GA Medical Reform

Currently the GA medical reform is slowly but surely moving closer to becoming a law. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has reviewed the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2, and passed an amendment offered by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), bringing third class medical reform one step closer to reality (4. Tennyson, 2015).

The reform is currently a bill in terms of legislation, once it passes the committee, the legislation will go to the full Senate, where it has 69 cosponsors (3. Tennyson, 2015). At this point it is very close to becoming a law, although it would help if it had more cosponsors.

The proposed third-class medical reforms could save pilots more than $20 million each year and save the FAA approximately $2.5 million each year (2. Grady, 2015). The is no question that this reform will save pilots and the FAA millions, which is one of the huge advantages for this becoming a law. ALPA cited concerns over safety if the bill, which would allow GA pilots to self-certify under most circumstances, were to pass (1. Grady, 2015). There will always be a question of whether or not a pilot is fit for flight. Without routine check-ups on GA pilots to maintain a third class medical it will make them more susceptible to dangerous flying conditions. Personally, I think that ALPA has every right to be against this bill because they are flying in the same skies as GA pilots.

I honestly don’t feel that the reform is necessary, pilots have been doing fine with how the medical system works in the past. I wouldn’t feel safe with other pilots in the air with psychological restrictions to flying and only needing to see a doctor for a check-up every four years. With regards to cost, if you are in a position to get a pilot license then the cost of a medical exam is not a factor.

References

1. Grady, M. (2015, July 25). ALPA opposes GA medical-reform effort. AvWeb. Retrieved from http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/ALPA-Opposes-GA-Medical-Reform-Effort-224552-1.html

2. Grady, M. (2015, November 18). GA advocates push for medical reform in congress. AvWeb. Retrieved from http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/GA-Advocates-Push-For-Medical-Reform-In-Congress-225217-1.html

3. Tennyson, E. A. (2015, November 18). Closer than ever. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Retrieved from http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/November/18/Closer-than-ever

4. Tennyson, E. A. (2015, November 18). Committee passes manchin amendment to pilot's bill of rights 2. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Retrieved from http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/November/18/Committee-passes-Manchin-amendment-to-PBR2

**I incorporated the numbers in with my references to better navigate where I have used the references in my blog post. Since most of the authors are the same with different works at different times.

Chinese Competitor to Boeing and Airbus

I do not think that the C919 will ever receive an FAA certification. China is a huge manufacture of many many different items that are used throughout the world however they do not specialize in one particular thing. China makes items in mass quantities however it seems they often lack in quality. How can we expect China to make a safe aircraft that could potentially fly many people across the world when it seems as though even the simplest things, such as children’s toys, come with many warnings and dangers. It seems as though emphasis on product quality is not high on the agenda. I am not entirely familiar with COMAC and the quality of products they produce, but going off of what I have seen from products made in China in the past they have already lost my vote.

I don’t see any problems for the US carriers regarding the C919. The fact is that Boeing and Airbus are the more reliable choice when it comes to an aircraft purchase. China already has 500 orders for C919, mostly from state-owned Chinese carriers and domestic aircraft leasing companies (Zacks Equity Research, 2015). As I said before the general public will see an aircraft made in China and it could trigger some red flags, I don’t think that the general public will like this airplane. Obviously the overall cost for the aircraft would have to be lower than the 737 MAX and the A320neo because if it isn’t; COMAC would just be wasting their time. The 737 MAX will nearly be better than the C919 in every way. The only way COMAC could beat out Boeing is by having a very low aircraft cost.

You could say that the relationship between COMAC and the Chinese airlines are good considering what I had mentioned above. Most Chinese carriers have already placed orders for the new C919. Considering the aircraft has yet to receive an FAA certification it makes sense that most of their orders have come from “in-house.” COMAC also has the support of the Chinese government, which will continue to develop the C919 with an almost unlimited amount of funding (Zacks Equity Research, 2015). Plans for the next airplane, the twin-aisle C929, in a joint venture with Russia may be too much too soon. However each step along the way, including sub-types for the C919, will give the Chinese more experience (Leeham Co., 2015).

With COMAC getting all the recognition as potentially becoming a powerhouse and competing with Boeing and Airbus, it’s easy to see how other companies might think that they could do the same thing. Personally, I don’t think that COMAC will be recognized as a threat to Boeing or Airbus for years to come. Boeing and Airbus are both mature companies, which have much experience in aircraft production. They do not need to be worried about such a small company like COMAC. Does COMAC have potential? Yes, but not for many years to come and they will make many mistakes along the way.

