3 ms·

> "At what expense of high paying, quality, American jobs?" When I fly to Israel with a layover in Istanbul to visit friends in Istanbul, I am using Turkish pi

> "At what expense of high paying, quality, American jobs?" When I fly to Israel with a layover in Istanbul to visit friends in Istanbul, I am using Turkish pilots, thus depriving Americans of jobs. They are lower cost than many European pilots. Are you saying I shouldn't be flying Turkish Air? I don't understand? Incidentally, the flights from NYC to Istanbul use very modern planes and are staffed with very friendly staff. Direct flights to Israel on El Al use Israeli pilots whom I guessing don't get paid as much as their American counterparts and yet, highly trained as probably almost all of them were in the Israeli Air Force. So, please explain your position. I am concerned with safety and in fact part my work deals with safety in healthcare. Airlines landing in US airports should be following FAA regulations. It is important that the FAA regulate this. I encourage US domestic carriers to change the way they operate so that they can match the Norwegian fares while retaining American jobs. But to complain that Norwegian is offering fares that make Europe more accessible for people with fixed or limited income is just wrong.

_acme 9y ago
How would you "encourage US domestic carriers to change the way they operate so that they can match the Norwegian fares while retaining American jobs." I think the point is that that is impossible.
- davidf18 9y ago
  I don't agree. The consolidation of major carriers under Obama administration (United buying Continental, and American buying US Air) has reduced competition and thus higher fares, worse service. They don't fly out of regional airports at least in NYC I think that is rare. I"ll bet there are a lot of operational issues. Delta, United and others own low-cost carriers (the famous United case where the senior was dragged off the plane screaming and kicking was not on United but a low cost fully owned subsidiary carrier of United) as it is, so they could have a low-cost carrier that travels to Europe. These low-cost wholly owned carriers are domestic only. But none of them have them because they want to cannibalize the higher fares charged. They enjoy their margins. Norwegian (like Amazon, like Uber) is in a contest to capture market share and thus may be willing to operate on thin margins or even take a short term loss to capture share. The major American carriers may not want to invest the money to retain share and prefer to use politics instead.
  - saryant 9y ago
    > the famous United case where the senior was dragged off the plane screaming and kicking was not on United but a low cost fully owned subsidiary carrier of United United does not own Republic Airways and they are not a subsidiary of United Continental Holdings (United's parent). Republic is its own airline operating flights under contract for United, Delta and American. The legacies by and large do not own the regional carriers, nor are those airlines intended to be low-cost carriers. The differences primarily lie in the aircraft operated and result from union contracts that inhibit the legacies from profitably operating smaller (non-mainline) aircraft.
    - davidf18 9y ago
      According to Wikipedia, United Continental Holdings is the parent of United Express: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express > "and result from union contracts that inhibit the legacies from profitably operating smaller (non-mainline) aircraft." And it is these union contracts then that keep the US carriers from earning such low profits.
      - saryant 9y ago
        United Express doesn't operate flights themselves. They own no aircraft and employ no flight crews. They contract out all operations to carriers like Republic. United Express is nothing more than a brand serving as an umbrella for a group of subcontractors.
        davidf18 9y ago
        United seems to have some operational control since the CEO of United said that they would no longer be dragging people off of flights and in the media that passenger was listed as being on a "United Express" flight. These subcontractors seems to run with lower operational expenses and yet use Americans as pilots following FAA guidelines. United could have a similar arrangement with lower operational costs for overseas flights.
  - 9y ago

_acme 9y ago

How would you "encourage US domestic carriers to change the way they operate so that they can match the Norwegian fares while retaining American jobs." I think the point is that that is impossible.

davidf18 9y ago
I don't agree. The consolidation of major carriers under Obama administration (United buying Continental, and American buying US Air) has reduced competition and thus higher fares, worse service. They don't fly out of regional airports at least in NYC I think that is rare. I"ll bet there are a lot of operational issues. Delta, United and others own low-cost carriers (the famous United case where the senior was dragged off the plane screaming and kicking was not on United but a low cost fully owned subsidiary carrier of United) as it is, so they could have a low-cost carrier that travels to Europe. These low-cost wholly owned carriers are domestic only. But none of them have them because they want to cannibalize the higher fares charged. They enjoy their margins. Norwegian (like Amazon, like Uber) is in a contest to capture market share and thus may be willing to operate on thin margins or even take a short term loss to capture share. The major American carriers may not want to invest the money to retain share and prefer to use politics instead.
- saryant 9y ago
  > the famous United case where the senior was dragged off the plane screaming and kicking was not on United but a low cost fully owned subsidiary carrier of United United does not own Republic Airways and they are not a subsidiary of United Continental Holdings (United's parent). Republic is its own airline operating flights under contract for United, Delta and American. The legacies by and large do not own the regional carriers, nor are those airlines intended to be low-cost carriers. The differences primarily lie in the aircraft operated and result from union contracts that inhibit the legacies from profitably operating smaller (non-mainline) aircraft.
  - davidf18 9y ago
    According to Wikipedia, United Continental Holdings is the parent of United Express: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express > "and result from union contracts that inhibit the legacies from profitably operating smaller (non-mainline) aircraft." And it is these union contracts then that keep the US carriers from earning such low profits.
    - saryant 9y ago
      United Express doesn't operate flights themselves. They own no aircraft and employ no flight crews. They contract out all operations to carriers like Republic. United Express is nothing more than a brand serving as an umbrella for a group of subcontractors.
      - davidf18 9y ago
        United seems to have some operational control since the CEO of United said that they would no longer be dragging people off of flights and in the media that passenger was listed as being on a "United Express" flight. These subcontractors seems to run with lower operational expenses and yet use Americans as pilots following FAA guidelines. United could have a similar arrangement with lower operational costs for overseas flights.
- 9y ago