When I achieve my goal of becoming an airline pilot I will definitely become a member of ALPA which is the Air Line Pilots Association. I'm already a member of the AOPA and EAA and I plan on staying with them as time goes on however I believe that the AOPA is a little more valuable. I have this opinion because as we discussed in class for $70 a year if you ever have an aircraft accident or incident they will provide a lawyer for you. The EAA or Experimental Aircraft Association is also very beneficial in that it provides many ways to give back to the aviation world through donation volunteer flights but for the purposes of this blog I'll be talking about the AOPA and ALPA.
The main purpose of the AOPA as stated in their website is to promote general aviation and " to make it possible for everyone that wants to take to the skies a reality". The AOPA fights to protect pilots rights and general aviation privileges. They offer many services ranging from updates on AOPA funded safety seminars to lawyer services. ALPA functions as the biggest airline pilot union in the world and claims they represent and advocate for over 54000 pilots at 31 different airlines on their website. Their main goal is to ensure and promote airline safety. ALPA basically fights for the protection of airline pilots much like the AOPA fights for the protection of general aviation pilots. The AOPA really fights to protect all pilots but specializes and focuses more on general aviation and leaves the airline pilot coverage to ALPA. When I say "fight" I mean that these organizations lobby to shoot down regulations that hinder or take away pilot rights. For example the AOPA has been trying to get the 3rd class medical done away with so that more private pilots will have access to the skies even if their health may be of concern.
It's important for me to stay involved in these organizations because they indirectly represent me and fight for my safety and rights as a pilot. They provide services that would be very hard to find elsewhere especially for such a low price.
References
http://www.alpa.org/en/about-alpa/what-we-do
https://www.aopa.org/about
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Saturday, November 19, 2016
When you compare aviation emissions to other means of human transportation its footprint is significantly less then other means of transportation such as road transportation (ATAG, 2016). One word explains why this is the case and that word is efficiency. Aviation is much more efficient compared to road transportation especially with the newest wide bodied jets such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A380. Contrary to public perception large jets are not the biggest polluter into our atmosphere. The public is confused because when you compare a jet to a semi it's obvious the jet has a bigger footprint. However this is only one of the many parts of the equation. To fully understand you need to also look at how many trucks it would take to haul whatever the jet can the same distance. We also have to consider how many jets there are and how many semis there are in operation to fully understand the big picture. According to the Air Transportation Action Group global aviation only accounts for 2% of the worlds C02 emissions and 12% of transportation emissions.
As we discussed in class the United Nations recently came up with a plan to try and reduce carbon emissions from Airliners. The basic plan they have proposed is the idea of limiting companies' pollution by giving everyone in the international airline industry a cap or a maximum amount of carbon they are legally allowed to emit. If a company goes over the legal limit they will have to purchase carbon credits from other companies that have emitted less and have some left over to sell. I think this is a good idea on paper but I honestly do not think it will ever work in reality for many reasons. For starters how will we accurately track how much a certain company emits? Also I have a very hard time believing airlines will pony up the cash to actually buy carbon credits. Just the idea of marketing pollution monetarily doesn't seem like a feasible plan however the intentions are all very good.
President elect Donald Trump has publicly stated that he would try cancel the United States involvement in the Paris agreement if he was elected president (Fox News, 2016). He has stated he thinks that the Paris Agreement is "bad for business". Whether he's right or wrong isn't really what we need to debate. The question is whether or not he'll actually follow through now that he has been elected. There are lots of things President elect Donald Trump has said he will do and chances are he wont follow through with all of them. We'll just have to wait and see what his priorities are but getting us out of the Paris Agreement will be a lot easier said then done and I don't think he will actually do it.
I believe that the new laws and regulations are for a good cause but will not ever actually work the way they're proposed to. We should also be making laws and regulations in the other parts of the transportation industry that are less efficient such as trucking. Maybe we already are but I honestly haven't done the research. The bottom line is that the airlines will always want to burn less fuel so do we really need to implement the carbon credit system?
References
Fox News, Bill O'reilly, November 2016
Facts and Figures, Air Transportation Action Group (ATAG). (May 2016) Retrieved from http://www.atag.org/facts and figures.html
As we discussed in class the United Nations recently came up with a plan to try and reduce carbon emissions from Airliners. The basic plan they have proposed is the idea of limiting companies' pollution by giving everyone in the international airline industry a cap or a maximum amount of carbon they are legally allowed to emit. If a company goes over the legal limit they will have to purchase carbon credits from other companies that have emitted less and have some left over to sell. I think this is a good idea on paper but I honestly do not think it will ever work in reality for many reasons. For starters how will we accurately track how much a certain company emits? Also I have a very hard time believing airlines will pony up the cash to actually buy carbon credits. Just the idea of marketing pollution monetarily doesn't seem like a feasible plan however the intentions are all very good.
President elect Donald Trump has publicly stated that he would try cancel the United States involvement in the Paris agreement if he was elected president (Fox News, 2016). He has stated he thinks that the Paris Agreement is "bad for business". Whether he's right or wrong isn't really what we need to debate. The question is whether or not he'll actually follow through now that he has been elected. There are lots of things President elect Donald Trump has said he will do and chances are he wont follow through with all of them. We'll just have to wait and see what his priorities are but getting us out of the Paris Agreement will be a lot easier said then done and I don't think he will actually do it.
I believe that the new laws and regulations are for a good cause but will not ever actually work the way they're proposed to. We should also be making laws and regulations in the other parts of the transportation industry that are less efficient such as trucking. Maybe we already are but I honestly haven't done the research. The bottom line is that the airlines will always want to burn less fuel so do we really need to implement the carbon credit system?
