The two most important organizations to be associated with for my career path are AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) and ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association, International).
The mission for AOPA is to ultimately protect our freedom to fly. They strive towards this goal by advocating on behalf of their members, educating pilots and policy makers, supporting activities than ensure long-term health of general aviation, fighting to keep GA accessible to all, and ensuring sufficient resources to ensure their success (AOPA, 2016). AOPA has 5 key values: initiative, teamwork, service, integrity, and excellence. They don't only support general aviation like most people would assume, they have a large part in the entire aviation industry. AOPA is associated with increasing safety standards through the industry and implying ethical behaviors and techniques for both pilots and non-pilots. A large portion of their work is associated with the government and improving the aviation laws that ultimately affect both GA and commercial operations.
ALPA's mission is to promote and champion all aspects of aviation safety throughout all segments of the aviation community; to represent the collective interests of all pilots in commercial aviation; to assist in collective bargaining activities on behalf of all pilots represented by the Association; to promote the health and welfare before all governmental agencies; to be a strong, forceful advocate of the airline piloting profession; and to be the ultimate guardian and defender of the rights and privileges of the professional pilots (ALPA, 2015). Yes, this association is heavily geared toward air line pilots and the commercial industry; however, they still have their ties with general aviation. For example, ALPA works to promote safety for the entire industry. The safety is required for the entire industry because the young pilots need to learn the safety techniques not only for the safety of our country but also to know those techniques well so they can continue to use them in a commercial pilot setting. The commercial setting is the largest source of revenue for the aviation industry, so air lines have a huge say in subject matters. The choices that air lines choose to fight for ultimately affect the industry because the majority of the regulations are consistent no matter what or where you are flying. For example, most of the airlines were for the NextGen technology to cut their operating costs while still improving safety. This ADS-B requirement starting in 2020 will of course help the air lines but it will also GA aircraft and the air traffic controllers as well.
Personally, being a member of AOPA will be important for two major reasons. Firstly, if I were to pay the small yearly fee for legal help then I would be protected in the case of a lawsuit. In order to retain good lawyers it is very expensive. The small fee through AOPA will be much less over the years when comparing the cost of a one-time lawsuit. It is always better safe than sorry, so even though you might not ever need legal help, it is better to prepare for the worst. Secondly, AOPA is a tremendous resource for general aviation flying. I fly a lot through my family planes and I am always looking information up through AOPA. They have resources in any aviation category that you might need; whether it is from actual flight planning all the way to accident analysis or even Caribbean flying.
ALPA will not only benefit me, but it will also help out younger pilots. ALPA has a great website that has many different blogs about aviation questions such as interview gouges, updated pay scales, minimum pilot requirements, etc. It is also the world's largest pilot union, thus it will protect my job industry and the details surrounding our careers.
References:
ALPA. (2015). What We DO. Air Line Pilots Association, International. Retrieved from
http://www.alpa.org/about-alpa/what-we-do
AOPA. (2016). AOPA's Mission, Vision, and Values. Aircraft Owner's and Pilot's Association.
Retrieved from https://www.aopa.org/about/mission-vision-and-values
Monday, November 28, 2016
Friday, November 18, 2016
Aviation Emissions
When talking about emissions, aviation has an unfair biased associated with it. The large aircraft are assumed to horrible on fuel efficiency and produced horrendous emissions to the environment but that isn't the case at all. In fact, the large jets such as the Airbus A380 and Boeing 737 actually are efficient as most modern compact cars. According to the Air Transport Action Group, aviation is responsible for 12% of the C02 emissions from all transportation, which is much lower than road transport at 74%. Most of the emissions from aviation are from the long distance flights and at this time there are no other practical means of transport for those trips. Approximately 80% of aviation emissions are produced from flights of longer than 1,500 km, or 931 miles (ATAG, 2016). Due to the Paris Agreement and the high fuel prices, aviation has a very strong incentive to increase efficiency even more in order to save costs.
