Things in the Sky

Yesterday, United’s pilots threw out a press release saying that the goverment should hold off on giving anti-trust immunity to United and Continental.

Ah, I love discussions saying how opening up markets can be bad.

Now, I think ALPA is just using this as leverage in negotiations, but let’s look in more detail.

Of course, ALPA plays the safety card pretty quick:

“United pilots pioneered many of the safety innovations such as onboard weather radar, anti-skid brakes, enhanced weather forecasting, and improved navigation instruments that allow safe flight operations,” added Captain Wallach. “Our training center and our pilots are among the best in the world. Does the current Administration really want to also outsource that experience when granting antitrust immunity without considering what the travelling public may get in exchange?”

Safety makes for a great PR move. Hinting that United is gambling with its passengers safety puts the airline in a bad light instantly. But, one would have to ask why United would do such a thing. In a competitive marketplace, passengers are surely willing to fly a safer carrier instead of an unsafe one.

I loved the first line line of the press release:

The antitrust immunity being sought by United Airlines and Continental Airlines not only has the potential to outsource tens of thousands of American jobs, it also could take experienced pilots off international routes, say the pilots of United Airlines.

This complaint was also great:

Continental would join United and US Airways as the only United States members of the Star Alliance. The Star Alliance is expected to grow to 50 airlines, mostly non-U.S. carriers.

The first sentence doesn’t make sense. Why is it bad that there are only three US carriers? Wouldn’t United pilots like passengers to flock to the superior service of United and the Star Alliance, providing growth to United? But that’s beside the point. The second sentence doesn’t make sense either. If there was less protectionism around the world, Star wouldn’t need as many foreign carriers.

I believe that ALPA should be advocating for the increased opening of markets. If that were the case, the need for alliances begins to go away. Let’s say, for example, the EU allows US carriers to begin domestic flying in Europe. In this situation, United could go, “Screw Star! Screw Lufthansa! Let’s launch our own European hub!” And if United provided a superior product and/or lower fares to its new customers, the company would grow and hire more pilots, flight attendants, etc. In fact, the higher demand for these jobs could bring about higher wages as well.

But, clearly, ALPA (like many other labor unions) is stuck in the rut of protectionism. So, if outsourcing is so bad, I call on ALPA to be consistent in this area. They should demand that United cut routes like Tokyo-Bangkok and Tokyo-Seoul. After all, United is a foreign carrier flying these routes, and clearly this is negatively affecting the well-being of pilots in those countries, whose jobs are being taken away by Americans.

Ah, I get it now – outsourcing is good, as long as its ALPA members who are taking the jobs from others. Unfortunately, other countries involved in international trade don’t always like that kind of arrangement.