UK planning to evict N-registered aircraft

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.

Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
deal with.

What are these onerous requirements?

Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?

FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
for the JFK-LAX segment. Similarly, cruises to Alaska start in
Vancouver rather than Seattle because the ships are all registered
under flags of convenience.

-cwk.

Bret Ludwig wrote:
If the situation were reversed would the US tolerate people
registering a/c overseas to dodge the US requirements?? No.

Even though the Brit requirements are ridiculous, they are their
prerogative. They should have put paid to offshoring registration years
ago. (Or else why not just do like shipowners and license in some
country like Liberia?)

The best support for this would be that if UK pilots had no choice but
to put up with the UK regs, they'd have more incentive to fight to make
them tolerable rather than simply dodging them. The only problem with
this is that turning back a few decades of regulation is nigh on
impossible and thus capitulating in this area verges on the suicidal.

-cwk.

wrote:

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be quite
incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as anal
as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.

Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
deal with.

What are these onerous requirements?


Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?

FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
for the JFK-LAX segment.

Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
allows it.

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be
quite
incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as
anal
as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.

Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
deal with.

What are these onerous requirements?


Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?

FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
for the JFK-LAX segment.

Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used to
refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country allows
it.

The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
Mumbai.

Chris wrote:

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...

wrote:


Bret Ludwig wrote:


Pardon, but the US laws don't impose the onerous requirements that your
government is planning on implementing, and even though our FAA can be
quite
incompetent and pigheaded when they want to be, they're not nearly as
anal
as the folks the UK pilots have to deal with.

Pardon, but the Liberian laws don't impose the onerous requirements
that your government has implemented, and even though the Liberian
government can be quite incompetent and pigheaded when they want to
be, they're not nearly as anal as the folks the US ship owners have to
deal with.

What are these onerous requirements?


Minimum wage, OSHA, union rules, workman's comp, to name just a few?

FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
for the JFK-LAX segment.

Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used to
refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country allows
it.


The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
Mumbai.

But that's not a "domestic" flight. It's not analogous to the NY-LA
situation described above.

wrote
FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates
at JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a
ticket for the JFK-LAX segment. Similarly, cruises to Alaska start in
Vancouver rather than Seattle because the ships are all registered
under flags of convenience.

Eighth Freedom - This is also called cabotage and almost no country permits
it. Airline cabotage is the carriage of air traffic that originates and
terminates within the boundaries of a given country by an air carrier of
another country. An example of this would be an airline like Virgin
Atlantic Airways operating flights between Chicago and New Orleans.

Bob Moore

Peter wrote:

xyzzy wrote


Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
allows it.


Isn't this called "cabotage"?

It is legal in the EU, as of recently.


For anyone, or just carriers from other EU countries?

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

Chris wrote:
"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
wrote:

FWIW the US does restrict foreign-registered ships and planes from
carrying domestic passengers. A Thai Airlines flight that originates at
JFK and stops at LAX to pick up more pax and fuel cannot sell a ticket
for the JFK-LAX segment.

Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used to
refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country allows
it.

The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
Mumbai.

This is not cabotage and is allowed in the US as well. I used to travel
from JFK to FRA frequently and you could often get a great deal on
Singapore Airlines (one of the world's best) because they would fly
JFK-FRA-SKG and while the FRA-SKG segment was always full there were
often a few dozen empty seats on the JFK-FRA leg which they would fire
sale for 1/3rd of the price on DL or LH.

Cabotage would be as for the example I gave above where the foreign
flight touches down in two or more US cities such as BKK-LAX-JFK, and
sells a ticket for the LAX-JFK segment. The only people this benefits
are US airlines, who at this point deserve only a little more sympathy
than French truck drivers. I supported the post-9/11 bailouts because
that was an extraordinary event and defense/nat'l security issues are
the most essential purpose of the whole federal shebang, but that's
behind us. The only people benefiting from the current system are
sleazebag airline execs who get paid millions to lose billions. Time to
let the free market sort things out, IMHO.

-cwk.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
allows it.

The UK allows it, that I do know. Its possible for example to buy a ticket
on say air India from London to New York, on a service that started in
Mumbai.




Last time I checked, and I could be wrong but, aren't London and New York in
to different countries?

"Peter" wrote in message
...

xyzzy wrote

Not sure this is just a US restriction. On the rec.travel.air newsgroup
(where I haven't hung out in a few years so this may changed) they used
to refer to this as the "fifth freedom" and I don't think any country
allows it.

Isn't this called "cabotage"?

It is legal in the EU, as of recently.


Is it completely legal or just within the EU among EU airlines.