UK planning to evict N-registered aircraft

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?)

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?)

But there is a difference to Liberia and Panama as flags of convenience
registers.
In no way can the US be considered a flag of convenience registry in that
sense and as the biggest GA registry in the world it seems absurd that FAA
regs and licences are not "deemed to satisfy".

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.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?)

"Juan Jimenez" wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
roups.com...
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?)

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.


Tim
--
You are being watched. This gives you power.

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?

I'm in the U.S., but I'm anti-globalist, and a heretic to boot-I
firmly believe GA here brought its own problems on itself and besides,
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

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.

On 28 Aug 2005 17:33:16 -0700, 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.

Not precisely true; my parents recently took a cruise to Alaska from Seattle.
But the ship does have to stop at a non-US port somewhere on the journey. My
wife and I took a round-trip cruise from LA to Hawaii last spring...the ship
stopped in Ensenada (Mexico) for four hours on the return trip. Passengers were
strongly warned that they would be unable to leave the ship in Hawaii.

Ron Wanttaja

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.