I am, and now I am, a "retired" aircraft technician that is certificated by the FAA to hold a Powerplanet and Airframe Rating with a Radar / Radio endorsement.

Right now as I write this rant, for an individual to acquire this license, to keep people safe on the airplanes they ride on, cost me over $5,000 in 1984 dollars.

Today to get this certificate depending on the training school, to acquire the 1,920 hours needed to meet the FAA requirement is now costing an individual over $50,000 up to $80,000 dollars in today's dollars. Then, if this is coupled with a degree, it will cost the individual over $125,000 dollars, again depending on the prior military DD214, or the individual not having the training backed by the American taxpayer.

Presently with the current, and I mean, current trade agreements in place, the aircraft technician is losing ground on wages and benefits, because of the outsourcing of heavy maintenance to such countries as Brazil, Singapore, numerous American Flag carriers go across into Mexico and other countries to have these C & D checks done, this a fact.
It was caused by "trade agreements" pushed by the airlines and there associated trade groups. lobbying in Congress, during these "trade deals".
If anyone wants to fully understand how this is being done, look no further than at the FAR 43.13 regulation on the requirements to maintain that aircraft, its right there in black and white. And it was written by, approved by the Airline, General Aviation and manufacturing industry and the lastly the Congress

Boeing for example is going and is doing right along with Airbus, setting up shops in China and other places, where-by the R& D work is being outsource to these countries, while the engineering departments and R&D department are being down sized, they (Boeing and Airbus for example) are selling off the proprietary rights just to get a sale on the aircraft, while at the same time the government that is looking at those sales are demanding that they build that aircraft, which is basically attacking the foundation of manufacturing in this country and other countries.

In a former "trade agreement" NAFTA, is said that the Mexican trucking industry had to stop there trucks, at the border, and that an American Trucking Company would pick that trailer and deliver it around the country, not any more, they (Mexican Trucking) can deliver it across this country , and now the industry within the United States has to compete with the wages, benefits of Mexico. has anyone seen a Consolidated Freight Company lately, they filed for bankruptcy for many reasons.

This one industry (aviation) is the canary in the cave, one has to look no further than what is happening with with the deals that Boeing made with AVIC (Aviation Industry Corporation of China) and how MIC ( Manufacturing Innovation Center) replicates the aircraft building technology and how China is using this to develop the C919 and the ARJ21.

Boeing has every right in the world to sell an aircraft, but when a trade agreement is made to justify the continued outsource of a product and then ship it back into this country and say its fair, it is not fair.

Hamilton said that "tariffs" are what trade is all about and they should be fair and to protect this country.
Because back in those days when we traded those other country put in place a "tariff" to protect the farmer, silversmith, whatever, from a country dumping there product.

Presently we are not protecting our manufactured goods from "tariffs" from other countries and this is why we have "trade imbalance" and a "trade deficit" , this means we are "importing" more than we "export". If you do not have a manufacturing base engineering base, etc.. and you are being undercut by wages, such as the outsourcing of aircraft maintenance, those high paying, highly skilled jobs become less and less in every industry.

Yes, we are in a "globalization" on trade, there always has been a "globalization" on trade since the first human contacted another human, but it should be fair, and it should be fair to protect the worker that is making that product with a "tariff" and not the mealy ones that currently in place

What's there not to hate about this corporate power grab.

If there's one thing Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on is the need to stamp out these illegal ISDS tribunals.

These Roman-style tribunals would be corporate lobbyists who are not subject to conflict of interest or most other ethics rules that judges would be (bribery city). Foreign goons using them would still, in many cases, have full access to the courts as well (“double dipping”).

The risk is that foreigners can use these kangaroo courts to challenge any regulation or other government decision that the foreign investor just does not like. All they'd have to do is think of an argument for why the decision somehow violated its right to “fair and equitable treatment” or why it might reduce its expected profits and it’s got a case.

Often, just threatening an ISDS case is enough for laws or regulations to be withdrawn.

Some well-known examples:

The Metalclad case: a U.S. corporation sued Mexico over a local government’s decision to deny a permit to operate a toxic waste dump. Local citizens felt the dump would pollute their water supply and petitioned their government to deny the permit. Metalclad won more than $15 million.

The Methanex case: a Canadian company sued the U.S. Government over California’s decision to prohibit the use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline. Although Methanex lost the case, the state and federal government spent millions defending the case. Millions they would not have had to spend without ISDS: Methanex could not have brought the same complaint under U.S. domestic law.

Ecuador was recently ordered to pay more than $2 billion to Occidental Petroleum because it rescinded a concession (as is their right to do as a sovereign nation).

Phillip Morris famously sued Uruguay because it's smoking cessation programs were successful (Uruguay had the highest cancer death rate in Latin America). The ISDS, to their credit, ruled in Uruguay's favor - but after 3 years and tens of millions in legal fees for the small nation. Phillip Morris, nevertheless, has appealed - meaning the it's still in limbo.

Argentina had to pay hundreds of millions to Azurix, Suez, and Vivendi (privatized water outfits) because their concessions were terminated after failing to make most of the infrastructure investments they themselves had agreed to when the public water systems were privatized at fire sale prices. Argentina, of course, could not use the ISDS to sue them - just as the U.S. or state/local governments couldn't.

Even in Europe, a Swedish corporation is using ISDS to sue Germany over its decision to phase out nuclear power; and a French company is suing Egypt over a number of labor market measures, including an increase in the minimum wage.

How long does anyone thin it would take our Congresscritters to expand the HB-1 visa program and similar giveaways into every single sector of the economy - especially high-wage specializations (as you pointed out, turbinetree).

Can you imagine Colombian, Philippine or Vietnamese kleptocrats (including narcos) suing the U.S. Government - or your state or local government - to have common-sense regulation (even laws passed by Congress or your state legislature) overturned because, on a lark, they "felt" it might someday, maybe, impact their profits.

Trust me, China wants us to sign this.

Right now we the taxpayers have a 15 billion suit being thrown at us from the Keystone threat.

And some time back remember the dolphin free tuna cans label, well some tuna fisher men in Mexico sued this country on that label and won ---------------this was the first case if I remember correctly.

I really like what you said at the very end.

China wants the US to sign this, shoot yeah, then they come up to the plate and say, you did this why not us.

One big problem, there tariffs protect them while our tariffs don't.

I truly believe that if and when this country as a whole understands that word completely "tariffs", we the public at large are going to hurt badly with this "trade deal" and any others coming down the pike.

That's why the EU said no on the TTIP, the unions, and other factors said you have to have a "fair" playing field for our laws, or contracts and such and if we had stronger unions in this country we would not be in this mess

Last edited Mon Sep 12, 2016, 10:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Likewise!

My impression is that fortunately, the TPP/TISA is DOA as far as U.S. public opinion goes - and thank goodness. So much is riding on defeating this power grab.

its is about these "tariffs" we have one hand tied behind or back and being told otherwise