ME3 vs US3

[Kev3188]

Air Transport World has produced a handful of pieces coming out hard against what they've termed this "strange campaign."

Here's the latest:
 
http://atwonline.com/blog/open-skies-war-game-gulf-carriers-3-us-carriers-0
 

 

[Bob Owens]

are you going to post here that DL is not a US citizen?

Tim Clark all he wants.

DL is free to communicate with who it wants in the US government - and in the EU as well - without Tim Clark or EK being a part of the conversation.

He is clearly worried about what they are saying if he can't stand to be left out..

 
So US3 is OK with using subsidized or oppressed workers from other countries, telling US based workers they have to unfairly compete with those foreign workers but they don't want to have to compete for customers? When we say its not fair competition they respond "Life isnt fair", but when it happens to them they don't hesitate to complain about fairness. 
 
 
AA is being hypocritical to complain, they lease space to Qatar and instead of making Qatar use AA workers at a higher price they allow Qatar to hire the cheapest workers that cant be found and put them on the AA ramp. In other words AA is helping them to operate at lower costs then complaining about it. 
 
Clark is not a citizen, and neither is Delta, so neither should be privately communicating with the US Government.  Like I said, Delta has no problem shipping work overseas, why should they then expect protection? 
 
What type of people raised these people running todays businesses? 

 

[Bob Owens]

The third question relates to Chapter 11, a uniquely US system that allows airlines in dire financial straits – for whatever reason – to hold off their creditors, wipe out debts and restructure. Outside the US, Chapter 11 is seen as a subsidy. The US carriers insisted today it was not a subsidy in the view of the US. That’s irrelevant in a global market. It’s what counts as a subsidy in global eyes that matters.
The US carriers also said today that Chapter 11 means you have to shrink your airline. So how come American Airlines, fresh out of bankruptcy protection, is now the world’s largest carrier and investing heavily in new aircraft and products?
 

Like I've said all along, a scam. Everybody sees it for what it is except us. When a company that has $5 billion in cash and the lowest wages in the industry can walk in and circumvent the negotiations process and get whatever it wants its a scam. 
 
What she missed is how come AA went into BK with the largest order for new aircraft in history and kept it? 
 
Anyone who has sat in Coach, in conditions akin to a slave ship where you can hardly move, knows that the US airline industry needs some competition when it comes to inflight comfort. They treat their customers nearly as bad as they treat their workers. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Of course it does because you are the one who opened your mouth and made an incorrect statement.

AA, DL, and UA are all US citizens while EK is not.

and even as US citizens, AA, DL, and UA can all talk with non-US governments including the EU without EK knowing what is said.

US carriers are fighting back and I suspect they will find plenty of support from the EU3; EK might find that the best times are behind them.

Can they vote or serve in the military?
 
They are not citizens even though a few corrupt Judges have ruled otherwise. 
 
Dred Scott, Plessy vs Fergusson, Citizens United all stellar examples of how Judges can get it wrong. 
 
How can a Corporation be granted all the rights of Citizens without the responsibilities of Citizenship? Should we charge them with Treason when they ship work overseas? How do you imprison a Corporation when they violate the law? 
 
When the founding fathers adopted the concept of incorporation they never intended for their powers to go as far as they have. Limited "personhood" is one thing, but citizenship is another. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, US corporations can be considered US citizens.

It is not my decision. It is the law.

As for the "strange campaign" there will always be interests that will be opposed to the US3's efforts to reign in the ME3.

Aircraft manufacturing and the US codewhoring airlines that feed the ME3 don't want to cut off their bread and butter.

comments that EK just made about potentially being interested in even more aircraft shows how they use aircraft purchases as the means to try to overcome any objections in Europe or the US to their expansion.

The policy question that Europe and the US has to answer is whether either the US or Europe are going to allow their airline industries to be eradicated by state funded and owned airlines that do not and will not follow the rules of the free market regardless of what kind of gain is made for the aerospace industry.

