Global Airlines- The Winners and the Whiners

This is a topic that could easier be a multi-week research paper with all the intricacy’s that are involved.  I must have read “is it fair” about three dozen times in regards to the accusation that Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar being “propped up” by their respective government.  Is it fair that General motors were bailed out? AIG? The big banks? Those “Green Energy” companies? I think the major difference in opinion starts with a lack of understanding of governments.  Most, ok some, have a fairly good idea how our government works, and that we the people pay taxes to the government pot for our elected officials (and their lobbyists) to do what they see fit, good or bad, with our hard earned dollars.  Is it a good idea for our government to continue running the United States Postal Office since losing $46 Billion dollars since 2007, close to $5 Billion a year? No.

That I think is the drastic difference when opposition says that the 3 major gulf airlines don’t need to worry about a bottom line, and can sustain constant losses. (onemileatatime, 2015)  They relate what the US government has done for BIG U.S. companies, bailed them out, propped them up, regardless if they more poor business decisions.  The Gulf States are different in this regard; from my experience they don’t fund a losing horse.  The leaders in the U.A.E. have taken proactive steps for years to develop their respective Emirates to use natural resource money that they have currently, develop a robust infrastructure to develop economic growth and future revenue as the oil reserves (at least in the Dubai Emirate) are expected to run dry within the next 20 years or so.  Also different that the Royal families do have great personal wealth, are generally appointed high governmental/military positions, and do venture into large business opportunities locally and abroad.  CEO of American Airlines Doug Parker views this a conflict of interest. (onemileatatime, 2015) So where I was going with this was that Dubai (Emirates) and Abu Dhabi (Etihad) may very well have funded their initial start up, and capital for ridiculous growth, but both airlines are now showing profits, and self reliant.

US carriers have no place to complain either.  In 2003, Congress passed a $2.9 billion dollar financial-aid package for the carriers. (travel weekly, 2004) It is said that the airlines have received around $8 billion dollars from the Federal Government since 9/11. US Airlines have also used the federal government CH. 11 bankruptcy laws to shed unwanted debt and benefits, and received funds thanks to another bill passed in Congress, the “Airline Bail out Act”. (US Airlines backdoor bailout, 2011) Here’s a chart from a research document I found online, of “just” the cash grants to airlines. 

This document titled “short changed” (Briones and Meyer, 2008) has all the information you’d want to know about loans, grants, tax exemptions, bailouts, etc., regarding the Airlines and our Federal Government.

The Export Import bank of the United States, essentially finances and insures foreign purchases of U.S. goods, of customers who are unable or unwilling to take the credit risk (Exim, 2015) and it does not complete with private sectors.  In regards to Boeing, in 2007 and 2008, 65% of the Export-Import bank guarantees went to companies purchasing Boeings.   2012, that number increased to staggering 85%.  No wonder they’ve been fighting to keep the EXIM Bank alive…

Again, HERE is that article, on all the money the airlines receive (from us tax payers).  They should probably stop crying about fairness, and take a few lessons from the Gulf Carriers instead.

Reference:

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2015/02/18/other-carriers-cant-compete-with-gulf-airlines-under-the-current-system-heres-why/

http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Legacy-carriers-faced-with-diminished-influence-in-Congress

http://atwonline.com/blog/us-airlines-backdoor-bailout

http://www.laane.org/downloads/ShortchangedStudy.pdf

Cargo Industry

Why is it you think that cargo has been exempt from this new Federal ruling? If you said money, you’d be right.  If you said because of the cargo companies profit loss, you’d be right as well, but that’s not the only money involved.  Have you ever wondered how and why private companies could affect legislative change?  It goes a little further than a few of the corporate leaders expressing strong disapproval of a proposed regulation; it goes to that second set of money I mentioned.  Political contributions. UPS and Federal Express have contributed more than $140 Million dollars lobbying and contributions to President Barack Obama since he assumed office. (Former NTSB officials: Apply fatigue rules to cargo pilots, 2014) Naturally, such donors can pull his puppet strings.  It is a fact that the White House killed the provision to include cargo carriers from this flight/duty regulation, but how does the Executive Branch dictate to the Legislative branch (Congress) you may ask?  It has a tool.  In 1980, Congress created the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).  Ever heard of it? Most have not.  It was originally created to prevent federal agencies from demanding excessive amounts of data from public and private parties. (The Secretive White House Office Lobbyists Use to Block Government Regulation, 2014).  Unfortunately, President Regan signed an executive order giving the office the authority to review all federal rules, crucially important because previously laws were to be written by the relevant agency cabinet, not the President and his aids.  So now the unintended consequence of Regan’s Executive Order is that the President has an entity to block, change, and approve federal rule on political will, and do so without exposure to the Freedom of Information Act. 

