Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

G. Tilton leads JetBlue Airways as ATA Chairman

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
The 7 Myth on Foreign ownership

Myth 1 : We Need US Carriers for National Security
On 3 April 2003, Speaker Dennis Hastert used this argument to defend Congress' $3.2 billion airline aid plan. He said '[it is necessary that] we don't have a whole industry collapse at a time when maybe we need it most' (referring, presumably, to the Iraqi conflict).
It is true that there is a program (the CRAF - Civil Reserve Air Fleet) whereby US airlines hire planes to the military when needed, giving the military additional airlift capacity. But this program would apply equally to any US based, US incorporated airline, no matter where the shareholders were based.
A US corporation is bound by US laws, no matter who or where its shareholders are based.
Furthermore, the US airlines are generously remunerated in return for their military charters, indeed some experts suggest it would be cheaper and better if the US government and Tax payer to simply tendered for charters on the open market!

Myth 2 : Foreign Airlines Don't Have the Same Security Standards
Maybe foreign airlines do, maybe they don't have the same security standards as US airlines. But, who cares? This is a red herring argument, because we're not talking about foreign airlines. We're talking about a US airline, subject to all US regulations and controls.
Sure, the airline may be owned in part or by whole by off-shore investors, but it is a US airline, operated by US permanent residents and citizens, and following all US standards and procedures.

Myth 3 : Foreign Airlines Don't Have the Same Safety Standards
The answer to this myth is exactly the same as the answer to myth #2.

Myth 4 : Foreign Airlines Would Take Away Jobs from Americans
A US based carrier is subject to the same laws for who it can employ, no matter who its owners might be. All US carriers have to employ either lawfully admitted foreign nationals on special work visas, or US permanent residents, and indeed, for some jobs, they can only employ full US citizens.
There is no difference in these laws if the airline is owned by people in London or Little Rock.

Myth 5 : A Foreign Airline would replace High Paying Jobs with Low Paying Jobs
Any company is free to set whatever terms of employment it can agree upon with its workers (and possibly the unions that represent them).
And, in case anyone hasn't noticed, all those 'high paying' airline jobs are under massive threat at present as the traditional carriers lay off staff and reduce the wages (and pension plans!) of those that remain.
All new startup airlines are building their operations on lower employee costs than the traditional carriers. And their staff seem to be delighted to accept the opportunity to work with them, too. They're surely not complaining, so why should we!

Myth 6 : A Foreign Airline would 'cherry pick' only the Profitable Routes
This myth suggests that the foreign (owned) airline would only fly on the 'easy major routes that any airline can make a profit on'. By reducing the ability of the existing airlines to make profits on the major routes, the existing airlines would no longer be able to subsidize the other loss-making routes that they currently operate as a public service.
As recently as this week, a noted travel writer commented 'having a national airline protects the nation's transportation network from being at the mercy of foreign carriers to whom profits are more important than whether the country's capital has daily service from New York, Chicago, Tokyo, or Timbuktu.'
This myth is full of nonsense in several areas. Any start-up airline, no matter who or where their owners are, carefully works out a business plan that has them concentrating on some 'easy' routes that they think they can make a profit on. As the new airline grows, they build out from their core routes so as to grow their total network in an organic manner.
The second piece of nonsense is there is no such thing as an 'easy' major route that any airline can make a profit on! If there was, then all airlines would be on that route already, and more, totally US owned, airlines would be starting up to add more services to that route.
The third piece of nonsense is that none of the major airlines operate as a social charity. If they can't make money on a route, they will stop flying it. Plain and simple. All 'for profit' airlines work on the same basis, no matter where their shareholders sit.
The ownership of a new startup airline again makes no substantial difference to the external marketplace factors that influence all airlines and their present operations.

Myth 7 - Profits will be Taken Offshore
Some people have made the ridiculous suggestion that allowing foreigners to own US airlines means that they'll take all the profits offshore and somehow harm the US economy in the process.
Look around you. Exactly which US carrier is making so much profit that transferring some share of it offshore would harm the economy!?
Even in a very good year, shareholder dividends rarely exceed a very few percent of total revenue - repatriation of dividends is a negligible matter.
And such concerns haven't prevented foreign ownership of just about every other type of company (with the exception of media outlets and shipping companies). So let's allow foreign ownership of airlines, too.​
 
JBPA is a cancer.

