Medical Reform Part 2...

For my final blog, I wanted to look deeper into the prospected Medical Reform.  I looked deeper into some of the issues at hand, and was able to get a better understanding on the matter.

Historically, the medical requirements for pilots have been very stringent, but overall, have not improved the safety of flight.  Within the last year, the FAA, under heavy pressure, released proposals regarding the third-class medical.  This proposal would have included such heavy restrictions, that it would not positively affect most pilots.  Eventually it fell to Congress to step up.  "The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has reviewed the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2, and passed an amendment offered by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), bringing third class medical reform one step closer to reality." (4. Tennyson, 2015)

Congress has a bill on the floor that simplifies the third-class, making it uneccessary for most.  Some of the major ways that this bill is improved include: "­allowing pilots to fly airplanes up to 6,000 pounds, which includes the vast majority of the light GA fleet. Pilots can fly IFR under the proposed rule, they can carry a reasonable number of passengers, and they can fly fast airplanes, up to 250 knots." (Goyer, 2015)  If this bill gets the vote from Congress, then the President will be required to sign the bill, making it legislation.  Once the bill is legislation, administrators will write regulations into the FARs, which will fall to the aviation community to follow.

 It comes as no surprise that this bill was not put on the table by the FAA, but rather became Congress mandated.  "The initial proposal was denied in 2010. The proposed rule was resurrected, but the FAA has been slow-walking the changes–for more than five years. There has been virtually no progress toward doing away with the Third Class Medical certificate." (Congress saw the need to step in and force the issue.  This can be good and bad, because with the good, you also have the potential to see the bad, or the silly... "You might get good rules, like the Pilot's Bill of Rights, and you might get silly ones, like the expensive and scientifically insupportable requirement that new ­airline pilots have 1,500 hours of flight experience." (Goyer, 2015)

I do think that medical reform is necessary, as the restrictions and the requirements put on those who wish to fly can be quite ridiculous.  In my personal experience, it seems that if you have anything in your past that the FAA can use against you, they will do so.  Easier to just say no than to look a little deeper into a situation.  For example: after having spine surgery in 2010, I was on VA (Veteran's Affairs) prescribed pain medication for a long time.  The surgery was less than successful, and this seemed an easier solution than to look at the root of the problem.  Fast forward three years (2013), and I stopped taking the pain meds.  This was my choice.  No addiction, I just hate taking medication, and needed to seek alternate ways to manage the pain.  Since 2013, I have been fighting with the FAA to obtain a medical.  I have met every one of their requirements, but have been unsuccessful in obtaining my certificate.  The last seven responses from them have been exactly the same letter, with only the date being changed.  The only thing it asks for is my current list of medications, including any pain meds, or the date that I stopped taking them.  Oh, after denying me (again) of course.  My list of medications have not changed since 2013, and I have not taken any medications that would DQ me, but still I am unable to be cleared medically.  Reform is necessary!

References

Goyer, Robert. (May 5, 2015) Medical Reform - Finally! (Flying Magazine) Retreived from                http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/medical-reform-finally

Stanely, C. (2015, February 28). The FAA and NTSB vs. Common Sense: Part Deux. Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http://jonathanturley.org/2015/02/28/the-faa-and-ntsb-vs-common-
sense- part-deux/

Tennyson, E. A. (2015, November 18). Committee passes manchin amendment to pilot's bill of rights 2. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Retrieved from http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/November/18/Committee-passes-Manchin-amendment-to-PBR2 

Privatizing ATC

There are two reasons why GA has been adament about not privatizing ATC.  The first one is the fees.  Janice Wood, in her article, states "The plan, brought up now as part of the reauthorization of the FAA, raises — once again — the spectre of user fees, which GA has been fighting for more than a decade." (Wood, 2015).  Additionally, there is a fear, from GA, that privatizing will cause certain air traffic, specifically the airlines, to gain priority.

Many of the airlines are pushing for ATC to be released from FAA control, and turned into a non-profit.  Airlines that include, American, Alaska, JetBlue, and Southwest, along with cargo carriers (Atlas, FedEx), "told reporters on a conference call that a corporation with a board of industry leaders would work faster than FAA to modernize equipment and adopt more efficient flight paths." (Jansen, 2015)

ATC is, in fact privatized in other countries, and is safe and sufficient.  "Commercialized air traffic control organizations in Canada, France, Germany and the United Kingdom “operate with varying degrees of government ownership, but each runs like a business, generating their own revenue streams and making their own decisions regarding operating the air traffic system and modernizing equipment,” according to a Department of Transportation inspector general report."

