Foreign Airlines for Troop movements?

[Pilotbob3]

what are you traitors???? yea sure take away flying from American companies and give it to foriegn airlines?????? what the heck is wrong with all of you????? unbelievable.. .....gee why don't we just have the foreign airlines take over the usa too...open skies everywhere......sheesh...idiots

 

[BMD]

gulf air

I'd fly with the girls from Gulf Air any time.

 

[General Lee]

Pilotbob3,

Easy man, I was just saying the stews from Singapore are hot, and the troops may like that better than the grannies at Delta. I wish personally that we would take the 11 MD-11s out of the desert that we are still paying close to $15,000 a day for (each) and use them for MAC charters. But again, that is our fault (the pilots').

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[TBF]

TBF,

I know, we just gave you some of our MD-11s, and we still have 11 left that we are paying for each day (I think $15,000 each) to sit in the desert. ....

Bye Bye--General Lee

I am no longer at World, spent a few years there (good company, great people) and had a first hand look at AMC "teaming". All the majors have formed teams to farm out their share of their CRAF commitment. It made sense when there was more profit in scheduled flying. I would have thought with the downturn in the industry that the majors would have exercised their right to do more of that flying instead of parking aircraft and furloughing employees!

 

[CatYaaak]

what are you traitors???? yea sure take away flying from American companies and give it to foriegn airlines?????? what the heck is wrong with all of you????? unbelievable.. .....gee why don't we just have the foreign airlines take over the usa too...open skies everywhere......sheesh...idiots

No, I'm not a traitor and you'd have to be an idiot yourself to think so or bandy that label about so freely. Since the military operates under budget contraints, if the Pentagon can save $$ by using foreign carriers (that of course meet safety and security standards) to transport troops , that means more $$ at the other end for important things like equipment and ammo.

It was the Pentagon that requested the ability to open competitive bids to foreign carriers.....are they traitors too? The military exists to protect your life and this country, but that doesn't mean it has to subsidize any airline or your paycheck. It's not about you, or "your flying".

Here's an idea for you. The way to keep our troops on U.S. airlines is to put in the lowest bids. Since keeping them there seems to be some sort of Patriot Barometer for you, how about flight crews doing their part to keep the costs down and volunteering to crew those flights say, once a year by rotating crews, without pay? You know, for free? Chipping in for the troops?

 

[ivauir]

What are these foreign airlines parent countries going to offer us in return - oh nothing? Then forget it. I have ZERO interest in supporting Air France and I don't care what the FAs look like, just so long as they don't wake me up.

 

[Emerson Bigguns]

These times are very trying for us as pilots as we have a vested interest in what we do because we love it. Painful thing is that we are usually employees of a company. And the company is guided by the bottom line. The Pentagon is simply a business looking out for its bottom line. Reduce costs is the name of the game. If US carriers want to continue their patriotic duty to ferry troops, they will have to be competitive to do it. And how hot the stews are (or not) will not really be a factor in the Pentagon's decision IMHO.

No hard feelings, just business.

EB

 

[CatYaaak]

What are these foreign airlines parent countries going to offer us in return - oh nothing? Then forget it. I have ZERO interest in supporting Air France and I don't care what the FAs look like, just so long as they don't wake me up.

If they bid the lowest, in effect they are freeing up more $$ for the Pentagon to spend on the troops in other ways. Are you one of the troops being transported and on the gound over here? If so, you have my thanks. If not, then you don't have to worry about being awakened (or not) be any F/As, either cute or dog-butt ugly, on any of these flights.

But it's not as if most of these arilines are isolationist. Your example, AF, is "supported" in it's business by Delta and vice versa by virtue of being codeshare partners. If you're flying for SWA, then what are you worried about? Even from the East Coast, you don't have equipment that will go that far without stopping 3+ times anyway.

 

[ivauir]

Are you one of the troops being transported and on the gound over here?

Yes I am.

If you're flying for SWA, then what are you worried about?

I am worried about the principle of it. There is more to the price than the purshase price. Delta pays US taxes and this is a market that only the US has. It is not like Delta is going to get a contract to move Russian or French troops so why should these foreign carriers get a free ride? This just doesn't make sense, I am all for free trade, but that needs to be a two way deal - they have nothing to offer - so no deal.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Here's an idea for you. The way to keep our troops on U.S. airlines is to put in the lowest bids.

I can see it now....a wave of 50 RJs at a time heading off to the Middle East with our troops on board.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

The issue is control. With the US foreign policy of my enemies enemy is my freind.....

