Aviation Organizations

     Many organizations exist within the aviation industry. Some of which have different purposes, but all of which have the same main end goal: the advancement of the industry and those that work within the industry. Of the many aviation oriented organizations that exist, I see a definite advantage to being a part of AOPA (Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association), and the Air Traffic Control Association, especially from the pilot side of the coin. I am sure that other organizations will also come into play (unions, special interest groups, etc.) during my career as well, but I think that AOPA is one that does a very good job of being as all-encompassing as they can be without over-reaching their bounds. AOPA appears to have minimal bias in the way they conduct their business, and they seem to genuinely exist to serve the members. As for the Air Traffic Control Association, I think it is very important, in any industry, to know as much about the industry as possible if you wish to be truly successful. In the aviation industry, this means that pilots should have at least a basic understanding of the management and Air Traffic Control side of the operations and how ATC's think and operate. Likewise, ATC's should have a basic understanding of flight characteristics and how pilots think and operate.

     Starting with the Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association (henceforth referred to as 'AOPA'), their self written mission statement is to "Protect your 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, 2016)

I have been a member of AOPA for close to 3 years now, and while I have reached out for their services very minimally, I have never felt like they don't hold true to their mission statement. AOPA has a very large network of pilots across the nation, and they treat the highest ranking major captain much the same they treat your average Joe who beats the pattern on weekends. AOPA offers many services to its members, from sharing up to date news and stories on what is happening in the aviation industry, information on how to become a pilot, where to get certain ratings, and even pilot protection services with access to aviation specific attorneys and medical defense plans. (AOPAPP, 2016)

     The Air Traffic Control Association exists to both provide an understanding of current Air Traffic Control operations and equipment, but also to further the science of ATC. The Air Traffic Control Association is a huge proponent of the transition we are currently witnessing to NextGen. The ATCA has existed since 1956 with the goal of preservation of safe flight (ATCA, 2016). Again, this goes back to knowing both sides of the coin. If you want to be successful, you must know as much as you can about all aspects of the industry. Who wants to keep the flights safer than the pilots, the guys actually on board that flight? To have the ATCA and its members on the ground making sure planes are able to fly in and out of airports as efficiently and safely as possible is something that helps pilots have confidence in sticky situations. To also have the same organization pushing to bring the ancient WWII era ATC system up to date is also exciting, because it only stands to further improve the efficiency of enplanements, deplanements, and turn around time for aircraft on the ground. After all, aircraft on the ground aren't making any money. This usually means that the crew also isn't making any money.

     Overall, I think it is and will continue to be important to be a member of at least these two organizations for any pilot who wishes to fly professionally. They are both organization that exist to help support facets of the industry that you will deal with every single work day. So why not be a part of the group and the discussion? Why not have your voice be heard when you feel something is wrong? Why not make use of the vast resources that are available to you for a fairly meager annual fee? There is much to be gained by being a member of these, and other, aviation based organizations, and much more to lose if you are stuck between a rock and a hard place without the support of these groups.




References:

ATCA - ATCA. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.atca.org/about-us

AOPA - AOPA. (n.d.). AOPA's Mission, Vision and Values. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from https://www.aopa.org/about/mission-vision-and-values

AOPAPP - AOPA. (n.d.). AOPA Pilot Protection Services. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/

Aviation Emissions

(Photo courtesy: http://www.climateobserver.org)

     Ever since tracking and reducing carbon emissions has become a major concern for humanity, the aviation industry and aviation emissions have been called into question. And rightly so, if the human population wishes to continue living and populating this earth, we must take care of it. Currently the global aviation industry is responsible for about 2% of overall human-induced carbon emissions per year (ATAG, 2016). While it may not seem like a significant figure, 2% of all human-induced carbon emissions over the span of one year is roughly equal to 781 Million (metric) Tonnes (ATAG, 2016). Although this may seem like a massive problem, jet aircraft that are in service today are almost 80% more fuel efficient than aircraft that were in service in the 1960's. Emissions are also expected to drop by another 50% by the year 2050 as well (ATAG, 2016). As well, when broken down by liters of fuel used per passenger per 100 kilometers, newest generation aircraft like the Boeing 787 and Airbus A380 both come extremely close to 3 liters of fuel burned for each passenger over a distance of 100 kilometers. Other aircraft like the ATR-600 and Bombardier C-Series also come very close to this rather astonishingly low number. This 3 liters per passenger per 100 kilometers is actually competitive with many modern compact "fuel efficient" cars (ATAG, 2016). It should also be noted that while aviation emissions account for 2% of all human-induced carbon emissions per year, this number accounts for 12% of carbon emissions from all transport sources. This is still paled in comparison to road traffic however, which makes up 74% of carbon emissions from transport sources (ATAG, 2016). Somewhat shockingly (at least for me), aviation is vastly more fuel efficient and cleaner burning than the billions of cars that occupy the world's roads every day.

     Quite recently (Thursday, October 6th, 2016 to be exact), the United Nations Aviation arm ratified an agreement to corral current international airline flight emissions to help fight global warming. The agreement was almost unanimously passed, and serves to lay a baseline by which airlines and airplane manufacturers can try to track their growth and emissions as they work to reduce greenhouse gasses. The first phase of the UN airline agreement is 100% voluntary, and will span from 2021 to 2027. In the second phase, beginning in 2028 and going through 2035, compliance with the UN airline agreement will be mandatory (US News, 2016). Currently, there are some countries still trying to determine if they will participate in the voluntary first phase. Russia has already opted out. Of course Russia already opted out. How fitting. What the UN airline agreement serves to do is cut aviation emissions by limiting the amount of CO2 that can be discharged per year by airline companies. This is done by allowing a certain amount of carbon 'credits' that are spent when CO2 is discharged into the air. Once an airline has spent all of their carbon credits, they will be forced to 'buy' carbon credits from other industries or projects that exist to limit greenhouse gasses in an attempt to maintain a positive or net-zero balance on their carbon credit account. This will force airlines to limit runs, buy more fuel efficient and lower emission planes, and buy from other industries, thus also stimulating local and global economies (US News, 2016). All this while directly or indirectly slashing the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that are released into the environment every year.

     Another recent UN agreement that has gone into effect which also concerns overall global emissions. The Paris Climate Change Agreement will attempt to curb global emission discharge and will provide funding and other aid to help countries that may not have the means to trim emissions on their own (Guardian, 2016). The Paris agreement serves to try to prevent and eventually reverse the growing climate change event that has made global temperatures trend upwards. The magic (though tragic and catastrophic) number is 2 degrees Celsius. It is widely accepted that once this overall 2 degree shift has been hit, the major impacts of global warming will be irreversible (Guardian, 2016). Without bringing political affiliation into the picture, I believe that the newly elected administration will not affect the workings of the Paris Agreement in almost any aspect. During his campaign, he did what any other politician does, and what his opponent did, and said whatever he needed to garner votes from his target demographic. Already he has proven to go back on a few things that he said he would do. I expect the US' involvement in the Paris Agreement to be no different. It is something that has been worked on between many countries for many years. The Obama administration has been toiling over the workings of the Paris agreement since 2009, when a similar global warming meeting was held in Copenhagen. This one ended in disastrous chaos with nothing being accomplished. Now that science has taken a foothold and proven exactly what humanity is dealing with, I expect the advisors of the Trump administration to urge him to continue the US' involvement with the Paris Global Warming Agreement. 

     Overall, I would say that I am happy to see that global greenhouse gas emissions are a concern large enough to warrant at least some investigation, but I believe that the aviation industry doesn't need to be under quite as much scrutiny as it currently is. Aviation accounts for a very small fraction of travel based CO2 emissions, and there are much more effective ways to reduce greenhouse gasses than to target airplanes, which are already more than 4 times more efficient and clean than they were just 40 years ago. Compare this to the millions more cars and trucks on the road that are barely twice as efficient (on average) as they were 40 years ago. Not to mention that airplanes carry hundreds more people than a car, or even a bus, can. Planes can reach farther distances and do so in a more expeditious manner. I completely agree that greenhouse gas emissions need to be slashed, and I agree that the aviation industry can always push the boundaries to get better and reduce CO2 emissions in house. However I do not agree that the aviation industry should be scrutinized so heavily, and I believe that we, as a human species, can restrict CO2 emissions in many other areas before we start going after an industry that has already made much more progress than almost any other industry out there. 





References:

ATAG - ATAG. (2016, May). Facts & Figures. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html

US News - Lowy, J. (2016, October 6). UN Agreement Reached on Aircraft Climate-Change Emissions. Retrieved November 19, 2016, from http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-06/un-agreement-reached-on-aircraft-climate-change-emissions

Guardian - Harvey, F. (2015). Paris Climate Change Agreement: The World's Greatest Diplomatic Success. Retrieved November 19, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-deal-cop-diplomacy-developing-united-nations

Photo source: http://climateobserver.org/agreement-tackle-international-aviation-emissions/

Global Airlines - Fair For All?

