Competition bad

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/airli...an-air_us_57265eaae4b03b93e7e46c20

Quote: The bill, a bipartisan hatchet job sponsored by Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.), would prevent the DOT from permitting a foreign air carrier to operate between European countries and the United States unless the carrier complies with basic, fair U.S. or European Union labor standards.

"basic", "fair" - these are very ambiguous terms. What do they mean exactly?

Funnily enough, Norwegian labor laws make the US' look third world by comparison. They do realize that the EU does not have a common standard in labor laws? Perhaps Norwegian should adopt Romania or Bulgaria's labor laws to keep these muppets in Congress happy (assuming of course that Congress is able to figure out that the those countries are part of the EU).

This one takes the cake:

Quote: Consumers may purchase tickets on Norwegian.com and they may board planes marked Norwegian in big bold letters, but this airline is ‘Norwegian’ in name only.

You mean like when a passenger boards an American Eagle, United Express, or Delta Connection aircraft?

I find it funny Norwegian is buying nothing but Boeing metal these days while Delta just bought Canadian and EU planes(which I have Zero problems with). The hypocrisy of all of this is amazing. Like American companies haven't been off shoring for decades for better labor value, amazing.

Two more articles

http://thehill.com/policy/transporta...o-ground-norwegian-airs-flight-bid

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel...orwegian-air-flights-usa/83664086/

I doubt there is much they can do now since the DOT has given permission to DY.

Quoting bgm (Reply 1): "basic", "fair" - these are very ambiguous terms. What do they mean exactly?

The text isn't available yet, but they should mean the labor standards of one or more EU member countries.

Quoting bgm (Reply 1): Funnily enough, Norwegian labor laws make the US' look third world by comparison.

And yet Norwegian's contract standards for its pilots are positively third world compared even to most US regional carriers.

Quoting bgm (Reply 1): Perhaps Norwegian should adopt Romania or Bulgaria's labor laws to keep these muppets in Congress happy (assuming of course that Congress is able to figure out that the those countries are part of the EU).

That would be fine. Not fine morally, but fine legally - that would be something the EU would have to fix if they wanted to.

Quoting lesfalls (Reply 4): I doubt there is much they can do now since the DOT has given permission to DY.

DY has always had permission - that's how they've been flying to the US for the past few years.

-Mir

Quoting lesfalls (Reply 4): I doubt there is much they can do now since the DOT has given permission to DY.

They can direct the DOT to rescind the permission. If passed, the DOT would have to comply with the Congressional directive.

They set up a flag of convenience business model to circumvent the US-EU Open Skies treaty, clearly violating the intent of the treaty. US law required the DOT to apply a public interest standard when reviewing and approving foreign air carrier permits to ensure that US air carriers are at least on an equal footing with foreign carriers. If Congress doesn't agree with the DOT action they are within their rights to continue pushing it.

Quoting WaywardMemphian (Reply 2): Like American companies haven't been off shoring for decades for better labor value, amazing.

American companies yes...American carriers no. And that's the simple issue. The US-EU Open Skies Treaty is very clear about what can and cannot be done. Other FTAs pay no attention to it.

Quoting bgm (Reply 1): Funnily enough, Norwegian labor laws make the US' look third world by comparison.

that is funny, but Norwegian isn't hiring employees under Norwegian labor laws to operate these flights. Norwegian Long Haul is hiring employees from East Asia and employing them according to those labor laws, so use that comparison.

Quoting catiii (Reply 7): American companies yes...American carriers no.

If American Carriers care so much about American Jobs they should be flying exclusively American Metal. They are not. They want what benefits them ( increased competion via AB, Embraer and Bombardier) and yet, want to be protected when come their own business. Cry me a river and give me a bookale flight flight 6 months out to London from Memphis out under 1,500. Norwegian is threatening to do just that, whether it be from MEM, BNA, MSY or a host of others. Jobs will be created at those places, much welcomed jobs. Delta cut jobs in Memphis, how ironic it would be if Norwegian actually did set up shop there.

Quoting WaywardMemphian (Reply 3):

They are "Canadian assembled" aircraft, not "Canadian made" aircraft.