"House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster will shortly release draft legislation to convert our nation’s air traffic control system to a non-profit corporation..." (Robyn, 2015) In '95, the Clinton administration made an attempt to do the same thing, but at the time, very few countries had gone this route.  Today, over 60 countries have jumped on board.  ATC is now on board as well, knowing that supporting corporatization will secure funding for critical investments.

Truthfully, I can't say one way or the other about whether or not ATC should stay as-is or become privately run.  It is an area that, sadly, I have not looked much into, even with numerous friends working in the industry.  It seems like two totally different options, but both have the same ultimate goal in mind.  Definitely something I will be looking into.

References

Robyn, D. (2015, September 28). It's time to corporatize air traffic control (the right way). Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/09/28-corporatize-air-traffic-control-robyn 

Barton, E. (2015, December 2). Call to action issued over ATC privatization. Retrieved from http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/10/transportation-watchdog-lauds-privatized-air-traffic-control/  

Jansen, B. (2015, December 2). Call to action issued over ATC privatization. Retrieved December 7, 2015.  Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/01/airline-executives-urge-privatization-air-traffic-control/76604766/

Wood, J. (2015, July 8). Call to action issued over ATC privatization. Retrieved December 7, 2015.
Retrieved from http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/07/08/call-to-action-issued-over-atc-        privatization/

Medical Reform

Historically, the medical requirements for pilots have been very stringent, but overall, have not improved the safety of flight.  Within the last year, the FAA, under heavy pressure, released proposals regarding the third-class medical.  This proposal would have included such heavy restrictions, that it would not positively affect most pilots.  Eventually it fell to Congress to step up. 

Congress has a bill on the floor that simplifies the third-class, making it uneccessary for most.  Some of the major ways that this bill is improved include: "­allowing pilots to fly airplanes up to 6,000 pounds, which includes the vast majority of the light GA fleet. Pilots can fly IFR under the proposed rule, they can carry a reasonable number of passengers, and they can fly fast airplanes, up to 250 knots." (Goyer, 2015)

 It comes as no surprise that this bill was not put on the table by the FAA, but rather became Congress mandated.  Congress saw the need to step in and force the issue.  This can be good and bad, because with the good, you also have the potential to see the bad, or the silly... "You might get good rules, like the Pilot's Bill of Rights, and you might get silly ones, like the expensive and scientifically insupportable requirement that new ­airline pilots have 1,500 hours of flight experience." (Goyer, 2015)

I do think that medical reform is necessary, as the restrictions and the requirements put on those who wish to fly can be quite ridiculous.  In my personal experience, it seems that if you have anything in your past that the FAA can use against you, they will do so.  Easier to just say no than to look a little deeper into a situation.  For example: after having spine surgery in 2010, I was on VA (Veteran's Affairs) prescribed pain medication for a long time.  The surgery was less than successful, and this seemed an easier solution than to look at the root of the problem.  Fast forward three years (2013), and I stopped taking the pain meds.  This was my choice.  No addiction, I just hate taking medication, and needed to seek alternate ways to manage the pain.  Since 2013, I have been fighting with the FAA to obtain a medical.  I have met every one of their requirements, but have been unsuccessful in obtaining my certificate.  The last seven responses from them have been exactly the same letter, with only the date being changed.  The only thing it asks for is my current list of medications, including any pain meds, or the date that I stopped taking them.  Oh, after denying me (again) of course.  My list of medications have not changed since 2013, and I have not taken any medications that would DQ me, but still I am unable to be cleared medically.  Reform is necessary!

References

Goyer, Robert. (May 5, 2015) Medical Reform - Finally! (Flying Magazine) Retreived from                http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/medical-reform-finally

C919

The fact that the new Comac C919 has yet to gain FAA certification could lead us to believe that it will NEVER receive it.  The whole "Made in China" bit can in many cases make us think twice about their products, as many, if not all of us, have seen lower quality standards at work in regard to toys, clothing, automobiles, etc.  However, with that said, if they prove themselves as a quality option for air travel, there is always the chance that the FAA will come calling.  In my opinion, based on my personal experiences with Chinese made products, I am skeptical, at best.