     Open Skies Agreements are put in place between two or more countries to allow relatively free flowing air operations between airlines and cargo carriers from each of the countries that are involved. They are designed so that an airline that is a part of the Open Skies Agreement can land on foreign soil (as long as that country is also part of the OSA) with minimal to no interference or interrogation from the airport or the government. One of the current Open Skies Agreements that is under a bit of heat is the OSA that exists between the United States and the United Arab Emirates. The airlines that are involved in this OSA are Delta, American, and United (US), and Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar (UAE). The issue that has caused all the squabbling comes down to competition that some American air carriers say can't be contested because of large government subsidies.

     The Big 3 US airlines are all claiming that Emirates and Etihad in particular receive government subsidies that are large enough to allow them to charge prices so low that the American carriers simply can't compete with it. The American carriers claim that the Gulf carriers received nearly $42 Billion in subsidies from their respective governments (National, 2016). The Americans also claim that these subsidies enable the Gulf carriers to allow "better standards of service, scheduling advantages, and ticket prices." (National, 2016). One of the big issues with the American carriers throwing around "government subsidies" as their main argument for not being able to compete with the Gulf Big 3, is that they seem to forget that they themselves receive very handsome subsidy funds from the US government for things like Essential Air Service, which provides mandatory air service to smaller markets that the airlines would normally lose money on, as well as the bank bailouts and bankruptcy proceedings that took place in the Great Recession of the mid 2000's. On top of all of this, US air carriers in general received nearly $155 Billion in government subsidies between 1918 and 1998 (Skift, 2015). So what has all that money gone towards?

     One other major hurdle that seem to get in the way of the American Big 3 is the Export-Import bank, which guarantees loans to foreign companies buying US products when private sector lenders can't or won't accept the risk the credit line (Bloomberg, 2016). While this is good for American jobs, as it promotes the export of American made goods, it hurts the American Big 3 air carriers, because foreign airlines (like the Gulf 3) can purchase American aircraft with a guaranteed loan through a low default, low interest lending agency that is backed by the US government. The Gulf 3 are already the largest buyers of Boeing aircraft in the world, especially in the long range market. Emirates and Etihad have already bought models of the Boeing 787 and 777X in a volume that leaves the American carriers in the dust (National, 2016).

     Overall, I would personally say that the American 3 have a valid argument about some of the issues currently going on, but they also need to buck up and change with the times in other areas. The Export-Import Bank did have a 5-month shut down after its charter expired on June 30, 2015, but it was brought back to life as part of the FAST Act that was signed into law by President Obama on December 4, 2015. This new charter will reauthorize the Export-Import Bank to operate through September 30, 2019 (Democrats, 2016). While I do believe the Export-Import bank structure may give an unfair advantage to foreign purchasers, and probably should be amended for such large purchases as aircraft (the aviation industry is the single largest customer of the Export-Import bank, after all), I don't believe it will solely affect the American carriers enough to where they cannot compete. As is, the American 3 and the Gulf 3 only actually compete head to head on 2 routes, of the 1700+ routes that exist in the US (National, 2016). I would say that if American carriers really want to compete, perhaps they should dig into their year-in and year-out record profits and figure out a way to better scheduling times, lower ticket costs, and increase the level of experience that customers feel both on the aircraft and in airports.




Resources:

National - McAuley, A. (2016, July 26). Victory for Gulf Airlines as US Government Ends Open Skies Row With No Further Action. Retrieved November 03, 2016, from http://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/victory-for-gulf-airlines-as-us-government-ends-open-skies-row-with-no-further-action#full

Skift - Schaal, D. (2015, April 09). WikiLeaks Disclosure Shows U.S. Airlines Received Billions in Subsidies. Retrieved November 04, 2016, from https://skift.com/2015/04/09/wikileaks-disclosure-shows-u-s-airlines-received-billions-in-subsidies/

Democrats - The Ex-Im Bank: Back in Business. (2016). Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://democrats.financialservices.house.gov/issues/extending-import-export-bank-charter.htm

Bloomberg - Export-Import Bank of the United States: Private Company Information. (2016). Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=6369571