Once again the Republicans who are bought and paid for by Big Business show their true colors. They care nothing for you, me, our domestic airlines, the piloting profession, or labor unions. This is why I will be voting DEMOCRAT. Elect Gov. Howard Dean as our next president and send Bush/Cheney & Co. back to Halliburton and the oil fields of Texas where they belong.
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
Cabotage Alert!!!
- Thread starter PastV1
- Start date
- Watchers 16
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
I contacted both of my senators on Day #1 of this outrage.
To everyone else....don't just sit there thinking, "someone else will take care of it". YOU have to take care of it. Collectively, we all can make this go away, but only if EACH of us does his part. I've included an easy link below to help you contact your respective senators. Use the ready-made letter that others have posted on this forum if you like, or make up your own. But whatever you do, GET INVOLVED! We can fight a battle now...or a war later. Which would you rather do?
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
To everyone else....don't just sit there thinking, "someone else will take care of it". YOU have to take care of it. Collectively, we all can make this go away, but only if EACH of us does his part. I've included an easy link below to help you contact your respective senators. Use the ready-made letter that others have posted on this forum if you like, or make up your own. But whatever you do, GET INVOLVED! We can fight a battle now...or a war later. Which would you rather do?
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Pura Vida said:
Even better, we need a strong, single voice in Wash DC to speak for the pilot profession when the politicians try and ram rod one these things thru. I mean it is more effective, at times, if one group speaks for 66,000 of us and stays on top of these things.....
Oh well, I gotta go pay bills including my damm ALPA dues...stinkin unions....
Hugh Jorgan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 2,307
Cargo Cabotage: Another Slippery Slope
by
Capt. Duane E. Woerth
The Senate will begin deliberations shortly on the conference report of the FAA Reauthorization Bill, which narrowly passed the House on a partisan vote of 211 to 207. In addition to the widely publicized dispute over air traffic control privatization, and the need for defensive training for flight attendants, the conference report contains a little-noticed provision that will result in the out-sourcing of U.S. pilots 92 jobs to Asian carriers.
The issue is cabotage, the carriage of goods or passengers between two destinations within a country by a transport entity from another nation. It is prohibited by U.S. law.
The amendment in question would allow cargo cabotage to and from the state of Alaska. It 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.
If enacted, it would change the longstanding requirement that the transportation of cargo in domestic markets be done on U.S. air carriers. It would allow foreign airlines to carry cargo between an Alaskan gateway airport and any other U.S. airport, provided that the cargo was being shipped internationally into or out of Alaska. Current U.S. pilot jobs will be outsourced to Asian carriers; the only fig leaf required is a U.S. codeshare partner. They get the jobs - we get the code.
For example, it would allow Air China, the national carrier for the People's Republic of China, to pick up cargo brought into Anchorage from Tokyo by Northwest Airlines and transport it to New York. The provision does not grant any reciprocal rights for U.S. carriers in China, nor can it be expected that the Chinese would agree to allow such operations by U.S. carriers in their vast domestic markets.
Futhermore, this lack of reciprocity is not a minor point. How are U.S. trade negotiators supposed to obtain further aviation liberalization rights for U.S. air carriers if Congress unilaterally gives away the store with no quid pro quos?
Under this scenario, a foreign airline such as Air China, or its affiliate Air China Cargo, could set up a cargo distribution center in Anchorage witha dedicated fleet of 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 and they had a U.S. codeshare partner providing the fig leaf.
It has been argued that without this amendment, Anchorage airport is in danger of losing foreign cargo transfer traffic to Canadian airports such as Vancouver. However, that is clearly a mistaken argument. Canada does not share fifth freedom opportunities with the U.S., which means that this type of cargo transfer operation would be illegal for Asian carriers via Canada.
It should be obvious that once the door is cracked open for unilateral cargo cabotage through Alaska, pressure will build to provide the same access through other U.S. gateways. What will stop New York, Miami, or Los Angeles airports from making the same request of Congress with no quid pro quo benefit for U.S. carriers and their employees?
If the goal is to provide more service to U.S. citizens and businesses for shipping cargo to and from foreign markets, we ought to be pursuing ways to do that by expanding the services of U.S. airlines so that we can benefit American workers and businesses.
This amendment puts us on the slippery slope toward widespread foreign outsourcing of U.S. pilot jobs. Congress should remove this insidious provision from the bill and remember that many of the U.S. pilot jobs that will be outsourced are military veterans who served in Vietnam, or the Gulf wars.