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out that if US or European carriers are so significantly damaged by the ME3 the net impact to aircraft manufacturing is eventually negative.

and Boeing or Airbus cannot believe that they can continue to produce a product to be used by some customers to intentionally damage other customers and have a viable long-term existence for A or B.

and the ME3 issue is NOT just a Europe to Asia issue. The ME3 already operate between the US and Europe and are trying desperately to operate over the Pacific as well.

Any employee of the US3 who fails to recognize the threat to their own jobs by the ME3 has absolutely no reason to say one word about scope or any other issue. The ME3 is comparable to the RJ issue or ground outsourcing. To fail to see that is flirting with disaster.

 

[Bob Owens]

yes, US corporations can be considered US citizens.

It is not my decision. It is the law.

As for the "strange campaign" there will always be interests that will be opposed to the US3's efforts to reign in the ME3.

Aircraft manufacturing and the US codewhoring airlines that feed the ME3 don't want to cut off their bread and butter.

comments that EK just made about potentially being interested in even more aircraft shows how they use aircraft purchases as the means to try to overcome any objections in Europe or the US to their expansion.

The policy question that Europe and the US has to answer is whether either the US or Europe are going to allow their airline industries to be eradicated by state funded and owned airlines that do not and will not follow the rules of the free market regardless of what kind of gain is made for the aerospace industry.

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out that if US or European carriers are so significantly damaged by the ME3 the net impact to aircraft manufacturing is eventually negative.

and Boeing or Airbus cannot believe that they can continue to produce a product to be used by some customers to intentionally damage other customers and have a viable long-term existence for A or B.

and the ME3 issue is NOT just a Europe to Asia issue. The ME3 already operate between the US and Europe and are trying desperately to operate over the Pacific as well.

Any employee of the US3 who fails to recognize the threat to their own jobs by the ME3 has absolutely no reason to say one word about scope or any other issue. The ME3 is comparable to the RJ issue or ground outsourcing. To fail to see that is flirting with disaster.

 
Yep and at one time Black people were property, you would use the law and the fact thats its not your decision as an excuse to Justify owning them for your own personal benefit and I would help them on the underground railway.
 
I would say that all the arguments that the US3 have against the ME3 would be the same, if not weaker, than the argument the EU3 would have against the US3. EU3 carriers treat their workers and customers better than US3 , provide their workers with good pay and benefits, Pensions etc while the US3 used corrupted federal laws, in effect government subsidies, to screw their employees. EU3 and ME3 cant go into a BS BK court with $5 billion in cash and demand the right to impose contracts on their workers if they dont submit to giving up Pensions, benefits, wages and work rules.
 
US3 carriers are all being subsidized by their employees with the help of the US Government.   None of the US3 had to prove the concessions they demanded from their workers were needed in order to survive, the standard for need for "relief"* was extremely low, in AA's case they were profitable before reorganization and claimed they needed the concessions to be "competitive", their business plan was not one of survival but domination and the courts rubber stamped nearly everything, thats why other countries see C-11 for what it is, a government facilitated subsidy, the government forced the workers to provide the subsidy through reduced wages and benefits that are by far inferior to those in Europe instead of using taxpayer funds. 
 
Bankruptcy laws are just part of the way the US Government forces workers to subsidize the US3 Airlines, the Railway labor Act and ever increasing abuse of the use of injunctions to interfere on behalf of the carriers in negotiations is yet another example of how our government interferes and forces workers to subsidize carriers. The fact that the NMB will impose endless delays in order to prevent Industrial action when workers are in a position to make gains but put everything on fast track when the employer is in a position to win concessions is probably more of a Government supported subsidy than Bankruptcy laws. In fact this subsidy has been employed for nearly 30 years and on a very consistent basis.  
 
Very few workers across the world, even in Communist countries,  have as restrictive rules on collective bargaining as those placed upon those in the US Airline Industry. 
 