Despite bi-partisan agreement in congress to include the cargo industry in these new regulations, UPS, FedEx, and others in the industry met with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and were granted a carve out from the new rule.  Some prospective pilots looking into this industry may be interested to know what the cargo companies said to OIRA, “the dollar value of the pilots and aircraft that would be lost in fatigue-linked crashes would be far outweighed by the higher labor costs to the industry.” (The Secretive White House Office Lobbyists Use to Block Government Regulation, 2014) That’s where you stand, 40,000 feet below their bottom line.

The new regulation for passenger carrier pilots limits flying time to either 8 during the day, 9 hours at night, and mandates at least 10 hours between flights, allowing for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. (FAA Final Rule: Pilot Duty and Rest Requirements, n.d.) Special attention is given to those on night flights, and now the rule is applied equally to domestic, international, and unscheduled flights.  Cargo pilots can still be subject to 16-hour duty days, while passenger pilots are limited to 9-14 hours depending on segments flown that day.  Fatigue has moved into the self-report zone honor system, the pilot is required to sign a document attesting to his or her fitness to fly. Super.

Do I believe these rules should apply to both industries? Yes. Do I believe that there is room to improve FAR 117? Yes.  But as I stated in my earlier montage, I know it is near impossible to pass common sense, practical laws and regulations due to political, financial, and special interest groups.  This is an incredible double standard to apply essentially to “pilots” who fly the same aircraft, on the same airways, to the same airports, with dissimilar safety regulations.  That would be the same as saying Semi-truck drivers (cargo) and Greyhound bus drivers (passengers) should not have the same rest periods, or blood alcohol content requirements.  Think about that next time your riding down I-94 stuck in between two semi’s.  

If (when) the cargo industry is forced to follow the same rules as the airline industry, sure it will cost them money.  Yes it will require them to hire more pilots, and to rework schedules.  Yes it will be a burden to the CEO and shareholders.  That’s what regulation does.  However, this is a necessary evil, and will benefit the pilots getting worked over by the cargo companies, and hopefully also make our skies (and ground) a safer place to be.

Reference:

Former NTSB officials: Apply fatigue rules to cargo pilots. (2014, September 12). Retrieved from http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/217530-former-ntsb-officials-apply-fatigue-rules-to-cargo-pilots

The Secretive White House Office Lobbyists Use to Block Government Regulation. (2014, August 6). Retrieved fromhttp://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/secretive-white-house-office-lobbyists-use-block-government-regulation-87408

Cargo Carve-Out. (n.d.). Retrieved October 18, 2015, from http://www.capapilots.org/cargocarveout

Sens. Propose To Extend FAA Fatigue Rules To Cargo Pilots - Law360. (2013, November 18). Retrieved fromhttp://www.law360.com/articles/489600/sens-propose-to-extend-faa-fatigue-rules-to-cargo-pilots

FAA Final Rule: Pilot Duty and Rest Requirements. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://aviation.about.com/od/Regulations/a/Faa-Final-Rule-Pilot-Duty-And-Rest-Requirements.htm

Flying Cheap

Pilot shortage; fact or fiction? There are plenty of arguments from both sides, but who is right?  The ones representing the airline industry, Air Lines Pilot Association, (ALPA) would have you believe there is not a pilot shortage, instead a resistance of qualified pilots to fly for dismal pay and benefits.  The Government Accountability Office found “mixed evidence” that there is a actual qualified pilot shortage despite the regional air lines having difficulty meeting their pilot needs.  (Mouawad, J. 2014). One the other side they say it’s a matter of the baby boomers retiring, less military pilots entering the workforce because of high retention bonuses, or a lack of qualified candidates and or due to high cost of initial training for civilian pilot training. So who is right? Both. There will be a large number of mandatory pilot retirements in the very near future, and if the regional airlines don’t do something soon to rectify their pay structure, we could see more pilot shortages, canceled routes, and safety issues.

In an attempt to increase safety following the Colgan accident, the FAA’s spent 3 years working with the industry and government for a solution. The outcome increased first officer flight hour requirements from 250 hours with a commercial certificate, to 1500 hours with an ATP certificate. (Skift, 2013) Does this requirement make the First Officer any safer to fly than before?  Aren’t pilots taught well before 250 hours that the immediate response to an impending (or fully developed) stall is to lower the nose?  Does it matter how the additional 1250 hours are attained?  Does it affect the overall technical knowledge, proficiency, and safety a first officer’s ability to co-pilot an airliner?  I pose these questions because I believe we have lost an incredible opportunity to “train as we fight” as we say in the military.  Simply having 1500 hours of “flight time” does not necessarily automatically make you a safer, more proficient, first officer than a 500-hour pilot with 250 hours actual time in that transport aircraft as a “first officer” mentored by an experienced Captain.  What I mean by this (in my humble opinion) is that someone who has sat right seat for two years teaching future pilots, building the required 1500 hours in a Cessna 172 or the like, are they that much safer or skilled in the cockpit of an air carrier? Another question is whether or not these captains were actually mentoring these new first officers or were they simply using these new First officers as their checklist boy (or girl), exercising their newfound power role, and not necessarily grooming these new first officers as the Captains of the future.  Absent of extensive research, I venture to say this is a fact.  First Officers were like children, to be seen but not heard.  What kind of climate does this foster in the regional airlines when a relatively new first Officer upgrades to Captain?  Does he or she break the mold and mentor their first officers? Or do they fall into the perpetual cycle of treat your First Officer as your Captains treated you? Most likely they repeat the cycle, exercising their newfound authority, status, and glory as: El Capitan.  This new 1500-hour may be a good thing for the industry, it may make the flying public feel safer, but it does pass on the additional costs and time to the new pilot working hard towards a dismal $20,000 first year salary. 

In the aviation industry, there seems to be a union or at least an organization that represents everyone.  The airline pilots have Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).  The mechanics have The Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA).  Aviation business has the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). Manufacturers have the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). Air Traffic Controllers have The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)

While there are many definitions for professionalism, and they vary from industry to industry, I can sum it up by the pursuit of excellence through discipline, ethical behavior, and continuous improvement.  In the documentary, the Colgan management displayed unethical behavior by supporting the Captain who altered the weight and balance sheet, and not the first officer who challenged the captain.  The management did not display a pursuit of excellence through discipline when the business model is essentially, “move the rig”.  Poor pay and benefits, cutting corners, and not leading by example does not establish a professional workplace environment.  The pilot of Colgan flight 3407 had long history of poor flight performance.  He failed numerous check rides (of which he only reported one to Colgan), flight reviews, and relied heavily on the auto pilot to stabilize the airplane during instrument flight (Aftermath, 2010) While one could say he did not seek continuous improvement, his record display that he obviously just didn’t have to the aptitude to be a pilot.

I feel the low pay and compensation structure was a contributing factor in the lack of professionalism as seen in the documentary.  One of the big ones is the sad fact that regional pilots have to resort to “crash pads”, and can’t afford their own place.  Besides the obvious, not having a place to rest and relax in private, it has to have a negative affect on the pilot’s image and self worth. The inability for new pilots to afford healthy meals has several consequences.  Just as our planes don’t run on bad fuel, neither do we, especially important when pilots need to be sharp and alert. 

Maintaining professionalism is more than abiding by a company’s set standard operating procedures and ethos, it is taking upon oneself to excel.  I plan to continue to improve upon my knowledge, skills and abilities, whether on or off the clock, maintain the highest degree of integrity through word and deed, and to maintain the highest level of mental and physical fitness and personal appearance.