Duane E. Woerth is president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International
* * * * * * * *
ACTION ALERT
by
Capt. Duane E. Woerth
The Senate will begin deliberations shortly on the conference report of the FAA Reauthorization Bill, which narrowly passed the House on a partisan vote of 211 to 207. In addition to the widely publicized dispute over air traffic control privatization, and the need for defensive training for flight attendants, the conference report contains a little-noticed provision that will result in the out-sourcing of U.S. pilots 92 jobs to Asian carriers.
The issue is cabotage, the carriage of goods or passengers between two destinations within a country by a transport entity from another nation. It is prohibited by U.S. law.
The amendment in question would allow cargo cabotage to and from the state of Alaska. It 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.
If enacted, it would change the longstanding requirement that the transportation of cargo in domestic markets be done on U.S. air carriers. It would allow foreign airlines to carry cargo between an Alaskan gateway airport and any other U.S. airport, provided that the cargo was being shipped internationally into or out of Alaska. Current U.S. pilot jobs will be outsourced to Asian carriers; the only fig leaf required is a U.S. codeshare partner. They get the jobs - we get the code.
For example, it would allow Air China, the national carrier for the People's Republic of China, to pick up cargo brought into Anchorage from Tokyo by Northwest Airlines and transport it to New York. The provision does not grant any reciprocal rights for U.S. carriers in China, nor can it be expected that the Chinese would agree to allow such operations by U.S. carriers in their vast domestic markets.
Futhermore, this lack of reciprocity is not a minor point. How are U.S. trade negotiators supposed to obtain further aviation liberalization rights for U.S. air carriers if Congress unilaterally gives away the store with no quid pro quos?
Under this scenario, a foreign airline such as Air China, or its affiliate Air China Cargo, could set up a cargo distribution center in Anchorage witha dedicated fleet of 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 and they had a U.S. codeshare partner providing the fig leaf.
It has been argued that without this amendment, Anchorage airport is in danger of losing foreign cargo transfer traffic to Canadian airports such as Vancouver. However, that is clearly a mistaken argument. Canada does not share fifth freedom opportunities with the U.S., which means that this type of cargo transfer operation would be illegal for Asian carriers via Canada.
It should be obvious that once the door is cracked open for unilateral cargo cabotage through Alaska, pressure will build to provide the same access through other U.S. gateways. What will stop New York, Miami, or Los Angeles airports from making the same request of Congress with no quid pro quo benefit for U.S. carriers and their employees?
If the goal is to provide more service to U.S. citizens and businesses for shipping cargo to and from foreign markets, we ought to be pursuing ways to do that by expanding the services of U.S. airlines so that we can benefit American workers and businesses.
This amendment puts us on the slippery slope toward widespread foreign outsourcing of U.S. pilot jobs. Congress should remove this insidious provision from the bill and remember that many of the U.S. pilot jobs that will be outsourced are military veterans who served in Vietnam, or the Gulf wars.
Duane E. Woerth is president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International
* * * * * * * *
ACTION ALERT
Gotta keep this on the FRONT burner guys & gals.
I emailed last week, emailed again and called yesterday. It is so EASY.
Go to www.senate.gov Pick your state and you have the phone numbers right there. Take the 2-3 minutes to talk to a staffer and have your voice heard-they listen. Your career is certainly worth a couple of minutes.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
I emailed last week, emailed again and called yesterday. It is so EASY.
Go to www.senate.gov Pick your state and you have the phone numbers right there. Take the 2-3 minutes to talk to a staffer and have your voice heard-they listen. Your career is certainly worth a couple of minutes.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
Purple Haze
Out there and lovin' it
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 175
Monday, Nov. 17
Senate Republicans called for a cloture vote on the FAA Reauthorization Bill (H.R. 2115) today at 5:30 p.m. EST. A 60-vote majority is required to invoke cloture, which would end debate and bring a bill to the floor for a vote.
UPDATE: Cloture failed, so debate continues - this is a good thing. However, none of the debate has mentioned cabotage. It is pure Dems vs. Reps. Ridiculous.
If you have the stomach, phone your senators again, and request they not support the cargo cabotage provision the Reauthorization Bill contains.
To find contact information for your senators, navigate to www.senate.gov and use the "Find Your Senators" link in the middle of the page. It is vital that every pilot take a few minutes to call their senators NOW (even if you already contacted them last week) and let them know how you feel about allowing the exportation of U.S. pilot jobs to foreign carriers.