 
I'm Ok with protectionism or at least fair competition, but the US Airlines and their Lobbyists even fought against drug testing and background checks for Foreign repair shops working on US planes. Thats a quality and safety issue, it seems that the only argument US3 has is it will hurt their profits if they have to compete. The fact is the US3 are hypocrites, they espouse competition, fair or otherwise when it suits them, then complain about it when it doesn't. Between C-11 and the RLA they have their workers hogtied and have been able to take  concessions that most other Western workers would never consider giving up. These government facilitated concessions are in fact Subsidies in the many, many billions of dollars a year, certainly more over the last 30 years than they gained with the ultimate subsidy, C-11. Basically we are put under terms of a fascist state where the government prevents strikes and allows the Carriers to do as they please. They receive billions of dollars in subsidies through their workers via government interference in the collective bargaining process, a subsidy thats not available in most other countries and none in the EU.
 
* Relief was a misnomer, they weren't seeking relief, they were seeking the right to impose terms with goverment assistance. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

and none of that changes that the EU3 will likely collapse before the US3 does.

that's why even I am willing to concede that it is doubtful that the US3 will be hurt as bad as the US3 claim they might... but a collapse of the EU3 will have enormous impact on the US3' ability to funnel passengers thru European hubs and would also inject much stronger competition into TATL markets (and perhaps TPAC eventually).

and you can argue that it is only about employees but BK is a process that inflicted far larger losses on investors, including stockholders than it did employees., at least initially.

the pain for US employees with BK is that BK has virtually permanently reset labor costs.

and European airline employees are having to accept the same thing... and the impact is driven not by what US airline employees have endured - joint ventures actually minimize the effect but by European low fare carriers and the ME3.

 

[Bob Owens]

I think our interests would be better served if our Unions got in contact with our European counterparts and started fighting the oppressive labor laws in the US that force airline workers to subsidize US based carriers. We could support the EU3 position against ME# and at the same time raise awareness of these dirty hidden subsidies the US Government provides US Carriers. 

 

[Bob Owens]

and none of that changes that the EU3 will likely collapse before the US3 does.

that's why even I am willing to concede that it is doubtful that the US3 will be hurt as bad as the US3 claim they might... but a collapse of the EU3 will have enormous impact on the US3' ability to funnel passengers thru European hubs and would also inject much stronger competition into TATL markets (and perhaps TPAC eventually).

and you can argue that it is only about employees but BK is a process that inflicted far larger losses on investors, including stockholders than it did employees., at least initially.

the pain for US employees with BK is that BK has virtually permanently reset labor costs.

and European airline employees are having to accept the same thing... and the impact is driven not by what US airline employees have endured - joint ventures actually minimize the effect but by European low fare carriers and the ME3.

Yep, E3 will collapse because the US subsidizes their carriers by heavily interfering in the Collective bargaining process. 
 
Investors lost nothing at AA, they were made 100% and could end up above 100%. We lost 50% of our income, most likely for life. 
 
Still pining for the days when you could own people? Hey the way things are going people like you have all the benefits of ownership without the responsibilities. 
 
The fact remains undisputed, even by you that our labor laws and Justice system provide US Based airlines with employee funded subsidies that are not available through out most of the world. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

so investors fared better at AA than they did at other airlines and yet AA employees make less... what kind of argument is that for the collective bargaining process vs. DL's non-union process?

and you are free to believe that US labor laws harm their European partners but that makes no sense given that all 3 US megacarriers have joint ventures with European carriers that treats their TATL networks as one financial unit.

further, US carrier employees have better scope protection than their European peers on some items.

and finally, the ME3 are receiving GOVERNMENT subsidies.

Your argument regarding EMPLOYEE subsidies, even if you want to call them that, is not the same thing.

there are no legal restrictions that govern the amount of pay that airlines have to pay their employees. There are international agreements regarding what can and cannot be paid for by governmnets.

the European airlines follow those regulations and the EU has stopped European carriers that violate them.

The ME3 airlines and their governments do NOT follow them.

 

[Bob Owens]

so investors fared better at AA than they did at other airlines and yet AA employees make less... what kind of argument is that for the collective bargaining process vs. DL's non-union process?and you are free to believe that US labor laws harm their European partners but that makes no sense given that all 3 US megacarriers have joint ventures with European carriers that treats their TATL networks as one financial unit.further, US carrier employees have better scope protection than their European peers on some items.and finally, the ME3 are receiving GOVERNMENT subsidies.Your argument regarding EMPLOYEE subsidies, even if you want to call them that, is not the same thing.there are no legal restrictions that govern the amount of pay that airlines have to pay their employees. There are international agreements regarding what can and cannot be paid for by governmnets.the European airlines follow those regulations and the EU has stopped European carriers that violate them.The ME3 airlines and their governments do NOT follow them.

