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

Foreign Ownership/Open Skys bill on it's way to Pres

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

lowecur

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Posts
2,317
Looks like this will be signed into law shortly. This should shake up the airline industry even further. My guess is this will jumpstart any potential mergers between US carriers before foreign ownership can get a foothold. Also it has the potential to allow further errosion of any future profits if a carrier like Emirates is allowed to control a domestic carrier in US.

:pimp:

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1149745621241310.xml&coll=1
 
Don't any of you Pilots get involved....... just stay in the middle of the herd... everything will be ok.... and don't look up....
 
(hummm.... I wonder if Kingfisher will have a Chicago base?)






;) TC
 
lowecur said:
Looks like this will be signed into law shortly. This should shake up the airline industry even further. My guess is this will jumpstart any potential mergers between US carriers before foreign ownership can get a foothold. Also it has the potential to allow further errosion of any future profits if a carrier like Emirates is allowed to control a domestic carrier in US.

:pimp:

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1149745621241310.xml&coll=1

Looks to me like they just took the restrictions on DOT out of the supplemental appropriation. I doubt that the standoff between congress and DOT on the issue will go away any time soon; the sponsors will probably just find another bill to attach it to.
 
It just keeps getting better

Ryan Air cheap flight tickets script a success story

EasyJet, SkyEurope, Wizz Air, Central Wings, British Airways and Lufthansa are far behind.

26 August, 2005: Ryan Air, SkyEurope, Wizz Air, Central Wings and EasyJet PlC are currently fighting for dominating the low-budget skies in Europe, as even the countries once behind the Iron Curtain embrace the market economy with open arms.

Ryan Air, the Dublin, Ireland-based low-cost airline has been the first off block, and is still the biggest player. With its cheap flight tickets, Ryan Air hopes to carry around 35 million air passengers this year. Ryan Air flies about 250 low-priced routes, spread across 21 countries in Europe. it has bases in 21 countries, and boasts of a fleet of over 100 Boeing 737-800 planes. Ryan Air has recently placed firm orders for another 125 new planes, which are expected to join its fleet in seven years. Ryan Air hopes the arrival of additional planes will help it take the low-budget flight ticket game to greater heights. The fleet expansion will help Ryan to fly a whopping 70 million passengers by 2012. The discount airline currently has staff strength of 2,700 people, hailing from over 25 different countries.

Ryan Air was set up in 1985 by the Ryan family, with just £1 share capital and 25 employees. The first Ryan Air flight took wings in July, 198. 25. Since Ryan Air flew cramped 15-seater Bandeirante planes, it was mandatory that the cabin crew were less than aircraft five feet 2 inches in height! The daily flights started between Waterford in south-east Ireland to London's Gatwick.

In the first full year of operation, Ryan Air secured permission to fly the Dublin-London route, which was, till then dominated by British Airways and Aer Lingus. Ryan Air started the fare war with its cheap flight tickets priced half as that of British Airways and Aer Lingus, and cornered a major chunk of the discount fliers between the two big cities. In response, both British Airways and Aer Lingus had to cut their flight ticket prices to retain the traffic. At the end of the first year of operation itself, Ryan had secured a traffic 82000 passengers.

Later, Ryan Air tied up with Tarom Air of Romania to secure its jets on wet lease. With the additional jets, Ryan extended its cheap flight ticket-powered business by 15 additional routes, including flights from Dublin to Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and Cardiff. Ryan also opened new flight routes from Luton to Galway, Cork, Shannon, Waterford and Knock in Western Ireland.
Within three years, Ryan Air had leased another three jets from Tarom Air of Romania, taking the total number of leased jets to six. this enabled the company to launch flights across Europe with cheap, low-budget discount flight tickets. The strategy had caught on by now, and was paying rich dividends. Apart from more flights in Ireland itself, Ryan Air also launched cheap flights from Dublin to Brussels and Munich. two of its products - the Frequent Flier club and the business class product did not take off well, and were abandoned.
The cut-throat competition in the European market hit Ryan Air by 1990, and the company piled up losses of £20 million. Ryan Air was restructured, with the Ryan family investing about £20 million to turn the company around. The airline was restructured o the model of the South West Airline, with the motto of offering low-budget flight tickets. A new management came in too. Ryan claims that it is the cheapest airline in the European market. "We launch an Easter weekend seat sale with fares of £59 return, and such is the demand that passengers queue halfway up Dawson Street for 3 days to get these lowest ever fares," claims the low-budget airline.

