Aviation Organizations

What Two Organizations Would it be Important to Belong To?

Two aviation organizations which I think would be beneficial to belong to would be AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association), and ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association).

What are the Missions and Functions of Each?

AOPA is an organization whose primary focus revolves around General Aviation. AOPA’s mission is to “Protect your freedom to fly”; they do this by:

Advocating on behalf of our members, educating pilots, nonpilots, and policy makers alike, supporting activities that ensure the long-term health of General Aviation, fighting to keep General Aviation accessible to all, and securing sufficient resources to ensure our success (“AOPA’s Mission”, n.d.)

The Air Line Pilots Association, as the name implies, “represents and advocates for more than 54,000 pilots at 31 U.S. and Canadian airlines” (“About ALPA”, n.d.). They are “the world’s largest airline pilot union”, and provide “pilot assistance; representation; and advocacy” to its members (“About ALPA”, n.d.). The mission of ALPA, is to “promote all aspects of aviation safety throughout all segments of the aviation community”, to represent “the collective interests of all pilots in commercial aviation”, and to defend “the rights and privileges of the professional pilots who are members of the Association” (“About ALPA”, n.d.).

What are their Roles in the Overall Aviation Industry?

Besides providing educational and safety material to its members, AOPA also offers professional legal help, providing (for an additional fee) advice on how to avoid problems, or legal defense if a problem occurs. The cost of $49 a year (or $99 a year for Commercial, Instructor, or ATP) is pretty low considering the high cost of legal help you otherwise would have to pay if a problem occurred.

ALPA has been active in the aviation industry since the early 1930s – protecting the interests of the early mail delivery airmen being pushed into “horribly unsafe flying conditions” (“ALPA History”, n.d.). ALPA has continued to push for safety and the interests of its pilot members over the decades, and in the 1990s campaigned for “One Level of Safety”, which brought “Part 135 operations with more than nine passengers up to the same standards as Part 121 operations” (“ALPA History”, n.d.). More recently, ALPA has been involved with the FAA to set “rational, science-based flight- and duty-time limits and minimum rest requirements for passenger airline pilots” (“ALPA History”, n.d.). Among their current top priorities are “making science-based fatigue rules applicable to all airline pilots; improving airline pilot training and professionalism; and safely integrating remotely piloted aircraft into civil airspace” (“ALPA History”, n.d.).

Why is it Important to Belong to these Associations?

I believe I will continue to fly GA aircraft even after becoming involved in an airline, and as such, feel it would be a good idea to become a part of and support an association who aims to protect and keep GA flying alive. Also, AOPA’s legal plan could be very useful to ensure you’re legally covered should a problem arise.

ALPA is an established pilot union, and a recognized voice in government concerning airline pilots’ safety and interests. As such, I think it is important and beneficial for me to become a member of such an association as their lobbying and decisions will have a direct effect on my career.

References:

 About ALPA - What We Do. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.alpa.org/about-alpa/what-we-do

ALPA History. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.alpa.org/about-alpa/our-history

AOPA's Mission, Vision and Values. (n.d.). Retrieved from
            https://www.aopa.org/about/mission-vision-and-values

Aviation Emissions

Aviation’s Contribution to Overall Emissions

Aviation’s contribution to the overall CO2 emissions is relatively small in comparison. Statistics from the Air Transport Action Group show that “The global aviation industry produces around 2% of all human-induced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions” (“Facts & FIGURES”, 2016). When compared to road transportation, “Aviation is responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions from all transports sources, compared to 74% from road transport” (“Facts & FIGURES”, 2016). In terms of efficiency, “the new Airbus A380, Boeing 787, ATR-600 and Bombardier CSeries aircraft use less than 3 litres of jet fuel per 100 passenger kilometres. This matches the efficiency of most modern compact cars” (“Facts & FIGURES”, 2016).