If they are treated as one Finacial Unit doesnt that put their Corporate based Citizenship at risk?
Deltas Pilots are Union arent they? Historically Delta pays a little more to keep the Unions out, so Delta workers pretty much catch a free ride. What happened at AA is not typical of a Union, we had people in top positions who were accepting an enhanced Pension, executive travel privileges and who knows what other perks. In other words they were paid off.

EU workers have far better Health benefits, more vacation, secure Pensions and better financial security. They live longer than their American Counterparts.

Scope is for Job Protection, what Scope do Deltas non union workers have? Thats right, none. Are you claiming that US workers have better job protection than EU based workers?

These are Governement subsidies, just not funded by the government. So really which is worse? Instead the Government abuses their powers and assists the carriers in getting concessions with a myriad of restrictions placed upon Unionized workers all designed to delay and deny their collective efforts. As a result Compensation has in real terms been cut in half. Only US based Airline workers are subjected to these restrictions, even workers in Communist countries arent subjected to restrictions we are. So really, from an International perspective whats the difference where the subsidy comes from if the net result is unfair competition and its driven by Government action? If the US government forced the Oil companies to give the Airlines fuel at below market rates would that be a subsidy even if Tax dollars werent the source? The government huge interference in airline negotiations and arbitrary application of the laws amounts to nothing less than forcing airline workers to subsidize airline profits. The records show that the government has been extremely one sided and extremely biased against airline workers in both the application of the RLA and C-11. Under the RLA they have told Unions that if they do not decrease their demands that they would never release them, (NWA vs AMFA 1999) but when the company is in a position to make gains or bust the Union and the Union states they wish to continue talks they fast track it to release (IAM-EAL, AMFA-NWA 2005). In C-11 sect 1167 states that contracts under the RLA can not be abrogated because the RLA states as much, the courts decided that didnt apply to airlines even though the law explicitely states that it does. Then after stating that the RLA provides no protection to workers in Bankruptcy they state that when contracts are voided that the RLA protects workers from strikes, even though the RLA states that if the employer unilaterally changes pay that Union can strike. This is the type of Judicial chicanery that Black people used to be subjected to in the South, a rigged and corrupted set of rules that are designed to ensure that no matter what the chosen side wins. So maybe they arent handing the Airlines a check paid for by all the taxpayers in the country, instead they have worked with the airlines to take back half our compensation, in effect we could consider it to be a Airline Worker Tax of 50%.

Speaking of rules that some dont follow, the US is considered to be one of the worst offenders of workers rights. They way Airline workers are treated by their government is especially sickening when you consider that a large number are Vets. This government does nothing to protect workers from unfair foriegn competition as long as the employers are ok with it, such as with outsourced maintenance, but when it comes to them being subjected to unfair competition, or even competition thats as heavily subsidized by government action, they cry foul and all of a sudden claim they are trying to protect their employees.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not arguing with or disputing your contention that European workers have it better off than their US peers or that US worker job protections are weaker than in most other industrialized countries.

those countries also have social systems that cost much more and they are paid for by taxpayers.

It is not a free ride.

and government subsidies are only government subsidies if they are not paid for the government.

US law allows plenty of things that do not exist in other countries but that doesn't mean they are subsidies or are provided by the government.

Lower salaries are not a "subsidy" which is a word that has a specific meaning.

no, joint ventures do not endanger the legal status of either carrier on either. they are approved by both countries/governments.

the "DL people have no scope" issue has been discussed a million times on the DL forum. I'm not repeating them here other than to note that DL is adding mainline capacity while reducing regional carrier capacity and has been doing it for years. DL also has its own people and jets at more airports than AA or UA.
You can talk about scope all you want. DL just happens to provide it for its people even without them having a CBA

 

[Bob Owens]

I'm not arguing with or disputing your contention that European workers have it better off than their US peers or that US worker job protections are weaker than in most other industrialized countries.

those countries also have social systems that cost much more and they are paid for by taxpayers.