Fortunes changed in 1991 with the Gulf War breaking out. The airline shifted base to another airport and returned some of its turbo prop aircraft. For the first time since inception, Ryan Air made an audited profit of £293,000 for the year. Later, the total number of Ryan Air flight routes were pruned to just six - Dublin-Stansted, Dublin-Luton, Dublin-Liverpool and Cork, Shannon and Knock to Stansted. Despite the reduction in flights, traffic increased since the cheap flight tickets had driven up passenger traffic.

In 1993, Ryan Air carried over 1 million passengers for the first time. A new flight to Birmingham was opened and more aircraft bought from British Aircraft and Britannia. Two more discount flights were opened from Dublin to Manchester and Glasgow Prestwick in 1994. In 1995, Aer Lingus withdrew from the Dublin-London Gatwick flight route, and it came to be dominated by Ryan Air. By now, Ryan had become the largest European low-budget airline in the Dublin-London route offering cheapest air tickets. In September 1995, it became the first Irish airline to fly a British domestic flight route - London Stansted to Glasgow Prestwick. The same year (the 10th year of Ryan Air), four Boeings wee bought from Transavia.

Leeds Bradford, Cardiff and Bournemouth flights were started in 1996, and more Boeings bought from Lufthansa. In 1996, the European Open Skies policy was cleared, allowing free competition for scheduled airlines across Europe. In 1997, flights from London Stansted to Stockholm Skavsta and Oslo Torp were started besides, low-budget flights from Dublin to Paris Beauvais and Brussels Charleroi. With the addition of two more Boeings, the fleet strength of Ryan Air now reached 25. The company was listed in the same year in Dublin and Nasdaq. A new Ryan Air base was launched at Glasgow Prestwick with cheap discount flights every day to London, Paris, Dublin and Frankfurt.

In 1998, Ryan Air continued adding more routes to Malmo (Sweden), St Etienne and Carcassonne (France) and Venice, Pisa and Rimini (Italy). The airline also placed orders for another 45 brand new planes to power its cheap fare flights. Frankfurt, Ancona, Genoa, Turin, Derry, Biarritz, Ostend and Aarhus flights were started in 1999, all of them flying the flag of cheap flight tickets.

In 2000, the Ryan Air website was launched, to facilitate online booking and seat reservation. The website has received heavy traffic from the beginning, with surfers flocking to the low-budget flight phenomenon. In 2001, the airline opened its first continental base at Brussels Charleroi Airport with another five Boeing 737-800s.
From Brussels, Ryan Air started flights to Dublin, London, Venice, Paris, Glasgow, Shannon and Carcassone. The airline company disproved critics who prophesied that Ryan's budget flights will not work in Brussels.

The 9/11 attacks had their effect on Ryan Air too, just like the case with airlines across the world, whether they were budget airlines or not. Air travel plunged, and there were fears of oil price hike too. In 2002, Ryan Air flights to Ireland, UK, Norway, Franck and Italy took off from its new continental base at Frankfurt Hahn. Lufthansa, which handled all the outbound flights from Germany so far, went to court, but passengers still flocked to Ryan Air's cheap flights. the airline went on to announce another order for more Boeings.

In 2003, the budget airline made its first big acquisition, by snapping up the Stansted based Buzz Air, which was making losses. Buzz Air was turned around and Ryan relaunched the flights by Buzz in 15 routes at half the earlier ticket bookings prices. This made it the biggest airline operating out of London Stansted airport. Ryan then went on to open new continental bases in Milan Bergamo and Stockholm Skavsta. 73 new flight routes were launched, and with another 14 Boeings delivered, Ryan Air overtook British Airways as the biggest airline in UK, clocking more passenger traffic than BA.