In the event that the C919 does receive FAA certification, it will remain to be seen how the U.S. carriers will be affected.  An example of this is seen in their orders for aircraft.  "Huaxia Financial Leasing signed a letter of intent for 20 C919s. Though not an order, the deal is included in Comac’s tally of 450 orders, which actually means orders and options. Use of such loose definitions mean that Comac’s order book is not at all comparable with the contract records of Western manufacturers." (Perrett, 2015)  Of those 450 orders, all but 20 of them are domestic orders.  It lends to the question of whether or not the C919 is capable of success on an international level.  "At face value, Comac’s goal of breaking the Boeing/Airbus narrowbody duopoly is a noble, if not extremely challenging, task." (Leighton, 2015)  It appears that Comac's interests lie more on the national level, rather than international.  China has the fourth largest country in terms of land-mass.  The middle class in China is rapidly expanding, and the second most-populated country.

While there is an Airbus factory in the country (Tianjin), it serves to cover the short-term demand.  China has aspirations of being an economic powerhouse, but also from a technology aspect as well.  "To get there, your nation needs to prove that it can produce state-of-the-art anything, especially aircraft. The C919, in a broad-strokes way, is a matter of national pride." (Leighton, 2015) The fact that 430 out of 450 orders for aircraft are coming domestically, this tells us that the relationship is very good between the airlines and government.

Sure, other companies will look at Comac (if they have success) as a potential threat to Airbus or Boeing, but I think these companies will wait and see how the C919 shapes up.  There will be growing pains for at least a few years once they are up and flying, and I think that based on that, these companies will want to see what those pains are, and learn from them, in hopes of potentially avoiding some, or all of them if they decide to make the leap.

I could not find anything specific about any changes in response to the C919.  I found that it says Boeing and Airbus have projects in place to update/upgrade their fleet in order to stay ahead of the curve.  One thing they have going for them is that they have aircraft in the market that the C919 is trying to break into, and they will have less hiccups to deal with.  Also, if Comac has to push their anticipated dates of completion, it just pushes them further back in attempts to gain a foothold in the industry.

References 

Leighton, Bernie. (March 18, 2015) A Closer Look at the Comac C919 - Why Does it Exist? - AirlineReporter (AirlineReporter) Retrieved from http://www.airlinereporter.com/2015/03/closer-look-comac-c919-exist/

Perrett, Bradley. (June 15, 2015). Comac C919 Nears Roll Out (Comac C919 Nears Roll Out) Retreived from http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2015/comac-c919-nears-roll-out

Aviation Associations

Belonging to different associations throughout your career can make a huge difference in moderate or major success.  A couple of the associations I am interested in joining are AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) and ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association).

AOPA is an organization that protects the "freedom to fly by:

• advocating on behalf of our members,
• educating pilots, nonpilots, and policy makers alike,
• supporting activities that ensure the long-term health of General Aviation,
• fighting to keep General Aviation accessible to all, and
• securing sufficient resources to ensure our success." (AOPA, n.d.)

ALPA has a mission statement that says "to promote and champion all aspects of aviation safety throughout all segments of the aviation community; to represent, in both specific and general respects, the collective interests of all pilots in commercial aviation..." (ALPA, n.d.)

"AOPA's first political activity was to urge passage of a Senate bill that would establish the Civilian Pilot Training Program." (AOPA, n.d.)  This helped thousands of people to earn pilot certificates utilizing government subsidies.  G.A. interest and aircraft sales skyrocketed, and provided training for pilots who later flew in World War II.  They were also instrumental in getting a reduction in the cost of medical examinations.  They advocated for the construction of more airports to handle higher numbers of pilots flying.  AOPA also started studies to show improving safety records, hoping to attain lower insurance rates. 

ALPA is the world's largest union for pilots, providing representation for over 50,000 pilots in the U.S. and Canada.  "ALPA represents pilots' views to decision makers, including Congress and federal agencies, and ALPA pilot groups have negotiated hundreds of contracts with airlines." (ALPA, n.d.)

It is important to belong to organizations because they can be a great resource in the course of fixing any issues that may arise in one's career.  In addition, membership can be a great source of networking.  The airline industry is relatively small, all things considered, and you never know what may be the piece of the puzzle that makes you stand out next to others. 

