Emirates loses contract for US employees
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates loses contract for US employees
Or something like that...
"It’s a common perception that Washington, D.C., isn’t always known for its good judgment. However, ALPA, the United MEC, and United Airlines (UAL) worked together, and the General Services Administration (GSA) reversed a decision that would have required U.S. government employees to fly on a state-supported, foreign competitor—Emirates Airline. Instead, our collaborative, quick, and aggressive efforts will keep those passengers on United.
You can’t make this stuff up. The U.S. government awarded National Air Cargo (NAC) a contract to operate service on 31 U.S.–Middle East city pairs under the Fly America Act. Why should you care? NAC has just one passenger aircraft. It would be nearly impossible to use that NAC aircraft to fly all the routes awarded. What’s the real story? Another scheme.
The NAC contract was simply a “rent-a-code” ploy for Emirates flights to and from the United States. The purpose of the Fly America Act is to ensure that passengers whose travel is paid for by the U.S. government will fly on U.S. airlines. This flying may include some code sharing with foreign partners, but NAC planned to fulfill this contract almost exclusively by placing its designator code on Emirates flights to and from the United States, putting U.S. taxpayer dollars to work supporting the Gulf carrier.
Recognizing the threat to our flying, United immediately mounted challenges. First, United challenged the GSA award to NAC/Emirates. Second, United challenged NAC’s application for scheduled passenger authority at DOT. ALPA strongly backed United’s positions in both efforts and, along with Delta Air Lines and Airlines for America, argued aggressively in support of UAL’s position at DOT. Our joint efforts prevailed—the GSA terminated NAC’s contract this week, returning 27 city pairs to UAL.
While this is an important and promising development, it is only temporary. The battle is not over. Long-term success is still uncertain because the GSA and DOT proceedings are still underway and the GSA decision could be reversed again in the coming weeks. It is clear, however, that concerted action by ALPA members can effect change in Washington when we focus on the common ground we share. In the coming weeks and months, our union must push for a long-term—not just a temporary—policy that enhances the competitive position of U.S. airlines and does not threaten U.S. jobs. We need to make certain that U.S. government policy advances—or at a minimum, does not harm—the U.S. airline industry and its employees.
This victory is in part due to ALPA’s impeccable reputation in Washington, built upon the dedicated efforts of thousands of ALPA pilots who enable our government affairs work by participating in our Calls-to-Action and contributing to ALPA-PAC. Couple that with the support of thousands of ALPA pilots across all company lines, and we have a reliable cache of support for our issues.
As I said earlier, much work remains to remake our government’s policies for our industry and to achieve a truly level playing field globally, but the GSA’s decision serves as an indicator that we are flying in the right direction"
"It’s a common perception that Washington, D.C., isn’t always known for its good judgment. However, ALPA, the United MEC, and United Airlines (UAL) worked together, and the General Services Administration (GSA) reversed a decision that would have required U.S. government employees to fly on a state-supported, foreign competitor—Emirates Airline. Instead, our collaborative, quick, and aggressive efforts will keep those passengers on United.
You can’t make this stuff up. The U.S. government awarded National Air Cargo (NAC) a contract to operate service on 31 U.S.–Middle East city pairs under the Fly America Act. Why should you care? NAC has just one passenger aircraft. It would be nearly impossible to use that NAC aircraft to fly all the routes awarded. What’s the real story? Another scheme.
The NAC contract was simply a “rent-a-code” ploy for Emirates flights to and from the United States. The purpose of the Fly America Act is to ensure that passengers whose travel is paid for by the U.S. government will fly on U.S. airlines. This flying may include some code sharing with foreign partners, but NAC planned to fulfill this contract almost exclusively by placing its designator code on Emirates flights to and from the United States, putting U.S. taxpayer dollars to work supporting the Gulf carrier.