Ryan Air added 24 Boeings in 2004, taking its total budget flights fleet strength to 60. Some of the older aircraft were retired by now. Two more bases were opened at Rome Ciampino and Barcelona Girona. In 2005, it has opened new flights to Liverpool John Lennon Airport and at Shannon in the West of Ireland.

In its aerial history spanning over a decade, Ryan Air has bagged numerous awards and honours for airline punctuality and least ticket booking cancellations. It has been named as the world's popular airline by Google. Ryan Air gets most of its budget ticket bookings through the Internet, with its website bringing 98% of its traffic. As the original successful discount airline of Europe, Ryan Air still has a long way to go.

Just wait until these guys get over here.
 
Last edited:
80drvr said:
Looks to me like they just took the restrictions on DOT out of the supplemental appropriation. I doubt that the standoff between congress and DOT on the issue will go away any time soon; the sponsors will probably just find another bill to attach it to.
I think congressional approval would still be necessary, but if the ownership is necessary to keep a US airline viable, this bill could allow Congress to give the greenlite.

The open skys part is something that could make the ultra yield positive international routes a thing of the past. We'll have to see how it plays out.

:pimp:
 
Maybe British Airways and American Airlines will finally be allowed to merge. I know they have tried it a couple of times in the past. They would be an awesome company to work for. You would literally cover the entire globe.

Oh wait, I sound optimistic. Sorry, I forgot which industry I was talking about. My bad.
 
Big Slick said:
Maybe British Airways and American Airlines will finally be allowed to merge. I know they have tried it a couple of times in the past. They would be an awesome company to work for. You would literally cover the entire globe.

Oh wait, I sound optimistic. Sorry, I forgot which industry I was talking about. My bad.

Not sure if it is realized....... since a majority of the global airline market is in the US, the "foreign" airlines will look to control more of the international.

That could mean more of us or "US" pilots will only have opportunity to fly domestic, while foreign carrier operate the widebodies...

That is open skies.

Foerign control means Juan and Wang fly our jets and we find other jobs..
 
"All your aircrafts is belong to us."
 
Rez O. Lewshun said:
Not sure if it is realized....... since a majority of the global airline market is in the US, the "foreign" airlines will look to control more of the international.

That could mean more of us or "US" pilots will only have opportunity to fly domestic, while foreign carrier operate the widebodies...

That is open skies.

Foerign control means Juan and Wang fly our jets and we find other jobs..

And starting on November 23, 2006 these foreign airlines will use pilots up to the age of 65.:(
 
So I guess I have to find away to live on India wages, but not in India. I guess another profession is looking really good right now.

iflyhigh
 
Rez--Juan and Wang don't exist. Airlines all over the world are hiring U.S., Aussie and UK pilots because that's the only place there isn't a shortage.

I'm not saying the foreigners won't try to lower the bar on wages and benefits (although if you look at the pay at Ryanair, it's a he!! of a lot better than the non-cargo ALPA carriers). But they'll have no trouble finding plenty of people here to lower the bar further just to sit in that coveted left seat on a 737-800.TC
 
AA717driver said:
Rez--Juan and Wang don't exist. Airlines all over the world are hiring U.S., Aussie and UK pilots because that's the only place there isn't a shortage.

I'm not saying the foreigners won't try to lower the bar on wages and benefits (although if you look at the pay at Ryanair, it's a he!! of a lot better than the non-cargo ALPA carriers). But they'll have no trouble finding plenty of people here to lower the bar further just to sit in that coveted left seat on a 737-800.TC

Valid points.....


keeping our heads in the sand is not an option!
 
