1) What is the EU ETS? Describe how it works and how it will affect the aircraft flying into Europe.
The EU European Trading Scheme is an emissions based regulatory trading scheme developed by the European Union. The ETS was launched in 2005, working under the guise of a 'cap and trading' principle, hence the name 'European Trading Scheme'. The word 'scheme' is usually synonymous with some sort of illegal activity or scam, but that's not the case in this particular scenario. Instead, it's merely something that encompasses the various aspects (network) of how the ETS works. Anyhow, there's a cap and limit on the total amount of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted. Emitted from whom? Factories, power plants, and other various industrial sectors that emit greenhouse-based gasses. The whole ETS is based on reducing overall CO2 emissions. In the grand scheme of things, it's an environmental project. The cap is something that the EU ETS sets for each individual company. The cap is simply an allowance, saying, 'this is how much emissions you're allowed to emit'. Companies can actually sell portions of these allowances (hence the trading principle) to other companies. So, these caps (and trades) have financial value. At the end of each year, the company uses its allowances to 'pay' (cover) for all of its emissions. If that company exceeds its allowance, they'll be heavily fined. Therefore, this goes back to the trading principle and companies whom shift their allowances to other companies whom expect to emit more CO2. As years progress, the EU ETS reduces the amount of the allowances (or caps), slowly but surely. This is usually done via phases, and its intent is to reduce *Overall* emissions over time.
For the environment, this sounds great and all, that is -- until they decided to include aviation in the mix, beginning in January 2012. That's when everything went awry. Once aviation was included in the mix, it included aircraft that would arrive or depart from any point in an EU country. Therefore, the EU ETS now will affect every airline from any other country that arrives at some point in the EU. The EU ETS operates the same cap (allowances) and trade principles for the airlines. The big strife here is that other countries (i.e. -- the USA, China, etc.) now have to adapt to the EU ETS, despite not being an EU member. Therefore, with respect to aviation, countries from around the world are now dealing with European Union emissions standards, despite having nothing to do with the European Union, other than simply flying there.
The EU ETS will affect the aircraft flying to Europe in several ways. The EU ETS is offering 85% emissions under free permits, therefore permitting airlines 85% of their emissions for free, and they'll have to purchase permits for the other 15%. As mentioned, these permits can be traded as necessary. Aircraft wise, I’m sure most airlines will now be trying to operate the most efficient aircraft into Europe, while dumping the least-efficient aircraft into non-EU member countries, thereby avoiding ETS and using as little as their permit percentage as possible. There's a term for this, too, called 'leakage', where other countries will now experience surging emissions as a result of EU ETS companies moving their operations to those countries. In the case of aviation, moving those less efficient aircraft to operate routes into non EU-ETS countries, and the most efficient aircraft to the EU ETS countries.
You can read more about various aspects of the EU ETS ordeal by clicking here.
2) Why is the US (among other countries) upset about the implementation of the EU ETS? What steps is the US government taking right now in response?
They're upset about it because they're essentially being forced to implement foreign policy into their own countries operations, which is pretty ridiculous. To make matters even more ridiculous, the EU ETS measures emissions standards based on total distance travelled, not just the distance in the EU airspace. Therefore, a widespread complaint is that the EU is extending coverage of their airspace (technically) to encompass the world, by using such measuring practices. A valid complaint. Other arguments state that the EU should only measure the distance flown within the EU airspace itself, considering that is the scope of their authority. The EU ETS refutes these claims and stands by its decision to measure emissions based on the total distance travelled. Therefore, a flight from New York to Paris, France, will have its emissions calculated from the moment it lifts off the ground in New York till the moment it touches down in Paris. Many airlines that travel long distances are the most infuriated, particularly Asian and Australian-based airlines, because they state that due to the longer distances they have to travel (Sydney to London, for example), versus Dubai to London, they'll be paying significantly more for permits than their Middle-Eastern counterparts. Therefore, airlines with closer hubs (closer countries) to the EU benefit greatly on permit costs, while those farther away are going to pay dearly in permit costs to keep up with their allowance.
The US Government has introduced a few bills, such as S.1956, which states that if the DOT determines that participation in the ETS would not be in the public interest, then the bill would prohibit airlines from participating in the ETS. Another bill from the senate, H.R. 2594, is essentially identical to S.1956, was also passed on Oct 24th, 2011. ALPA supports both bills, and support against the ETS seems to span across the entire US aviation industry. The US also passed a resolution to ICAO on November 2nd, 2011, approving many actions that oppose the ETS amongst international carriers that are non-EU airlines. The US has also asked the EU to slow the progression of ETS, or stop it with regards to aviation, so that both the US and EU can meet with ICAO and come to a one-all global approved emissions plan. Though, the EU refused, stating that the ICAO hasn't been effective in reducing aircraft emissions, and told the US to work on a global solution while the ETS is still enforced.
3) What is ICAOs response to the EU ETS?
ICAO is in somewhat of a tough predicament. ICAO is usually responsible for these types of issues, however the EU has somewhat taken globalized energy policies under their own guise, developed the EU ETS, and then began a pseudo-worldwide enforcement of their own policies. ICAO has been somewhat ignored in the process. The EU states that ICAO is ineffective (or not effective enough) in reducing emissions standards and, if someone doesn't like the EU ETS, then they need to come up with an alternative global emissions plan. Until then, the EU ETS will be enforced, according to the EU. ICAO is strongly against the EU ETS with regards to including international carriers (non-EU airlines) from being included in the EU ETS. While they state that there is a need to incorporate a globalized emissions plan, they reaffirmed the importance of their own role (ICAO's role) in addressing global aviation emissions. Essentially, they're saying, look -- we're still here, we're ICAO, let us deal with the international issues. Other than that, EU -- you can stick with your EU ETS, but only for your EU member countries (EU member airlines).
Click here to read more about ICAO's response to the EU ETS.
4) What is your response to the EU ETS?
I'm iffy on the EU ETS. While it sounds like an ideal plan (excluding aviation), it also sounds a bit farfetched (when incorporating aviation). Beginning to charge companies on the premise of emissions as a way to get them to reduce emissions is something that may work on a very-long, spaced-out maybe 30-some year plan, but not something that suddenly goes into immediate effect. There simply isn't the technology to deal with such a dramatic decrease in emissions that the EU ETS demands. Forcing companies to pay mass amounts of money makes sense...if they're using 1970's technology. But, it doesn't make sense when they're using modern equipment, and, that's about as far as technology has evolved. All in all, it sounds like a wonderful money making scheme for the EU. That's probably why they're so adamant about including international carriers -- to make money, because they know they will, and a lot of it. In terms of the EU ETS on a global scale with respect to aviation, that's outrageous, as they're taking on ICAO's responsibility by doing so. Moreover, the way they calculate the emissions (based on total distance), is even more outrageous! So the European Union is charging say, Qantas, to fly from Sydney Australia to Paris France, from the moment they take off to the moment they land; even though clearly 70 some percent of the flight is flown over the airspace of non-EU member countries. That's completely ridiculous. Moreover, the EU won't budge on that, either. If the EU wants to have some regulation over emissions, that's fine, but it must be kept within the confines of the EU member countries. Leave it to ICAO to handle it on a global scale.
5) How do you feel that ICAO should manage global aviation emissions?
ICAO has it right by incorporating ICAO-member countries into coming up with one, widespread approved, globalized emissions plan. That's ICAO's job and something they're working on. ICAO should continue to work on it. Unfortunately, the EU ETS has somewhat taken ICAO's job and made it their own job, mainly out of frustration at the pace that ICAO operates at. However, the EU ETS needs to understand that ICAO deals with over 190 countries, which will obviously take significantly more time to incorporate a globalized plan compared to the European Union. ICAO should work with its member countries to develop a global plan for emissions; one that'll be approved for widespread use and can be voted upon, not sternly enforced without say, such as the EU's ETS.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Aviation Professionalism
1) What is the specific job and company in the aviation industry that you would like to end up at? You must be specific on both to receive full-credit for this question. Remember - you have the freedom to change down the road...
It's hard for me to choose a specific job and company as I prefer to keep an open mind (versus a direct - one choice - highly specific career), only because I think there's a good chance you could be highly disappointed once you find your job of choice isn't available, or the company isn't hiring (which is likely). Plus, there are so many factors when it comes to choosing a career; location, pay, student loans (current loans, or whether you'll need more loans [ala flying]), company background. Even your family life. The aviation industry is very fluid and while it's great to have goals, having a one track mind (in my opinion) probably isn't the best option. I often say I’m not sure where I’d like to go, but the only reason why I say that is usually based on financial reasons. Therefore, if someone gave me $250,000 and said "Go anywhere, pick any job", then I’d choose to become an airline pilot. Since this question addresses specific companies I’d like to work for, initially, I’d like to work for SkyWest (regional airline). Then, ultimately, it really doesn't matter for me (which major I’d like to work at), but if I had to choose, it'd probably be Southwest. So, short term: SkyWest; long term: Southwest. I'd like to work for SkyWest, build my hours there, then make the switch to Southwest, and then finish out my career with Southwest.
2) Provide a basic description of the job and company that you listed in 1).
SkyWest is one of the premier regional carriers in the United States. They are in many ways the 'role model' for regional carriers. They conduct operations for Alaska Air, Delta Connection, United Express, and US Airways Express. SkyWest utilizes a fleet of Canadair Bombardier CRJ-200's, 700's, and 900's, and Embraer 120 aircraft. Presently, they employ over 11,000 employees amongst 39 states and 6 Canadian provinces. Most operations are primarily conducted out west (hence the name, SkyWest). More information can be found about SkyWest by clicking here.
Southwest is one of the premier mainline carriers in the United States. Offering some of the best incentives for employees, excellent pay rates, outstanding working conditions and other amenities, they are considered one of the best airlines to work for. Presently, they operate a fleet of Boeing 737-300, 500, and 700 aircraft. The recent announcement of the merger with AirTran Airways has them set for significant expansion, particularly in the South-Eastern United States (former AirTran locations, such as Atlanta). Acquisition of AirTran's 737-700 and Boeing 717 aircraft will help expand the Southwest route network. Founded over 38 years ago by Herb Kelleher, Southwest carries more domestic passengers than any other airline in the United States. You can read more about Southwest by clicking here.
3) Are there any safety/liability concerns with the job you listed in 1)? If so, what are they and how do you plan on mitigating these concerns? (*Hint: there are always concerns in this industry.)
As mentioned in the last line of this question, there are always concerns in the industry. Of course, as an airline pilot, there are several safety and liability concerns when it'd come to working as a pilot for either SkyWest or Southwest. Safety wise, just job safety in general is a major concern. SkyWest is an excellent regional airline that for the most part, you hear little about, which is a good thing. They have a low turnover rate compared to other regional carriers and have been able to sustain success in the regional airline industry. However, furloughs can occur at any time and from unpredictable major events (i.e.: September 11th). Furloughs are a major concern when it comes to working for both SkyWest and Southwest. Also, I mentioned I’d like to make the switch from SkyWest to Southwest. That in itself is a huge risk, since SkyWest isn't associated with Southwest, I’d enter Southwest (at some point) at the bottom of the seniority pool, thereby again increasing the likelihood of a furlough. The plus side to all of this is that both airlines are excellent airlines with little likelihood for furloughs -now-. Who's that say all of that can change in 10 years, that's entirely possible. SkyWest could very well be one of the worst regional’s 10 years from now, having lost contracts with multiple airlines, facing liquidation and significant furloughs. That's why I think it's important to not keep a one track mind for who you want to work for because ideally, it could be the best airline in 2015, but the worst in 2025. 30 some years ago, you can look back at Eastern Airlines, PanAm, etc., all of which were the premier airlines to work for. Had you told people that they would cease to exist someday, people would've laughed. Same thing can be said for TWA. Sometimes the best company to work for in the short term ends up being the worst in the long term. Conversely, sometimes a sub-par company to work for in the short term ends up being a great choice for the long term.