Airbus and Boeing responded to COMAC’s C919 by deciding to re-engine their aircraft. While the C919 would have had an economic advantage over the A320 and 737-800, the decision by Airbus and Boeing to re-engine their airplanes not only erased the advantage, but the additional improvements gave the economics back to the A320neo and 737 MAX (Leeham Co., 2015). All in all I think that COMAC will not compete with these giants for many years to come.

References

Leeham Co. (November 4, 2015). No fear of C919 for a generation. Leeham News and Comment. Retrieved from http://leehamnews.com/2015/11/04/no-fear-of-c919-for-a-generation/

Zacks Equity Research. (November 4, 2015). Is the C919 a threat to boeings dominance? Zacks. Retrieved from http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/196801/is-the-comac-c919-a-threat-to-boeings-ba-dominance

Aviation Organizations

I think that every pilot should include themselves into some organizations so that you know that someone has your back when something unforeseen happens. The two organizations I wish to become a part of when I get into the aviation industry are the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) who I had mentioned in a previous blog.

ALPA solely focuses on airline pilots and their well being, their mission is to promote and champion all aspects of aviation safety throughout all segments of the aviation community (Airline pilots association, n.d.). Obviously that was not the entire mission statement of ALPA but it is a basic overview of how they will take care of pilots in whatever way they can. The IBTs mission is to represent the workers in every craft of the aviation industry (Teamsters Airline Division, n.d.). The IBT negotiated the freight industry's first national agreement in 1964 and began its efforts to unionize the airline industry in 1966 with employees of Western Airlines (Teamsters Airline Division, n.d.).

ALPA works with so many other organizations it make it easy for them to have a say in many situations. The ALPA is affiliated with organizations such as ICAO, IFALPA, and the CLC (Airline pilots association, n.d.). As I had mentioned before ALPA only really deals with the airline pilot side of the aviation industry. With their focus on pilots they can look deeper into how ot help the pilots more at their particular job. ALPA is working toward making the airline industry safer for the pilots and helping them in any way they can to achieve this goal.

IBT is very different compared to other aviation-based organizations, because they do not only work with one type career. IBT works with almost every type of aviation career down to aircraft cleaners. There are many different things that IBT does such as safety and health, contract negotiations, and legal representation (Teamsters Airline Division, n.d.). IBT is one of the few if not only organizations that can help all the sides to the aviation industry, which is good if there is an internal conflict between two jobs that they work for, they can come to a conclusion to solve a problem faster.

It is very important that as many pilots that can get involved with these types of organization do. Pilots can come together to have a greater impact on problems that they can fix. If a pilot or someone that works in the aviation industry doesn’t like the way they are being treated at their job, whether it be pay, work environment or otherwise; employees can contact their organization that they belong to can they try to settle a situation quickly and efficiently so that they can get back to working with improved conditions.

Note: For the references I am only giving the home page of the organizations, the specific information in my blog is from their site and is easily located with their site.

References

Airline pilots association. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.alpa.org

Teamsters airline division. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://teamsterair.org

Global Airlines: Is it Fair?

One long-haul foreign carrier that receives government subsidies is Qatar. Qatar is based out of the Persian Gulf and they have received $7.7 billion in interest-free loans from their government. They have also received $6.8 billion in reduced interest costs due to sovereign guarantees for its borrowing (Yglesias, 2015). Another long-haul foreign carrier that receives subsidies from their government is Emirates. Emirates is based out of the Persian Gulf as well they have received government assumption of $2.4 billion in fuel hedging costs and $1.9 billion in low labor costs due to non-union labor. They have also received $2.3 billion in artificially low airport charges at its Dubai hub (Yglesias, 2015).

Long-haul US carriers that have received government subsidies include American, Delta, and United. These subsidies only started when the commercial aviation industry started contracts to mail carriers (Reed, 2015). Most all of the subsidies that US airlines have received from the government have been paid back essentially through there massive profit.

Not only are foreign carriers receiving government subsidies but they are also basically getting a better interest rate when they buy new aircraft. This quote, I think, best describes the way the Export-Import Bank works in this situation. Although it is long I thought that it was necessary to describe how the system works.

“The Export-Import Bank functioned primarily as a tool to sell American-made industrial products and capital goods to businesses and governments from countries with limited or no access to capital. An airline from say Mali (this is a hypothetical scenario), that wanted to buy Boeing 737s would be quoted exorbitant interest rates for a loan by commercial banks given the instability of that nation, but the Export Import Bank could loan them the money at a risk premium benchmarked to prevailing commercial rates. While this was initially meant mostly as a last resort avenue of funding, for both Boeing and Airbus, ECA-backed purchases have been common practice. Between 2008 and 2013, 26% of large commercial aircraft were backed by Export Import Bank funding (Bhaskara, 2014).”