One more for ya

bizjournals.com
U.S. to allow more foreign control of airlines
Thursday June 8, 1:37 pm ET
The United States is moving toward a new policy of allowing increased foreign investment in U.S. airlines, over the objections of Sen. Daniel Inouye.
Congressional conferees Wednesday rejected a motion by Hawaii's senior senator to delay implementation of the policy for four months for further study.
[SIZE=-2]ADVERTISEMENT[/SIZE]
[URL="http://us.a2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/th/the_street/300x250iv_3dirtcheap04_06.gif"]http://us.a2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/th/the_street/300x250iv_3dirtcheap04_06.gif[/URL]if http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=R11qikSOxCYsIcrxRIcT6QQmGHPVyESIaDQABUI2&T=1bofqh5gg%2fX%3d1149790260%2fE%3d97014619%2fR%3dfin%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3d8%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d4157480693%2fH%3dY29icmFuZD0iPGEgaHJlZj1odHRwOi8vd3d3LmJpempvdXJuYWxzLmNvbT48aW1nIGJvcmRlcj0wIHNyYz1odHRwOi8vdXMubmV3czIueWltZy5jb20vdXMueWltZy5jb20vcC9maS9wci80ODgxMC5naWYgYWx0PWJpempvdXJuYWxzLmNvbT48L2E.IiBjYWNoZWhpbnQ9Ijk3MDE0NjE5IiBjYWNoZWhpbnQ9Ijk3MDE0NjE5Ig--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dBBC28E44&U=139jlngde%2fN%3dW8HgBdG_Ruo-%2fC%3d439064.8302880.9220745.8049260%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d3368972Republicans on the conference committee, according to the Thursday online edition of Aviation Now, said Inouye's amendment would be a setback for a deal that the Bush administration has reached with the European Union.
United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton has for years been giving speeches in favor of allowing foreign interests to invest in U.S. airlines, which he says will give U.S. airlines access to foreign capital.
Delta Air Lines CEO Gerald Grinstein, on Capitol Hill to lobby for pension plan flexibility Wednesday, said he supported liberalization of U.S. Department of Transportation regulations on foreign investment in American air carriers.
Continental Airlines, on the other hand, has opposed any change in the current rules, which effectively block foreign control of U.S. common carriers.
Both proponents and opponents believe that liberalization of investment rules may lead to mergers between U.S. carriers and European or Asian airlines.
American Airlines, United Airlines and Delta Air Lines, the three largest U.S. carriers, could expect to be equal or dominant partners in such mergers, and have close alliances that could ease the way to consolidation. United, for example, has close operational ties to the German carrier Lufthansa.
Continental, which is half the size of American, might simply be absorbed by a foreign airline in a new wave of consolidation.
The comment period for the proposed federal regulation allowing more foreign investment in U.S. airlines will end in July -- on the day after Independence Day.
Published June 8, 2006 by Pacific Business News</I>
 
Why not manage the airline properly and not have to look for outside investors...

And whats going to happen when the "outside investor" pool dries up? Jabba the Hut?
 
And just when you thought they couldn't beat down labor any more.

Just when pax loads are at an all time high and fares are increasing, the Bush Administration proves that it is indeed possible to squeeze more blood from the working class.


Worst. President. Ever.
 

If this passes....

---Branson will sink some $$$$ into a US carrier to get a foothold in the US market...and tie in Virgin Atlantic

---AMR & BA will be hard to avoid

---Air France / KLM will invest in either NW or DAL

---it will be like "musical chairs" to see who ends up with who.

320AV8R
 
ALPA's reply [crickets chirping]

The US Airline industry is following the US Maritime Industry into the history books. Thanks ALPA! Back the PAC! Save the pensions! Throw the junior folks under the bus! Wait, is this thing on?
 