References

Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Governance/Mission-and-History-of-AOPA

Air Line Pilots Association. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.alpa.org/about-alpa/what-we-do

ALPA represents pilots’ views to decision-makers, including Congress and federal agencies, and ALPA pilot groups have negotiated hundreds of contracts with airlines. - See more at: http://www.alpa.org/about-alpa/what-we-do#sthash.IIJwdMqh.dpuf

ALPA represents pilots’ views to decision-makers, including Congress and federal agencies, and ALPA pilot groups have negotiated hundreds of contracts with airlines. - See more at: http://www.alpa.org/about-alpa/what-we-do#sthash.IIJwdMqh.dpuf

to promote and champion all aspects of aviation safety throughout all segments of the aviation community; to represent, in both specific and general respects, the collective interests of all pilots in commercial aviation - See more at: http://www.alpa.org/en/about-alpa/what-we-do#sthash.Ls1OilWG.dpuf

to promote and champion all aspects of aviation safety throughout all segments of the aviation community; to represent, in both specific and general respects, the collective interests of all pilots in commercial aviation - See more at: http://www.alpa.org/en/about-alpa/what-we-do#sthash.Ls1OilWG.dpuf

to promote and champion all aspects of aviation safety throughout all segments of the aviation community; to represent, in both specific and general respects, the collective interests of all pilots in commercial aviation - See more at: http://www.alpa.org/en/about-alpa/what-we-do#sthash.Ls1OilWG.dpuf

to promote and champion all aspects of aviation safety throughout all segments of the aviation community; to represent, in both specific and general respects, the collective interests of all pilots in commercial aviation - See more at: http://www.alpa.org/en/about-alpa/what-we-do#sthash.Ls1OilWG.dpuf

to promote and champion all aspects of aviation safety throughout all segments of the aviation community; to represent, in both specific and general respects, the collective interests of all pilots in commercial aviation - See more at: http://www.alpa.org/en/about-alpa/what-we-do#sthash.Ls1OilWG.dpuf

Are Global Airlines Fair?

There are large concerns with U.S.-based airlines that if they are not checked, the Gulf carriers will drive them out of business.  Why is this, you ask?  Because these Gulf carriers receive massive government subsidies.  While many airlines are government owned, there are three Gulf carriers "Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar are growing disproportionately compared to their respective populations and GDP growth. In a few years these carriers will have more widebody aircraft than all US airlines combined, despite the fact that the UAE and Qatar have a population that’s less than 4% that of the US."  (Other Carriers, 2015)

According to Emirates' website, they have operated on open competition for over 30 years.  At the time of their launch in 1985, Emirates began operations with 2 aircraft, and have grown their fleet to over 230 aircraft.  These aircraft serve over 140 destinations.  They also claim to not be subsidized.  "Emirates is not subsidized. We operate on a fully commercial basis and have been profitable for the past 27 years. Our accounts, audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, have been published annually since 1993-94."  (Open Skies, Emirates)

Ethiad Airways, based in Abu Dhabi, has been in operation for ten years, and claims to have established itself as the world's leading airline.  Ethiad is the second largest of the Gulf carriers, behind Emirates.  In regards to receiving subsidies, they also deny this.  According to their website, the dominant mega-carriers in the U.S. and Europe "claim that we receive Government subsidies – a claim we categorically reject."  (Keep the Skies Open, Ethiad)

According the a study conducted by Ethiad, the "Big Three" U.S. carriers (United, Delta, American) have received subsidies from the government to the tune of almost $71.5 billion.  This comes from an independent study performed by "Risk Advisory Group found that the vast majority of the $71.48 billion granted to American Airlines, United and Delta has been paid since 2000."  (U.S. Carriers, 2015)  One of the claims as to why the U.S. Big Three received subsidies after September 11, 2001.  Other claims include:

•  "A total of $761 million was granted to Delta by Minnesota to build a fleet maintenance facility
• American Airlines received $80-85 million in redevelopment funds from the State of Missouri in 2003
• United Airlines received another $6.3 million in tax credits from Colorado
• The report also points out that the US bars foreign airlines from its domestic market and stipulates that government-paid air travel must be on US carriers." (U.S. Carriers, 2015)

Emirates is currently operating more than 175 Boeing 777's, in addition to 37 Airbus A380, making them the largest Boeing operator in the world.  Emirates is backed by their owner, the Dubai government, but also backed by the U.S. government, "which helps Emirates buy Boeing aircraft with below-market interest rates provided by the Ex-Im Bank."  (Reed, 2013)  The way the Ex-Im Bank works is that it helps American companies of all sizes to export their products around the world.  Those who oppose the Ex-Im Bank will often use the level of support given to Boeing and other large companies as a way to show proof of favoritism shown to certain large firms, however smaller companies show higher numbers of bank financing, based on total numbers of transactions.  However, as of 1 July 2015, the EXIM Bank has lapsed in authority, and is not, at current time, taking new customers.