Another thing to consider, is that “around 80% of aviation CO2 emissions are emitted from flights of over 1,500 kilometers, for which there is no practical alternative mode of transport” (“Facts & FIGURES”, 2016)

United Nations’ Agreement

The UN’s agreement sets carbon emission limits on international flights. Joan Lowy states, “Airlines that exceed that limit in future years, as most are expected to do, will have to offset their emissions growth by buying credits from other industries and projects that limit greenhouse gas emissions” (2016). These limitations will begin in two phases, “the first phase of the airline agreement… is voluntary [and] covers 2021 to 2027” (Lowy, 2016). Lowy continues that “Some countries were still trying to decide whether to participate in the voluntary phase” – Russia currently does not plan on participating in this phase (2016). The agreement “becomes mandatory from 2028 through 2035” (Lowy, 2016).

The agreement is supposed to limit carbon emissions, and reward those that do so; however, the carriers are already expected to exceed the amount allowed. As Lowy states, “Airlines that keep their emissions down through more fuel efficient planes and aircraft operations will spend less on carbon credits. But since aviation is growing rapidly, emissions growth is expected to far outstrip increased efficiencies” (2016)

Paris Agreement, and the new Elected Administration

President-elect Donald Trump has spoken against the Paris Agreement, previously stating that “he would ‘renegotiate’ the global agreement involving nearly all countries” and later stated “the US would pull out” (“Donald Trump would cancel”, 2016).

Under the Paris Agreement, “countries decide for themselves what their emissions cutting commitments will be” (“Donald Trump would cancel”, 2016). This means that if “President Trump doesn't put emissions cutting regulations into place, no one could force him to” (“Donald Trump would cancel”, 2016). However, “If Trump withdraws from it, as he has promised, it will take four year before the US actually leaves” (Hale, 2016).

Are these Laws Necessary?

I can agree with the law to a degree, trying to be more efficient and have less CO2 emissions is in no way a bad idea; however, 1. I’ve never really been on the “global warming” bandwagon in the past, and 2. I feel that they are focusing on the wrong industry. As mentioned, road transportation produces 74% of transport CO2 emissions. Seems like you would want to focus your efforts there instead. “A third of the operating costs of airlines is spent on fuel (“Facts & FIGURES”, 2016), so it’s already the goal of airlines to be more efficient and burn less fuel.

References:

Donald Trump would 'cancel' Paris climate deal. (2016, May 27). Retrieved from
            http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174

Facts & FIGURES - Air Transport Action Group (ATAG). (2016, May). Retrieved from
            http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html

Hale, T. (2016, September 09). The Paris Agreement will survive President Trump. Retrieved
            from http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/11/09/the-paris-agreement-will-survive-
            president-trump/

Lowy, J. (2016, October 06). UN agreement reached on aircraft climate-change emissions.
            Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-06/un-
            agreement-reached-on-aircraft-climate-change-emissions

Global Airlines – Is It a Fair Playing Ground?

The US-UAE Open Skies Agreement, and Some of the Airlines Involved

An Open Skies Agreement between two countries allows the airlines of both countries to more freely serve the other country’s airports without having to get individual permission for each and every airport. The United States of America and The United Arab Emirates have such an agreement; however, some of the U.S. carriers, particularly the Big Three (American, Delta, and United), claim that UAE carriers like Emirates and Etihad violate a section of the agreement which “ban[s] airlines from charging ‘prices that are artificially low due to direct or indirect government subsidiary or support’” (Sumers, 2016). The Big Three have argued that “Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar combined have received more than $42 billion in government subsidies since 2004” (Sumers, 2016) and, as such, requested a ban on these airline adding new U.S. routes. Such a ban as not been enacted however.

Emirates and Etihad, on the other hand, have denied receiving any unfair subsidies; instead focusing on a claim by the Big Three which stated that “bookings from Orlando, San Francisco and Chicago to the region and beyond were down by as much as 13.3 percent following the entry of Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways on those routes” (Kane, 2016) Emirates responded to this claim by stating, “the latest rhetoric by the Big Three American airlines once again demonstrates how they are only concerned with their narrow interests, at the expense of consumers and the broader economic interest” (Kane, 2016). Emirates claimed “they [the Big Three] don’t make a corresponding effort to improve their service and product proposition to win consumers’ hearts and wallets” (Kane, 2016), further adding that:

Instead of splurging on lobbying campaigns to lock out competition, instead of blaming Gulf airlines for loss of bookings or market share, the Big Three should rather consider how they can redirect some of their record profit to improve the services they provide to consumers (Kane, 2016)

Not all the U.S. airlines stand with the Big Three. In 2015, “FedEx Express…, Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Hawaiian Airlines, and JetBlue Airways” wrote to the government stating “The Big 3 claim to support Open Skies but their demands, if implemented, would endanger this network of more than 100 U.S. aviation agreements” (Sumers, 2016).