Last edited:
Statement of
Captain Duane Woerth, President
Air Line Pilots Association
Before the
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
United States Senate

May 9, 2006
Foreign Investment in U.S. Air Carriers
Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee today to present our views on the Department of Transportation’s rulemaking proposal to allow foreign investors to obtain and exercise control over all commercial aspects of the operations of any U.S. airline. I particularly welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter before a Congressional committee, since the Congress has spoken clearly on this issue in the past – as a matter of legislation. The proposed change attempts to achieve by regulatory fiat what the administration could not achieve in Congress.
But the proposed change is more than poor lawmaking, it is also poor policy. As you know, this proposed change in U.S. policy is directly linked to the desire of the Administration to convince the European Union to sign a pending new air services agreement with the US. ALPA believes that the draft agreement offers little to U.S. airlines, and sizably more to their EU counterparts. It certainly does not warrant the kind of radical change in the US ownership and control rules that DOT has proposed.
That agreement, if finalized, would allow any European airline to fly from any point in Europe to any point in the United States and beyond. What then would U.S. airlines get in return? Apart from some additional routes beyond European gateway points that our cargo carriers might use – not much.
In June 2004, a report by the Government Accountability Office concluded that whatever benefit U.S. carriers and consumers might eventually gain from such an agreement would not be realized for several years. The reason? The United States already has open access to the vast majority of European traffic. And yet, the EU is apparently unwilling to sign this new agreement unless they also obtain for their citizens – especially their airlines – the right to gain control of U.S. airlines. The DOT’s proposal is devised primarily to satisfy the aspirations of European airlines to gain access to the U.S. domestic market.
Despite claims to the contrary, the DOT’s revised proposal released last week would, in fact, allow foreign interests to exercise actual control over all the commercial elements of a U.S. airline’s business. Under the proposal, U.S. citizens would have to retain control of only the four following areas:
1. The airline’s basic organizational documents;
2. Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) or other national defense airlift commitments;
3. Aviation security; and
4. Aviation safety.

As United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton put it in a recent speech, the proposal “…would allow foreign investors in U.S. airlines to effectively control the bulk of the airline’s commercial operations.”
As far as ALPA is concerned, the proposal poses four major problems.
FIRST, DOT’s revised proposal remains at odds with Congress’s determination that actual control of a U.S. air carrier must be in the hands of U.S. citizens. The areas over which the Department would continue to require U.S. citizen control, while important, are ultimately peripheral to an airline’s core business operations and strategy.
While DOT’s supplemental notice states “all delegations of control to foreign interests must ultimately be revocable by the board of directors or shareholders,” the fact remains that foreign interests would be permitted to obtain and retain control unless and until that control is revoked. Furthermore, we think it quite unlikely that such a revocation would ever occur, once the foreign interests were in the driver’s seat.
The SECOND problem is that the NPRM fails to distinguish between investments by foreign air carriers and other potential sources of foreign capital. It thus would allow foreign air carriers to take control of U.S. airlines–perhaps even becoming the dominant force in the domestic U.S. airline industry.
When one air carrier seeks to acquire control of another, the goal of the acquisition is almost always to integrate the operations of the two carriers. If a foreign airline acquires control of a U.S. airline, it would likely use the U.S. airline to create a domestic network to feed traffic to the foreign airline’s international operations. As a result, any pre-existing international operations of the U.S. airline could diminish, while those of the international airline would be significantly expanded. The effect on U.S. airline jobs would be devastating.
The decline in international operations by U.S. airlines that would result from foreign control would also undermine the CRAF program, because it would reduce the number of long-range, wide-bodied aircraft in the U.S. carriers’ fleets. Although the Department’s proposed rule attempts to protect the CRAF program by ensuring that U.S. citizens retain control of a carrier’s CRAF commitments, the fact is that a foreign airline that has economic control of a U.S. airline would be able to determine how many CRAF-eligible aircraft the U.S. carrier has in its fleet.
Under the DOT’s proposal, U.S. workers would also suffer injury because U.S. labor laws do not apply to foreign air carriers. When one of the affiliated airlines is foreign and not subject to the same labor law, the employees face the prospect of being bid against each other without effective recourse. This is no hypothetical discussion. In the early 1990s, when British Airways bought into US Airways and KLM bought into Northwest, flightcrew jobs were either eliminated or grew disproportionately at the foreign partner.
The THIRD problem is that the proposal tries to separate safety and security from the other elements of an airline’s operations. DOT’s recent supplemental notice states that “U.S. citizens must control the carrier’s overall safety and security programs and policies, not just the carrier’s compliance with the requirements of the FAA and TSA.” However, the point ALPA makes continuously is that safety and security issues are inextricably linked to operational and economic decisions. Whoever controls the operations of the airline controls safety policies and implementation.
Finally, the FOURTH problem is that the DOT has utterly failed to present any data to support its claim that the U.S. airline industry is in need of more foreign investment, or that such investment is not available absent a change in the foreign control rules.
An abundance of evidence shows that when a U.S. airline develops a business plan with a promise of profitability, it attracts the capital it needs. Both United and US Airways have demonstrated that, after extensive restructuring, cost cutting, and changes in operations and services, exit financing was available and plentiful.
As a whole, DOT’s proposal raises more questions than it answers. That is all the more reason why changes of this magnitude and this complexity should be undertaken by the U.S. Congress and not by an administrative agency nor forced upon us by the European Union.
Sens. Inouye’s and Stevens’ amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill has put the necessary brake on the DOT’s rush to issue a final rule, and S. 2135 is the proper vehicle for considering whether a change to the control rules is even appropriate. The Air Line Pilots Association strongly urges this body to keep the Inouye-Stevens language in the supplemental appropriations bill and to begin an open and straightforward debate on S. 2135.
The U.S. airline industry cannot afford to get this issue wrong. Thank you.
 