We must be a squeaky wheel (noisy special interest). Be persistent, be professional. Call again.
Senate Republicans called for a cloture vote on the FAA Reauthorization Bill (H.R. 2115) today at 5:30 p.m. EST. A 60-vote majority is required to invoke cloture, which would end debate and bring a bill to the floor for a vote.
UPDATE: Cloture failed, so debate continues - this is a good thing. However, none of the debate has mentioned cabotage. It is pure Dems vs. Reps. Ridiculous.
If you have the stomach, phone your senators again, and request they not support the cargo cabotage provision the Reauthorization Bill contains.
To find contact information for your senators, navigate to www.senate.gov and use the "Find Your Senators" link in the middle of the page. It is vital that every pilot take a few minutes to call their senators NOW (even if you already contacted them last week) and let them know how you feel about allowing the exportation of U.S. pilot jobs to foreign carriers.
We must be a squeaky wheel (noisy special interest). Be persistent, be professional. Call again.
Last edited:
We all agree that this form of cabotage, if it were to be passed, could be detrimental to our careers. And although not an ALPA guy myself, I'm in the trenches (so to speak) with all of you. And will write all the letters I can to stop it should it again come up for a vote.
What I don't understand though, is that in light of the potential hijacking threats from foriegn based airlines, why would such legislation would even be considered? Has anyone brought THAT up in their letters to the powers that be?
Isn't it a little ironic, or rather MORONIC, that on one hand we are worried about someone hijacking a cargo plane from outside the U.S. and yet some folks in the gov't think it's perfectly OK for foreign carriers to have free reign? Okay, I realize there are already several foreign carriers entering our skies everyday, but they terminate at a given Int'l airport and that's that. Am I missing something here? Could someone please explain the logic?
What I don't understand though, is that in light of the potential hijacking threats from foriegn based airlines, why would such legislation would even be considered? Has anyone brought THAT up in their letters to the powers that be?
Isn't it a little ironic, or rather MORONIC, that on one hand we are worried about someone hijacking a cargo plane from outside the U.S. and yet some folks in the gov't think it's perfectly OK for foreign carriers to have free reign? Okay, I realize there are already several foreign carriers entering our skies everyday, but they terminate at a given Int'l airport and that's that. Am I missing something here? Could someone please explain the logic?
Vikingpilot
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Posts
- 24
From the union..."This afternoon’s Senate vote to end debate on the FAA Reauthorization Bill failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to pass. This means that debate on the bill in the Senate will continue and no vote on the bill itself will be taken at the current time. Thanks to all members who took the time to contact their senators on the cabotage provision this bill contains – your input obviously had a positive effect on today’s vote. Tennessee Senator Bill Frist, at the last minute, changed his vote from yes to no in order to be able to bring the issue up again for reconsideration. Therefore, we need all members to continue to contact their senators now as it is highly possible this will resurface tomorrow."
Keep the pressure on!
Keep the pressure on!
Can you believe it?
I was watching the motion for cloture yesterday afternoon, and it appeared it was going to be voted on by pure party line. But at the last minute, Sen. Frisk entered the floor and voted NO! He's the majority leader and yet voted no? Someone got to him, and I think part of that responsibility was the outpouring of negative emails and phone calls made to his office and other Senators re: the "Cabotage" provision. I think the Republican Senators realize that they'll lose a portion of their voting block if they allow H.R. 2115 to pass in it's present form. Maybe this Democracy thing does work. But keep in mind: "The Fat Lady hasn't finished singing yet." We have to maintain diligence on this one and stay in contact with our respective Senators regarding this Bill.
I was watching the motion for cloture yesterday afternoon, and it appeared it was going to be voted on by pure party line. But at the last minute, Sen. Frisk entered the floor and voted NO! He's the majority leader and yet voted no? Someone got to him, and I think part of that responsibility was the outpouring of negative emails and phone calls made to his office and other Senators re: the "Cabotage" provision. I think the Republican Senators realize that they'll lose a portion of their voting block if they allow H.R. 2115 to pass in it's present form. Maybe this Democracy thing does work. But keep in mind: "The Fat Lady hasn't finished singing yet." We have to maintain diligence on this one and stay in contact with our respective Senators regarding this Bill.
Last edited:
Icebergclub
Happy to have a Job.....
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 61
My emails are out. Letters to follow..........
Here is an excerpt from Brian Baird:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Century of Aviation
Authorization Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important
issue.