Quoting jimbo737 (Reply 10):

Oh, like American made, I mean, assembled cars. So, you are saying things are sourced globally to reduce costs, how quiant. Delta, United, and American take advantage of that yet want to limit it when it comes to them. How nice. Here we have an airline that wants to offer 10s of thousands of Americans the opportunity to travel abroad that once was much more cost prohibitive. These Americans are likely former Disney IT workers, former Tradesmen for GE's xray division, machinists that are making the equivalent of the wages they earned in the 70s and yet The Big Three's pilots are supposed to be more immune to globalization than the rest of us? Cry me a River.

[Edited 2016-05-03 11:14:39]

Quoting bgm (Reply 1): "basic", "fair" - these are very ambiguous terms.

Not to Norwegian pilots. This is an airline that claims to be from Ireland, after all, because it allows them to skirt Norwegian labor and tax laws.

Quoting WaywardMemphian (Reply 9): If American Carriers care so much about American Jobs they should be flying exclusively American Metal.

And here's where you're losing the debate. American carriers and American employee unions care about airline jobs. You can't win based on the merits of the actual issue at hand, so now you're leaping to purchasing foreign aircraft equipment and to manufacturers that have nothing to do with the airline industry and who are not governed by the US-EU Open Skies treaty offshoring jobs. Good job.   

Quoting catiii (Reply 13):

If American carriers care so much about American jobs they wouldn't have farmed out virtually all their heavy maintenance to non-union Central American shops which the FAA admits it doesn't have adequate staff to oversee. The Big 3 USA carriers don't seem to be complaining about that? Hmm...

Quoting enilria (Reply 14): If American carriers care so much about American jobs they wouldn't have farmed out virtually all their heavy maintenance to non-union Central American shops which the FAA admits it doesn't have adequate staff to oversee. The Big 3 USA carriers don't seem to be complaining about that? Hmm...

better point than the one he was making, but again not a competitive issue governed by the Open Skies treaty.

[Edited 2016-05-03 11:35:52]

It's so much fun watching the amateur CEOs who love to defend airlines in the US to the death suddenly change their opinion because an airline that doesn't carry the stars and stripes shows up.

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 16): It's so much fun watching the amateur CEOs who love to defend airlines in the US to the death suddenly change their opinion because an airline that doesn't carry the stars and stripes shows up.

Just because we don't roll over to foreign subsidized competition the way the Australians have, or defend the industry when a "competitor" sets up a flag of convenience to circumvent the Open Skies treaty? Right.

Wrong, they shift American jobs. Like manufacfuring, jobs lost there are created elsewhere in the chain. If a factory that paid 12 bucks an hr in small town Arkansas shuts down, new DC jobs in Memphis are created at the same wages. Is it one for one, no. Sometimes it's less, sometimes more. There's always new automation in the process that cost jobs, airline workers are no different. A flight attendant in my opinion is no different than a data processor. They should be subject to the same fears as the rest of Americans when it comes to offshoring. If it's a safe product, it should allowed to compete, no one forces a pilot to work for them or even be a pilot. Pilots are no different than the rest of us, we are subject to lose our jobs if someone, somewhere else can do it as well or better or cheaper than we can. You adapt and accept the new reality or you change careers. No one is guaranteed anything.

This legislation is pure protectionism at best. I have no allegiance to a group that makes my ability to see the world vastly more expensive than it needs to be. I don't travel for business, I'm a working stiff that would like to show his kids the world much cheaper than it is now because I work in a field where we face global pressure every day. Bout time it should work for me instead of against me. That's why consumer groups and airports that aren't the chosen children are not opposed to Norwegian and clamor to have them.

[Edited 2016-05-03 11:50:01]

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 6): They can direct the DOT to rescind the permission. If passed, the DOT would have to comply with the Congressional directive.

Or they can place additional restrictions on transatlantic operations (not specifically applying to any one carrier, but to everybody). For example, they could say that nobody can fly between the US and EU on twin-engine aircraft, citing safety concerns (obviously ridiculous and not going to happen, but I'm using it for sake of example). NAI would still be able to fly, but they'd have to pick up some MD-11s, A340s, A380s or 747s, as would AA, DL, SK, LO, etc.

Directing the DOT to rescind the permission would have significant negative implications, as it would be directly contradicting an interpretation of an international agreement. That's a legal can of worms that is best left unopened. From what I've seen, however, the proposed bill would still let NAI fly to the US, just with certain restrictions on who they can use as crew and how they can be compensated (which everyone else would have to abide by as well). That doesn't necessarily violate the EU-US agreement, and depending on the restrictions would be perfectly fair considering NAI already said it would abide by them even if not required to.

