Future of US Bases with CX
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: Home.
Future of US Bases with CX
Spoke to a buddy, pilot at UAL and lawyer with ALPA. He told me that ALPA is looking at filing a lawsuit against all foreign carriers flying in to the US. One of the main concerns was Emirates flying from Dubai stopping in Milan picking up Pax then continuing on to JFK . The other is Norwegian Air Shuttle starting a crew base in New York flying in and out of Europe using lw cost crews undercutting the market.
It is he said, she said, but if there is any truth it could be Paris part Deux.
It is he said, she said, but if there is any truth it could be Paris part Deux.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
EK does not have bases!
What law are they breaking? They should then sue their regional carriers who pay FO $16,000 pa or make the crews pay them for the hours.
Good luck on that one but I think it is going nowhere!
What law are they breaking? They should then sue their regional carriers who pay FO $16,000 pa or make the crews pay them for the hours.
Good luck on that one but I think it is going nowhere!
Longtimelurker
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
From: killington Vt
United and Delta thru JP are post WWII treaty rights I think and Milan JFK is 5th freedom rights so that's not going to change. As for ALPA putting pressure the US government in regards to the ME carriers, without a doubt.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
CX guys should understand
Considering how ferociously CX is trying to block a little LCC from operating in HK (Jetstar), I certainly hope CX guys could understand if the ALPA tries to protect U.S. turf a bit from heavily subsidized ME carriers.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,683
Likes: 3,357
From: Everett, WA
Also remember, this is the USA you're talking about. I once had a business owner in California tell the that 'if you didn't have at least two different people suing you at any time, you weren't trying hard enough'.
That's what happens when the majority of the lawyers in the world are in one country
That's what happens when the majority of the lawyers in the world are in one country
Last edited by tdracer; 26th October 2013 at 00:36.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 0
From: Asia
jefkaw320
There is a huge difference between 5th freedom rights and foreign airlines trying to circumvent foreign ownership laws or bully a country into changing their foreign ownership laws. US federal statutes require air carriers seeking to be certified in the U.S. to be “owned or controlled” by a “citizen” of the U.S. This requirement is enforced by the Department of Transportation (DOT) performing “fitness reviews” on applicant airlines to ensure they meet the “citizenship” definition. Jetstar Hong Kong isn’t applying for 5th freedom rights through Hong Kong. It is trying to circumvent the Hong Kong Basic Law by bullying the Hong Kong government. It would appear that ALPA is upset with US bilateral/trilateral air services agreements. Personally I think this is a hiding to nowhere as this is very much a double edge sword for ALPA and US carriers. If we were talking about ME carriers trying to obtain a US AOC in violation of US ownership laws then I would agree with you, but we’re not.
Considering how ferociously CX is trying to block a little LCC from operating in HK (Jetstar), I certainly hope CX guys could understand if the ALPA tries to protect U.S. turf a bit from heavily subsidized ME carriers.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
It's exactly the same
There are 2 sides to any dispute. Jstar feels they can legally set up shop...CX feels they legally cannot. CX is fighting it because they are worried about the competition. If they weren't, why would they fight it?
CX is using is using a legal argument to avoid the competition which would hurt CX.
ALPA is doing the same thing ( if they are actually suing). If you can't compete, sue and attempt legal actions to prohibit the competition.
The legal issue may be different. The purpose of the legal action is the same.
All I'm saying is that CX pilots should fully understand the concept of trying to protect home turf.
CX is using is using a legal argument to avoid the competition which would hurt CX.
ALPA is doing the same thing ( if they are actually suing). If you can't compete, sue and attempt legal actions to prohibit the competition.
The legal issue may be different. The purpose of the legal action is the same.
All I'm saying is that CX pilots should fully understand the concept of trying to protect home turf.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
From: Here ---> X
There are two issues here. None of which I understand the base of.