Do any Long-Haul U.S. Carriers Receive Government Subsidies?

Government subsidies are what this whole conversation revolves around, and are what the Big Three are accusing the UAE carriers of receiving. But, have the Big Three received subsidies themselves? Emirates has claimed that “the Legacy Carriers have received more than $100 billion in government support since 2002 and, with other U.S. carriers, receive annual benefits potentially exceeding $24 billion” (“Emirates’ response”, 2015), adding that “The Legacy Carriers come to this debate with unclean hands” (“Emirates’ response”, 2015). The U.S. carriers, of course, deny receiving any subsidies (Sumers, 2016).

This trend endures as both sides are unable to agree what constitutes a subsidy (Sumers, 2016), with both sides constantly pointing at their counterpart whilst rejecting any accusation against themselves, and thus, the cycle of accuse/deny continues.

What is the Export-Import Bank?

The Export-Import Bank describe themselves as “the official export credit agency of the United States…. with a mission of supporting American jobs by facilitating the export of U.S. goods and services” (“About Us | EXIM”, n.d.). In simple terms, EXIM provides loans to foreign companies (like Emirates), to buy U.S. produced goods (like Boeing jets). The problem U.S. carriers have with this arrangement is that they do not have access to the same loan options (instead having to pay a higher interest rate), and airlines such as Delta have claimed that “rivals like Air India and Emirates have used Ex-Im guarantees to lower their borrowing costs, then used the savings to cut ticket prices on international routes that compete with Delta or buy still more new jets” (Weisman & Lipton, 2015). This claim has been contested however, and “Judge Rudolph Contreras of Federal District Court, in a 72-page ruling…scoffed that $12 million in interest savings over 12 years would have that kind of power” (Weisman & Lipton, 2015). When you consider that Delta itself has “spent nearly $10 million on lobbying since 2012” against EXIM, and Boeing’s “$69 million over that same period” in support of EXIM, it makes the 12 million saved by foreign carriers seem not very significant (Weisman & Lipton, 2015).

Is the Global “Playing Field” for Long-Haul Carriers Fair?

I kind of feel this topic is not one which can be adequately answered in one “overview” blog post, and instead would require more in-depth research of the “facts” presented by both sides. But, I will say that from the information I found, I would say no, the playing field is not “fair”; however, that does not necessarily mean it needs to be. The world of business itself is not “fair”, and government action does not really need to be enforced when one company has an advantage over another. But, with that being said, if the companies involved have come to an agreement (e.g. Open Skies), then yes, both companies should definitely abide by the agreement set forth, and if not, government involvement may be required.

The problem in this case, is it would seem neither side can agree what the rules of the agreement mean. -.-

   

References:

About Us | EXIM.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.exim.gov/about/
Emirates’ response to claims raised about state-owned airlines in Qatar and the United Arab
            Emirates. (2015, June 29). Retrieved from http://content.emirates.com/downloads
            /ek/pdfs/openskies_rebuttal/EK_Response_Main.pdf
Kane, F. (2016, January 30). Open skies dispute between US and Gulf airlines escalates.
            Retrieved from http://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/open-skies-dispute-between-
            us-and-gulf-airlines-escalates
Sumers, B. (2016, June 28). U.S. Airlines Set to Lose Major Battle Against Gulf Carriers in
            Open Skies Debate. Retrieved from https://skift.com/2016/06/28/u-s-airlines-set-to-lose-
            major-battle-against-gulf-carriers-in-open-skies-debate/
Weisman, J., & Lipton, E. (2015, April 6). Boeing and Delta Spend Millions in Fight Over
            Export-Import Bank’s Existence. Retrieved from
            http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/business/boeing-delta-air-lines-export-import-
            bank.html