References:

Aftermath: The Mystery of Colgan 3407. (2010, May 27). Retrieved from http://www.flyingmag.com/safety/accident-investigations/aftermath-mystery-colgan-3407

The U.S. Airline Pilots Who Barely Make Minimum Wage. (2013, August 28). Retrieved from http://skift.com/2013/08/28/the-u-s-airline-pilots-who-barely-make-minimum-wage/

Mouawad, J. (2014, February 28). G.A.O. Finds Little Evidence Pilots Are in Short Supply. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/business/government-accountability-office-finds-little-evidence-of-a-pilot-shortage.html?_r=0

UAV's

 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA), or “drones” as the majority of the population refer to them as, have an ever increasing range of civilian purposes in the United States.  Film crews have already utilized them for years, providing epic aerial footage for a majority of your favorite TV shows and movies, able to fly overhead without the noise and massive rotor wash of a helicopter, and the costly overhead. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has been using a small fleet of Predator B UAV’s since 2007 to patrol our land and sea borders as an alternate to helicopters, yet according to a January 2015 Department of homeland Security Inspectors General (IG) report, it concluded they had no evidence the UAVs improved border security of reduction in drug trafficking. (Scathing Audit On Border Agency Drones Comes As Police Interest Rises, 2015, January 12) How is that you may ask?  Well, my educated guess would be that they are not being utilized effectively, efficiently, or correctly. Not a big surprise for a Federal Government agency, nor is it a surprise in their inaccurate (or flat out misleading) reported costs of operation.  CBP reported that the cost per flight hour was $2,468, yet the IG’s findings were $12,255.  CBP reported in 2013 that the net program cost was $12 million, the IG’s- $62.5 million.  Those are extremely large discrepancies (or deceptions), not lending us to trust what the CBP will do with their planned $443 million in spending to add 14 more Predator B’s to their fleet.  Since these UAV’s are not carrying armament like their cousins in the military realm, they have the ability to carry even more fuel, increasing their loiter time up to 24 hours.  How can they not efficiently and effectively patrol the border again?  Mind-boggling.  The technology is out there; it just needs to be utilized properly.  Branching off topic, aerial Persistent Surveillance Systems (PSS) equipped on UAVs to patrol hotspots on the border would make much more sense, you can read about it HERE, currently utilized by small piloted aircraft around the country, so something to think about for aspiring pilots.

There are currently two methods of gaining FAA authorization to fly civil (non-governmental) UAS. The first being Section 333 Exemption – a grant of exemption in accordance with Section 333 AND a civil Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA); this process may be used to perform commercial operations in low-risk, controlled environments.  And the second being a Special Airworthiness Certificate (SAC) – applicants must be able to describe how their system is designed, constructed, and manufactured, including engineering processes, software development and control, configuration management, and quality assurance procedures used, along with how and where they intend to fly. (FAA, 2015)

The FAA proposal offers safety rules for small UAS (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational operations. The rule would limit flights to daylight and visual-line-of-sight operations. It also addresses height restrictions, operator certification, optional use of a visual observer, aircraft registration and marking, and operational limits. (Overview of Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2015) The complete overview can be read HERE.

I definitely foresee larger UAV’s being integrated into our NextGEN National Air Space with the mandatory Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) requirement coming into effect January 1^st, 2020.  Apparently the FAA has planned for space flights as well, they modified an ADS-B Out prototype designed for the demanding environment of suborbital launch vehicles. Originally designed for unmanned aircraft and general aviation applications, the prototype was first tested successfully on a high-altitude balloon. Then it was launched on a commercial reusable suborbital vehicle to an altitude of more than 70 miles. The ADS-B Out payload transmitted as expected to ground stations in Texas and New Mexico during the entire flight. (NextGEN, 2015)  With this new system we will have traffic de-confliction from the taxiways, all the way up to space it seems.

It will be some time before the uninformed publics’ opinion that UAVs “drones” are just autonomous robotic-flying killing-machines, or spy aircraft sent to invade their privacy, and see them simply as Remotely Piloted Aircraft.  Or…maybe never, who knows.