The specifics to the proposed reduction plan are actually pretty simple. The overall idea of the plan is starting in 2027, emissions will be enforced to the 2020 level. These enforced regulation will be standard for the 191 countries associated with ICAO (Green, 2016). Any emissions over the 2020 level must be offset by the airlines. The offsetting of emissions will be done through the market based measure, MBM. The MBM will require each carrier to purchase carbon offsets, which they will then be able to sell off to other carriers if they are more efficient than they are expected to be.
Under the newly elected administration, I don't think that the Paris Agreement will work out. Trump seems to be against most of the agreements. For example, it has even been said that he is against the NATO and wants to repel that agreement. If he wants to reply NATO, which has been an agreement for several years between many countries, why would he want to agree to the Paris Agreement. The reduction laws within the agreement are unnecessary and will be very expensive to the United States. In fact, several countries have already tried to create a emission reduction law and it was shut down to due to the expensive costs to U.S. air carries.
I personally think that the reduction laws are an overreaction. Not only has the aviation industry been working on efficiency, but so is every other industry. Currently, fuel is approximately 33% of the operating costs. In order for airlines to make more money, the easiest way will be to increase efficiency to decrease fuel costs. Aircraft are already very efficient compared to our past history. Jets in today's industry are 80% more efficient per seat kilometer than the early jets in 1960 (ATAG, 2016). This being said, airlines are working on efficiency and I think that the reduction laws will actually make it harder for the aviation industry because there will be fines associated with the efficiency of aircraft.
References:
Air Transport Action Group. (2016, May). Facts and Figures. ATAG. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html
Green, J. (2016, October 14). The World is About to get Tough on Aviation Emissions, Here's What
you Need to Know. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/
news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/14/the-world-is-about-to-get-tough-on-aviation-emissions-
heres-what-you-need-to-know/
The specifics to the proposed reduction plan are actually pretty simple. The overall idea of the plan is starting in 2027, emissions will be enforced to the 2020 level. These enforced regulation will be standard for the 191 countries associated with ICAO (Green, 2016). Any emissions over the 2020 level must be offset by the airlines. The offsetting of emissions will be done through the market based measure, MBM. The MBM will require each carrier to purchase carbon offsets, which they will then be able to sell off to other carriers if they are more efficient than they are expected to be.
Under the newly elected administration, I don't think that the Paris Agreement will work out. Trump seems to be against most of the agreements. For example, it has even been said that he is against the NATO and wants to repel that agreement. If he wants to reply NATO, which has been an agreement for several years between many countries, why would he want to agree to the Paris Agreement. The reduction laws within the agreement are unnecessary and will be very expensive to the United States. In fact, several countries have already tried to create a emission reduction law and it was shut down to due to the expensive costs to U.S. air carries.
I personally think that the reduction laws are an overreaction. Not only has the aviation industry been working on efficiency, but so is every other industry. Currently, fuel is approximately 33% of the operating costs. In order for airlines to make more money, the easiest way will be to increase efficiency to decrease fuel costs. Aircraft are already very efficient compared to our past history. Jets in today's industry are 80% more efficient per seat kilometer than the early jets in 1960 (ATAG, 2016). This being said, airlines are working on efficiency and I think that the reduction laws will actually make it harder for the aviation industry because there will be fines associated with the efficiency of aircraft.
References:
Air Transport Action Group. (2016, May). Facts and Figures. ATAG. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html
Green, J. (2016, October 14). The World is About to get Tough on Aviation Emissions, Here's What
you Need to Know. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/
news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/14/the-world-is-about-to-get-tough-on-aviation-emissions-
heres-what-you-need-to-know/
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Global Airlines
Prior to International agreements, airlines would have to receive specific clearance in order to operate a flight into a different country. They would have to get authorization to land at each airport they planned to stop at, which was way more work than it should have been. The Open Skies Agreement was created to make this process more efficient. It grouped together several different countries and allowed air carriers to travel to and from any airport within those countries without having to get authorization for every flight. A few of the many countries involved in the agreement are the United Stats, France, Germany, Canada, and The United Arab Emirates (Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, 2016). One of the important terms to this international agreement includes that the carriers must not be subsidized. There is currently an argument between the United States and The United Arab Emirates about their carries being heavily subsidized. The major carriers being questioned are Emirates, Etihad Airlines, and Qatar Airways (Mouawad, 2015).
Yes, all U.S. carriers used to receive subsidies; however, it was before the Open Skies Agreement was formed. Between 1918 and 1998, the federal government spent $150 billion to support aviation. This money went to building and improving new airports, helping out airlines during rough times, and sharing the costs of airlines when traveling into economically declined areas (McGee, 2015). Air carriers are also subsidized through the Essential Air Service, which allows small communities to still be served by certificated air carriers.
Foreign carriers are able to purchase aircraft below market value because of the export/import bank. This bank is an incentive program to generate more revenue for the U.S. manufacturer. Foreign carriers don't actually receive a discount on the aircraft itself; however, they are offered lower interest rates for the aircraft loan. It also allows for the export/import bank to finance to a U.S. exporter if they are defined as an SBA small business (EXIM, 2012).
Personally, I don't believe that the global playing field of air carriers is fair. The Open Skies Agreement clearly states that to be a participant you must not receive subsidizes. Although different carries have different definitions of being subsidized, they need to create one definition for all participants. The carriers that receive money when their fuel hedging estimates aren't correct have a major advantage over the carriers that don't receive money for that. Another disadvantage for U.S. carriers is the export/import bank. Foreign carriers are able to purchase aircraft at a cheaper rate due to the lower interest on loans. U.S. carriers do no get this discount, and thus are at a huge disadvantage financially because they not only pay more for their aircraft but they also don't get reimbursed for their loses in fuel hedging margins.
References:
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. (2016, October 18). Open Skies Partners. U.S.
Department of State. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ata/114805.htm
EXIM. (2012, May 25). The Aviation Exports Policy. Export-Import Bank of The United States.
Retrieved from http://www.exim.gov/policies/aviation-exports
McGee, B. (2015, September 2). How much do Taxpayers Support Airlines. USA Today. Retrieved
from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2015/09/02/how-much-do-
taxpayers-support-airlines/71568226/
Mouawad, J. (2015, February 6). Open-Skies Agreement Challenged. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/business/us-airlines-challenge-open-skies-
agreements.html?_r=0
Yes, all U.S. carriers used to receive subsidies; however, it was before the Open Skies Agreement was formed. Between 1918 and 1998, the federal government spent $150 billion to support aviation. This money went to building and improving new airports, helping out airlines during rough times, and sharing the costs of airlines when traveling into economically declined areas (McGee, 2015). Air carriers are also subsidized through the Essential Air Service, which allows small communities to still be served by certificated air carriers.
Foreign carriers are able to purchase aircraft below market value because of the export/import bank. This bank is an incentive program to generate more revenue for the U.S. manufacturer. Foreign carriers don't actually receive a discount on the aircraft itself; however, they are offered lower interest rates for the aircraft loan. It also allows for the export/import bank to finance to a U.S. exporter if they are defined as an SBA small business (EXIM, 2012).
Personally, I don't believe that the global playing field of air carriers is fair. The Open Skies Agreement clearly states that to be a participant you must not receive subsidizes. Although different carries have different definitions of being subsidized, they need to create one definition for all participants. The carriers that receive money when their fuel hedging estimates aren't correct have a major advantage over the carriers that don't receive money for that. Another disadvantage for U.S. carriers is the export/import bank. Foreign carriers are able to purchase aircraft at a cheaper rate due to the lower interest on loans. U.S. carriers do no get this discount, and thus are at a huge disadvantage financially because they not only pay more for their aircraft but they also don't get reimbursed for their loses in fuel hedging margins.
References:
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. (2016, October 18). Open Skies Partners. U.S.
Department of State. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ata/114805.htm
EXIM. (2012, May 25). The Aviation Exports Policy. Export-Import Bank of The United States.
Retrieved from http://www.exim.gov/policies/aviation-exports
McGee, B. (2015, September 2). How much do Taxpayers Support Airlines. USA Today. Retrieved
from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2015/09/02/how-much-do-
taxpayers-support-airlines/71568226/
Mouawad, J. (2015, February 6). Open-Skies Agreement Challenged. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/business/us-airlines-challenge-open-skies-
agreements.html?_r=0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)