-Mir

Quoting WaywardMemphian (Reply 18): Wrong, they shift American jobs. Like manufacfuring, jobs lost there are created elsewhere in the chain. If a factory that paid 12 bucks an hr in small town Arkansas shuts down, new DC jobs in Memphis are created at the same wages. Is it one for one, no. Sometimes it's less, sometimes more. There's always new automation in the process that cost jobs, airline workers are no different. A flight attendant in my opinion is no different than a data processor. They should be subject to the same fears as the rest of Americans when it comes to offshoring. If it's a safe product, it should allowed to compete, no one forces a pilot to work for them or even be a pilot. Pilots are no different than the rest of us, we are subject to lose our jobs if someone, somewhere else can do it as well or better or cheaper than we can. You adapt and accept the new reality or you change careers. No one is guaranteed anything. This legislation is pure protectionism at best. I have no allegiance to a group that makes my ability to see the world vastly more expensive than it needs to be. I don't travel for business, I'm a working stiff that would like to show his kids the world much cheaper than it is now because I work in a field where we face global pressure every day. Bout time it should work for me instead of against me. That's why consumer groups and airports that aren't the chosen children are not opposed to Norwegian and clamor to have them.

You're continuing to prove my point. You're debating nothing about the merits of the Open Skies Treaty and its requirements, and instead going off on some Trumpian anti free trade rant and trying to tie it back to NAI.

Article 17 is very clear. Google is your friend.

[Edited 2016-05-03 13:13:42]

Quoting catiii (Reply 17):

What does Australia have to do with this?

Quoting bgm (Reply 1): Funnily enough, Norwegian labor laws make the US' look third world by comparison.

But Norwegian is actually an Irish company, right?

Quoting catiii (Reply 7):

Tell that to the hundreds or thousands of mechanics who lost their jobs to CentAm and/or China MROs because mangement liked their bonuses. The only people whining are the "front of the house" employees.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 23): Tell that to the hundreds or thousands of mechanics who lost their jobs to CentAm and/or China MROs because mangement liked their bonuses. The only people whining are the "front of the house" employees.

Again, what does that have to do with the Open Skies agreement?

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 21): What does Australia have to do with this?

Using it as an example of how we can either roll over against foreign subsidized competition or other unfair competition, or fight. I'd rather fight. Doubtful that Qantas/Emirates alliance was good for Qantas or Australia.

Congress is doing this to appease their constituents. Not because DY's business model is bad. In fact, it's very innovative and I wish some US airlines would do the same! DY applied the cruise ship model to the airline industry and it's making the competition freak out. I would hope that other airlines do the same thing they are because it reduces costs, employs more people and enables them to use their aircraft on previously under or unserved routes. Case and point: DY going between the French Caribbean and the US. I bet MEM and CVG would absolutely love for DY to land at their airports. They have to follow US labor laws for their US based employees so except for pilot's pay,pay isn't a issue. Furthermore,many of their pilots are US based! Why bite the hand that is hiring pilots here in the US?! DL and others have cut jobs in many places and I'm sure said now ex-Delta/American/United employee would love to get a job and if DY wants to employ them, I bet they'd be happy to work for DY. It's 2016, business models and the business environment change because if they didn't,the US would still have the CAB and the clunky, inefficient system of the past.

Quoting Mir (Reply 5): And yet Norwegian's contract standards for its pilots are positively third world compared even to most US regional carriers.

Specifics?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22): But Norwegian is actually an Irish company, right?

It's basically a mess:

Norwegian Air Shuttle is a Norwegian airline and the parent company. Total fleet including the subsidaries is 111. IATA is DY, ICAO is NAX and callsign is Norshuttle.

Norwegian Air International is an Irish airline, owned by Norwegian Air Shuttle, flying routes within Europe and North America. Fleet size is 35. IATA is D8, ICAO is IBK and callsign is Nortrans.

Norwegian Long Haul is a subsidary of Norwegian Air Shuttle, HQ in Norway and operating the 787s. But they don't have any own routes, they operate the routes on behalf of Norwegian Air Shuttle. Fleet size is 10. IATA is DY, ICAO is NAX and callsign is Norshuttle.

Quoting VX321 (Reply 25): DY applied the cruise ship model to the airline industry and it's making the competition freak out. I would hope that other airlines do the same thing they are because it reduces costs.

