The Emirates Strike Back
- Thread starter Dexter
- Start date
Meh. Pretty much everything that comes out of a "government owned airline" is nothing more than eye poking. Because of the way they run their countries, and most likely, their airline, they can all GFTS. US carriers may have a bad history of filing BK, but they've also given back to the government more than they've gained by doing so.
Skåning
Well-Known Member
At the expense of their employees
RDoug
Well-Known Member
Correct. It's the employees who took it in the shorts, not the airlines.
Bernoulli Fan
Controller
I only skimmed this article, but I don't think the two sides' points are mutually exclusive. US domestic service is nowhere near the level of most major foreign carriers': true. Emirates represses their immigrant flight attendants: true. They can both crunch numbers to make it look like the other side has gotten more government assistance.
US carriers don't hold their employees, bank accounts and travel documents hostage. 'Nuf said.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
We should really have a word about certain events circa 2005-2011 re: termination of pension plans.
Are you defending middle eastern carriers?
B767
Well-Known Member
You got THAT from his post?
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
@mshunter FREQUENTLY has massive reading comprehension fails. Explain it to him again, for a few more times and the light will finally come on.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Autothrust Blue said:
An A Fund pension is not your bank account.
z987k
Well-Known Member
If they would have done it correctly a third party, like the union, would hold the funds and the company couldn't touch a cent.
And that's why I asked the question.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
There are downsides to that, as well. When the union runs the plan, management is no longer responsible for a certain payout. They're only responsible for certain contributions. That means that if the plan isn't well managed (and many of them aren't), then the plan can run out of money necessary to pay out benefits, and benefits get cut. When management is responsible for managing the plan, the CBA just says what they're required to pay you in a defined benefit, and then management is required to make it happen. If they mismanage the plan, then they just have to contribute more money to make the math work. That way you know what your benefit is going to be, no matter how poorly the plan may be managed.
The reality is that A-Funds are a bad idea until there is pension reform that puts the plan as the top creditor, ensuring that it gets money before anyone else. I don't see that happening, so everyone is better off with a B-Fund unless you work at a company like FedEx that is almost certain to never go bankrupt.
RDoug
Well-Known Member
Fifty years ago everyone would have labeled GM as the one company that would never go bankrupt. I concur about the problem of Congress putting retirement funds too far down the pecking order in bankruptcy. Company retirees should be first in line in any bankruptcy proceedings. That would have put a screeching halt to airlines going into bankruptcy for the sole purpose of getting out of their labor contract obligations.
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
Not that I really care to debate this topic ad nauseum, but you need to explain the bold part.
Please provide proof to this statement. Inaccurate, inflammatory, and totally false statement do nothing to support your cause.
TP
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
The law of unintended consequences is hard to escape sometimes. If the U.S. passenger carriers and their employees are successful in returning to a protectionist environment it could well adversely affect FedEx, UPS, and Atlas to name a few. They all fly a lot of 5th and 7th freedom routes. Those little express packages going from Frankfurt to, oh say, Beijing never touch U.S. soil. They flow through foreign hubs of those carriers.
That is why the President of FedEx and management of Atlas have spoken out against these protectionist requests:
In an open letter to US Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx, and Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Bronczek expressed “FedEx’s strong support of Open Skies and the US government’s long established policy of promoting, negotiating, and then honouring Open Skies bilateral aviation agreements.”
He said FedEx had “grown tremendously” to report fiscal year 2014 revenue of $45.6 billion, employing more than 300,000 team members, serving more than 220 countries and territories via more than 660 aircraft.
“Our industry is an essential component of a rebounding American economy,” he added. “The connectivity we provide for U.S. businesses, both small and large, is critical for their global expansion. FedEx is proud to be a leader in the President’s National Export Initiative.”
Bronczek added: “FedEx and other US cargo carriers depend on Open Skies to provide our aircraft and their important cargo access to global marketplaces. Our ability to exploit the rights set forth in those agreements means that FedEx aircraft span the globe.”
He said air cargo carriers such as FedEx moved the high-value, time-sensitive products essential for the US to create more high-paying jobs. “We also are leader in carrying American products in the B2C markets of e-commerce, where there are new cross-border opportunities for US small and medium enterprises. We cannot operate internationally and provide efficient, cost-effective services without Open Skies.”
He observed that recently, several US passenger carriers had questioned Open Skies, specifically as it relates to Middle Eastern carriers. “These US passenger carriers do not fly extensively between foreign points like FedEx does,” Bronczek observed.
“They believe they have little to risk by limiting foreign carrier access to U.S. markets. What they want is for the US government to protect them from competition from able, attractive new entrants.”
But for FedEx, Bronczek said the US Open Skies agreements with the Middle Eastern countries were “very valuable. Under the agreement with the UAE, we have established a hub in Dubai, where FedEx flights from the US criss-cross with our flights from India and Asia in order to move US products into local markets.
“This hub also acts as our gateway into Africa. Presently, FedEx alone operates almost two-thirds more flights to the Middle East than all the US passenger carriers combined. Modifications to this agreement might spell the end of these opportunities, closing off those markets to our customers.”
He continued: “Retrenchment in any way from Open Skies by the US would jeopardize the economic growth benefits that air cargo provides. Retrenchment would result in higher fares and fewer options for flying passengers.
“Retrenchment benefits only a very few. The US should not return to the restrictive, inefficient, expensive agreements of the past where customers, communities, air cargo, and the greater US economy suffered.”
He said FedEx was not alone in its support for Open Skies. “Airports, travellers and other US airlines have already addressed this issue publicly. Those groups have laid out the benefits for passengers created by this successful, long-standing policy. We appreciate the opportunity to make the case on the cargo side, in support of US shippers.
Bronczek concluded: “FedEx urges the US government to honour the Open Skies agreements it has negotiated with over 110 countries in every region of the world. There is no need to consult with our Open Skies partners absent public proof that alleged unfair competition meets the standards long established in US law.
“The US should not capitulate to the interests of a few carriers who stand ready to put their narrow, protectionist interests ahead of the economic benefits that Open Skies provides to the people of the United States.”
Typhoonpilot
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I'm not aware of anyone arguing for a "protectionist" environment. Regardless, my post was regarding pension plans, so you responding to it in this fashion makes about as much sense as Ralph on The Simpsons answering "my cat's breath smells like cat food." Um, okay?