It is not a free ride.

and government subsidies are only government subsidies if they are not paid for the government.

US law allows plenty of things that do not exist in other countries but that doesn't mean they are subsidies or are provided by the government.

Lower salaries are not a "subsidy" which is a word that has a specific meaning.

no, joint ventures do not endanger the legal status of either carrier on either. they are approved by both countries/governments.

the "DL people have no scope" issue has been discussed a million times on the DL forum. I'm not repeating them here other than to note that DL is adding mainline capacity while reducing regional carrier capacity and has been doing it for years. DL also has its own people and jets at more airports than AA or UA.
You can talk about scope all you want. DL just happens to provide it for its people even without them having a CBA

A Subsidy is "a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of cash or tax relief.
 
The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.
 
 
 
The Airlines are given special status in labor negotiations and in C-11 that other businesses are not entitled to that allows them to impose terms on labor, that makes it a subsidy.
 
In court ruling after court ruling the courts have cited granting the Carrier what they wanted because its in the publics interest. Airlines in the US rarely strike due to severe government intervention, Airlines in Europe frequently strike yet all the terrible consequences that the courts cite in the US do not materialize in Europe where the average life span is more than the US. 
 
When the government took vast tracks of land and gave it to the Railroads was that not a subsidy? It wasn't cash, it wasn't tax relief, but it was still a subsidy by any reasonable interpretation. 
 
These rulings are subsidies because they take the property of workers and give it to carriers and allow the carriers to solely determine what they want to pay for it.
 
So here instead of taking Indian Land and giving it to a private company they are taking Airline Labor Contracts instead.  
 
Subsidies dont have to be cash directly contributed to the company, it can be policies or institutions funded and administered by the government to relieve them of a burden, in this case its paying rates that are negotiated through collective bargaining. The government pays for the mechanisms that help these carrier impose what they want by funding the Court system for C-11, (which foreign carriers don't have), and the administration of the RLA through the NMB, (again which foreign carriers don't have). The WTO recognizes that not all subsidies are cash or tax relief, the isuue is weather the government is providing assistance to a company that others do not have access to. 
 
Another factor that makes it a subsidy is that their policies of dealing with Labor disputes in favor of the carriers is only available to the Airlines, a defined group, if it was available to every business in America then you may have an argument, but they are not. 
 
Didn't say "lower Salaries" are a subsidy, I said that government policy that enables carriers to lower salaries is a subsidy when those policies are confined only to the Airlines. 
 
Scope- in other words, as I said, despite how you spin, they have No Scope. Delta could decide to close all those stations and they do not have to let them displace less senior workers if they do not want to. They just say, "Thanks and good bye". 

 

[Bob Owens]

and you have yet to show us anything where Parker or Smisek have succeeded in getting press on the subject anywhere close to what Anderson did.

 

So he got Press by looking like an idiot. What does that mean? Do you thing the Public really cares that ME3 could dominate International travel outside the US? Did they care when maintenance was shipped overseas onder condistions where Osama Bin laden could have been the last person to work on the plane they were flying? ? Did they care when manufacturing went overseas? What make you think that the public really cares that the oil rich Middle east is losing Billions shuttling people from one third world country to another in luxury while US carriers pack us in like sardines and earn billions in profits? Talk to someone prying themselves out of a Middle seat in coach on a US3 flight, show them pictures of the ME3 cabins and they will say "When do they start doing transcons?" 

 

[WorldTraveler]

consumers will care when any carrier dominates service to/from the US. As much as you want to think it's just an "other side of the world problem" as long as the US and the ME3 countries have Open Skies and the US has it with countries in Europe or Asia, the ME3 could start services.

the public never sees those dangers... that is the job of government and private industry thinkers.... it is no different from waking up one day and realizing you have no manufacturing base or no refining capacity because you made laws so stringent that those jobs and capabilities were all imported.