Yeah, because the people flying your aircraft should make poverty wages with few, if any, work rules. The fact that you and others think that "flag of convenience", something that has already decimated the U.S. and U.K. maritime industry, is a good thing is absolutely terrifying. But, hey, all that matters is getting that cheap flight, decent jobs be damned...

Quoting catiii (Reply 20): and instead going off on some Trumpian anti free trade rant and trying to tie it back to NAI.

Actually, it looked more like a pro free trade rant. Did you read it?

Quoting catiii (Reply 24): Using it as an example of how we can either roll over against foreign subsidized competition or other unfair competition, or fight. I'd rather fight. Doubtful that Qantas/Emirates alliance was good for Qantas or Australia.

I suspect you didn't look at the flag properly.

I can assure you that QF/EK is definitely better off.

Quoting toxtethogrady (Reply 12): Not to Norwegian pilots. This is an airline that claims to be from Ireland, after all, because it allows them to skirt Norwegian labor and tax laws

Last time I checked the Norwegian pilots were all volunteers. I'm pretty sure that nobody has imprisoned them in their planes, if they're treated so unfairly they are free to go find better employment elsewhere, or go into business for themselves.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 26): Specifics?

Quoting IPFreely (Reply 31): Last time I checked the Norwegian pilots were all volunteers. I'm pretty sure that nobody has imprisoned them in their planes, if they're treated so unfairly they are free to go find better employment elsewhere, or go into business for themselves.

I am hesitant to even post in response to this but here goes.

Norwegian employs their pilots as independent contractors from Ireland to skirt rules. While yes these people have a choice, Norwegian also forces them to sign a 3 or 5 year "training bond" to the tune of $30,000 dollars that Norwegian KEEPS if they leave before that bond is up.

They also like to tout hiring US workers, but in reality they hire low-paying flight attendants (in my opinion as a PR stunt). Their pilot pay for the aircraft they fly is atrocious, their hotels suck, and they generally churn and burn flight crews. The ONLY reason they even find anyone is because the pilot market is so bad, and they offer a quick upgrade. The reason a lot do it is so they dont have to move their family to the sandbox, get worked to death, and leave with a divorce.

I didn't crack $40,000 a year my first 6 years flying professionally and getting to a major is an extremely difficult task. We already face a pilot shortage from the "lost decade" and are finally seeing stability and mass hiring. Its good for the industry and its good for the US. Nuking it all for a flag of convenience carrier is insanely short-sighted. US carriers get an overly bad rap here, but the bottom line is that it is the safest group of airlines on the planet, and has led the way in safety for decades. Your average pilot hired at AA, DL, or UA has over 5,000 hours, a 4 year university education, and probably has command experience elsewhere or in the military. No other airline on the planet can boast such stats.


So my .02.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 32): but the bottom line is that it is the safest group of airlines on the planet, and has led the way in safety for decades. Your average pilot hired at AA, DL, or UA has over 5,000 hours, a 4 year university education, and probably has command experience elsewhere or in the military. No other airline on the planet can boast such stats.

A source for this "fact" please ...

Quoting ual777 (Reply 32): Their pilot pay for the aircraft they fly is atrocious, their hotels suck,

So pilots take lower pay to fly a 787 or 737 and the hotels, well, que Brando, the horror. I can hear it now, "they put me up in a Holiday Inn Express, can you believe that? $#&!"

Quoting VX321 (Reply 25): They have to follow US labor laws for their US based employees

They don't if they don't employ them in the US. They could very easily employ them elsewhere and just base them in the US.

Quoting VX321 (Reply 25): DL and others have cut jobs in many places and I'm sure said now ex-Delta/American/United employee would love to get a job and if DY wants to employ them, I bet they'd be happy to work for DY

What are you talking about? All the US majors are hiring, not cutting jobs. And they're hiring a lot. And while some people might want to fly a 787, anyone who takes a good look at the terms and conditions and the payscales will run far away very fast and not look back.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 26): Specifics?

The perils of being a contractor (remember, no pilots or flight attendants work for Norwegian), seasonal layoffs, training bonds, a general inability to plan one's life because bases are continuously being shifted around, etc. And that's before you talk about the pay. It's a really unprofessional way to run an airline.

If they can get people who want to play along for a little while or sucker in some people who don't know what they're getting into and staff the airline that way, that's their business. But the broader point is that while Norway's social safety net may be far stronger than that in the US, what goes on at Norwegian in terms of work rules is very subpar when compared to even mediocre US regionals (and Norwegian is not unique among European LCCs in this - Ryanair does similar things as well, among others).

