Posted on 02/20/2004 5:27:59 PM PST by Archangelsk
Review of Cabotage ProvisionsNovember 6, 2003
Last week, the US House passed the FAA Reauthorization bill with a 211-207 vote to adopt the conference report. The version of the bill which passed contains provisions for Flight Attendant Certification but unfortunately leaves our security training in question, opens the door to cabotage and allows the Bush administration to contract out airport control towers and jobs across the country.
Republican leaders marshaled support from airports and business groups to win over support from a handful of Republicans who were considering voting against the bill. This bill is one of severa l t his year in which Republican conferees have written provisions that have disregarded positions taken by both chambers. In this case, they changed our security training language from “shall” to “may” to make the program optional; added cabotage language; and reversed protects for ATC from future privatization.
The cabotage language included in the FAA Reauthorization conference report should be a red flag for all aviation workers. Current law prohibits foreign airlines from carrying passengers or air cargo between two U.S. domestic points. The provision would modify that section of the law as it applies to air cargo and would permit a foreign carrier to transport cargo, provided the shipment is transferred from one carrier to another in Alaska , and the foreign carrier has a code-share relationship with a U.S. carrier. For example, Northwest Air Lines could bring a package from Tokyo to Alaska and transfer it to Air China for shipment to New York .
A foreign air carrier could set up an operation in Alaska with a dedicated fleet of airplanes for the purpose of transporting cargo between Alaska and the other 49 states, in both directions, provided the cargo was coming from or destined for a foreign country.
This provision gives foreign-owned companies the opportunity to compete with U.S. airlines and take advantage of our vast domestic network and the most lucrative domestic air transportation market in the world.
Foreign cargo carriers would not be subject to U.S. corporate income taxes and U.S. laws and regulations concerning employment rights, drug and alcohol testing, training and other safety requirements. This provision does not grant reciprocal opportunities for U.S flag carriers and opens the door for the same opportunity to transport passengers. Once the door is cracked open through Alaska , the pressure would be on the same access through other U.S. gateways.
The US Senate could take up the FAA Reauthorization conference report late this week, although the Republican leadership has yet to schedule this bill on the Senate floor calendar. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is considering the possibility of a filibuster. The programs of the FAA expired on October 31, 2003 and are now covered under a continuing resolution that expires on November 7, 2003 .
We encourage you to contact your Senators to advise them of the importance of voting against the FAA Reauthorization Bill. We will keep you informed about the latest legislative action on this bil l t hat will greatly impact our jobs.
Debbie Golombek MEC Government Affairs Chairperson
The outsourcing of the middle-class must stop or we will end up like Brazil.
Umm, which "aviation workers"? Aircraft manufacturers - populated by, ummm, aviation workers like Aeronautical Engineers and skilled aero fabricators - have never had import protection. Do you fly Airbus aircraft, with SNECMA engines, by any chance? Duty free aircraft sold to U.S. air carriers with walk away wet leases, subsidized by the French government. No protection for anyone at Boeing, Douglas or Lockheed. Note that the last two are gone as a result of unfair foreign competition. Funny, but I don't recall mass strikes of solidarity from ALPA, AFA or AMFA.
Meanwhile, Aeronautical manufacturing workers retire to trailer parks in Spokane while air carrier workers retire to Maui. Good gig if you can get it; even better if you can get the government to protect your job.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for your side if I thought you'd ever considered where the machinery that makes your jobs possible comes from. But I've never seen anything like that, so...enjoy the ride. And when a subsidized European carrier starts competing your line, well...now you know how it feels.
Not at all. Maybe you missed the point: Boeing - and its workers - have had to cut, cut, cut to the bone to remain competetive - because they get no subsidies, and must compete on an uneven playing field that gives all the advantages to the carriers or to foreign competitors.
U.S. carriers don't have that problem because of the cabotage laws. I happen to have no problem with those laws, or the citizenship requirement for carrier ownership. I just think that Boeing - and the other U.S. airframers and engine manufacturers - should get the same consideration.
If you fly on Boeing aircraft, that's nice. But just remember they had to damn near give the planes away to keep the business - otherwise the EU would simply walk in (actually, they already have). Why should they be in that situation, and the carriers not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.