IPA is for EU open skies

FreightNazi

not an ACMI
Joined
Nov 13, 2004
Posts
460
Total Time
lots
IPA is for EU open skies....



12 IPA FLIGHT TIMES​
OCTOBER 24, 2005


[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
B​
[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Y [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]L[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]UKE [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]P[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]YLES[/FONT]​
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
G​
[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]OVT[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]. A[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]FFAIRS [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]C[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]OMMITTEE [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]C[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]HAIRMAN[/FONT]​
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
[/FONT]
lpyles@ipapilot.org​
By the time you read this article, lead
negotiators for the U.S. Government will
have returned from Europe where they
will have concluded a robust round of negotiations with
their EU counterparts and turned their sights toward continued
talks in the U.S. You are well aware of these negotiations
because IPNN has been keeping a close eye on the
talks . and for good reasons . jobs are at stake. In our
case, we feel it will translate into an increase in jobs, but for
others, it could be seen as a threat.
We believe an open skies agreement across the Atlantic
is extremely important to IPAmembers for several reasons-
-most notable of which will be the opportunity for new
European routes and more pilots on the seniority list. Currently,
UPS cannot use IPAcrewmembers to fly the following
legs due to the lack of route authority:​
. Cologne . Munich . Cologne
. Bordeaux . Rennes . Cologne . Rennes . Bordeaux
. Bologna . Bergamo . Cologne . Bergamo . Bologna
. Shannon . Dublin . Cologne . Dublin . Shannon
. Toulouse . Lyon . Cologne . Lyon . Toulouse
. Athens . Bergamo . Paris . Bergamo . Athens
. Lisbon . Oporto . Cologne . Oporto . Lisbon
. Edinburgh . East Midlands . Paris . East Midlands - Edinburgh
. EU theatre reserve/hot​
With an EU-US open skies agreement in place, these
routes could legally be flown by IPAcrews. Sounds great,
but, what.s in it for the EU members?
Well, for starters, they get access to EU-U.S. city pairs
currently not allowed (so would we). Airlines in the EU
must fly directly from their homeland to U.S. destinations.
A new agreement would allow any EU carrier to fly from
any EU country to any destination city within America. For
example, Air France could fly directly from London to
Atlanta, bypassing the need to stop in Paris, or--even more
oddly--Finnair could fly directly from Madrid to New York,
bypassing Helsinki. This agreement would allow EU
member airlines to develop an international network similar
to that of U.S. carriers. They would not be allowed to
conduct cabotage flights within America (routes from a
U.S. city to another U.S. city with domestic passengers
only).
More importantly, perhaps, EU members develop what
is being described as a .First Step. initiative that may lead
to the real nugget . a change in ownership laws of U.S.
based carriers, commonly referred to as a .Second Step.
proceeding or ROE (rights of establishment).
ROE will require Congressional intervention through the
development of new ownership laws, traditionally a very
cumbersome and time consuming process. Ownership is
currently restricted to 25% from a foreign source. The EU
would like this restriction lifted--allowing 100% ownership,
if desired. Some folks in D.C. wonder if the Second
Step proceedings would even get underway in 2006, but
sources close to the negotiations believe that it could be
introduced in the Spring of next year and voted on by late
Fall .06.
So, is foreign ownership a good thing? Well, the answer
depends on your particular view of the industry. Cargo carriers
like FEDEX and UPS would probably have little to
gain. UPS, as per the contract, would be required to use
pilots on the IPAseniority list. We have heard it said that if
ROE were to become a reality, UPS would simply start a
European carrier and forgo usage of IPA pilots. Well,
according to the first article of our collective bargaining
agreement, that would be an improbability:​
Article 1.C.1. The execution of this Agreement on the part of the Company
shall cover crewmember operations of all aircraft operated pursuant to
the Company’s Airline Operating Certificate IPXA097B, and of all aircraft
operated pursuant to any additional Part 121 Airline Operating Certificate
or any foreign equivalent Airline Operating Certificate acquired by the
Company, or any affiliate of the Company in and for the service of the
Company or any affiliate or wherever located, presently operating, or to be
operated in the future..​
So, it would seem that ROE is a positive development for
IPAcrewmembers but a zero sum gain for UPS.​
Our brothers and sisters flying for passenger airlines have
extremely different ideas. Those flying for healthy carriers
believe foreign investment is not good and domestic competition
alone should dictate who stays and who doesn.t,
effectively forcing capacity to restrict and prices to inflate.
They tend to believe that their efforts toward profitability
should be rewarded and not hindered by foreign start-ups.
Conversely, those passenger carriers struggling to make
payroll tend to welcome the thought of accessing new
monies and gaining further access to the lucrative international
markets. U.S. carriers earn roughly $0.10 per ASM
on domestic routes and an astonishing $2.00 per ASM on
international routes. It.s no wonder most legacy carriers
want international expansion capabilities.
To be clear about one important aspect of negotiations, if
the First Step is agreed upon (most think it will happen
within a few weeks) and IF the Second Step (foreign ownership)
is initiated by next year, the U.S. Government
intends to strictly enforce and insist that any new carrier,
whether foreign or U.S. owned, be operated by FAA
licensed pilots. We have been repeatedly assured cabotage
and foreign licensed pilots are non-negotiable items. For
the IPApilot, however, this is not an item of concern as Article
1 of the contract clearly addresses the issue.
Please know that the Executive Board, Scope and Government
Affairs Committees will be monitoring developments closely.​
 

Dizel8

Douglas metal
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Posts
2,817
Total Time
Huh?
"the U.S. Government intends to strictly enforce and insist that any new carrier,
whether foreign or U.S. owned, be operated by FAA licensed pilots. We have been repeatedly assured cabotage and foreign licensed pilots are non-negotiable items.

Sure, let the camel stick his nose in, it will be fine. Next thing you know, we will have LOT flying JFK-LAX, of course the LOT pilot, while polish, will have FAA licenses. Besides, I thought IPA would have seen the light, with UPS logistics using a Chinese carrier, I guess not.

I can see the reason UPS and perhaps FedEx as companies wants this, after all, they are essentially the only two, with DHL, TNT etc playing a distant second fiddle, but I find hard pressed to believe that any pilot for either one or any US passenger carriers, believe that it will not see US pilot jobs outsourced.
 
Last edited:

RP 04

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Posts
172
Total Time
12000+
Soon you will see Cathay flying JFK-LHR. Imagine great cabin service across the Atlantic, what a concept...
 

Dizel8

Douglas metal
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Posts
2,817
Total Time
Huh?
Imagine even more US pilots and F/A's out of job, What a concept:(

Just imagine, Ryan Air, Ireland, would be able to set up shop in the US. It would be a wholly owned Ryan Air subsidiary, staffed by Irish pilots with FAA licenses. If my facts are correct, working for Ryan is about as much fun as working for Mesa, O'Leary is not known for good employee relations. Want some water, you can buy it.

The EU, with BA in the lead, very much wants even more access to the US, we better pray, it does not happen. Barring us being unable to stop it, we need to absolutely demand, that FAA licenses be acepted on par with JAA licenses.
 
Last edited:

RP 04

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Posts
172
Total Time
12000+
never mind...
 
Last edited:

RP 04

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Posts
172
Total Time
12000+
But I assume you want UA and NW keeping their intra-asia traffic rights? Seems a bit strange to me when you see NW narrow bodies at NRT, I assume they don't fly those between NRT-LAX...
 

Dizel8

Douglas metal
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Posts
2,817
Total Time
Huh?
What the japanese allow UAL and NWA to do is of little concern to me. If the japanese pilots stops UAL and NWA from doing this, I could understand it.

What is of concern to me, is the aviation landscape we may see in the US if we allow this to go forward.
 

JohnDoe

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2002
Posts
840
Total Time
4500
It really torques me sometimes to see all the misguided mudslinging that goes on in this forum between people, while these EU talks are slipping by under the radar.

WAKE UP EVERYBODY!!!!!

Job losses and pay/benefit cuts due to chap 11 filings, LCC competition, regional airlines, or whatever else you can come up with are CHILDSPLAY compared to what will happen with a change to cabotage and foreign ownership laws.

While you are all bickering amongst yourselves, this is going to sneak up and crack you in the skull from behind.

You think your pay is bad now (yes, even you regional people)? Just wait until cabotage happens. You'll be lucky to even have a job.

Call you representatives now, not later.
 

FoxHunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Posts
679
Total Time
23000
FreightNazi said:
IPA is for EU open skies....






12 IPA FLIGHT TIMES​






OCTOBER 24, 2005

















[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
B​
[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]



[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Y [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]L[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]UKE [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]P[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]YLES[/FONT]​



[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]



[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
G​
[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]



[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]OVT[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]. A[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]FFAIRS [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]C[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]OMMITTEE [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]C[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]HAIRMAN[/FONT]​



[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]



[/FONT]
lpyles@ipapilot.org​






By the time you read this article, lead
negotiators for the U.S. Government will
have returned from Europe where they
will have concluded a robust round of negotiations with
their EU counterparts and turned their sights toward continued
talks in the U.S. You are well aware of these negotiations
because IPNN has been keeping a close eye on the
talks . and for good reasons . jobs are at stake. In our
case, we feel it will translate into an increase in jobs, but for
others, it could be seen as a threat.
We believe an open skies agreement across the Atlantic
is extremely important to IPAmembers for several reasons-
-most notable of which will be the opportunity for new
European routes and more pilots on the seniority list. Currently,
UPS cannot use IPAcrewmembers to fly the following
legs due to the lack of route authority:








. Cologne . Munich . Cologne
. Bordeaux . Rennes . Cologne . Rennes . Bordeaux
. Bologna . Bergamo . Cologne . Bergamo . Bologna
. Shannon . Dublin . Cologne . Dublin . Shannon
. Toulouse . Lyon . Cologne . Lyon . Toulouse
. Athens . Bergamo . Paris . Bergamo . Athens
. Lisbon . Oporto . Cologne . Oporto . Lisbon
. Edinburgh . East Midlands . Paris . East Midlands - Edinburgh
. EU theatre reserve/hot








With an EU-US open skies agreement in place, these
routes could legally be flown by IPAcrews. Sounds great,
but, what.s in it for the EU members?
Well, for starters, they get access to EU-U.S. city pairs
currently not allowed (so would we). Airlines in the EU
must fly directly from their homeland to U.S. destinations.
A new agreement would allow any EU carrier to fly from
any EU country to any destination city within America. For
example, Air France could fly directly from London to
Atlanta, bypassing the need to stop in Paris, or--even more
oddly--Finnair could fly directly from Madrid to New York,
bypassing Helsinki. This agreement would allow EU
member airlines to develop an international network similar
to that of U.S. carriers. They would not be allowed to
conduct cabotage flights within America (routes from a
U.S. city to another U.S. city with domestic passengers
only).
More importantly, perhaps, EU members develop what
is being described as a .First Step. initiative that may lead
to the real nugget . a change in ownership laws of U.S.
based carriers, commonly referred to as a .Second Step.
proceeding or ROE (rights of establishment).
ROE will require Congressional intervention through the
development of new ownership laws, traditionally a very
cumbersome and time consuming process. Ownership is
currently restricted to 25% from a foreign source. The EU
would like this restriction lifted--allowing 100% ownership,
if desired. Some folks in D.C. wonder if the Second
Step proceedings would even get underway in 2006, but
sources close to the negotiations believe that it could be
introduced in the Spring of next year and voted on by late
Fall .06.
So, is foreign ownership a good thing? Well, the answer
depends on your particular view of the industry. Cargo carriers
like FEDEX and UPS would probably have little to
gain. UPS, as per the contract, would be required to use
pilots on the IPAseniority list. We have heard it said that if
ROE were to become a reality, UPS would simply start a
European carrier and forgo usage of IPA pilots. Well,
according to the first article of our collective bargaining
agreement, that would be an improbability:








Article 1.C.1. The execution of this Agreement on the part of the Company
shall cover crewmember operations of all aircraft operated pursuant to
the Company’s Airline Operating Certificate IPXA097B, and of all aircraft
operated pursuant to any additional Part 121 Airline Operating Certificate
or any foreign equivalent Airline Operating Certificate acquired by the
Company, or any affiliate of the Company in and for the service of the
Company or any affiliate or wherever located, presently operating, or to be
operated in the future..








So, it would seem that ROE is a positive development for
IPAcrewmembers but a zero sum gain for UPS.








Our brothers and sisters flying for passenger airlines have
extremely different ideas. Those flying for healthy carriers
believe foreign investment is not good and domestic competition
alone should dictate who stays and who doesn.t,
effectively forcing capacity to restrict and prices to inflate.
They tend to believe that their efforts toward profitability
should be rewarded and not hindered by foreign start-ups.
Conversely, those passenger carriers struggling to make
payroll tend to welcome the thought of accessing new
monies and gaining further access to the lucrative international
markets. U.S. carriers earn roughly $0.10 per ASM
on domestic routes and an astonishing $2.00 per ASM on
international routes. It.s no wonder most legacy carriers
want international expansion capabilities.
To be clear about one important aspect of negotiations, if
the First Step is agreed upon (most think it will happen
within a few weeks) and IF the Second Step (foreign ownership)
is initiated by next year, the U.S. Government
intends to strictly enforce and insist that any new carrier,
whether foreign or U.S. owned, be operated by FAA
licensed pilots. We have been repeatedly assured cabotage
and foreign licensed pilots are non-negotiable items. For
the IPApilot, however, this is not an item of concern as Article
1 of the contract clearly addresses the issue.
Please know that the Executive Board, Scope and Government
Affairs Committees will be monitoring developments closely.






"Open Skys" or Cabotage would be a plus for pilots at both UPS and FedEx. The difference is that UPS pilots are represented by a union that represents their interests and FedEx pilots are not.:(
 

FlyBoeingJets

YES, that's NICE
Joined
Mar 20, 2003
Posts
1,802
Total Time
>5000
For Pax carriers

EU, US aim to get transatlantic "open skies" talks off the ground

Document Actions
17/10/2005

The European Union and the United States re-launched on Monday long-stalled talks on opening up the huge transatlantic air market to greater competition, aiming to strike a deal by the end of the year.
"I'm hopeful that we can reach an agreement by the end of the year, I hope to initial an agreement in November," the head of the transport department at the European Commission, Francois Lamoureux, told journalists.
The latest round of "open skies" talks is expected to last all week in Brussels and to be followed by another round in Washington for the week beginning on November 14.
The aim is to do away with existing patchwork of bilateral agreements between various EU members and the United States and set up one system regulating transatlantic air transport.

The talks also covered plans to step up transatlantic cooperation on safety.
In June 2003, EU member states gave the European Commission a mandate to negotiate a treaty with Washington after the European Court of Justice deemed that parts of the existing bilateral agreements breached EU rules.
The offending parts of the bilateral accords were so-called "nationality" clauses, under which European airlines were allowed to operate transatlantic flights only from their home countries.
On the US side, deputy assistant secretary of state for transportation affairs John Byerly said: "We signalled our willingness in particular to give every EU airline the right to fly to the US from every EU airport, irrespective of nationality".
But Washington also has its objectives: the US wants the right to fly to the EU and then on to third countries outside the bloc -- to Africa, for example.
Dumping the nationality clause in the current agreement is also expected to lead to a wave of mergers in the industry, which remains much more fragmented along national lines compared to other sectors.
In addition to being able to fly from anywhere in Europe to the US, the Europeans are seeking to gain access to the huge US domestic passenger market, a prospect the US appears little disposed to grant.
They also want to have the right to take large stakes in US carriers, which under current rules are limited to 25 percent.
Meanwhile, the Americans are keen to crack open rules that allow only four lucky carriers -- British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, American Airlines and United Airlines -- to fly transatlantic flights out of London's huge Heathrow airport.
Virgin Atlantic Chairman Richard Branson said that he was happy to take on more competition but only if the Americans made big concessions.
"Virgin Atlantic believes in more competition but the only deal worth negotiating is a true open aviation agreement which removes all the regulations which distort our industry," he said in a statement.
"In simple terms, the EU must not trade access to Heathrow -- its most valuable asset -- for anything less than a true open aviation agreement," he insisted.
The stakes are huge for both the US and the EU as well as passengers and consumers.
A study commissioned by the European Commission has calculated that an agreement with the United States would reap benefits worth as much as five billion dollars (4.16 billion euros) per year to consumers.
It also found that an agreement could lead to as many as 17 million additional passengers per year.
 

Dizel8

Douglas metal
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Posts
2,817
Total Time
Huh?
"A study commissioned by the European Commission has calculated that an agreement with the United States would reap benefits worth as much as five billion dollars (4.16 billion euros) per year to consumers".

Because Lord knows, they pay way to much for air travel now!

Do notice, that for access to one british airport, RB wants the US to give unrestricted acess to our airports. You know what VA and BA, you can keep LHR!

Like someone else said, we truly need to wake up and smell the coffee on this one!
 

AA717driver

A simpler time...
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Posts
4,911
Total Time
+/-13k
One question--Can someone tell me one (besides the U.S.), only one, country in the world that is overstaffed with pilots?

Where is this flood of foreign pilots going to come from? India? Nope. They can't even staff their own planes. China? Same deal. EU? They won't work for less than U.S. pilots (we prove that every day :rolleyes: .). Other Asian countries have long hired expats because they couldn't come close to staffing their own airlines with their citizens.

The cabotage boogeyman doesn't work any more. It simply isn't valid. Yes, there may be foreigners operating airlines here but the bulk of their employees will be U.S. citizens. And if they don't offer equivalent service to the U.S. carriers (and equivalent safety) they will not last long.TC
 

klhoard

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
766
Total Time
32000+
.
.
.
I think FedEx had about 10,000 pilots from Ireland on standby a few years ago. Maybe those guys are still around??
.
.
.
 

Dizel8

Douglas metal
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Posts
2,817
Total Time
Huh?
AA717driver said:
Where is this flood of foreign pilots going to come from? India? Nope. They can't even staff their own planes. China? Same deal. EU? They won't work for less than U.S. pilots (we prove that every day :rolleyes: .). Other Asian countries have long hired expats because they couldn't come close to staffing their own airlines with their citizens.

The cabotage boogeyman doesn't work any more. It simply isn't valid. Yes, there may be foreigners operating airlines here but the bulk of their employees will be U.S. citizens. And if they don't offer equivalent service to the U.S. carriers (and equivalent safety) they will not last long.TC

We shall see, but I do not harbor your rosy view on the issue. I think it will be bad for the US pilots, as for your staffing issue, plenty of pilots coming from eastern countries, plenty of them working as expats from what I am told. 3000 euros a month is a lot for say a polish pilot.
 

SDF2BUF2MCO

Bird Nerd
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
7,673
Total Time
Adding
AA717driver said:
One question--Can someone tell me one (besides the U.S.), only one, country in the world that is overstaffed with pilots?

Where is this flood of foreign pilots going to come from? India? Nope. They can't even staff their own planes. China? Same deal. EU? They won't work for less than U.S. pilots (we prove that every day :rolleyes: .). Other Asian countries have long hired expats because they couldn't come close to staffing their own airlines with their citizens.

The cabotage boogeyman doesn't work any more. It simply isn't valid. Yes, there may be foreigners operating airlines here but the bulk of their employees will be U.S. citizens. And if they don't offer equivalent service to the U.S. carriers (and equivalent safety) they will not last long.TC

In the most recent issue in ATW there was an article indicating Germany is pushing for MTL (Multi-Crew Pilot License). This is to reduce training costs (and no doubt pilot salaries). Right seaters could fly jets with 240 hours. The thought is with planes being so automated then you only need one "real" pilot. So if there is indeed a shortage this may be a way around it. Realize this has been talked about before.
 
Top