Our country's standards are what they are. If a foreign airline meets the standards, I have no problems with them flying here. If you're talking about the internal standards of US airlines, they also need to meet those standards to fly here.
I think the thing that's giving some people heartburn is that they have registered their subsidiary in Ireland so they can fly from Ireland to the US. But people don't worry about AerLingus (or a number of non-Irish, non-US airlines )doing the same. If they had been smarter they might have taken the word "Norwegian" out of the subsidiary's name...
I am not even a little bit surprised that ALPA has objections. I'm looking at a bigger picture than includes the consumer. Here is an article that explains the issue pretty well.
As far as airlines are concerned, I have always been the consumer and not the producer.Now why you doing that Mari, Gheesh.
No kidding. I realize that.
When US pilots fly overseas, they need to meet not only the standards of this country, but also the standards of the country they are flying to. I have heard of pilots flying 135 over age 65 in this country who can't fly to various other countries because those countries have an age limit. If the US recognizes the certificates of pilots from Djibouti (I have no idea if they do, or what the standards are) then I have no problem with them flying here.
It's seems pretty easy to understand, but maybe there's a disconnect I am missing. I don't know the specifics but I am assuming that there is a difference between rules we require for foreign pilots to operate here, and those that establish the standard for being licensed and trained here. If that is the case, then this business model will exploit that difference and incentivize companies to target the lowest and the least burdensome training and licensing. That means that those who adhere to the stricter standards for training and licensing will be punished. As happened in the maritime industry, they will have to register elsewhere to remain competitive.
The way I understand it, foreign pilots who fly into this country need to meet certain standards. They may not be exactly the same as the US standard for US pilots, but there are requirements. Their certificates need to be recognized by US authorities. The same rules apply in a reciprocal way to US pilots flying in other countries.
I understand ALPA's argument. But what's good for ALPA isn't necessarily good for the consumer. It's like the people who wish for the days before deregulation. Yes, the flying experience was better and pilots got paid more in relative terms (I think, I'm not sure about that), but it was also much more expensive.
So do you think that the same government that imposes standards on its people and industry should allow for those standards to be bypassed in the interest of lower cost for the consumer?
The standards are not being bypassed. We have standards for pilots flying into this country. You cannot present a license from [othercountry] and expect to fly here if [othercountry] only requires 5 hours of instruction, for example. This is part of what ICAO regulates. Another example; if you fly within a country where English is not a requirement you don't need to take the test and have "English Proficient" on your certificate, but you do to fly here.
You admitted that the standards to fly into the US are not the same as those to be trained and licensed here. If there are global standards for all licensing and labor, then the ALPA is wrong and so was your above statement. If so, this is simply a tax and wage issue and the overwhelming majority of the information out there is false.
Different countries can decide on their own standards, as they should. But to fly to other countries they need to meet certain other standards set for foreign pilots. The US standards are not the strictest, BTW. I have been in class with pilots who fly under JAA rules. Their standards are stricter than ours, at least they are to get a type rating.
If you are a US licensed pilot, you didn't need to take a test at all. But if you come from a non English-speaking country you do. I have no idea what they speak in Djibouti or why you are using it as an example other than that it has a cool name.
Qatar Airways flies into the US under their own flag, so one thing doesn't really have anything to do with the other.
Sure it does, now every country will have access to their work rules. That's the point.
I could say the same about you.
I'm raising the white flag. I will consider my inability to persuade you as a personal failure. I gave it my best effort.I could say the same about you.
I understand ALPA's and the industry's position but I am looking at it from the consumer angle.
AerLingus has access to Ireland's work rules...
I would not expect the United MEC to have any other view.
I would not expect a consumer looking for cheap tickets to have any other view than yours.
And yes, I just like saying G booty. Sorry that was dictated but I think I will leave it for @mscard88's sake.
.
I would not expect a consumer looking for cheap tickets to have any other than yours.
It's the same issue, just different parts of it. Those lobbying against NAI are also lobbying against the ME3.
Yeah, I follow. But my question, or comment, was about EASA. I know you are getting at the Irish authorities and whether or not they do the proper oversight.
The US can revoke the permission of a foreign carrier to fly here, just as they can revoke the certificate of a domestic carrier, if they have too many safety issues. So it is not a "flag" issue. It depends on the individual carrier.
Cabotage laws exist in other countries. If we can't do in their country I don't think they should be able to do it in ours. If there was a reciprocal agreement, I would be open to considering it. I would say that I'm generally in favor of the Open Skies policy described here.
Who here does?
