developed the route, worked to make it profitable only to have Guyana turn around and give Caribbean Airlines a fat check to compete and undercut our prices.
Now if we have, say Turkish Airlines flying a bit sweet airplane the government bought with EU subsidies, further subsidized by the Turkish government, no US carrier is going to be able to compete.
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
Can't debate with facts so you resort to character assassination. Nice
Hate is a strong word. I dislike ALPA because they are ineffective at their mission. ALPA did not screw me over, a senile arbitrator did, but that is already water under the bridge.
Explain to me that statement:
I wish no ill on anyone. Just need to let facts come out when ALPA goes off on another one of their stupid tangents, like this one against the Ex-Im bank.
Typhoonpilot
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Can't debate with facts so you resort to character assassination. Nice
It's not character assassination. It's a statement of fact. You have a self interest in our careers being harmed by foreign ownership and cabotage, because it would benefit your own career as an Emirates pilot.
The Ex-Im bank is a pet issue of the head guy in charge, and I honestly don't care too much about it, personally. There are much bigger fish to fry, and there's an argument to be made that it's actually beneficial to the labor movement in general, although not great for the airlines. But when it comes to cabotage, foreign ownership, and similar issues, he's dead on, and companies like yours are an incredible threat that need to be taken very seriously and fought off like the plague.
amorris311
Well-Known Member
ATN_Pilot I agree with you regarding the Ex-Im bank. Our airlines have received huge breaks on Airbus aircraft over the years. JetBlue comes to mind as well as Airways and United. This is going to sound anti US airline, but the overall benefit employs more Americans then if it didnt happen.
My personal concern aligns a lot with Todd. The cabotage and foreign ownership is something we should fear more than Ex-Im Bank issues. These of course are my personal opinions so it doesn't hold too much weight.
My personal concern aligns a lot with Todd. The cabotage and foreign ownership is something we should fear more than Ex-Im Bank issues. These of course are my personal opinions so it doesn't hold too much weight.
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
I'm leaving Emirates within the next 6 months. So there goes that argument right out the window.
But, even if I weren't the facts are still pretty telling. The majority of Emirates traffic is Europe to Africa/Asia/Australia/Sub-Continent. Another big market is Asia-Africa. The North American market is but a small fraction of the total airline so how it is some huge threat to U.S. airlines flying from the USA to Europe or USA to Asia?
The reality of the situation is this. The U.S. population is only 300+ million people. True it has been a major aviation market for many years, but the world is changing. The other 6 billion people on the planet are starting to ride on airplanes. That is the market that Emirates serves. Yes, they serve some of the U.S. market, but the U.S. airlines ( and ALPA in particular ) need to realize that there are many other markets out there. U.S. carriers, because of their geographical position are unable to serve many of those markets.
ALPA tried to keep the world from changing when the RJs first came on the scene. How did that work out? Now they are trying to do the same thing with the globalization of the world aviation market. The world will keep progressing. Trying to stop it, via union protectionism, will not work. It never has, and it never will.
Wouldn't it be better if the ALPA led carriers embraced some of the upcoming change and helped their management teams to create strategies to take advantage of the business that all those other 6 billion passengers out there could give them?
Thank you. That's been my point in regards to this issue. Ex-Im financing is beneficial to U.S. companies, therefore to U.S. labor.
Typhoonpilot
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Not really. That's still your perspective. Where are you going?
Emirates, Qatar, etc. are all dropping immense amounts of money in Washington and Ottawa to open the North American markets to their carriers. Everything from big political contributions to sponsoring Little League teams to build support. They've planted roots on K Street to spend all of their time lobbying on Capitol Hill. Their goal is quite clear. The threat is also.
Well, that depends on which labor you're talking about. It's bad for airline labor, which is why Captain Moak is so focused on it. But overall, because of the production jobs it creates, it probably is a net positive for the overall labor movement. The airlines just get the short end of the stick. The effect is minimal, though, compared to the other issues, such as foreign ownership and cabotage, so I just don't get all worked up about it as much as others do.
rocketman5150
Well-Known Member
If cabotage (sp?) laws are repealed, I doubt that the foreign governments will continue to subsidize their carriers. Nor will cabotage cause jobs to disappear. They'll just shift to the other new entrant carriers. The only thing that will cause jobs to disappear is when people stop flying.