-Mir

Someone's going to be the lowest paid 787 pilot.

Quoting Mir (Reply 5): The text isn't available yet, but they should mean the labor standards of one or more EU member countries.

I think everyone will agree when the treaty was negotiated the US side did not say we are going to employ people on Mexican contracts and pay to fly our aircraft, and the EU were not saying they are going to employ people from Singapore to fly their aircraft.

The basis for open skies is that there is comparable (however not necessary equal) cost structures on either side so that there is no unfair competitive advantage. I dont think for a second anyone would complain if there crew were actually employed in the EU, and the employer and employees paid tax in the EU.

What we have at the moment is a situation where people are employed on Singaporean contracts, without the right to work or live in Singapore, based in Thailand, without the right to work or live in Thailand, not paying tax neither of those countries, and living in another country again without paying tax.

Then we have a so called EU company that does not have to pay tax and social contributions for those employees like other EU companies, and that is an unfair advantage not only for US airlines, also for other airlines in Europe. Those employees and their families are also using the public infrastructure of where they live without paying the tax to pay for its maintenance and development.

Quoting catiii (Reply 7): They set up a flag of convenience business model to circumvent the US-EU Open Skies treaty, clearly violating the intent of the treaty.

Yes, and that "flag of convenience business model" needs to stop, Ireland is being nothing more than a white collar tax evasion hub, look at the way the like of Microsoft and Google circumvent tax being paid in foreign jurisdictions by being "based" in Ireland.

Quoting catiii (Reply 7): American companies yes...American carriers no.

I would think all of the larger American carriers do have crew and operations based outside of the US. Difference is these crew would fall under the same workplace agreements as other crew. For example Fedex has pilots based in HKG, they have the same workplace rules as the US, same with the United cabin crew that are based here.

We have pilots and cabin crew based in the US, they are subject to all the tax rules as any other US airline employee.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 8): Norwegian Long Haul is hiring employees from East Asia and employing them according to those labor laws, so use that comparison.

What gets me about that arrangement is they do not have the right to live or work in those jurisdictions, and pay not tax there.

Quoting catiii (Reply 13): And here's where you're losing the debate. American carriers and American employee unions care about airline jobs.

That more rhetoric than anything else, what you hear more as being the fundamental issue is unfair competition. I see this business model as being unfair as the crew do not have the right to live and work where they are employed, nor do they actually work there.

Quoting WaywardMemphian (Reply 2): Quote: Consumers may purchase tickets on Norwegian.com and they may board planes marked Norwegian in big bold letters, but this airline is ‘Norwegian’ in name only. You mean like when a passenger boards an American Eagle, United Express, or Delta Connection aircraft?

No because the quote is referring to country of where employees hail from. Norwegian will not hire Norwegians...but Eagle, UAX, Delta connection, may not be employed by said brand name airline, but they work and live in the U.S. pay U.S. taxes and must comply with U.S. laws. Not the case if Norwegian gets its way. I suggest you read the details of why this is trying to be stopped.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 6): They can direct the DOT to rescind the permission. If passed, the DOT would have to comply with the Congressional directive.

Would this amount to Congress re-writing the EU-US Air Bilateral agreement without EU approval/permission?

Quoting catiii (Reply 17): Quoting coolian2 (Reply 16): It's so much fun watching the amateur CEOs who love to defend airlines in the US to the death suddenly change their opinion because an airline that doesn't carry the stars and stripes shows up. Just because we don't roll over to foreign subsidized competition the way the Australians have, or defend the industry when a "competitor" sets up a flag of convenience to circumvent the Open Skies treaty? Right.

Australia allow competition where the USA like to cry if cheaper competition arrives. USA service standards are that of LCC where real world airlines like EK, QF, SQ offer service and full carrier service like meals.

I fully support Norwegian launching USA services as it provides competition. If the USA carriers can't compete then its time they look at their options

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 27): It's basically a mess: Norwegian Air Shuttle is a Norwegian airline and the parent company. Total fleet including the subsidaries is 111. IATA is DY, ICAO is NAX and callsign is Norshuttle. Norwegian Air International is an Irish airline, owned by Norwegian Air Shuttle, flying routes within Europe and North America. Fleet size is 35. IATA is D8, ICAO is IBK and callsign is Nortrans. Norwegian Long Haul is a subsidary of Norwegian Air Shuttle, HQ in Norway and operating the 787s. But they don't have any own routes, they operate the routes on behalf of Norwegian Air Shuttle. Fleet size is 10. IATA is DY, ICAO is NAX and callsign is Norshuttle.