Even if we contract out to a firendly western carrier, (I don't know..say France, Germany) if they don't agree with our politics and that foreign carriers gov't says, don't fly US troops and we'll subsidize your loss. Where does that put us? Kind of like the maritime industry. Maybe thats why the Army has boats (huh?)

 

[Freddie Spencer]

Last year The White House used a Cathay 744 to fly all the press people from RJTT to RPLL ( I think), while bush was over in Asia wasting taxpayers money...

 

[FLB717]

US Troops flown by US Aircarft to keep US Dollors in the US. USe your US vote to make it happen.

 

[CatYaaak]

I am worried about the principle of it. There is more to the price than the purshase price. Delta pays US taxes and this is a market that only the US has. It is not like Delta is going to get a contract to move Russian or French troops so why should these foreign carriers get a free ride? This just doesn't make sense, I am all for free trade, but that needs to be a two way deal - they have nothing to offer - so no deal.

It's not about free trade or a "market", it's about the Pentagon making it's budget go further (a budget funded by ALL taxpayers, not just Delta or other airlines' corporate taxes), and large corporations who have fenced-off access to military contracts develop a "Pig feeding at the bottomless Govm't Trough" mentality. Airlines are no different than the folks who gave you the $500 hammer and the $1000 toilet seat. If a foreign, national airline like Air France wins a low bid contract, that's fine with me because most importantly it saves the Pentagon money, but also has the bonus effect of forcing whiny, US-protesting French taxpayers into helping pay for moving our troops. Serves the little croakers right.

And since you brought up taxpaying, if I were Boss of the World I'd grant your wish (for awhile) by taking what you propose a step further; this military transport flying would be soley for US carriers all right, specifically for those companies who have received and burned through billions of taxpayer bail-out money. I'd move these companies from Airline Welfare to Airline Workfare, and they'd be ferrying our troops until they worked off the full amount (plus interest), of what they've received.

The per-hour rate deduction against the billions owed would be only the DOC for the aircraft plus the MILITARY pay scale equivalent for the crews. After all, deducting from the overall bill quarter-million dollar captain and 6-figure FO rates would be kind of like paying for that aforementioned $1ooo toilet seat.







But let's not pretend that Delta, etc, are paying

 

[CatYaaak]

US Troops flown by US Aircarft to keep US Dollors in the US. USe your US vote to make it happen.

..in other words....

"In the name of "US patriotism", during wartime, vote to curtail the US military's request for the ablility to spend US taxpayer $$s on where THEY think it could be more wisely-spent because lots US airline pilots worried about their jobs....just like they profess to know what's best for their own "successful" US Airline companies...these pilots know where how to better spend the $$ earmarked for our Nation's defense than even the Pentagon itself. The short answer?....why, on US airline pilots, of course!"

 

[FLB717]

Being that aviation is nearly 1/8th of the US economy. I surely want US dollars going to US Pilots, Flight Attendants, Mechanics, Rampers, Fuelers, Caterers, Gate Agents, General Office Personnel, Engine Manf, Airframe Manf, Tire Manf, Avionics Manf, US Banks, etc makes sense to me. Better than sending the money to France or Germany. So by your thoughts it is ok for Banana Air to fly any place any time in the US, hope you like your job in that case because it can fly the coup. Because I like mine rather well. My airline doesn't even fly to overseas locations, so if Delta or United does and the military makes them bid on routes and pays them, great the General has some thing to do vs. being furloughed.

 

[Thedude]

Go talk to the IRS. Many jobs there have already been sent to India.
Have you been Globalized yet???

 

[CatYaaak]

Being that aviation is nearly 1/8th of the US economy. I surely want US dollars going to US Pilots, Flight Attendants, Mechanics, Rampers, Fuelers, Caterers, Gate Agents, General Office Personnel, Engine Manf, Airframe Manf, Tire Manf, Avionics Manf, US Banks, etc makes sense to me. Better than sending the money to France or Germany. So by your thoughts it is ok for Banana Air to fly any place any time in the US, hope you like your job in that case because it can fly the coup. Because I like mine rather well. My airline doesn't even fly to overseas locations, so if Delta or United does and the military makes them bid on routes and pays them, great the General has some thing to do vs. being furloughed.

As much as you'd like to somehow extrapolate this issue into one of cabotage or even marketplace in an attempt to justify your sense of entitlement to this particular Pork Barrel, you can't, because we aren't discussing anything even remotely related to Common Carriage. The subject is how the military wants to spend it's money, and where it can think it can save what it's been allotted.

I don't think your wish for US taxpayer $$ to automatically flow through the Pentagon into your particular industry's niche should outweigh what they have deemed their priorites are for spending.

 

[FLB717]

Then Mr Yaaak you and I will just disagree.