The application of UAV’s in the military has been a game changer. Period. While I could fill a few pages of their pro’s and con’s, I’ll try to just highlight a few of each especially since by now the Predator and Reaper “drones” have received so much public attention. UAV’s are extremely valuable if you’re one of the troops on the ground, whether that’s providing real-time video back to headquarters, the Tactical Operations Center, or close air support.  Best of all compared to either an attack helicopter or fighter jet, they can loiter overhead for 20 or so hours before returning to base to refuel.  I’ve benefited a few times from UAVs being on station, and have a special place in my heart for the MQ-9 Reaper that made a few hundred Taliban wish they didn’t attack our compound one night.

One of the uses for a high endurance UAV would be to "stare" at the battlefield for a long period of time to produce a record of events that could then be played backwards to track where improvised explosive devices (IEDs) came from. Similar to the aerial Persistent Surveillance Systems (PSS) I linked to earlier in this post.

Another great UAV is actually a Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) The RQ-16A T-Hawk is a ducted fan VTOL micro UAV has been in use with the U.S. Multi-Service Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group and others. The gasoline engine powered RQ-16 weighs 20 lbs., has an endurance of around 40 minutes, 10,500-foot ceiling and an operating radius of about 6 nautical miles. Forward speeds up to 70 knots. Sensors include one forward and one downward looking daylight or IR cameras. (RQ-16: Future Combat Systems’ Last UAV Survivor Falls, Sept 19, 2012) Military convoys have been using MAVs to fly ahead and scan the roads. A MAV’s benefit is its ability to inspect a target — a suspicious vehicle, structure, or disturbed earth — from close range, covering ground much more quickly than an unmanned ground vehicle and without putting people at risk.

UAVs, just as Conventional military aircraft, have seen their fair share of cost overruns.  One of the most expensive UAVs is the Global Hawk. Its 2001 cost estimate per aircraft was $61 million, 2006 the cost increased 35% to $82.3 Million (Soaring Costs Not Likely to Slow Down Global Hawk, 2006, May 1). and $131 million in fiscal year 2013.  That’s about what an F-22 Raptor costs.  But, seems the Defense department is willing to pay for a aircraft that can fly at FL 650 for up to 32 hours.

The number of “drone strikes” during this administration has multiplied several times over since the last administration.  Now if you knew me, you’d think I was taking a swipe at Commander In Chief.  Yes and no.  I am 100% all in for eliminating all the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, etc., we can. How we do so is apparently the debate at hand. One can see how it appears the administration (and lets not leave out other intelligence agencies) seems to use drone strikes as a first option, and sometimes an only option, as opposed to using a Special Operations unit (Boots on the ground), or a piloted aircraft.  While some appreciate that our guys aren’t in harms way, it does give the impression to the public that it’s just as easy as a video game to take out a target.  The media is quick to sensationalize a strike that has collateral damage involving civilians, women, and children.  And also quick to point out that our surgical strikes are not so surgical.  Without going off on the horrors of war, it is just that- war.  Collateral damage is part of every conflict, we should be grateful we have advanced technologically, ethically, and tactically, to make every attempt to minimize that loss.  We no longer carpet bomb entire cities just to eliminate one sniper as we did in previous wars.

As I mentioned earlier, I think more UAVs will integrate into our NAS with the upcoming NextGEN transition, thus opening the door for UAV pilot and management opportunities.  Border protection, police departments, search and rescue, wild fire management, hurricane hunters, NOAA, crop dusters, pipe line patrol, geo-mapping, just to name a few.  Not to mention, the Air Force is looking to double the size of their UAV pilot graduates per year, making it the largest pilot training program.

References:

Overview of Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/media/021515_sUAS_Summary.pdf

Scathing Audit On Border Agency Drones Comes As Police Interest Rises. (2015, January 12). Retrieved from https://www.revealnews.org/article-legacy/scathing-audit-on-border-agency-drones-comes-as-police-interest-rises/

Civil Operations (Non-Governmental). (2015). Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/

NextGen. (2015). file://localhost/Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/update/progress_and_plans/adsb/

RQ-16: Future Combat Systems’ Last UAV Survivor Falls, (Sept 19, 2012) Retrieved from: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/one-small-step-for-a-uav-one-big-step-for-fcs-class-i-01372/

Soaring Costs Not Likely to Slow Down Global Hawk. (2006, May 1). Retrieved from http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2006/May/Pages/SoaringCosts5337.aspx