On October 30, 2003, I voted against the FAA Conference report, which
contains a number of troubling provisions including the possible
privatization of airport control towers, elimination of a flight
attendant
security plan and allowing foreign cargo service to operate within our
domestic airport network. The bill passed the House by a vote of
211-207
and awaits action in the Senate.
The events of September 11th highlighted the need for a strong air
traffic
control system. From the initial shutdown of the system on that
terrible
day, to the reinstatement of air traffic service, the nation's FAA
aviation specialists were there to ensure the highest level of safety.
In
addition, world-wide there is no existing successful model for private
air
traffic control. In fact, current private systems have been found to
be
more costly, less efficient, and less productive than the U.S. system.
Most important, when it comes to flying, I want safety to be the number
one concern - not a company's bottom line.
Regarding flight attendant training, since September 11, 2001, Congress
has passed numerous laws to reassure the traveling public that air
travel
is safe. One of those laws allows pilots to carry weapons and another
significantly increased the number of armed air marshals on flights.
However, two years have passed and still the Transportation Security
Agency (TSA) has not issued security training regulations for flight
attendants. While the TSA developed the training for Federal Flight
Deck
Officers (FFDO) and for the initial air marshal program, flight
attendants
still remain without a certified TSA training program. I believe
coordination between pilots, flight attendants and air marshals is
crucial
if faced with a terrorist threat.
Lastly, the new conference report makes no changes in the so called
"cabatoge" issue allowing foreign airlines to carry cargo between
cities
in Alaska and other cities in the U.S., policies that have been used
both
for national security and competition. This provision potentially
jeopardizes the security of our country and will surely take jobs away
from United States airlines and their employees. In a time of economic
stagnation, we should not exacerbate our unemployment problems in the
United States by exporting American jobs overseas.
Thank you again for writing to express your views on this issue. In
the
future, you may find it helpful to visit my Congressional website at
www.house.gov/baird for more information about my activities in the
District and issues of importance to you. Please also be aware that
all
incoming postal mail to my Washington, DC office may encounter delays
of
eight to eleven business days because of increased security
precautions.
As a result, contacting me by email on my website may help to expedite
my
response to your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me again
if
I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Brian Baird
Member of Congress
Here is an excerpt from Brian Baird:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Century of Aviation
Authorization Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important
issue.
On October 30, 2003, I voted against the FAA Conference report, which
contains a number of troubling provisions including the possible
privatization of airport control towers, elimination of a flight
attendant
security plan and allowing foreign cargo service to operate within our
domestic airport network. The bill passed the House by a vote of
211-207
and awaits action in the Senate.
The events of September 11th highlighted the need for a strong air
traffic
control system. From the initial shutdown of the system on that
terrible
day, to the reinstatement of air traffic service, the nation's FAA
aviation specialists were there to ensure the highest level of safety.
In
addition, world-wide there is no existing successful model for private
air
traffic control. In fact, current private systems have been found to
be
more costly, less efficient, and less productive than the U.S. system.
Most important, when it comes to flying, I want safety to be the number
one concern - not a company's bottom line.
Regarding flight attendant training, since September 11, 2001, Congress
has passed numerous laws to reassure the traveling public that air
travel
is safe. One of those laws allows pilots to carry weapons and another
significantly increased the number of armed air marshals on flights.
However, two years have passed and still the Transportation Security
Agency (TSA) has not issued security training regulations for flight
attendants. While the TSA developed the training for Federal Flight
Deck
Officers (FFDO) and for the initial air marshal program, flight
attendants
still remain without a certified TSA training program. I believe
coordination between pilots, flight attendants and air marshals is
crucial
if faced with a terrorist threat.
Lastly, the new conference report makes no changes in the so called
"cabatoge" issue allowing foreign airlines to carry cargo between
cities
in Alaska and other cities in the U.S., policies that have been used
both
for national security and competition. This provision potentially
jeopardizes the security of our country and will surely take jobs away
from United States airlines and their employees. In a time of economic
stagnation, we should not exacerbate our unemployment problems in the
United States by exporting American jobs overseas.
Thank you again for writing to express your views on this issue. In
the
future, you may find it helpful to visit my Congressional website at
www.house.gov/baird for more information about my activities in the
District and issues of importance to you. Please also be aware that
all
incoming postal mail to my Washington, DC office may encounter delays
of
eight to eleven business days because of increased security
precautions.
As a result, contacting me by email on my website may help to expedite
my
response to your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me again
if
I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Brian Baird
Member of Congress
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
