Airline alliances plus Open Skies make pilot unions nervous

by Charlie Leocha on June 16, 2009

I’m back to my theme of unintended consequences. While the Transportation Department has been approving airline alliances and pursuing a U.S.-E.U. Open Skies agreement, the airlines have been figuring out ways to game the system. Now a pilot union that once supported all these efforts has awakened to a new reality they don’t like.

In a shocking departure from past stands, last Wednesday, pilots at United Airlines asked the White House to delay any government approval of an application by United and Continental Airlines for antitrust immunity.

Tripso.com has been reporting for months that the new airline alliances allow far too much coordination on international flights that will harm competition and cost U.S. jobs. We also have reported some unintended consequences of the Open Skies agreements that now allow airlines to form new joint ventures to circumvent many national laws on both sides of the Atlantic.

The United Airlines pilot union, the Air Line Pilots Association, is seeking protections for pilots as part of any airline alliance grant that would permit the U.S. and foreign airlines to share pricing, scheduling and other information within the Star Alliance.

“We are requesting a delay or an approval with conditions to the application, union chief Steve Wallach wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama. “We are not opposed to the alliance itself. However, we are concerned that this application does not adequately address the very real threats to American workers’ jobs.”

United disputed the pilots’ contention in a statement. “This is about adding an American company into an immunised alliance that will continue to protect American jobs – to suggest otherwise is a mischaracterisation of the facts,” the company said.

Ah ha! The mantra that these alliances will create hundreds of thousands of jobs is not being countermanded by the unions — exactly the portion of the equation that should be happiest should alliances move forward, if more jobs was more than a smokescreen.

Though DOT has given the Continental/United/Lufthansa/et.al. Star Alliance the initial OK, final approval has not been issued. Throughout the process the E.U. regulatory bodies have been less than happy with this alliance and the increased powers granted airlines while flying internationally. Members of the Judiciary Committee have urged the DOT to wait until they have time to complete a full antitrust investigation. (A pledge with which DOT concurred.)

Now with an inside union opposed to these alliances, perhaps the DOT will take a deep breath and reexamine airline alliances. Even better, a new bill introduced by James Oberstar (D-Minn.) and attached to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 will be passed forcing a full review of airline alliances and their effects on the airline economic universe and its consumers.

Print Friendly

  • John

    Silly question Charlie …
    What is the threat to American jobs? You don’t mention it and neither does the article you link to.

    Is the threat that American pilots are overpaid and underworked and therefore more likely to be replaced on International legs by non-US pilots?
    Do non-US pilots perform their job better and therefore more likely to be used?

    Is it even simpler than that? Are Continental pilots better and cheaper than United pilots and the alliance increases the likelyhood that Continental will fly more of the legs than United?

    I find it very interesting that it was the United union making the statement and not a joint statement by the two unions if it was really a case of losing jobs.

    Ultimately in international commerce, the work force that performs the best work for the lowest price wins. If US pilot unions have driven up airline pilot costs (through pay, benefits and work rules) to the point that another group or pilots can do the same job much cheaper, they will lose in the end no matter what the government does.

  • Robert

    Actually John – It’s pretty simple.

    Add to alliances = less competition. Less competetition = higher prices and fewer flights. Fewer Flights = fewer jobs.

    Airlines try to say that alliancees don’t thwart competition but they lie. If they didn’t affect competition why would they want anti-trust immunity?

  • John

    Robert … You forget one thing …. The net effect of this is 0. Continental is leaving their current alliance with KLM/AF and Northworst/Delta to join the United Alliance. In fact, Continental and United stated in their press release that it was a good fit because there were few overlaps on their routes.

    Few overlaps = expanded reach = increase in market share = more jobs.

    If it was going to hurt jobs …. why didn’t the two pilots unions issue a joint statement? Why did the United pilots union initially support this?

    If the threat was as simple as less competition = less jobs the union would have never supported it in the first place. Instead they release a general statement on how it’s a threat to job without details. The details would support their argument so why not release them?

    It would be easy … United and Continental has x number of routes that overlap The alliance has the potential of reducing x number of flights a day for either carrier which equates to x number of jobs.

    Now that’s a powerful argument.

  • Don

    Anti-Trust Immunity allows the airlines to discuss things that are currently not allowed by law. Now they cannot compare fares and fare structure specific route information. It also gives them the ability to share the profits of these alliances and how each participating airline will service the alliance and how to split the profit from these flights that will be affected. Currently they cannot discuss anything that relates to these issues. The anti-trust immunity opens the door for them to discuss all things that they are currently not allowed to discuss. It is a pretty simple concept not a cloak and dagger sort of smoke screen…

Previous post:

Next post: