ME3 vs US3

good for Tim Clark.

Let's see where it all ends up.

if it was a non-issue and EK was not threatend, he wouldn't have responded.

He did so because DL is hitting very close to home and because there is evidence that EK has recevied subsidies even if they are less than at the other two ME3 airlines.
 
Rebuttal: The Washington document notes that allegations concerning labour conditions are outside the scope of the open skies agreements and WTO rules, and that the US authorities have always argued to keep this status quo, as US labour laws depart from International Labour Organization conventions in numerous respects, including the “right of association” in trade unions.

Emirates points out that it places no restrictions on union membership in countries to which it has operations outside Dubai, and negotiates with unions in 17 countries.

The document also highlights the fact that the airline provides benefits for staff which “meet or exceed” industry norms, and that it has not “walked away from its benefits obligations or abandoned its retirees” as it claims US airlines have done under Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring.

The document also points out that Emirates receives an average of 850 applications for each job position advertised, and that more than 20 per cent of its employees have been with the company for more than 10 years.
 
Sometimes when the Bosses fight, the workers actually get to hear the truth. 
 
Sure in the US you can join Unions but US laws don't let the Unions do anything. That's why Union membership is low and declining in the US. 
 
US carriers, now complaining about the labor practices of ME3 have been the ones behind rejecting the ILO guidelines and keeping them out of the Open Skies agreements, joining such other notable Democracies like Afghanistan and Pakistan in protecting the rights of employers in the exploitation of workers by internationally recognized oppressive labor laws that ban or restrict strikes and other collective action by workers and their Unions in an effort to improve working conditions and compensation. That's right people, as far as workers rights we live in a 3rd world f^&%$&*g country. Happy 4Th!  
 
Now before Mr Delta responds that ME 3 pays their mechanics less than AA or Delta I'd have to ask do ME3 mechanics in those countries where they are employed have lower standards of living than civil service workers, plumbers, carpenters and other laborer? Its all relative. Everything is cheaper in those places so one can obtain a higher relative standard of living on lower wages.
 
According to the article the largest US carrier had nearly double the revenue of the largest ME carrier.  
 
US carriers are throwing stones while living in glass houses and I love it!
 
WorldTraveler said:
good for Tim Clark.

Let's see where it all ends up.

if it was a non-issue and EK was not threatend, he wouldn't have responded.

He did so because DL is hitting very close to home and because there is evidence that EK has recevied subsidies even if they are less than at the other two ME3 airline
As I pointed to to Mr Parker US based carriers receive far greater subsidies by virtue of the RLA and C-11 than any airline in any other country. The effectiveness and value of these subsidies is far greater than anything any country gives to any industry and is in the billions of dollars annually-per carrier. Effectively these subsidies have reduced compensation by 50% for US Airline workers, so take the total labor cost of US3 and double it and you will have the value of the subsidy. 
 
Again, before you cite what ME3 pays their mechanics in Dubai, I have to ask, does that level of compensation put them at the level of at least a Plumber or Police Officer in Dubai? That's all we are asking for but the labor laws in this country let a carrier that is not at immediate risk, with over $5 billion in cash, jump into a government program that avails the carrier the ability to impose close to anything they want on their workers, with the government actively suppressing the rights of workers to collectively respond, a right that not only every worker in a country that abides by ILO guidelines has, but even every other worker in the "labor rights wise- oppressive" United States of America has. 
 
 
Why have US carriers blocked adopting ILO guidelines as far as the rights of workers? Every other Western Democracy has adopted them and their societies have remained productive and competitive. Why wont the US, and what do they object to? 
 
Bob Owens said:
Sometimes when the Bosses fight, the workers actually get to hear the truth. 
 
Sure in the US you can join Unions but US laws don't let the Unions do anything. That's why Union membership is low and declining in the US. 
 
US carriers, now complaining about the labor practices of ME3 have been the ones behind rejecting the ILO guidelines and keeping them out of the Open Skies agreements, joining such other notable Democracies like Afghanistan and Pakistan in protecting the rights of employers in the exploitation of workers by internationally recognized oppressive labor laws that ban or restrict strikes and other collective action by workers and their Unions in an effort to improve working conditions and compensation. That's right people, as far as workers rights we live in a 3rd world f^&%$&*g country. Happy 4Th!  
 
Now before Mr Delta responds that ME 3 pays their mechanics less than AA or Delta I'd have to ask do ME3 mechanics in those countries where they are employed have lower standards of living than civil service workers, plumbers, carpenters and other laborer? Its all relative. Everything is cheaper in those places so one can obtain a higher relative standard of living on lower wages.
 
According to the article the largest US carrier had nearly double the revenue of the largest ME carrier.  
 
US carriers are throwing stones while living in glass houses and I love it!
Nailed it.
 
no, he didn't but it sounds tough to thump his chest and gets lots of people to stamp their feet.

There no evidence that US airlinee employees are low-paid relative to their peers elsewhere in US industry; Bob can only cling to the notion that US airline employees subsidize the operations of their airlines but it is actually the ME3 that have far lower labor costs as a result of their rotating employee ranks.

it is most noteworthy that Bob doesn't realize that the ME3's strategy of getting rid of aircraft halfway thru their economic life limits the viability of their maintenance operations and the ability for mechanics to advance in their career.

If the ME3 were the evil wons, there would be a sucking sound for US mechanics that would necessitate wage increases for those that remain in the US.

that simply isn't happeneing for mechanics but it sure is for pilots.

BK and the RLA can't undo market economics which the ME3 thrive on to force down wages.
 
WorldTraveler said:
the only question that matters is whether the ME3 airlines are subsidized by their governments.
http://atwonline.com/blog/thoughts-emirates-subsidy-filing-us-government
...The Emirates document also focuses on some of the side stuff that the US side has latched to its campaign, including trying to apply WTO anti-subsidy rules to Open Skies agreements. I’m not a lawyer, but this has always seemed to me a potential hole in the US carriers’ argument that they could and should have avoided; commercial aviation treaties are not governed by traditional trade agreements or the WTO and, because of the airline industry’s continued attachment to cabotage and ownership rules, doesn’t really desire to go that route. The US carriers are cherry-picking their “desires” from each set of rules, but the truth is that WTO rules are a moot point and for the most part US carriers and their labor groups would not support them.
 
Emirates, quite rightly, underscores this fact: “Much of the Big 3’s case rests on the legal premise that the WTO’s anti-subsidy rules apply to international aviation or is implicitly incorporated in the US Open Skies Agreements. This is fundamentally wrong. The WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM agreement) does not apply to services, which are covered by a separate WTO Agreement, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). GATS explicitly excludes air transport services, and does not include rules on unfair subsidies.” 
 
In another legal counterpoint, Emirates says, “the Big 3 also build their case for a unilateral freeze on Article 11 of the Open Skies Agreement, but this is the wrong article. Article 11 (“fair and equal opportunity”) deals with access. Subsidies are addressed in Article 12 which sets out specific procedures for dealing with artificially low prices “due to direct or indirect governmental subsidy or support”. In addition, both Articles 11 and 12 prohibit unilateral actions with very limited exceptions that do not include subsidies.” 
 
This point allows Clark to address the broader issue of US government commitment to maintaining its Open Skies policy – one that, by all accounts, the US is indeed committed to. “By asking the US government to take unilateral action, the Big 3 are asking the US to breach its own negotiated international obligations. This would put in jeopardy America’s Open Skies relationships with 113 other countries, and all the significant public and competition benefits that the Open Skies program has generated,” Clark says.
 
Essentially, the Emirates document is part rebuttal of specific allegations made against the carrier; part a broader recap of the legal framework of Open Skies and aviation treaties; part a summary of the customer benefits that the Gulf carriers bring to US passengers (particularly those who want to get to the sub-Indian continent without inconvenient, long stop-overs through congested and strike-ridden European hubs); and part a reminder to the US government of the benefits that the three US carriers  have received via Chapter 11, consolidation, antitrust alliances etc., while not necessarily, in the eyes of some, delivering on the customer service promise.
 
Each of the US carriers has very smart legal and government affairs teams. But I think they will have a hard time unraveling Emirates’ document from a legal and policy perspective. And that’s why I wrote in an editorial during the very early days of this campaign that the three US majors should be careful what they ask for.
 
If the US govt would require any airline operating flights to the US, to have non discrimination rules that the US carriers have to follow, that would shut down 90% of the Gulf carriers US flights. Of course the Asian carriers would not be able to operate flights either, so I'm sure that ain't gonna happen!
 
WorldTraveler said:
if it was a non-issue and EK was not threatend, he wouldn't have responded.

He did so because DL is hitting very close to home and because there is evidence that EK has recevied subsidies even if they are less than at the other two ME3 airlines.
 
Alternatively, DL could be the most vulnerable of the US3 carriers and therefore an easy target for EK to single out.
 
WorldTraveler said:
no, he didn't but it sounds tough to thump his chest and gets lots of people to stamp their feet.

There no evidence that US airlinee employees are low-paid relative to their peers elsewhere in US industry; Bob can only cling to the notion that US airline employees subsidize the operations of their airlines but it is actually the ME3 that have far lower labor costs as a result of their rotating employee ranks.

it is most noteworthy that Bob doesn't realize that the ME3's strategy of getting rid of aircraft halfway thru their economic life limits the viability of their maintenance operations and the ability for mechanics to advance in their career.

If the ME3 were the evil wons, there would be a sucking sound for US mechanics that would necessitate wage increases for those that remain in the US.

that simply isn't happeneing for mechanics but it sure is for pilots.

BK and the RLA can't undo market economics which the ME3 thrive on to force down wages.
There is a sucking sound but government interference via the RLA and C-11 are stifling it. 
 
It IS A FACT that our compensation in real terms has been cut by around 50%. These cuts were not needed for the record profits, even if we were at full pay they would still be very profitable, they are just greedy Motherf^&%$*^%.  
 
ME 3 has lower labor costs but the same can be said of US3 compared to EU3. As I stated, how do Aircraft Mechanics that work for ME3 live compared to their peers where they live?
 
It can also be said that ME3 also earns much less revenue per passenger from their Domestic market, leaving them at a disadvantage to compete against both EU3 and US3 in the International market,  US3 not only has lower labor costs than EU3 but they also have the largest domestic market with very little competition from other means of long distance travel-the US has no high speed rail. US3 has huge profits from their highly consolidated domestic markets giving them ability to kill off ME3 through predatory pricing.
 
The fact is that C-11 and the RLA have given US carriers the ability to slash wages in real terms by around 50%, do you have any evidence whatsoever that ME3 has ever engaged in any actions to lower the wages of its workers?  What evidence do you have to support your claim that ME3 is driving down wages? 
 
The fact is that US Carriers are the most heavily subsidized carriers in the world, the source of those subsidies are its own employees via heavy handed government interference in the Collective bargaining process. "dDue to direct or indirect governmental subsidy or support".  Many of these actions have been cited by the ILO as violations of basic workers rights, putting the United States, as far as workers rights, in a category shared by repressive regimes in the third world. 
 
Back
Top