Here is a little snippet:



What is the difference that makes the difference?

Maybe we should get a union. After all, look at the tremendous help they have been to TWA, US Airways, TransStates with GoJet.

Perhaps we should compare JB 4 year FO pay with a 4 year America West FO...oh wait, you can't.

He's furloughed.

I'm not a management shill. I just see things the way they are.

I find it amusing how born-and-bred American dopes think they can get something for nothing.

Everyone joined JB knowing gawd-damned well it was a non-union shop, and now you have cancer-promotors crying "I, I, I. Me. Me. Me."

Give me a break.

Last month alone, 534,000 Americans lost their jobs and people want to form a union? This is a joke, right?

If you see things the way they are, how do you see the 423 million dollars of payments to unscheduled debt reduction this year (besides us not getting profit sharing from it)? Personally I see it as smart (early debt reduction), but by not putting it in the bank and showing a profit for the previous three quarters does not equal us loosing money. Actually we are a cash flow positive airline. Also none of the figures include the Ars related $110 million line of credit or a 55 million dollar loan. Third quarter prasm up 16% year over year. An increase of $150 million dollars this year in Ancillary Revenue.

Your vision is short sided at best.

These are not my numbers, it came from the companys presentation at the Credit Suisse Global Airline Conference 12/02/08.

Also having a union the company could not have taken away our pts at premium pay just to make the "raise" cost neutral.

JBPA
 
Also having a union the company could not have taken away our pts at premium pay just to make the "raise" cost neutral.

JBPA[/quote]

Quiet a statement. You are assuming the Union negotiators can squeeze every golden egg out of the goose just because it is a Union CBA. In fact cost neutral contracts are not new what is different in the case of JB is the distribution. In our Pilot world of seniority is everything most often pay raises are financed bottom up.
Although, the last contract was not great for all crewmembers neither will or have CBAs ever been fair for all. That being said, the PVC and the company will work on this again in 2009. On the other hand, a CBA last at least 5 to 7 years.
 
"Quiet" indeed.

That being said, the PVC and the company will work on this again in 2009. On the other hand, a CBA last at least 5 to 7 years.

Huh? Since when did the PVC become a bargaining agent? They have repeatedly told me they are not. Did their status change recently?

Did the pilot group authorize it?
 
Last edited:
My favorite kommutrdog quotes:

"I find it amusing how born-and-bred American dopes think they can get something for nothing."

"I think the intentions of most of the JBPA supporters are genuine. To improve the quality of life/pay/benefits of the pilots at Jetblue. I can respect that."
 
Also having a union the company could not have taken away our pts at premium pay just to make the "raise" cost neutral.

JBPA

Quiet a statement. You are assuming the Union negotiators can squeeze every golden egg out of the goose just because it is a Union CBA. In fact cost neutral contracts are not new what is different in the case of JB is the distribution. In our Pilot world of seniority is everything most often pay raises are financed bottom up.
Although, the last contract was not great for all crewmembers neither will or have CBAs ever been fair for all. That being said, the PVC and the company will work on this again in 2009. On the other hand, a CBA last at least 5 to 7 years. [/quote]

Ignore all of the other data in my post and pick this?

You are missing the point, PTS was "TAKEN" not negotated away.

The first PCRB, only one person on it did not have a blackberry, so the company presented the data it wanted to. Win Company, loose pilots.

The second PCRB, [(excellent doccument), Direct question did you bother to read it?] the dompany disregards the vast majority of information in it.

Big deal if the company and the PVC have a third one, "do the right thing" is just sicker on the wall in Forrest Hills. News flash two years are gone and the only real changes are on paper (cost neutral) my eyes are wide open, you continue to follow the carrot on the stick.
 
Bluesideup340

I guess the stars are directing you not to respond eh?

Also if you do respond answer the question and don't bother with spin. My dad sold used cars for a living, I know BS the moment I see it.

Quite frankly you and the BoB fail at even having an old lady only drove this car on sunday sales pitch.
 
Dear Smoking Man,
The constellation of the heavenly bodies have very little to do with my silence.
What could I possible say to the son of used car salesman after such an eloquent and convincing sales pitch?
Of course, a man of your caliber only has to utter the words “This is a good for you” and I am left with no option but believe and trust you. Isn’t that the reason everybody trusts a used car salesman?

Who will you blame after your Union will make concessions during negotiations that do not benefit you?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top