Mitigating furlough concerns goes back to the importance of broadening your horizons and keeping an open mind. I think it's almost a necessity to maintain an open mind in the aviation industry. Having a dead-seat goal is great, but personally (at least for me), I think having an open mind and an excellent-drive is better. These are things you should prepare for ahead of time, however. In some of the aviation classes at Eastern, we've talked about redundant systems. A redundancy refers to a fail-safe measure in which if one system fails, we have another to rely on. I think it's important to build your career based on a series of redundancies. The way to do that is to encompass many sectors of aviation and to build upon your repertoire. If you want to be a pilot, try to obtain some other degree other than a flight-based degree. Or, if you're doing a flight degree, get a business minor or some other degree on the side. Obtain an FAA dispatchers certificate. Get a business minor, or something else. If you wanted to be an airline pilot, and you had 1. A degree in Aviation Management; 2. A Business Minor; 3. A Dispatchers certificate; 4. All your certificates/ratings, I’d think you'd have most of your bases covered with several redundancies. You'd be set. You could get furloughed from an airline and have many alternative paths. Conversely, even if you weren’t furloughed but say disqualified due to medical reasons, or simply wanted to have a family life, or whatever reason, you have many options available. With that being said, broaden your horizons, keep an open mind, have goals but more importantly have alternatives, or backup's, just in case. I think in doing so you'd be set for a fail-safe career.
4) I proposed that one theme in the events that led up to the Colgan accident was the lack of professionalism. Answer the following three questions related to professionalism:
* 1) Define professionalism in your own words.
Professionalism is a term that can encompass a broad range of interpretation. Professionalism in my own words carries with it many specifics, such as: following the rules (i.e.: FAA Regulations, company policies), doing the right thing, playing your part and looking your part. If you're a pilot, look like a pilot, dress like a pilot -- be a pilot. Same being said for managers. I think it's important to have some degree of integrity within you to consider yourself a professional. The way you dress has a significant impact on how people perceive you. Dress sloppy yields a perception that you are sloppy. Dress clean, sharp, like a professional -- people will view you differently. Lastly, professionalism entails being good at what you do. After all, the word professional is used to denote some sense of experience and or 'being good at that particular subject'. Maturity also plays a factor; the greater the maturity, the greater the professionalism. Nonetheless, if you're good at what you do, you play your part, dress the part, and basically encompass your role in whatever job you're in, I’d say you could consider yourself a professional, and someone whom exudes professionalism.
* 2) List two ways in which lack of professionalism was demonstrated in this documentary. Remember: Both pilots and management can lack professionalism.
Captain Renslow lacked a significant amount of professionalism throughout his entire aviation career, having failed numerous check rides, within both the general aviation sector and Colgan Air itself. Probably one of his greatest errors with regard to professionalism occurred when he lied on his Colgan application about the number of failed check rides he's had, citing only one (instead of the three) he's had prior to the application process -- Colgan never knew pilot had failed three tests. This is a lack of integrity on his part. Moreover, he violated the sterile cockpit rule while on descent into Buffalo, which was one of the factors contributing to the crash. Multiple failed check rides (pre-Colgan), multiple failed check rides with Colgan, lies and deceit through the application process, and a FAR violation mandating the sterile-cockpit rule below 10000 feet (a factor which contributed to the crash) point toward a severe lack of professionalism.
Management at Colgan also lacked professionalism. Throughout the documentary, there were several times where former-Colgan pilots acknowledged that they were pressured (by management) to depart over-gross weight (max takeoff weight), get to their destination on time, adjust 'clock-in' times (so as not to go over duty time per FAA regulations), and other factors. Even when Colgan acquired the Q400, they had invited pilots to become Check-Airmen on the type, despite those pilots having zero experience on the Q400. Colgan willingly knew this information and, while not blatantly spoken, the implied purpose was to simply obtain a Check-Airman for the sake of having one, irrelevant of that person’s qualification. Moreover, they needed one to essentially say to the FAA, 'We have a few check airmen for the type, and our pilots are passing their check rides without issue'. They wanted someone in the seat, someone to do the job, and that's all they really cared about. Safety was something that was relatively neglected throughout the process. Money, like most things in life, was the primary motive. Money over safety, money over regulations, money over manufacturer specifications, did Colgan lack professionalism? Very much so.
* 3) List two specific ways you plan on maintain and expand your level of professionalism once you are employed in the job that you listed in 1). These ways must be independent of the requirements of the job.
With respect to being an airline pilot, one major significant way to expand your level of professionalism is with regards to safety. If you attend safety seminars, stay up to date on safety reports in the industry, and have general knowledge of the industry (particularly with respect to safety), you'll significantly expand your level of professionalism. You'll also enhance your flying aptitude by incorporating these newly-learned safety recommendations into your everyday job (in this case flying).
Another way is simply staying up to date on everything that's going on in the aviation industry itself. Knowing who's merging with who, what airlines are combining where, and just general knowledge of the industry expands your level of professionalism. You should be aware of what aircraft manufacturers are building, what type of aircraft, competing airlines, industry prognosis, and other factors. Being part of various clubs and organizations also helps enhance your professionalism. Think EAA, AAAE, AOPA, ALPA, and other organizations all help with not only enhancing your knowledge about the industry, but enhancing some aspects of safety (as mentioned in the above paragraph), and can also help you network amongst the aviation community. These are just a few of several ways to maintain and expand your professionalism outside the job requirements.
