Cabotage Alert!!!

[stillaboo]

My understanding is there is no 'reciprocal agreement' that allows US cargo carriers the same rights in a foreign country other than the guilt factor of 'we let you guys in to our country, so can our guys get into yours'? I'm sure that will go really far with the People's Republic of China and the European Union.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Purple Haze]

...is there any positive side to this...?

Honestly, I don't know. But allowing very low paid foreign pilots to fly cargo from one U.S. location to another is not good for any American pilot's job security. Open this pandora's box and passenger flights will be next.

The risk far outweighs the potential benefit we gain internationally.

 

[601Pilot]

Vote?

Good grief....you are blaming G.W. for all this
mess since 2001? You must be looking thru a
very small glass. You do have your right to
vote, and should definitely use it. But I'll
still be voting for Bush in 2004!

 

[AlbieF15]

I put my letter to congress on a different thread...feel free to use mine if you don't want to compose a note yourself...

But please do something!

 

[VADriver]

July 15, 2003

Honorable John Mica
Chairman
Subcommittee on Aviation
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Senate version of the FAA Reauthorization Bill contains a provision that amends the law against cabotage to permit the carriage of air cargo for compensation by a foreign carrier between Alaska and points in the other 49 states. This amendment was accepted on the Senate floor without debate or committee hearings. It was promoted by its sponsor as a job-creating measure that would be good for Alaska and in particular, the Anchorage International Airport which is alleged to be, "under attack from foreign cargo hubs seeking to exploit this weakness," (i.e. the prohibition of cabotage). No evidence has been brought forth to justify this claim, and without the benefit of a hearing, Members of Congress have had no opportunity to review and debate it.

The prohibition of the carriage of cabotage traffic by foreign carriers is a fundamental pillar of U. S. commercial aviation policy and law. No such policy or law is more jealously guarded or strongly defended by U. S. airline employees than is the protection of domestic work for U. S. workers. The depth of resolve in our opposition to foreign carrier cabotage is shared by our fellow workers in the maritime trades whose defense of the Jones Act is well-known.

Most developed nations have comparable laws against cabotage; nevertheless, some have pressured the United States to relax its policy so they could have the opportunity to enter our vast domestic air transport network. Over the years, some policymakers have suggested that the United States should liberalize our long-standing policy to increase competition in domestic air transportation. However, to date, Congress and the administration, regardless of party, have resisted change with the strong support of a broad array of industry stakeholders.

The policy and law prohibiting cabotage serves many important policy goals. In particular, U.S. carriers and workers are protected from unfair foreign competition (it is unclear whether foreign carriers would be subject to U.S. tax, labor, and social laws), national security is enhanced and our international aviation system maintains a degree of balance. Supporters of cabotage restrictions, including the air transportation unions, believe that our nation’s carriers and their employees should be afforded this status so long as they can provide safe, efficient, and reliable service at fair and reasonable prices. There has been no showing in Alaska or throughout the nation that such service is not being sufficiently provided by U.S. carriers.

While the Alaska-only provision has been described as a minor or technical change, in reality this breach in our policy and law against cabotage would have broad and negative consequences. There can be little doubt that if this provision is approved, other interests, including foreign governments and their national airlines as well as other U.S. airports, will attempt to use this adverse precedent to win even broader exemptions, or outright repeal of cabotage restrictions. Furthermore, given the financial condition of our domestic airline industry, this is a particularly inopportune time to reward foreign carriers such as Japan Air Lines, Korean Air Lines and China Air Lines with new business opportunities at the expense of our carriers and their workers, and without any reciprocity from those carriers or their homelands.

This provision does not represent sound national aviation policy and we urge you to oppose its inclusion in the conference report.