Norwegian Air UK is the fourth AOC. They haven't been allocated any aircraft yet but it seems likely they'll take over some of the LGW operations at some point.

Well, although I am for competition, I am not in favor of Norwegian this time. What they are doing is social dumping. So they fly from European airports and hire in South East Asia with South East Asian contracts. This is unfair competition. Something like what Ryanair is doing although Ryanair is still using European contracts (Ireland).

Transatlantic fares got cheaper. There is a lot of choice. I really don't understand those that want to fly to New York for $100. Something has to give. One day, those that go for cheap fares won't find any job to pay for those ridiculous fares as their jobs will be moved to Africa or South America. This model is sustainable and will fire back at those who support it if it ever becomes the norm. So NO to Norwegian UK, Ireland, Moon and Mars.

Norwegian is not attempting to break the terms of the air services agreement - to that end, it should be allowed to fly as per the agreement, and any other issues the US has with the company (i.e. labour) should be dealt with through more appropriate channels. This isn't an issue that just affects the airline industry - there are others. The only reason why the US is getting all excitable about this issue is because it affects international travel, and therefore potentially might impact US airlines and US jobs. If the US believes Norwegian's employment practices are aimed at circumventing EU labour laws, then the US should be lobbying the EU for a change in labour laws, and not back-handedly attempting to use the EU-US air services agreement as a lever to apply pressure to change laws in other countries. What amazes me is that there is a constant lobby in the USA to prevent minimum wage levels being increased (i.e. to prevent changes to labour laws), on the basis that it will increase the cost of products and services. When Norwegian attempts to reduce the cost of its products and services, within the limits of the labour laws that apply to it, it is castigated. The only reason why this is happening is a blatant attempt at protectionism of US jobs - it has nothing directly to do with the air services agreement. And congress is doing it because they think it will buy support from those affected. The world moves on - Norwegian have found a way of reducing costs, maybe a loophole that should be closed, but not one that should be closed by leveraging an agreement that has no direct relationship to the loophole.

Can't help feeling Norwegian have missed a trick though - if the airline was called Clampett Air or something similar rather than its name being based on georgraphy, I suspect fewer people would have noticed the issue...

This discussion reminds me of the protests that occur in sports whenever a particular team exploits a previously un-thought of tactic that is unorthodox yet not prohibited. Think infield defensive shifts in baseball or the NE Patriots' clever use of eligible/ineligible receivers in American football. As Tom Brady said in response to post-game complaints from the Baltimore Ravens' head coach, "read the rulebook". In this case the US gripe should be with the EU and Irish government for having loopholes in their labor law, not with Norwegian for using those loopholes to their advantage.

How does Norwegian Long Haul position its crews for LGW-JFK flights? Where are these crews based? If the crews are based at LGW, would it not be the UK who determines whether these people have the right live and work in the UK? I don't see the USA having any authority over foreign workers at foreign corporations based on foreign soil -- just because they do a layover in the USA.

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 36): Someone's going to be the lowest paid 787 pilot.

The gap is massive and even more so when retirement contributions are added in.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 33): A source for this "fact" please ...

There's another for 2015 showing all the majors with more detail but I can't seem to find it...however you get the point. The low time 1900 hour new hire is military. There is a multiplier for fighter pilots because their sorties are so short.

Not to digress too much, but could this also impact Emirates 5th freedom flights between MXP-JFK? Presumably US-UAE Open Skies came with labor standards, but it would certainly be convenient for US carriers if they could take aim at EK and kill two birds (pun not intended) with one stone. This is obviously not what the law was directed at, but could this be a side-effect?

Quoting ual777 (Reply 46): There's another for 2015 showing all the majors with more detail but I can't seem to find it...however you get the point. The low time 1900 hour new hire is military. There is a multiplier for fighter pilots because their sorties are so short.

I suspect he's trying to get a source for your "safest group of airlines on the planet" claim. I can't find any authoritative source that even has them all in the top 20.

Of course they are as safe as any other, but has all that military experience and university education you cite above actually made things more safe? I would argue that it has made zero statistical difference. So why should the traveling public be forking out extra for it?

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 48): So why should the traveling public be forking out extra for it?

He's told you, better hotels.