It's hard for me to choose a specific job and company as I prefer to keep an open mind (versus a direct - one choice - highly specific career), only because I think there's a good chance you could be highly disappointed once you find your job of choice isn't available, or the company isn't hiring (which is likely). Plus, there are so many factors when it comes to choosing a career; location, pay, student loans (current loans, or whether you'll need more loans [ala flying]), company background. Even your family life. The aviation industry is very fluid and while it's great to have goals, having a one track mind (in my opinion) probably isn't the best option. I often say I’m not sure where I’d like to go, but the only reason why I say that is usually based on financial reasons. Therefore, if someone gave me $250,000 and said "Go anywhere, pick any job", then I’d choose to become an airline pilot. Since this question addresses specific companies I’d like to work for, initially, I’d like to work for SkyWest (regional airline). Then, ultimately, it really doesn't matter for me (which major I’d like to work at), but if I had to choose, it'd probably be Southwest. So, short term: SkyWest; long term: Southwest. I'd like to work for SkyWest, build my hours there, then make the switch to Southwest, and then finish out my career with Southwest.
2) Provide a basic description of the job and company that you listed in 1).
SkyWest is one of the premier regional carriers in the United States. They are in many ways the 'role model' for regional carriers. They conduct operations for Alaska Air, Delta Connection, United Express, and US Airways Express. SkyWest utilizes a fleet of Canadair Bombardier CRJ-200's, 700's, and 900's, and Embraer 120 aircraft. Presently, they employ over 11,000 employees amongst 39 states and 6 Canadian provinces. Most operations are primarily conducted out west (hence the name, SkyWest). More information can be found about SkyWest by clicking here.
Southwest is one of the premier mainline carriers in the United States. Offering some of the best incentives for employees, excellent pay rates, outstanding working conditions and other amenities, they are considered one of the best airlines to work for. Presently, they operate a fleet of Boeing 737-300, 500, and 700 aircraft. The recent announcement of the merger with AirTran Airways has them set for significant expansion, particularly in the South-Eastern United States (former AirTran locations, such as Atlanta). Acquisition of AirTran's 737-700 and Boeing 717 aircraft will help expand the Southwest route network. Founded over 38 years ago by Herb Kelleher, Southwest carries more domestic passengers than any other airline in the United States. You can read more about Southwest by clicking here.
3) Are there any safety/liability concerns with the job you listed in 1)? If so, what are they and how do you plan on mitigating these concerns? (*Hint: there are always concerns in this industry.)
As mentioned in the last line of this question, there are always concerns in the industry. Of course, as an airline pilot, there are several safety and liability concerns when it'd come to working as a pilot for either SkyWest or Southwest. Safety wise, just job safety in general is a major concern. SkyWest is an excellent regional airline that for the most part, you hear little about, which is a good thing. They have a low turnover rate compared to other regional carriers and have been able to sustain success in the regional airline industry. However, furloughs can occur at any time and from unpredictable major events (i.e.: September 11th). Furloughs are a major concern when it comes to working for both SkyWest and Southwest. Also, I mentioned I’d like to make the switch from SkyWest to Southwest. That in itself is a huge risk, since SkyWest isn't associated with Southwest, I’d enter Southwest (at some point) at the bottom of the seniority pool, thereby again increasing the likelihood of a furlough. The plus side to all of this is that both airlines are excellent airlines with little likelihood for furloughs -now-. Who's that say all of that can change in 10 years, that's entirely possible. SkyWest could very well be one of the worst regional’s 10 years from now, having lost contracts with multiple airlines, facing liquidation and significant furloughs. That's why I think it's important to not keep a one track mind for who you want to work for because ideally, it could be the best airline in 2015, but the worst in 2025. 30 some years ago, you can look back at Eastern Airlines, PanAm, etc., all of which were the premier airlines to work for. Had you told people that they would cease to exist someday, people would've laughed. Same thing can be said for TWA. Sometimes the best company to work for in the short term ends up being the worst in the long term. Conversely, sometimes a sub-par company to work for in the short term ends up being a great choice for the long term.
Mitigating furlough concerns goes back to the importance of broadening your horizons and keeping an open mind. I think it's almost a necessity to maintain an open mind in the aviation industry. Having a dead-seat goal is great, but personally (at least for me), I think having an open mind and an excellent-drive is better. These are things you should prepare for ahead of time, however. In some of the aviation classes at Eastern, we've talked about redundant systems. A redundancy refers to a fail-safe measure in which if one system fails, we have another to rely on. I think it's important to build your career based on a series of redundancies. The way to do that is to encompass many sectors of aviation and to build upon your repertoire. If you want to be a pilot, try to obtain some other degree other than a flight-based degree. Or, if you're doing a flight degree, get a business minor or some other degree on the side. Obtain an FAA dispatchers certificate. Get a business minor, or something else. If you wanted to be an airline pilot, and you had 1. A degree in Aviation Management; 2. A Business Minor; 3. A Dispatchers certificate; 4. All your certificates/ratings, I’d think you'd have most of your bases covered with several redundancies. You'd be set. You could get furloughed from an airline and have many alternative paths. Conversely, even if you weren’t furloughed but say disqualified due to medical reasons, or simply wanted to have a family life, or whatever reason, you have many options available. With that being said, broaden your horizons, keep an open mind, have goals but more importantly have alternatives, or backup's, just in case. I think in doing so you'd be set for a fail-safe career.
4) I proposed that one theme in the events that led up to the Colgan accident was the lack of professionalism. Answer the following three questions related to professionalism:
* 1) Define professionalism in your own words.
Professionalism is a term that can encompass a broad range of interpretation. Professionalism in my own words carries with it many specifics, such as: following the rules (i.e.: FAA Regulations, company policies), doing the right thing, playing your part and looking your part. If you're a pilot, look like a pilot, dress like a pilot -- be a pilot. Same being said for managers. I think it's important to have some degree of integrity within you to consider yourself a professional. The way you dress has a significant impact on how people perceive you. Dress sloppy yields a perception that you are sloppy. Dress clean, sharp, like a professional -- people will view you differently. Lastly, professionalism entails being good at what you do. After all, the word professional is used to denote some sense of experience and or 'being good at that particular subject'. Maturity also plays a factor; the greater the maturity, the greater the professionalism. Nonetheless, if you're good at what you do, you play your part, dress the part, and basically encompass your role in whatever job you're in, I’d say you could consider yourself a professional, and someone whom exudes professionalism.
* 2) List two ways in which lack of professionalism was demonstrated in this documentary. Remember: Both pilots and management can lack professionalism.
Captain Renslow lacked a significant amount of professionalism throughout his entire aviation career, having failed numerous check rides, within both the general aviation sector and Colgan Air itself. Probably one of his greatest errors with regard to professionalism occurred when he lied on his Colgan application about the number of failed check rides he's had, citing only one (instead of the three) he's had prior to the application process -- Colgan never knew pilot had failed three tests. This is a lack of integrity on his part. Moreover, he violated the sterile cockpit rule while on descent into Buffalo, which was one of the factors contributing to the crash. Multiple failed check rides (pre-Colgan), multiple failed check rides with Colgan, lies and deceit through the application process, and a FAR violation mandating the sterile-cockpit rule below 10000 feet (a factor which contributed to the crash) point toward a severe lack of professionalism.
Management at Colgan also lacked professionalism. Throughout the documentary, there were several times where former-Colgan pilots acknowledged that they were pressured (by management) to depart over-gross weight (max takeoff weight), get to their destination on time, adjust 'clock-in' times (so as not to go over duty time per FAA regulations), and other factors. Even when Colgan acquired the Q400, they had invited pilots to become Check-Airmen on the type, despite those pilots having zero experience on the Q400. Colgan willingly knew this information and, while not blatantly spoken, the implied purpose was to simply obtain a Check-Airman for the sake of having one, irrelevant of that person’s qualification. Moreover, they needed one to essentially say to the FAA, 'We have a few check airmen for the type, and our pilots are passing their check rides without issue'. They wanted someone in the seat, someone to do the job, and that's all they really cared about. Safety was something that was relatively neglected throughout the process. Money, like most things in life, was the primary motive. Money over safety, money over regulations, money over manufacturer specifications, did Colgan lack professionalism? Very much so.
* 3) List two specific ways you plan on maintain and expand your level of professionalism once you are employed in the job that you listed in 1). These ways must be independent of the requirements of the job.
With respect to being an airline pilot, one major significant way to expand your level of professionalism is with regards to safety. If you attend safety seminars, stay up to date on safety reports in the industry, and have general knowledge of the industry (particularly with respect to safety), you'll significantly expand your level of professionalism. You'll also enhance your flying aptitude by incorporating these newly-learned safety recommendations into your everyday job (in this case flying).
Another way is simply staying up to date on everything that's going on in the aviation industry itself. Knowing who's merging with who, what airlines are combining where, and just general knowledge of the industry expands your level of professionalism. You should be aware of what aircraft manufacturers are building, what type of aircraft, competing airlines, industry prognosis, and other factors. Being part of various clubs and organizations also helps enhance your professionalism. Think EAA, AAAE, AOPA, ALPA, and other organizations all help with not only enhancing your knowledge about the industry, but enhancing some aspects of safety (as mentioned in the above paragraph), and can also help you network amongst the aviation community. These are just a few of several ways to maintain and expand your professionalism outside the job requirements.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Industry Mergers
1) Describe a post-1978 merger. Include basic details, such as name of the companies, reason for the merge, challenges of the merger and consequences or benefits of the merger (such as furloughs or new routes, for example).
I decided I’ll go ahead and discuss the Delta & Northwest merger since it's something that's recently occurred. On September 26th, 2008, the merger between Northwest and Delta had officially been approved by both Delta and Northwest shareholders. The airline would form to become the largest airline in the world. Name wise, Delta and Northwest obviously share two different names. Comparing the two, it's very clear why Delta was chosen over Northwest. Northwest, after all, has a connotation to its name denoting it to a specific region (or area), while Delta is a relatively neutral name with no geographic specification. The Delta name was also chosen because it had more global brand recognition. While Northwest flew to Asia (and had a more extensive network in Asia than Delta, pre-merger), the Delta name was far well known in Europe, South America, Middle-America, Caribbean, and the Middle East. This is simple marketing; choosing a name that has more brand recognition is obviously a no brainer; combine that with the neutrality of 'Delta' (no geographic association) and it's a win-win situation. The reason for the merge is the reason for most mergers; money, and in this case, bankruptcy for both airlines. Both airlines had subsequently filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection years prior to the merger. The merger came about as part of both companies restructuring. Their route networks were highly complementary; Northwest dominated the upper Midwest, northwest, some parts of the Midwest, Asia, and a few routes into Europe (primarily their Amsterdam hub). Delta had a wonderful network that dominated the south, west, southeast, east, and northeast (New York markets especially). Europe was well covered by Delta, too. Their routes were highly complementary. Both carriers were Skyteam members (an airline alliance), too. The merger only made sense. I wouldn't say there were significant consequences of the merger, other than like any merger, there are many challenges to be overcome. The integration of the separate flight attendant and pilot seniority lists is probably at the top of the list in terms of challenges. Delta and Northwest were able to come to an agreement on merging the pilot seniority lists from two to one, however merging the flight attendants was a nightmare. The Northwest flight attendants were unionized, and the Delta FA's were not. Only recently were the two flight attendant unions combined, following a national mediation board decision (click here for details), nullifying any future disputes between the groups. Benefits of the merger, well, greater utilization and cross-fleeting for one. Maximizing efficiency on routes by utilizing northwest’s fleet of primarily Airbus aircraft with Delta's all-Boeing (or McDonnell Douglas) fleet. New routes weren’t established immediately but have been slowly established over the last couple years. Extensive expansion has occurred out of New York, where Delta has really established the 757-200 (ETOPS 757's) for transatlantic operations. Significant expansion from New York and Atlanta to Africa and the Middle East has occurred. For the most part, the largest change has been the shuffling of aircraft around the various hubs. Salt Lake City (a Delta hub) is now a relatively large Airbus-hub; Atlanta is where many of the DC-9 flights went; a few Saab 340's were shuffled to Atlanta. Delta placed their 777's and 767's out of Detroit on several Asian and European markets. As evident, the shuffling of aircraft has been and still is quite extensive.
2) Describe a current merger - i.e. one that is in the process. Some choices would be United/Continental or Southwest/AirTran, but you aren't limited to these choices if you can find others. Answer the same questions listed in 1).
The Southwest Airtran merger is one of the latest mergers to come about in the United States. The merger is one that makes sense, given the fleet and route structure of both carriers. The combined airline is to be called Southwest; after all, Southwest is a more recognized brand, is the present-day larger airline amongst the two, and has an extensive history dating back to the late 1960's (1967 to be exact). The reason for the merger is relatively simple; what's the best way to eliminate your competition? Buy them. And Southwest had the money to do so, a $1.4 billion dollar purchase, respectively -- Southwest to Buy AirTran for $1.4 Billion. AirTran wasn't a -huge- competitor to Southwest, but still a large enough nuisance. Over the last few years, AirTran began a small mini-hub out of Baltimore (BWI), a large hub for Southwest, often overlapping several Southwest routes. It's also important to note that Southwest likely recognized the need to become a larger airline, and fast. The merger was announced only days after the United - Continental merger. Considering United and Continental were to merge, and taking into account the newly merged Delta airlines, Southwest would be a considerably smaller airline than it ever once was before. The merger made perfect sense from a logistics standpoint, too. AirTran's largest hub is featured in Atlanta, equally the super-hub of Delta airlines. By acquiring AirTran, they now complete a full route network spanning across the entire continental United States, gaining critical access to the Atlanta network, also. Logistically, the two airlines fit together like a perfect puzzle; Southwest operating a fleet of 737-300, 500, and 700 aircraft, as compared to AirTran and their Boeing 737-700 and 717 fleet. The only minor nuisance being the 717 fleet that'll come with the AirTran acquisition. Presently, plans are to keep the 717 aircraft, painting them into the Southwest livery and incorporating them into the Southwest route network, however there's a lot of speculation in the industry that the 717's will only be around for a short time. Southwest has always operated under the guise of the Boeing 737 family-line of aircraft; something that allowed them to offer decreased 'turn' times (time spent in-between flights at the airport off-loading and on-loading passengers). Keeping the 717 aircraft makes sense, temporarily, so as to not discontinue certain markets or reduce frequencies, until more 737's enter the fleet.
Challenges of the merger are relatively few, besides the usual challenges of merging together two airlines. One operating certificate is expected to be obtained/completed in early 2012, with the full integration of both airlines slowly taking place over the next few years (probably through 2015). Route structures are complimentary; obviously there's no need to place a Southwest 737 on an AirTran route, when AirTran is already operating (likely) a 737 on that route. Relatively little fleet movement will be necessary, besides the 717's, which make go to a few different markets. AirTran also operates to a few international markets, such as Cancun. It remains to be seen whether Southwest will retain these international markets, or abandon them all together. In the short run (such as this year), much will likely remain the same, with much of the work going on behind the scenes (management, operations, certificates, department of transportation, etc.). Southwest is viewed in the industry as one of the premier airlines to work for, featuring some of the best working conditions, pay rates, and other amenities, therefore little fuss is coming from the AirTran side of operations. The merger should be a smooth process. Customers of the new 'Southwest Airlines' won't see much of a change, it'll be the same old Southwest airlines. AirTran customers, however, should enjoy the absence of baggage fees (presently charged by AirTran), likely lower fares, and the better overall service offered by Southwest.
3) Describe the future of American Airlines. What lead to bankruptcy? Who's interested in merging with them and why? What do you predict for the future of this company?
American Airlines is one of the newest airlines to enter into bankruptcy. Future wise, anything goes, really. While I’d hate to see the historic American Airlines name disappear, takeovers or bids for bankrupt-based airlines are relatively common in the industry. Just yesterday, both Delta Airlines and US Airways have hired investment advisor firms to look into the possible acquisition of the airline -- American's Bankruptcy Fuels Merger Talks. Clearly, both airlines are at least questioning the possibility to make a potential bid for the airline, provided the findings of their investment advisor firms. Why would they be interested? To gain greater market share at a bargain price. Though, American is such a mess and looking at their fleet (1/3rd of which are MD-80's), it's not really an ideal airline for a takeover. Nonetheless, it's hard to say what the future of American Airlines will be. If you look at the past decade, some airlines have come out of bankruptcy (United in 2005, for example) without being acquired by anyone. Others, particularly most recently (i.e.: Northwest & Delta), have been acquired and/or merged. American has stated that one of their primary goals in bankruptcy is to lower their labor costs -- American Files for Bankruptcy. The fact that this was mentioned says that this is one of the major contributing factors that led to their bankruptcy. Moreover, their very-aged fleet of 200 McDonnell Douglas MD-80 aircraft is completely decimating their profits due to the aircraft's poor fuel efficiency. Considering that the MD-80 aircraft makes up a third of the airline's fleet, and offers some of the worst fuel economies of scale, is another factor that significantly impacted the bottom line of American Airlines. What do I predict for the future of American? To be honest, I have no idea. It's far too early to speculate. Either they'll be bought out and/or merged, or, will turn around on their own (unlikely for a long time), or they'll simple liquidate, dissolve, and cease to exist (think Eastern Airlines).
4) Looking at these mergers throughout history, how do you see them affecting your future - either in aviation management or as a pilot. Keep in mind- you don't have to have interest directly in the airlines to answer this question.
The mergers can affect your future in the aviation industry in various ways. It could mean job creation, or fewer jobs, depending on the economy. Most importantly, it could mean furloughs (in a poorer economy), and the lack of available jobs. Merger's and changes in the airline industry are very commonplace. The industry has been quite liquid following the deregulation of the airline industry in 1978. It's very much an 'ebb and flow' industry based on the ebb’s and flows of the economy. It tends to follow the economic trend of the national economy. I don't think mergers or acquisitions are much of a concern when you're looking at future jobs in the industry (such as if you're presently a student). They're more of a concern when you're employed (or already in) the industry. Otherwise, there's really little difference between United and Continental (separate entities), and United (merged -- one entity), when you're looking for a job. It's not as if United merged with Continental and initiated a drastic cutback in route structure and company organization (thereby eliminating jobs). The purpose of a merger is to garner a profitable airline. If you're looking for a job, a merger is then something you should embrace, considering a merger yields a more optimistic future. However, if you're already working for the airline that is undergoing a merge, you usually have a lot more to worry about. Though, it usually depends on which side of the fence you're on, too. If you're employed by the company being acquired, you're in your right to be nervous. However, if you're employed by the company doing the acquiring, your job is safe. It's who has the money and clearly, if you're working for an airline that can't effectively make a profit, being bought out by an airline that can, of course there are going to be changes. Often times, those changes involve cutting jobs, cutting pay, and eliminating dead weight; all unfortunate issues that may befall upon you and subsequently cause you to lose your job. That's the industry though and it's been that way for decades.
I decided I’ll go ahead and discuss the Delta & Northwest merger since it's something that's recently occurred. On September 26th, 2008, the merger between Northwest and Delta had officially been approved by both Delta and Northwest shareholders. The airline would form to become the largest airline in the world. Name wise, Delta and Northwest obviously share two different names. Comparing the two, it's very clear why Delta was chosen over Northwest. Northwest, after all, has a connotation to its name denoting it to a specific region (or area), while Delta is a relatively neutral name with no geographic specification. The Delta name was also chosen because it had more global brand recognition. While Northwest flew to Asia (and had a more extensive network in Asia than Delta, pre-merger), the Delta name was far well known in Europe, South America, Middle-America, Caribbean, and the Middle East. This is simple marketing; choosing a name that has more brand recognition is obviously a no brainer; combine that with the neutrality of 'Delta' (no geographic association) and it's a win-win situation. The reason for the merge is the reason for most mergers; money, and in this case, bankruptcy for both airlines. Both airlines had subsequently filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection years prior to the merger. The merger came about as part of both companies restructuring. Their route networks were highly complementary; Northwest dominated the upper Midwest, northwest, some parts of the Midwest, Asia, and a few routes into Europe (primarily their Amsterdam hub). Delta had a wonderful network that dominated the south, west, southeast, east, and northeast (New York markets especially). Europe was well covered by Delta, too. Their routes were highly complementary. Both carriers were Skyteam members (an airline alliance), too. The merger only made sense. I wouldn't say there were significant consequences of the merger, other than like any merger, there are many challenges to be overcome. The integration of the separate flight attendant and pilot seniority lists is probably at the top of the list in terms of challenges. Delta and Northwest were able to come to an agreement on merging the pilot seniority lists from two to one, however merging the flight attendants was a nightmare. The Northwest flight attendants were unionized, and the Delta FA's were not. Only recently were the two flight attendant unions combined, following a national mediation board decision (click here for details), nullifying any future disputes between the groups. Benefits of the merger, well, greater utilization and cross-fleeting for one. Maximizing efficiency on routes by utilizing northwest’s fleet of primarily Airbus aircraft with Delta's all-Boeing (or McDonnell Douglas) fleet. New routes weren’t established immediately but have been slowly established over the last couple years. Extensive expansion has occurred out of New York, where Delta has really established the 757-200 (ETOPS 757's) for transatlantic operations. Significant expansion from New York and Atlanta to Africa and the Middle East has occurred. For the most part, the largest change has been the shuffling of aircraft around the various hubs. Salt Lake City (a Delta hub) is now a relatively large Airbus-hub; Atlanta is where many of the DC-9 flights went; a few Saab 340's were shuffled to Atlanta. Delta placed their 777's and 767's out of Detroit on several Asian and European markets. As evident, the shuffling of aircraft has been and still is quite extensive.
2) Describe a current merger - i.e. one that is in the process. Some choices would be United/Continental or Southwest/AirTran, but you aren't limited to these choices if you can find others. Answer the same questions listed in 1).
The Southwest Airtran merger is one of the latest mergers to come about in the United States. The merger is one that makes sense, given the fleet and route structure of both carriers. The combined airline is to be called Southwest; after all, Southwest is a more recognized brand, is the present-day larger airline amongst the two, and has an extensive history dating back to the late 1960's (1967 to be exact). The reason for the merger is relatively simple; what's the best way to eliminate your competition? Buy them. And Southwest had the money to do so, a $1.4 billion dollar purchase, respectively -- Southwest to Buy AirTran for $1.4 Billion. AirTran wasn't a -huge- competitor to Southwest, but still a large enough nuisance. Over the last few years, AirTran began a small mini-hub out of Baltimore (BWI), a large hub for Southwest, often overlapping several Southwest routes. It's also important to note that Southwest likely recognized the need to become a larger airline, and fast. The merger was announced only days after the United - Continental merger. Considering United and Continental were to merge, and taking into account the newly merged Delta airlines, Southwest would be a considerably smaller airline than it ever once was before. The merger made perfect sense from a logistics standpoint, too. AirTran's largest hub is featured in Atlanta, equally the super-hub of Delta airlines. By acquiring AirTran, they now complete a full route network spanning across the entire continental United States, gaining critical access to the Atlanta network, also. Logistically, the two airlines fit together like a perfect puzzle; Southwest operating a fleet of 737-300, 500, and 700 aircraft, as compared to AirTran and their Boeing 737-700 and 717 fleet. The only minor nuisance being the 717 fleet that'll come with the AirTran acquisition. Presently, plans are to keep the 717 aircraft, painting them into the Southwest livery and incorporating them into the Southwest route network, however there's a lot of speculation in the industry that the 717's will only be around for a short time. Southwest has always operated under the guise of the Boeing 737 family-line of aircraft; something that allowed them to offer decreased 'turn' times (time spent in-between flights at the airport off-loading and on-loading passengers). Keeping the 717 aircraft makes sense, temporarily, so as to not discontinue certain markets or reduce frequencies, until more 737's enter the fleet.
Challenges of the merger are relatively few, besides the usual challenges of merging together two airlines. One operating certificate is expected to be obtained/completed in early 2012, with the full integration of both airlines slowly taking place over the next few years (probably through 2015). Route structures are complimentary; obviously there's no need to place a Southwest 737 on an AirTran route, when AirTran is already operating (likely) a 737 on that route. Relatively little fleet movement will be necessary, besides the 717's, which make go to a few different markets. AirTran also operates to a few international markets, such as Cancun. It remains to be seen whether Southwest will retain these international markets, or abandon them all together. In the short run (such as this year), much will likely remain the same, with much of the work going on behind the scenes (management, operations, certificates, department of transportation, etc.). Southwest is viewed in the industry as one of the premier airlines to work for, featuring some of the best working conditions, pay rates, and other amenities, therefore little fuss is coming from the AirTran side of operations. The merger should be a smooth process. Customers of the new 'Southwest Airlines' won't see much of a change, it'll be the same old Southwest airlines. AirTran customers, however, should enjoy the absence of baggage fees (presently charged by AirTran), likely lower fares, and the better overall service offered by Southwest.
3) Describe the future of American Airlines. What lead to bankruptcy? Who's interested in merging with them and why? What do you predict for the future of this company?
American Airlines is one of the newest airlines to enter into bankruptcy. Future wise, anything goes, really. While I’d hate to see the historic American Airlines name disappear, takeovers or bids for bankrupt-based airlines are relatively common in the industry. Just yesterday, both Delta Airlines and US Airways have hired investment advisor firms to look into the possible acquisition of the airline -- American's Bankruptcy Fuels Merger Talks. Clearly, both airlines are at least questioning the possibility to make a potential bid for the airline, provided the findings of their investment advisor firms. Why would they be interested? To gain greater market share at a bargain price. Though, American is such a mess and looking at their fleet (1/3rd of which are MD-80's), it's not really an ideal airline for a takeover. Nonetheless, it's hard to say what the future of American Airlines will be. If you look at the past decade, some airlines have come out of bankruptcy (United in 2005, for example) without being acquired by anyone. Others, particularly most recently (i.e.: Northwest & Delta), have been acquired and/or merged. American has stated that one of their primary goals in bankruptcy is to lower their labor costs -- American Files for Bankruptcy. The fact that this was mentioned says that this is one of the major contributing factors that led to their bankruptcy. Moreover, their very-aged fleet of 200 McDonnell Douglas MD-80 aircraft is completely decimating their profits due to the aircraft's poor fuel efficiency. Considering that the MD-80 aircraft makes up a third of the airline's fleet, and offers some of the worst fuel economies of scale, is another factor that significantly impacted the bottom line of American Airlines. What do I predict for the future of American? To be honest, I have no idea. It's far too early to speculate. Either they'll be bought out and/or merged, or, will turn around on their own (unlikely for a long time), or they'll simple liquidate, dissolve, and cease to exist (think Eastern Airlines).
4) Looking at these mergers throughout history, how do you see them affecting your future - either in aviation management or as a pilot. Keep in mind- you don't have to have interest directly in the airlines to answer this question.
The mergers can affect your future in the aviation industry in various ways. It could mean job creation, or fewer jobs, depending on the economy. Most importantly, it could mean furloughs (in a poorer economy), and the lack of available jobs. Merger's and changes in the airline industry are very commonplace. The industry has been quite liquid following the deregulation of the airline industry in 1978. It's very much an 'ebb and flow' industry based on the ebb’s and flows of the economy. It tends to follow the economic trend of the national economy. I don't think mergers or acquisitions are much of a concern when you're looking at future jobs in the industry (such as if you're presently a student). They're more of a concern when you're employed (or already in) the industry. Otherwise, there's really little difference between United and Continental (separate entities), and United (merged -- one entity), when you're looking for a job. It's not as if United merged with Continental and initiated a drastic cutback in route structure and company organization (thereby eliminating jobs). The purpose of a merger is to garner a profitable airline. If you're looking for a job, a merger is then something you should embrace, considering a merger yields a more optimistic future. However, if you're already working for the airline that is undergoing a merge, you usually have a lot more to worry about. Though, it usually depends on which side of the fence you're on, too. If you're employed by the company being acquired, you're in your right to be nervous. However, if you're employed by the company doing the acquiring, your job is safe. It's who has the money and clearly, if you're working for an airline that can't effectively make a profit, being bought out by an airline that can, of course there are going to be changes. Often times, those changes involve cutting jobs, cutting pay, and eliminating dead weight; all unfortunate issues that may befall upon you and subsequently cause you to lose your job. That's the industry though and it's been that way for decades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)