References
Fox News, Bill O'reilly, November 2016
Facts and Figures, Air Transportation Action Group (ATAG). (May 2016) Retrieved from http://www.atag.org/facts and figures.html
Friday, November 4, 2016
Open skies agreements are simply agreements between two countries allowing each others air carriers to conduct international flights into the country without the significant government hassle and time consuming procedures they would have to go through normally without the agreement (State 2016). These carriers can be airlines or cargo companies. In class we talked about two middle eastern countries specifically that have long haul government subsidized airlines conducting international flights into the U.S. These countries are the United Arab Emirates and Qatar; both of which have open skies agreements with the U.S.
The bottom line is that American carriers argue the UAE airlines are unfairly advantaged because they are government subsidized. They argue that our airlines receive no government funding and any foreign airline that does is not on an even and level playing field therefore making the open skies agreement unfair to companies such as Delta and American Airlines. The counter argument coming from the UAE and Qatar is that U.S. carriers such as Delta are in fact government subsidized because they have received bailout money from the government as early as 2002. What the argument is boiling down to is the definition of "government subsidizing" as it relates to airlines in specific countries. Its very simple: the big three in the U.S. say UAE and Qatar are unfairly advantaged due to their respective government funding and UAE and Qatar say the big three arent one to talk because they have received government funding also even if it has been through an indirect government bailout plan.
Another complaint of the big three U.S. airlines is that foreign carriers have yet another unfair advantage in that they can purchase American manufactured jets such as Boeing aircraft for reduced overall prices due to reduced interest rates. Foreign companies have the ability to do this because of the Export Import Bank. Some domestic airlines with international flights such as Delta argue that if they can purchase planes for less they can lower ticket prices and be more "unfairly" competitive. Basically the Export-Import Bank tries to make it easier for foreign companies to buy U.S. manufactured products in order to keep American company manufacturing jobs on our soil and help sustain our economy. In the example we're discussing the Export-Import Bank makes it easier for UAE airlines to buy Boeing Aircraft made on U.S. soil by giving loans with lower interest rates than airlines such as Delta could ever get.
I personally feel that the global playing field of long haul air carriers is very unfair. I also feel that absolutely everything else in life is unfair. The reality is that there will always be unfair advantages and disadvantages for all parties involved. We can do our best to make it more "fair" but it will never be perfectly fair. I think the most unfair part of this topic is the Export-Import bank issue, but Boeing will tell you that this helps them sell a lot of jets which creates American job opportunities and helps sustain our economy (Crawford 2016). There are opportunity costs for every decision. However if I was Delta I'd be very upset that an American company like Boeing right next door sells their jets cheaper to foreign countries then they will to me. It's not that simple but with the Export-Import bank as the middle man that's basically what happens. The whole situation is obviously unfair for competition among long haul air carriers foreign and domestic but I wouldn't say it's such a bad thing. I would just say it's more of the normal way that business in general works throughout the world.
References
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-ceo-losing-export-import-bank-means-loss-of-jobs/, Jan Crawford, 11-26-15, retrieved on 11-2-16
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/, U.S. Departemtn of State, Open Skies Agreemt, retrieved on 11-3-16
The bottom line is that American carriers argue the UAE airlines are unfairly advantaged because they are government subsidized. They argue that our airlines receive no government funding and any foreign airline that does is not on an even and level playing field therefore making the open skies agreement unfair to companies such as Delta and American Airlines. The counter argument coming from the UAE and Qatar is that U.S. carriers such as Delta are in fact government subsidized because they have received bailout money from the government as early as 2002. What the argument is boiling down to is the definition of "government subsidizing" as it relates to airlines in specific countries. Its very simple: the big three in the U.S. say UAE and Qatar are unfairly advantaged due to their respective government funding and UAE and Qatar say the big three arent one to talk because they have received government funding also even if it has been through an indirect government bailout plan.
Another complaint of the big three U.S. airlines is that foreign carriers have yet another unfair advantage in that they can purchase American manufactured jets such as Boeing aircraft for reduced overall prices due to reduced interest rates. Foreign companies have the ability to do this because of the Export Import Bank. Some domestic airlines with international flights such as Delta argue that if they can purchase planes for less they can lower ticket prices and be more "unfairly" competitive. Basically the Export-Import Bank tries to make it easier for foreign companies to buy U.S. manufactured products in order to keep American company manufacturing jobs on our soil and help sustain our economy. In the example we're discussing the Export-Import Bank makes it easier for UAE airlines to buy Boeing Aircraft made on U.S. soil by giving loans with lower interest rates than airlines such as Delta could ever get.
I personally feel that the global playing field of long haul air carriers is very unfair. I also feel that absolutely everything else in life is unfair. The reality is that there will always be unfair advantages and disadvantages for all parties involved. We can do our best to make it more "fair" but it will never be perfectly fair. I think the most unfair part of this topic is the Export-Import bank issue, but Boeing will tell you that this helps them sell a lot of jets which creates American job opportunities and helps sustain our economy (Crawford 2016). There are opportunity costs for every decision. However if I was Delta I'd be very upset that an American company like Boeing right next door sells their jets cheaper to foreign countries then they will to me. It's not that simple but with the Export-Import bank as the middle man that's basically what happens. The whole situation is obviously unfair for competition among long haul air carriers foreign and domestic but I wouldn't say it's such a bad thing. I would just say it's more of the normal way that business in general works throughout the world.
References
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-ceo-losing-export-import-bank-means-loss-of-jobs/, Jan Crawford, 11-26-15, retrieved on 11-2-16
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/, U.S. Departemtn of State, Open Skies Agreemt, retrieved on 11-3-16
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)