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

US Airlines will go the way of the Shipping Industry

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

GogglesPisano

Pawn, in game of life
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Posts
3,939
From ATWOnline:

IATA's Bisignani calls for liberalization, consolidation
Tuesday September 19, 2006
IATA DG and CEO Giovanni Bisignani said overly restrictive foreign ownership rules prevent "meaningful consolidation and perpetuate inefficiency."

In a speech yesterday to the ICAO Symposium on Liberalization in Dubai, Bisignani said, "the flags on the tails of our aircraft are so heavy they are sinking our industry," and argued that airlines will have difficulty achieving long-term profitability without the ability to consolidate across borders.

He added that the need to liberalize ownership regulations and loosen air treaty restrictions "is immediate and urgent," noting that a US-EU open skies agreement alone "would add $5 billion to the bottom line of the industry." He said airlines must have "basic commercial freedoms" and the ability to "merge and consolidate where it makes sense."

Bisignani rejected the notion that security, often cited by governments as the reason for maintaining restrictive aviation policies, would be compromised by liberalization. Drawing parallels to the merchant marine, he said, "There is no valid national security argument for national ownership rules. Why should airlines be treated differently than the strategic sectors of telecoms and banking?"

More than 98% of global airline traffic is still governed by bilateral agreements with ownership or principal place of business restrictions, he said, adding: "The 60-year-old rules that govern our industry are in need of a nice retirement party...The world is changing and so must air transport."


by Aaron Karp
 
GogglesPisano said:
"The 60-year-old rules that govern our industry are in need of a nice retirement party...The world is changing and so must air transport."


Awwww, c'mon give the rules 5 more years.
;)


Sincerely,

B. Franklin
 
I thought Ford was selling off Land Rover and Jags ? Must be too heavy.

American paid him off so they could merge with BAA... Virgin wants in .. and who knows what United and Cal are up to ? LOL..

I thought CAL was wining about Virgin America stuff..?

I say we stop throwing every piece of metal in the sky possible at the lowest possible cost so bunkruptcy 'boys' stop making so much dough.
 
Correction: Every industry will go the way of the shipping industry.
 
Bisignani rejected the notion that security, often cited by governments as the reason for maintaining restrictive aviation policies, would be compromised by liberalization. Drawing parallels to the merchant marine, he said, "There is no valid national security argument for national ownership rules. Why should airlines be treated differently than the strategic sectors of telecoms and banking?"
Lots of reasons.

Every try sailing a 900 foot oil tanker into the World Trade Center?

Try blowing up a US city with a bank statement sometime. Totally different level of concern when talking airplanes.
 
Lots of reasons.

Try blowing up a US city with a bank statement sometime. Totally different level of concern when talking airplanes.


With this paperclip, that tire iron, and your bank statment, I'll get us out of here. Please stand back 5-7 feet. Be ready!! (might want to plug your ears also)
 
He added that the need to liberalize ownership regulations and loosen air treaty restrictions "is immediate and urgent," noting that a US-EU open skies agreement alone "would add $5 billion to the bottom line of the industry." He said airlines must have "basic commercial freedoms" and the ability to "merge and consolidate where it makes sense."

Bisignani rejected the notion that security, often cited by governments as the reason for maintaining restrictive aviation policies, would be compromised by liberalization. Drawing parallels to the merchant marine, he said, "There is no valid national security argument for national ownership rules. Why should airlines be treated differently than the strategic sectors of telecoms and banking?"

Don't know who this rocket scientist Bisignani is. But I reject his rejection of national security issues. Apparently he hasn't heard of a little program called the CRAF.

"Immediate and Urgent" need to loosen rules?? So his favorite non-US airlines can grow further and pull down better profits??? O.K. Somehow that is a clear and present danger to his bank account. I can buy that argument.

Sounds like he made up some real humdingers to stake out a platform for political purposes (Keep or obtain a job) or he's trying his hand at making cash at speaking engagements.


In related news....keep watching the auto industry. If Americans don't care about those workers, why should they care about those in the Airline Industry.
 
In related news....keep watching the auto industry. If Americans don't care about those workers, why should they care about those in the Airline Industry.

I don't think it is as much of an issue of not caring about the workers but the consumer is now buying vehicles outside the US Auto industry.

You can only build a substandard product and back it up with lousy support for so long before people vote with their feet right out the dealers doors.
 
Yes. If you're Liberian.


now that is funny,

gents & ladies ask any former US ship crews what has happened to their jobs and you'll see your own destiny. Albeit, a little different in the direct carriage of pax, but long term there will be indonesians crewing the airplanes.
Or maybe us, we'll just be living on their wages.
 
now that is funny,

gents & ladies ask any former US ship crews what has happened to their jobs and you'll see your own destiny. Albeit, a little different in the direct carriage of pax, but long term there will be indonesians crewing the airplanes.
Or maybe us, we'll just be living on their wages.

Actually, you guys already ARE living on their wages.

I made a whole lot more in my first job out of college as a Third Mate with a bottom feeder shipping company than any FO working for Mesa, American Eagle Comair or the like. I also had a lot less debt.
 
Globalization of the airline industry will mean wage alignment.

I'm over here watching crews from many of the former Soviet States making around $2,000 per month to fly a four engine IL-76.
 
gents & ladies ask any former US ship crews what has happened to their jobs and you'll see your own destiny. Albeit, a little different in the direct carriage of pax, but long term there will be indonesians crewing the airplanes.
Or maybe us, we'll just be living on their wages.

The Jones Act is the only thing keeping US sailors employed. It basically requires that any shipping from one US port to another US port must be on ships built in the US and crewed by US sailors. The Jones Act is constantly underfire by lawmakers from the grain producing states who want cheaper shipping on the Great Lakes. My brother is a Merchant sailor and a US Naval reserve officer and he tells me the only shipping jobs worth having on planet earth are due to the Jones act. If it goes away the US shipping jobs are gone. You simply couldn't live in any basic way on the wages paid to most foreign sailors.
 
Actually, you guys already ARE living on their wages.

I made a whole lot more in my first job out of college as a Third Mate with a bottom feeder shipping company than any FO working for Mesa, American Eagle Comair or the like. I also had a lot less debt.


believe me it can get worse, not that it is not despicable enough as it.
 
doubt you will see what happened in the US shipping industry to happen in the US aviation industry. The big difference... people are not cargo. Most folks don't care how their 57inch plasma got to their house therefore they can turn a blind eye to that cargo ship from Monrovia or Panama. However, they may express a little more concern when they load their family on a plane bound for Mouseland and see two guys with turbines on their heads at the controls.

People are simple, they express very little emotion or passion until something affects them, their family or their pocketbook personally. True, Hadji and Ackmed will make airfare to Disney cheaper, but in today's day and age I just don't see the general public allowing that to happen. Look what happened to the Dubai ports deal.
 
However, they may express a little more concern when they load their family on a plane bound for Mouseland and see two guys with turbines on their heads at the controls.

Ha, ha, ha. That's a nice one, ryan!
I think you meant turbans , no?
Methinks they'd get a bit of a headache if it really were turbines on their head!!!:smash:
 
good catch. Thanks b757. Can take the boy out of the plane but not the plane out of the boy.

It's all ball bearings anyway... and hookers.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top