All pilots read... and write your congressman

[HSDriver]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51113

 

[ETDTBA]

Seems like the only people against this are the labor union. I read all the links and it sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[gunfyter]

Significant portions of the Christian Right is also against this... on Security issues.

Sam portions of the Right that are hot on Immigration and against NAFTA etc.. The Anti-Globalization crowd comes from both the Right and the Left. Agreeing on what they are against but for different reasons.

 

[ksu_aviator]

It seems to me that ALPA is worried about their survival. The international airlines are doing very well and pay very well, but ALPA is not in control of their pilots, thus they have no power.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Seems like the only people against this are the labor union.

WRONG!

Self responsbility for information and education is a wonderful thing. Here are FACTS. Real data you can't ignore.

UPDATE, June 15 - The U.S. House of Representatives gave final approval to the 2007 Transportation-Treasury-HUD-Judiciary-D.C. spending bill, H.R. 5576, on June 14 by a vote of 406 - 22. The House-passed bill also includes the Oberstar-LoBiondo-Poe amendment that would delay for a year DOT’s proposed rule allowing foreigners to control a U.S. airline’s business decisions, as long as U.S. citizens retain control over security and Defense Department contracts. The amendment passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 291 - 137.

UPDATE, July 10 - Undeterred by the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelming 291 to 137 vote against allowing foreign control of U.S. airlines, the Bush Administration has announced that it will still move forward with its proposed rule change before the U.S. Senate can stop it.
In his last speech on July 6, outgoing Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta dismissed the House vote in the transportation appropriations bill and said DOT is aiming at releasing a final rule by mid-August.
A Senate amendment similar to the one passed in the House will possibly be considered in the Senate's transportation appropriations bill scheduled in subcommittee and/or full committee the week of July 16. However, it's highly unlikely that the full Senate will vote on this issue until long after DOT has issued a final rule in August.
The Bush Administration is calculating that the full Senate will not reject DOT's proposal if the final rule is already issued. "Right now there's no legal impediment to moving forward," said a defiant John Byerly, the assistant secretary of state who is leading the open-skies negotiations with the European Union. In short, the Bush Administration is prepared to ignore the decisive will of the House and issue the final rule in August unless the Senate takes an extraordinary measure to have it stopped--in other words, something similar to the abandoned plan for Dubai Ports World.

UPDATE, July 21 - Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Inouye-Dorgan-Specter amendment to the Transportation Appropriations bill by a vote of 19-7. The amendment would prevent the Department of Transportation (DOT) from finalizing or implementing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would allow foreign control of U.S. airlines. An identical amendment -- Oberstar-LoBiondo-Poe -- passed in the House last month by a vote of 291-137.
​

Unless you want to argure the Congressional record. Opposition to foreign control is Bi-partisan. It is not labor only.

I read all the links and it sounds like a good idea to me.

Does this seem like a good idea to you:

• (1) the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs;
• (2) the loss of service to small cities across America;
• (3) the loss of airlift in time of war (CRAF);
• (4) the NPRM is in direct conflict with normal procedures in which laws can only be enacted or changed by Congress.

 

[ETDTBA]

WRONG!

Self responsbility for information and education is a wonderful thing. Here are FACTS. Real data you can't ignore.

UPDATE, June 15 - The U.S. House of Representatives gave final approval to the 2007 Transportation-Treasury-HUD-Judiciary-D.C. spending bill, H.R. 5576, on June 14 by a vote of 406 - 22. The House-passed bill also includes the Oberstar-LoBiondo-Poe amendment that would delay for a year DOT’s proposed rule allowing foreigners to control a U.S. airline’s business decisions, as long as U.S. citizens retain control over security and Defense Department contracts. The amendment passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 291 - 137.