Sincerely,

Duane E. Woerth, President


#2

October 21, 2003

Dear Representative:

Today’s Washington Post carried a story about the concerns of some Republican Members of Congress about the policies of the Bush Administration going into an election year. One of the key issues that was raised by the Congressmen interviewed by the Post was the loss of American manufacturing jobs to foreign countries as illustrated in the following quote: "In most instances, the jobs picture—and especially the loss of jobs to China (and to Mexico, to a lesser extent)—was the first and main issue raised by these Republican lawmakers in recent interviews."

Against this backdrop, I call your attention to a little publicized provision in the conference report of the FAA Reauthorization Bill that should raise similar concerns in the air transport industry. This provision, commonly referred to as the Alaska cargo cabotage provision, was inserted in the FAA bill on the Senate floor without hearings or debate. It was accepted by the House Republican conferees over the opposition of the Democratic members, also without hearings or debate. Few members fully understand the serious consequences of this amendment for the health of the U. S. air transport industry and its employees.

Let me explain. Current law prohibits foreign airlines from carrying passengers or cargo between two U.S. domestic points, for example, between Anchorage and New York. The proposed provision would modify that section of the law as it applies to air cargo and would permit such transportation by a foreign carrier, provided the shipment is on an international journey, is transferred from one carrier to another in Alaska, and the foreign carrier has a code-share relationship with a U.S. carrier. For example, Northwest Air Lines could bring a package from Tokyo to Anchorage and transfer it to Air China, mainland China’s national airline, for shipment to New York. No other country permits such transportation by a U.S. carrier so this is a one-sided scheme favoring foreign carriers. One might ask: Why should the U.S. Congress provide open access to our air cargo transport markets without even asking for reciprocal opportunities abroad—such as in the huge domestic markets of mainland China? The answer: Because the government of China would not allow it. Furthermore, there is no similar exemption for international air cargo going through Hawaii, California, Florida, etc., only Alaska.

What is the practical effect of such an exemption to our cabotage law? Example: Air China, or its affiliate Air China Cargo (see attached article), could set up a cargo distribution center in Anchorage with a dedicated fleet of 747 freighters based there for the purpose of transporting U.S. domestic traffic between Alaska and the other 49 states, in both directions, provided the cargo was coming from or destined for a foreign country. This would be the equivalent of setting up a foreign-owned company in the United States for the sole purpose of competing with U.S. firms and taking advantage of our vast domestic air transportation markets. Would Air China be paying U.S. corporate income taxes on the millions of dollars of revenue they would reap in this operation? No! Would Air China be subject to U.S. laws and regulations concerning employment rights, drug and alcohol testing of employees, pilot training and other safety requirements? No! Would these 747’s be flown by U.S. crewmembers? No! Would U.S. carriers be granted reciprocal opportunities in mainland China? No! Is this a good deal for the U.S. airline industry and its employees? No!

Now, multiply this type of operation by the myriad of other foreign carriers that would relish the opportunity to get in on the action of serving the most lucrative domestic air transporation markets in the world. And then, once the door is cracked open for air cargo through Alaska, the pressure would be on for the same access through other U.S. gateways, and following that, the same opportunity for air transportation of passengers.

If you are concerned that the manufacturing sector of our economy is taking up residence abroad at the expense of millions of good U.S. jobs as the Washington Post article suggests, then you should also be concerned that the provision described above is the first step toward the shipment of U.S. airline jobs overseas.

If you are concerned about the potential adverse effects of the Alaska air cargo cabotage provision, then I respectfully urge you to oppose its inclusion in the conference report of the FAA Reauthorization Bill. If the provision is not removed, I urge you to oppose the conference report.

Sincerely,

Duane E. Woerth, President

 

[33A]

Called and emailed both Senators; it took 5 minutes. Let's wear 'em out.

 

[JohnDoe]

bump

 

[Dizel8]

Sent an email and called both Senators from IL.

 

[Sniper@YourFeet]

Call your senators. Cabotage is no joke. This is a HUGE deal.

 

[Dizel8]

Bump!

Come on guys. First its Alaska, then the rest of the country! A lot of jobs could be lost to overseas carriers, maybe yours!