If everything is as it says on the surface (as the Big Three U.S. carriers say), then what the Gulf carriers are doing seems unfair.  To receive breaks on cost of aircraft, whereas the U.S. carriers get no cost breaks, and then allowing the Gulf carriers to share routes on top of that, they have an unfair advantage.  On the other hand, the two largest Gulf carriers deny receiving subsidies, and have made public their accounting records.  Also, if the U.S. carriers have received billions of dollars since 2001, then they can't claim to be the victim, can they?  

Keep The Skies Open (Etihad Global) Retrieved by http://www.etihad.com/en-us/about-us/keep-the-skies-open/

Open Skies | About Emirates | Emirates United States (Emirates United States) Retrieved from http://www.emirates.com/us/english/about/open-skies.aspx?intc_type=articles&intc_name=Open_Skies&intc_creative=link&intc_location=home

Other Carriers Can't Compete With Gulf Airlines Under The Current System - Here's Why - One Mile at a Time (One Mile at a Time) Retrieved from http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2015/02/18/other-carriers-cant-compete-with-gulf-airlines-under-the-current-system-heres-why/

Reed, T. (2013, September 27). Growth at Emirates Airline Shows Need for US Airways/AA Merger (TheStreet) Retrieved from http://www.thestreet.com/story/12050241/1/growth-at-emirates-airlines-shows-need-for-us-airwaysaa-merger.html

US carriers 'have received $71.5 billion in state-aid' - Business Traveller (US carriers 'have received $71.5 billion in state-aid' - Business Traveller) Retrieved by http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/101647/us-carriers-have-received-dollar-71.5bn-in-stat

 

Cargo Flight Regulations

Following the Colgan Air crash of 2009, the FAA made some important changes to flight/duty regulations.  One of the issues that was addressed was fatigue.  This has been a long-standing issue, and was "addressed with a new science-based rule requiring at least a 10-hour rest period for pilots and co-pilots."  (Tumulty, 2014)  This new regulation looks at three things:  Time of day, what time the pilots start work, and the number of legs they are flying for the day, however, the time the pilots take to commute from other cities is not considered.  The old regulation was only concerned with whether the flights were domestic, international, or scheduled/unscheduled.  Another issue that was changed was training for loss of control situations.  This was addressed by requiring all new pilots to undergo flight simulator training.  Previously, there was no requirement for training.  A new 1500 hour minimum flight hour has been added, and is a sore spot among both airlines and pilots.  The controversy stems from the fact that there is no way of guaranteeing if the hours are going to produce the quality pilots they seek.  Lastly, "airlines are required to disclose code-sharing when customers book their travel if a flight will handled by a regional airline partner."  (Tumulty, 2014)  As with the no previous requirement for flight simulator training, there was no requirement to disclose code-sharing as well.

So far as I can tell, cargo carriers have no flight/duty limitations.  The Chief Surgeon for the FAA, James Fraser states that "the FAA's exclusion of cargo pilots from new fatigue rules was done for political reasons. Fraser said the aviation professionals at the FAA understand that there is no difference between pilots who fly cargo and pilots who carry passengers, other than the fact that cargo carriers' management complained that increased rest for pilots would cost too much."  (Goelz, & Hall 2014)  The largest cargo carriers in the world (UPS, FedEx) have spent close to $150 million in political contributions since Obama took office, so there is little surprise that cargo pilots were not included in the new regulations.

Cargo carriers should be required to adhere to the same regulations as those flying passenger flights.  Not having adequate rest will make no difference whether there is passengers or cargo on the plane.  Fatigue is fatigue, regardless of what you are flying.  A 1500 hour minimum requirement will hinder cargo carriers the same as passenger carriers, so there should be no exemption based on that either.  

On the management side of the house, if cargo carriers were required to follow these new regulations, many changes will have to be made.  It will affect me the same as it will someone running the management side in a passenger carrier.  It may be prudent to me to pick the brains of those on the passenger side to find out how they make it happen.  It won't just be about "moving the rig," as we heard in the Flying Cheap segment.  Sure, there might be a loss of money from the aircraft having to sit for periods of time, but the overall outcome will be less pilot fatigue, and a higher degree of safety.  

Hall, J. & Goelz, P.  Cargo pilot hours should be regulated, too: Column USA Today.  http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/11/cargo-pilot-airline-safety-fatigue-regulations-commercial-column/15474061/

Tumulty, Brian.  (2014, February 11).  5 years after N.Y. crash, some airline safety progress.  USA      Today.  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/11/colgan-air-crash-prompts-safety-regulations/5372353/