I think that the global “playing field” with regards to long-haul carriers receiving government subsidies is very unfair. I understand that the US carriers received government subsidies back in the day, but most carriers have paid or nearly paid back all of their money that they have received from the government. The money was given to the FAA to help with advances within the aviation industry. With foreign carriers getting subsidies and having the Export-Import Bank on their side when buying wide-bodied aircraft it makes it almost impossible to keep up with them.

Yglesias, M. (2015, March 27). America's biggest airlines are accusing persian gulf carriers of cheating. Vox. Retrieved from http://www.vox.com/2015/3/27/8296495/gulf-airline-subsidies

Reed, T. (2015, April 14). U.S. airlines have paid the government $250 billion: Amazingly, some claim they are subsidized. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2015/04/14/u-s-airlines-have-paid-the-government-250-billion-amazingly-some-claim-they-are-subsidized/2/

Bhaskara, V. (2014, September 2). The fight over the export-import bank has no easy answers. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/airchive/2014/09/02/the-fight-over-the-export-import-bank-has-no-easy-answers/

Cargo Flight and Duty Regulations

The FAA changed many different things about this rule to ultimately manage the fatigue rate in aircrews for all passenger carrier airlines. There were big changes I noticed about this new rule compared to the old rule that were very night and day. With the old rule there were different rest requirements that were based upon domestic, international, and unscheduled flight. This was changed in the fact that it makes no difference what type of flight was made that day, the new rule applies to all flights. Another big change made with this rule is that a pilot must sign a document affirming that he/she is “fit for duty” and the airline is required to remove the pilot if fatigue is reported (Houston, n.d.). In the old rule there was no clear-cut definition for whether or not a pilot was fit for duty. The old rule also limited the amount of flight hours per day and per year, where the new rule limits the amount of hours by day, week, month, and year (Houston, n.d.). The last big differentiation I noticed was that in the old rule there was a rest period of at least nine hours, which could be reduced to 8 hours. With the new rule the rest period for pilots is 10 hours with the opportunity for at least 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep (Houston, n.d.). There are other different aspects of this new rule that differ from the old rule, but these few that I have stated stood out the most.

As far as I have researched there are no flight and duty regulations regarding cargo carriers. I can only imagine that the previous rules for passenger carriers apply for the cargo side of aviation as well. I don’t know if I am not looking in the right area or if there is no change from the previous rules. The only information I can find on the subject of cargo carrier flight duty limitations is toward their exemption from the new regulations set forth for the passenger carriers. I even looked into the FAR/AIM, maybe it is my lack of knowledge of navigating the book itself, but I could not find any information regarding the question of flight duty regulations for cargo carriers.

It was said by James Fraser (2014), “the aviation professionals at the FAA understand that there is no difference between pilots who fly cargo and pilots who carry passengers, other than the fact that cargo carriers' management complained that increased rest for pilots would cost too much” (Goelz, & Hall 2014). I believe that James Fraser is correct in assuming this, whenever a new regulation is implemented it will inevitably cost air carriers more money. I feel that cargo carriers were included and even encouraged to take part in this new regulation. Cargo carriers would lose quite a bit of money whenever they wouldn’t have a pilot in an aircraft making a flight, due to his extended rest periods. The situation with cargo carriers falls simply on losing money from implementing this new rule.

I believe that the cargo carriers should have been forced to take part in these new rules. There is absolutely no difference in the flights made by cargo pilots and passenger pilots. Cargo pilots use the same airways, airports, and aircraft as a passenger pilot; therefore they should be entitled to the same flight and duty regulations.

From a pilot standpoint I feel that there would less on the job fatigue, I know I feel better after a full 8 hours of sleep the night before I go fly. This might also decrease the pay for a cargo carrier job, because of the losses that cargo carriers would sustain from it. At the same time the impact on me personally would not be that great considering that I plan on carrying passengers in the regionals. Nothing is set in stone and I could potentially be thrust into the cargo side of aviation and I would be glad that these rest requirements would be in place.

References

Hall, J., & Goelz, P. (2014, September 11). Cargo pilot hours should be regulated, too. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/11/cargo-pilot-airline-safety-fatigue-regulations-commercial-column/15474061/

Houston, S. (n.d.). FAA final rule: Pilot duty and rest requirements. About. Retrieved from http://aviation.about.com/od/Regulations/a/Faa-Final-Rule-Pilot-Duty-And-Rest-Requirements.htm