Norwegian Air Shuttle opening a base in NY and using cheaper labor (than in Norway, presumably) should be a concern for other Norwegian carriers or Norwegian authorities, if anything. US carriers benefit from the same 'cheap' labor, so what's the outrage?
Provided these employees' contract comply with US labor laws, I don't see an issue.
The problem with Ryanair in France (and possibly CX) is that they based crews locally while completely circumventing local labor laws and, most importantly, local taxes. The local taxmen, in a time of airy cash drawers, were not impressed.
As for the EK 5th/7th freedom flight through Italy, again, what's the problem? EK applied for the route and got proper permission to fly it by the DOT.
And I don't see how that relates to the ALPA anyhow.
Remember when American carriers had aircraft based in Europe in the 90's?
And as far as I know, United has crews based in Europe and Japan, AA has crews based in South America, Delta has crews based all over Asia. One of these even has aircraft based in Japan, if memory serves...
Norwegian Air Shuttle opening a base in NY and using cheaper labor (than in Norway, presumably) should be a concern for other Norwegian carriers or Norwegian authorities, if anything. US carriers benefit from the same 'cheap' labor, so what's the outrage?
Provided these employees' contract comply with US labor laws, I don't see an issue.
The problem with Ryanair in France (and possibly CX) is that they based crews locally while completely circumventing local labor laws and, most importantly, local taxes. The local taxmen, in a time of airy cash drawers, were not impressed.
As for the EK 5th/7th freedom flight through Italy, again, what's the problem? EK applied for the route and got proper permission to fly it by the DOT.
And I don't see how that relates to the ALPA anyhow.
Remember when American carriers had aircraft based in Europe in the 90's?
And as far as I know, United has crews based in Europe and Japan, AA has crews based in South America, Delta has crews based all over Asia. One of these even has aircraft based in Japan, if memory serves...
Last edited by Yonosoy Marinero; 26th October 2013 at 04:21.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,835
Likes: 85
From: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
I certainly hope CX guys could understand if the ALPA tries to protect U.S. turf a bit from heavily subsidized ME carriers.
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
From: Planet Earth
Norwegian Air Shuttle opening a base in NY and using cheaper labor (than in Norway, presumably) should be a concern for other Norwegian carriers or Norwegian authorities, if anything. US carriers benefit from the same 'cheap' labor, so what's the outrage?
Provided these employees' contract comply with US labor laws, I don't see an issue.
Provided these employees' contract comply with US labor laws, I don't see an issue.
If it is an issue they ignore, then effectively they are endorsing the idea. It allows a precedent that US carriers can then follow by moving their labour to the cheaper South American countries. If they then complain, it can be said they would have double standards by allowing it to happen in the US then not allowing US carriers to do the same in other countries.
That said, I have no idea if that sort of thing is already happening amongst US carriers. I would be surprised if it wasn't.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
We have a winner
Curtain Rod,
You may have just identified the real basis of any lawsuit ALPA may choose to file (hypothetical at this point). U.S. carriers don't have access to these same discounted loans and guarantees from its own government agency. Thus, putting U.S. carriers (and it's pilots) at a competitive disadvantage. The program was designed to help companies like Boeing sell airplanes. The result is assisting Emirates to flood the U.S. with seats, harming homeland carriers. Australia has already seen the impact of Emirates expansion. Maybe the U.S. (through ALPA) is trying to avoid the same fate.
You may have just identified the real basis of any lawsuit ALPA may choose to file (hypothetical at this point). U.S. carriers don't have access to these same discounted loans and guarantees from its own government agency. Thus, putting U.S. carriers (and it's pilots) at a competitive disadvantage. The program was designed to help companies like Boeing sell airplanes. The result is assisting Emirates to flood the U.S. with seats, harming homeland carriers. Australia has already seen the impact of Emirates expansion. Maybe the U.S. (through ALPA) is trying to avoid the same fate.
And the myth of ME airlines being subsidized? The real "subsidy" foreign airlines all over the world receive are the discounted loans and loan guarantees from the US government's own Export-Import Bank.