ALPA: Congress Must Legislate Changes to Foreign Investment in U.S. Airlines
Supplemental NPRM issued by DOT still amounts to law making

WASHINGTON, D.C. --- Capt. Duane E. Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l, issued the following statement today:
“The Department of Transportation’s latest move to change the rules governing foreign control of U.S. airlines is one more effort to evade Congress.​

“Although the DOT takes pains to deny it, the so-called ‘supplemental rule’ issued today is an obvious ploy to appease European aviation interests, call Congress’s bluff, and run out the clock on the policy’s critics. But Congress has said clearly that it wants to debate and decide on any change to these important rules, and the Senate will soon hold a hearing on the subject. Congress is fully aware that this change will have profound consequences for our economy, our national defense, and our workers. The DOT has to decide what matters more--U.S. or EU interests.
“While ALPA is closely analyzing the details of the latest rule, it is clear from the DOT press release that the Department has made some dangerously naïve assumptions. First, erecting a firewall around safety and security operations within the corporate governance of a U.S. airline is simply not possible. Second, as a former member of a board of directors, I can assure you that the dominant investor wields the power to appoint and remove directors, no matter what the fine print of federal regulations may say.
“It’s time for the DOT to halt this misguided effort and let Congress act. One-hundred-eighty-seven members of the U.S. House have co-sponsored H.R. 4542, which would prohibit the DOT from issuing a final rule for one year and would direct the Department to bring the proposal before Congress. Language in the Senate Supplemental Appropriations bill passed by the Committee earlier this month would prohibit the DOT from spending any funds to issue or to implement the proposal before Oct. 1, 2006. The Senate will hold a committee hearing on May 9, 2006, which follows the hearing that the U.S. House Aviation Subcommittee held in February.
“Congress must not allow this back-door effort to strip the language stopping the DOT’s efforts out of the Supplemental Appropriations bill. Congress must stand firm in its resolve to bring this flawed proposal--with all of its implications for jobs, safety, security, and the nation’s defense--out into the light of day.”
ALPA represents 62,000 airline pilots at 39 airlines in the U.S. and Canada. The text of ALPA’s submission to the original NPRM can be found at www.alpa.org.
# # #
 