Recognizing the threat to our flying, United immediately mounted challenges. First, United challenged the GSA award to NAC/Emirates. Second, United challenged NAC’s application for scheduled passenger authority at DOT. ALPA strongly backed United’s positions in both efforts and, along with Delta Air Lines and Airlines for America, argued aggressively in support of UAL’s position at DOT. Our joint efforts prevailed—the GSA terminated NAC’s contract this week, returning 27 city pairs to UAL.
While this is an important and promising development, it is only temporary. The battle is not over. Long-term success is still uncertain because the GSA and DOT proceedings are still underway and the GSA decision could be reversed again in the coming weeks. It is clear, however, that concerted action by ALPA members can effect change in Washington when we focus on the common ground we share. In the coming weeks and months, our union must push for a long-term—not just a temporary—policy that enhances the competitive position of U.S. airlines and does not threaten U.S. jobs. We need to make certain that U.S. government policy advances—or at a minimum, does not harm—the U.S. airline industry and its employees.
This victory is in part due to ALPA’s impeccable reputation in Washington, built upon the dedicated efforts of thousands of ALPA pilots who enable our government affairs work by participating in our Calls-to-Action and contributing to ALPA-PAC. Couple that with the support of thousands of ALPA pilots across all company lines, and we have a reliable cache of support for our issues.
As I said earlier, much work remains to remake our government’s policies for our industry and to achieve a truly level playing field globally, but the GSA’s decision serves as an indicator that we are flying in the right direction"
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing like a bit of protectionism! The enemy of efficiency and the creator of cost. The pilots might be happy but the US taxpayer is more out of pocket - no doubt EK would be a lot cheaper than UAL...
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For once i consent. It is not so much a matter of protectionism, but with sticking to a contract, something EK drivers are passionately holding against their company who doesn't care very much about complying!
If it costs the taxpayer too much, then he should have his representatives change the contract, not violate it.
The purpose of the Fly America Act is to ensure that passengers whose travel is paid for by the U.S. government will fly on U.S. airlines.
Last edited by glofish; 24th Sep 2013 at 04:13.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Over the Pacific mostly
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that protectionism and envoquing "all American" will work for the US airline industry as well as it did for the US auto industry
you couldn't see a commercial on TV about an American car that didn't have an eagle in it from 2000 to 2008 LOL! It wasn't until they realize that it was the product that was failing them and not the publics sense of nationalism....! But on the other hand, have you seen the cars they are making now? Detroit has come back with a vengeance.....!
Dear US legacy carriers, your costumer service SUCKS....! It is not our sense of patriotism that has diminished, it is your product....! Plain and simple.
you couldn't see a commercial on TV about an American car that didn't have an eagle in it from 2000 to 2008 LOL! It wasn't until they realize that it was the product that was failing them and not the publics sense of nationalism....! But on the other hand, have you seen the cars they are making now? Detroit has come back with a vengeance.....! Dear US legacy carriers, your costumer service SUCKS....! It is not our sense of patriotism that has diminished, it is your product....! Plain and simple.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well said, Dom!!
I have been so spoiled by service on EK as a staff traveler only to come over to the US and fly one of them on a domestic flight. I must shake my head a dozen times and say to myself.... Why do you people put up with this crap service??? It is appalling!!! Worse than the Greyhound bus.....
K
I have been so spoiled by service on EK as a staff traveler only to come over to the US and fly one of them on a domestic flight. I must shake my head a dozen times and say to myself.... Why do you people put up with this crap service??? It is appalling!!! Worse than the Greyhound bus.....
K
Do UAL even fly to the Middle East though? Someone else will just end up doing the flying, won't they? Fact is no one else has the network that the Gulf carriers have....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what is the WTO view
Lets assume that a certain EU company, that might just have an allegiance with a certain UAE company applies for the contract.
Under the existing WTO rules, the USA can not reject the openly available tender for goods or services.
So who will win or loose....... or does it really matter.????
glf
Under the existing WTO rules, the USA can not reject the openly available tender for goods or services.
So who will win or loose....... or does it really matter.????
glf
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets assume that a certain EU company, that might just have an allegiance with a certain UAE company applies for the contract.
Maybe his is why a certain public figure representing the EU company recently went to visit EK?