UPDATE, July 10 - Undeterred by the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelming 291 to 137 vote against allowing foreign control of U.S. airlines, the Bush Administration has announced that it will still move forward with its proposed rule change before the U.S. Senate can stop it.
In his last speech on July 6, outgoing Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta dismissed the House vote in the transportation appropriations bill and said DOT is aiming at releasing a final rule by mid-August.
A Senate amendment similar to the one passed in the House will possibly be considered in the Senate's transportation appropriations bill scheduled in subcommittee and/or full committee the week of July 16. However, it's highly unlikely that the full Senate will vote on this issue until long after DOT has issued a final rule in August.
The Bush Administration is calculating that the full Senate will not reject DOT's proposal if the final rule is already issued. "Right now there's no legal impediment to moving forward," said a defiant John Byerly, the assistant secretary of state who is leading the open-skies negotiations with the European Union. In short, the Bush Administration is prepared to ignore the decisive will of the House and issue the final rule in August unless the Senate takes an extraordinary measure to have it stopped--in other words, something similar to the abandoned plan for Dubai Ports World.

UPDATE, July 21 - Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Inouye-Dorgan-Specter amendment to the Transportation Appropriations bill by a vote of 19-7. The amendment would prevent the Department of Transportation (DOT) from finalizing or implementing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would allow foreign control of U.S. airlines. An identical amendment -- Oberstar-LoBiondo-Poe -- passed in the House last month by a vote of 291-137.

​

Unless you want to argure the Congressional record. Opposition to foreign control is Bi-partisan. It is not labor only.



Does this seem like a good idea to you:

• (1) the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs;
• (2) the loss of service to small cities across America;
• (3) the loss of airlift in time of war (CRAF);
• (4) the NPRM is in direct conflict with normal procedures in which laws can only be enacted or changed by Congress.

okay so Congress and the labor unions.

So where did you get the above 1-4 from? Can you prove any of it.

 

[gunfyter]

Jerome Corsi was part of the Swift Boats Vets against Kerry movement. This article is posted on WorldNetDaily ... A news site very popular with the Christian Right.

Foreign ownership of U.S. airlines?
Tuesday, July 18, 2006 by Jerome R. Corsi -- The Department of Transportation, acting under President Bush's orders, is preparing to issue an administrative ruling that would open U.S. airlines up to foreign ownership, despite specific prohibitions and warnings from Congress, as well as pr ...
​

The buzz on Christian Talk Radio is also against this move by the Bush Administration and I could link you to one talk show archived on KSLR San Antonio. Big Time Bush Country.

 

[ETDTBA]

< http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2006/Feb/09-211270.html>

At the heart of the controversy is the DOT proposal that would allow foreign investors to enter into investment deals with U.S. airlines giving them power to make operational decisions concerning, for example, rates and routes a carrier serves. The change would apply only to international investors from countries that have open skies agreements with the United States. It would allow similar investments by U.S. citizens in those countries' domestic airlines.
At the same time, the proposal would continue to preclude foreign citizen’s control over security and safety issues.

Just like the Dubai mess, the USA will still have control over safety (FAA)and security (TSA)

Read this and tell me that open skies are bad.

http://www.intervistas.com/4/reports/2006-06-07_EconomicImpactOfAirServiceLiberalization_FinalReport.pdf

1. It seems that hundreds of thousands of jobs are actually created
2. So open skies between the EU and USA will cause small airports to loose services? So tell me what has been happening for the past 10 years? That’s why our wonderful congress dumps millions of $$$ per year into the EAS program. It's an open market global economy. Deregulation has been around for 30 years now, that's when it started.
3. How do you figure, will airlines be so prosperous and rolling in the cash they won't want to charter their aircraft in times of war? Oil and $$ make the world go around. If airlift is needed then the service will be provided.
4. They want to change how the rules are interpreted not change the rule. Foreign ownership will still only be 25%, still controlled by US citizens.

<http://www.dot.gov/affairs/jeffshane020806.htm>

Next let me address what DOT did not propose. DOT did not propose to change the specific tests in the statute for determining that a U.S. airline meets the U.S. citizenship requirement. Under DOT’s proposal the company would need to be organized under the laws of the United States or a state; 75% of the voting stock would need to be owned or controlled by U.S. citizens; the president and two-thirds of the board of directors and other managing officials would need to be U.S. citizens; and the company would need to be under the actual control of U.S. citizens. In addition, we have not proposed any change in how DOT would assess the citizenship of the managers or members of the board of directors -- U.S. citizens appointed by, or otherwise beholden to, a foreigner would still be considered foreign. Therefore, the company would be a U.S. airline by any measure

Finally, I want to make this as clear as I can. Under DOT’s proposal, U.S. citizens would still have to be in "actual control" of a U.S. airline for it to be eligible to keep its certificate. They would own 75 percent of the voting stock in the airline; they would occupy two-thirds of the directorships; the president and two-thirds of the officers would be U.S. citizens. It would be a U.S. airline by any measure. What we are saying is that the greater scope we have proposed to allow non-U.S. citizens for participation in the governance of a U.S. airline would no longer be deemed inconsistent with the finding of actual control by U.S. citizens, as it is today, provided that the short list of objective requirements in the proposed new rule are met.

The potential benefits of the proposal go well beyond our interest in enhancing the availability of capital to U.S. airlines. The international alliances among U.S. and foreign airlines represent a surrogate for the kind of globalization that occurs in other network industries. Our thinking was that our proposal, if adopted, would create an environment far more conducive to productive cooperation among airline alliance partners, providing new opportunities for U.S., as well as foreign, airlines. It could facilitate the further evolution of the world's airline industry into an even more robust and competitive global services sector, by changing the administrative policies that today are significant impediments to that evolution.

 

[gunfyter]

Economic Impact....

Alot of the cost savings in the airline industry is ascribed to restructuring... which I read as Paycuts for labor.... And confiscated pensions.

Just like car companies moved their parts plants or assembly lines to mexico... I can see Airplanes and pilots deadheading/ferrying up from Mexico to fly US domestic routes.

I thought we had some job security because of 911... for those of us not furloughed.

We have enough problems with people in the US willing to fly cheap.

 

[cjdriver]

If you voted for him, quit itching

 

[accinelli]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51113

And the problem is??? Maybe everyone on the board should have thought of this before voting Bush in office.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Just like the Dubai mess, the USA will still have control over safety (FAA)and security (TSA)

So the foreign guys who control the Dir of Safety's paycheck are not going to be influential

Read this and tell me that open skies are bad.

Open Skies is B-A-D

1. It seems that hundreds of thousands of jobs are actually created

American jobs? Seems you are all about creating jobs for non US citizen who probably won't pay US taxes.

2. So open skies between the EU and USA will cause small airports to loose services? So tell me what has been happening for the past 10 years? That’s why our wonderful congress dumps millions of $$$ per year into the EAS program. It's an open market global economy. Deregulation has been around for 30 years now, that's when it started.

Moderation man. Let's not cut off small towns. Besides if local gov't want to pay for it.. who are well to tell them how to spend thier money. Does the US Congress split the bill? I don't know?

3. How do you figure, will airlines be so prosperous and rolling in the cash they won't want to charter their aircraft in times of war? Oil and $$ make the world go around. If airlift is needed then the service will be provided.

You're kidding right. Air France and Saudi Air will be ready to move US troops.

4. They want to change how the rules are interpreted not change the rule. Foreign ownership will still only be 25%, still controlled by US citizens.

Are you sure? And further more wants the diff?

Next let me address what DOT did not propose. DOT did not propose to change the specific tests in the statute for determining that a U.S. airline meets the U.S. citizenship requirement. Under DOT’s proposal the company would need to be organized under the laws of the United States or a state; 75% of the voting stock would need to be owned or controlled by U.S. citizens; the president and two-thirds of the board of directors and other managing officials would need to be U.S. citizens; and the company would need to be under the actual control of U.S. citizens. In addition, we have not proposed any change in how DOT would assess the citizenship of the managers or members of the board of directors -- U.S. citizens appointed by, or otherwise beholden to, a foreigner would still be considered foreign. Therefore, the company would be a U.S. airline by any measure

You don't mind the camel getting his nose under the tent...

Finally, I want to make this as clear as I can. Under DOT’s proposal, U.S. citizens would still have to be in "actual control" of a U.S. airline for it to be eligible to keep its certificate. They would own 75 percent of the voting stock in the airline; they would occupy two-thirds of the directorships; the president and two-thirds of the officers would be U.S. citizens. It would be a U.S. airline by any measure. What we are saying is that the greater scope we have proposed to allow non-U.S. citizens for participation in the governance of a U.S. airline would no longer be deemed inconsistent with the finding of actual control by U.S. citizens, as it is today, provided that the short list of objective requirements in the proposed new rule are met.

That is the current law.. not the circumvented Congress law

The potential benefits of the proposal go well beyond our interest in enhancing the availability of capital to U.S. airlines. The international alliances among U.S. and foreign airlines represent a surrogate for the kind of globalization that occurs in other network industries. Our thinking was that our proposal, if adopted, would create an environment far more conducive to productive cooperation among airline alliance partners, providing new opportunities for U.S., as well as foreign, airlines. It could facilitate the further evolution of the world's airline industry into an even more robust and competitive global services sector, by changing the administrative policies that today are significant impediments to that evolution.

Case and point- Martime industry. But aviation is different. there is a difference between suspected Al Qeda operatives bringing super tankers up to our coast. It is another to have them fly airliners to OK City.

 

[Cobra]

Here's some food for thought. How many of us gringos have been able to land jobs with a foreign carrier? Compare that to the number of jobs that foreign pilots have in the US air carrier industry. I am sure you will agree it is pretty lopsided... OBTW, Bush is an absolute idiot, but I'm sure you already figured that part out already.

 

[ETDTBA]

Here's some food for thought. How many of us gringos have been able to land jobs with a foreign carrier? Compare that to the number of jobs that foreign pilots have in the US air carrier industry. I am sure you will agree it is pretty lopsided... OBTW, Bush is an absolute idiot, but I'm sure you already figured that part out already.

This reply is horrible. I feel your pain but you have no facts to back it up.

1. Have you even treid to get a job with a foreign carrier? It's not easy to get work Visas for other countries. The USA included.

2. Why don't you get us some numbers to back up your statement. Cause I don't agree that it's pretty lopsided

3. Bush is an idiot, sure, but that makes the democrats look even dumber considering they can't field a canidate to beat him. Now that is funny.

 

[ETDTBA]

Now Rez's turn


Wow, much less than I expected. I was hoping for a good debate and all I got was your opinion with NO facts or info to back it up.

Again. If you would read, just like you asked me to The DOT is proposing that they change the way they rule is interpreted. Not the rule itself.

So let me address your concerns.

"So the foreign guys who control the Dir of Safety's paycheck are not going to be influential"

Is it in an airlines best interest to be unsafe??? Seriously are crashes and fines good???? NO


" Open Skies is B-A-D"
How?? By increasing competition? by increasing trade? by opening up new city pairs?

" American jobs? Seems you are all about creating jobs for non US citizen who probably won't pay US taxes."

Really, were did you come up with that? I'm guessing you didn't read the report. Jobs are creating in both of the countries. With jobs comes money, with money comes travel, do you see the whole circle here??? If people didn't have jobs than they couldn't fly in airplanes, than pilots wouldn't have jobs. It's quite simple.


"Moderation man. Let's not cut off small towns. Besides if local gov't want to pay for it.. who are well to tell them how to spend their money. Does the US Congress split the bill? I don't know?"

Its a free market in the USA? The market determines the level of service. If an airline can't make money on a route than it shouldn't be flying the route.

To get info on the EAS you can go to the DOT website. For 2 million bucks we can get Mesa to fly to Jopin MS with a load factor of 5%.. (i just made that up, but if you want a real example that is just is wasteful I can provide one. ) WHO HOOO. What do you mean who are we to tell them how to spend their money. This is a federal program. The funding is your tax dollars, not their tax dollars. The DOT determines routes.


"You're kidding right. Air France and Saudi Air will be ready to move US troops. "

Come on we are talking about US Airlines, and yes the US Airlines will move troops. In fact I’m sure several foreign carriers would do it as well. They have in the past. By the way again if you read the info, you would find out that US citizens would be allowed to invest in EU carriers.


"Are you sure? And further more wants the diff?"
"That is the current law.. not the circumvented Congress law"

Yes the stuff I wrote was quoted directly from the DOT website. READ IT


“Case and point- Martime industry. But aviation is different. there is a difference between suspected Al Qeda operatives bringing super tankers up to our coast. It is another to have them fly airliners to OK City.”

[FONT=&quot]Really, what is the difference other than the mode of transportation? It is still the job of customs and border protection, and the TSA to stop them. Do you even know what airlines have to do now when flying to the USA. All crew members must be on a vetted list that CBP has done back ground checks on. In additional all pax info is transmitted to the CBP to checks before the plane arrives. [/FONT]

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

ETDTBA-

It is not called foreign control by both sides of the issues for no special reason.

 

[ACT700]

Here's some food for thought. How many of us gringos have been able to land jobs with a foreign carrier? Compare that to the number of jobs that foreign pilots have in the US air carrier industry. I am sure you will agree it is pretty lopsided... OBTW, Bush is an absolute idiot, but I'm sure you already figured that part out already.

Have you considered the fact that the US industry is the largest in the world as far as the amount of airplanes that are operated here?

You can get a good 737/A320 type job in europe with a lot less time than in the US--if you're willing to go through the pain-in-the-arse conversion course.
The (work) visa problem is equally tough on both sides of the pond.

Asia is hiring Americans in quite healthy numbers, the way I see it.

Bottom Line:

This is called GLOBALIZATION. It's going to happen to this industry too, it's just a question of when!
Is it going to be good or bad? I don't know.

Was deregulation good? Bad?

Discuss...

 

[Cobra]

This reply is horrible. I feel your pain but you have no facts to back it up.

1. Have you even treid to get a job with a foreign carrier? It's not easy to get work Visas for other countries. The USA included.

2. Why don't you get us some numbers to back up your statement. Cause I don't agree that it's pretty lopsided

3. Bush is an idiot, sure, but that makes the democrats look even dumber considering they can't field a canidate to beat him. Now that is funny.

Let me ask you something there nimrod. Ever been part a senority list somewhere 121/135? If so, did you scrutinize the demographics of the list? If so, you must be either blind or willfully ignorant.

 

[ETDTBA]

Let me ask you something there nimrod. Ever been part a senority list somewhere 121/135? If so, did you scrutinize the demographics of the list? If so, you must be either blind or willfully ignorant.

Wow classic, as usual a member of this board resorts to name calling and still not backing up their statments with any facts.
No, I have not been part of a senority list, haven't scrutinized the demographics. However I will make it my goal today to prove you wrong. However if you are right, I will have no problem admitting it.

 

[ETDTBA]

Still working on it, in the mean time I did find this.
http://www.hr-topics.com/wire-usa/pilot-jobs.htm

small sample of article

June 9 2006 - Thousands of pilot jobs in this country will soon be outsourced to foreign airlines with the apparent consent of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the nation’s largest pilot union. Industry observers say that these job transfers will occur due to the union’s support for an FAA regulation that prohibits American pilots from flying for American companies past the age of 60 (the "Age 60 rule"). In contrast to ALPA’s stated position, a significant number of ALPA’s own members along with pilots at Southwest, JetBlue, Air Tran, and the British Air Line Pilots Association (BALPA) are actively lobbying to change the age limit. In March, the International Civil Aviation Organization voted to establish age 65 as the new international standard.

A seeming irony to this is that American pilots who work for a foreign company will remain citizens of the U.S. and, frequently, continue to reside here. They will fly the same types of airplanes loaded with passengers and freight over the same exact routes as their counterparts who work for American companies. Another twist, adds Lavender, is that "American pilots who are forced to work for foreign companies will likely add their voices to those calling for increased foreign ownership of American airline companies. It will simply be in their best interest to help their new employers expand in this country."