ALPA Hails U.S. Senate for Delaying Proposal to Allow Foreign Control of U.S. Airlines
WASHINGTON, D.C. --- Today’s U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee vote to delay a Department of Transportation (DOT) proposal that would allow foreign control of U.S. airlines is an “undeniable signal that Congress is united in opposing this radical change because of its implications for our country’s airline industry, national defense, and jobs,” according to the President of the Air Line Pilots Association, Intl. Today’s Senate action is similar in purpose to language that the U.S. House of Representatives adopted last month directing DOT not to issue a final rule for 120 days.
“Both houses of Congress have spoken with one voice against this misguided effort,” said ALPA President Capt. Duane Woerth. “Today’s action puts the DOT on notice that any attempt to change the law that prohibits foreign control of U.S. airlines must come before Congress.”
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) introduced an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill, which the Senate Appropriations Committee passed by voice vote today. The legislation prohibits the expenditure of funds for implementing DOT’s proposal through October 1, 2006.
“Sen. Inouye (D-HI) and Sen. Stevens (R-AK) led the charge in making certain that Congress is given the opportunity to fully scrutinize the DOT’s effort to overturn longstanding policy,” continued Woerth.
In the U.S. House, more than 170 members have now co-sponsored H.R.4542, which was introduced by the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, Rep. Don Young (R-AK); Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN); Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ); and others. The legislation would prevent the DOT from proceeding with any rulemaking and order the agency to bring the matter before Congress.
ALPA adamantly objects to the DOT proposal because:
  • It violates federal law prohibiting foreign control
  • A foreign airline could change a U.S. carrier’s schedules, pricing, etc., to feed its own international operations, to the detriment of the U.S. airline and it employees
  • For similar reasons, the U.S. airline’s ability to furnish aircraft suitable for the U.S. military’s CRAF program could be reduced
  • U.S. workers might not have the same labor law protections that are available in the U.S. if a foreign owner began to play them off against workers in a different country
  • Aviation safety could be reduced because the proposed rule requires that foreign-controlled management meet only minimum FAA standards, whereas the enviable safety record of U.S. airlines is the result of voluntary participation in programs and practices that go well beyond minimum requirements
  • Because of a provision in many bilateral aviation agreements, any U.S. airline under foreign control could be disqualified from providing service under those agreements
  • The DOT has not demonstrated a need for foreign investment in U.S. airlines, nor has it shown that investment will not occur absent such a change
ALPA represents 62,000 airline pilots at 39 airlines in the U.S. and Canada. The text of ALPA’s submission can be found at www.alpa.org.
 
ALPA President Blasts Proposal to Loosen Foreign Control Rules
WASHINGTON, D.C. --- The head of the nation’s largest airline pilot union today told Congress that a proposal to loosen Department of Transportation rules on foreign control of U.S. airlines would violate federal law, usurp Congress’ authority in setting such policies, and strike yet another blow against airline workers.
“DOT’s proposed rule essentially rewrites the statutory rule on ‘actual control’ enacted by Congress,” said Capt. Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l (ALPA). “Changes of this magnitude should be undertaken not by an administering agency but by the legislative branch.”
Woerth was testifying at hearings by the House Aviation Subcommittee on a proposed DOT rule change that would radically reduce controls that prevent foreign owners from dictating a carrier’s business practices and policies. In addition to raising a number of technical and economic policy concerns, Woerth stressed the effect that the rule change would have on airline workers.
“Pilots spend their entire careers accumulating the seniority required to gain access to (international) flying opportunities. In an era when the career expectations of pilots and other airline workers already have been repeatedly frustrated by airline bankruptcies, furloughs, wage concessions, pension plan terminations, and the like, it would be a crowning blow for the U.S. government now to adopt a policy that would tend to eliminate international flying by U.S. carriers,” he said.
Under the new rule, an airline would only have to meet standards in four relatively minor areas to remain in compliance with the statute prohibiting foreign control: corporate documentation, participation in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program, TSA security regulations, and FAA safety regulations. All other aspects of airline operations, including prices, scheduling, markets, fleet structure, marketing, and alliances, could be controlled by foreign investors, including a U.S. carrier’s foreign airline competitor.
# # #
 
AceCrackshot said:
ALPA's reply [crickets chirping]

The US Airline industry is following the US Maritime Industry into the history books. Thanks ALPA! Back the PAC! Save the pensions! Throw the junior folks under the bus! Wait, is this thing on?

Not exactly quiet.....

Way of the maritime industry... yes. lots of similiarities.....

Time to get involved instrad of doing nothing and claiming victim status.....
 
Not looking too good... but no way is the general membership going to take responsibility... No way any one will give to the PAC. It is simply easier to watch your career slip thru your hands and find someone to blame...


Appropriations Conferees Cave to DOT on Foreign Control of U.S. Airlines
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Capt. Duane E. Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l, issued the following statement after the Supplemental Appropriations Conferees stripped a Supplemental Appropriations Bill amendment that would have halted a misguided Department of Transportation proposal to allow foreign interests—including airlines—to control U.S. airlines until Congress can review it.

“I am outraged by the U.S. Senate’s late-night action to strip a Supplemental Appropriations Bill provision to bring the DOT’s misguided proposal back before Congress. Not only is this an insult to the U.S. aviation industry and its workers, the Senate’s action is in defiance of the U.S. House, which has expressly demanded a full review because of the proposal’s dramatic implications on our nation’s defense, the airline industry, and U.S. jobs.
“The House has made it clear that Congress, not the Administration, is the body to debate and decide whether any change to current law prohibiting foreign control of U.S. airlines is necessary. One-hundred-eighty-seven members of the House have co-sponsored H.R. 4542, which would prohibit the DOT from issuing a final rule for one year and would direct the Department to bring the proposal before Congress. Moreover, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed language that would prohibit the DOT from spending any funds to issue or implement the proposal before Oct. 1, 2006.
“The DOT supplemental rule is dangerously naïve. It is based on the false premise that a firewall can be constructed around safety and security operations within the corporate governance of a U.S. airline. Anyone with experience on a corporate board, or who has worked under one, knows that the dominant investor wields the power to appoint and remove directors, regardless of federal regulations.
“Moreover, the supplemental rule does nothing to address extremely serious concerns raised from both sides of the aisle about the consequences of the proposal on the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program, through which U.S. airlines provide strategic airlift for the military, or questions about U.S. jobs.
“ALPA commends Sen. Daniel Inouye for standing up for the airline industry, our national defense, and our country’s workers by introducing the amendment in the first place. Were it not stripped by the Senate, it would have blocked the Administration and the Department of Transportation from running roughshod over Congress and unilaterally overturning U.S. law to appease European interests.
“Make no mistake: There is no guarantee that the U.S./EU Air Services Agreement will go forward, even if the DOT’s misguided proposal is successful. In the end, the Administration may have sacrificed control of this country’s airline industry in return for nothing.
“While the U.S. Senate has allowed itself to be strong-armed by the DOT and the Administration, the fight is far from over. ALPA will make every effort to ensure that the DOT does not succeed.”
ALPA represents 61,000 airline pilots at 39 airlines in the U.S. and Canada.
# # #​
 
I don't think the bar can be any lower, 1 year pay at CO is 30000/Y, have you looked at JB pay rate? Don't forget that the FO has to dump the Blue Juice between flight. Have you looked at CHQ 170 Rates? Mesa CRJ 900 Rates?

I can't wait bor LH, BA, KLM to by us it can only be better...
 
We can.......

Attend LEC meetings...
Read Flying the Line Vol I & II
Vote in LEC elections
Participate in ALPA-PAC

or

Bury our heads in the sand and hope our jobs are here tomorrow...


by the way why would KLM/AF or LH or whoever hire us? Any gurantees? I should've paid attention in French class...
 
olympus593 said:
I don't think the bar can be any lower, 1 year pay at CO is 30000/Y, have you looked at JB pay rate? Don't forget that the FO has to dump the Blue Juice between flight. Have you looked at CHQ 170 Rates? Mesa CRJ 900 Rates?

Add UPS first year pay to that list too.
 
Rez O. Lewshun said:
Not exactly quiet.....

Way of the maritime industry... yes. lots of similiarities.....

Time to get involved instrad of doing nothing and claiming victim status.....

Didn't the US maritime industry throw a whole bunch of tea in a harbor once upon a time?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom