It would be like US carriers going over to Europe and demanding routes from Europe to let's say Asia or Africa. Also the whole Delta and United operations in Asia goes back to the agreement that the US and Japan had in the 1950s.
Your hyperbole isn't adding to your point. I've simply pointed out that the facts are there. Regardless of your high view of public opinion, this battle isn't being fought there. This wasn't subjected to a vote or a ballot, it was simply signed. Their appeal isn't to you.
I don't see that anyone is demanding anything.
️
United used to do it. And as I understand it, that isn't cabbatage. It is a fifth freedom right that is allowed.
I am pretty aware of cabotage rules as they apply to flying in Canada and Mexico since it is something we need to be aware of when flying point to point within these countries. I'm sure other countries (obviously including the US) have cabotage rules but these are the only two I have personally dealt with in that regard.
This has been on a steady rise since ticket costs have gone down.. my dad has been telling me more and more stories about altercations on flights he's on. I'm not pro-trump, but I'm open minded and willing to give him a chance to lead. I hope he stops this from happening, I could be affected by this in the future.
The fuss is about the rules and laws that they would be able to circumvent. Their regulations will be determined by their country of registration, not ours. That allows them to bypass much of what drives cost up for our airlines.
How are they potentially different than the many foreign airlines that already fly from other countries to the US?
The fuss is they don't play by our rules and get to undercut our pilots.
And other foreign airlines don't? They need to obey our rules to the same extent as we require other foreign airlines to do so. What they pay their pilots is their business.
It's a Norwegian Airline subsidiary that has HQ in Ireland that operates flights originating in the US. No other carrier does this. For example, British Airways is England's carrier. Their flights start in England (where their flag is) and end in another country. That is perfectly fine. NAI, specifically set up their subsidiary in Ireland in order to bypass stricter aviation laws in Norway. They have flights originating in the US (flag is Norway) and bypass all of our laws. I can't reiterate enough how bad this is for pilots.
Just reading up on the ALPA magazines on these longer flights!Sounds like you've talking with your dad Jordane.
Many airlines have flights originating in the US. They are not flying point to point within the US. As far as rules go, they need to abide by the same ones as other foreign carriers abide by so I don't see any extra safety problems.
Yes but they came from their flag. Like I said before, British does JFK-LHR which is their flag. Alitalia does JFK-FCO which is their flag. Norwegian starts and ends flights not in their flag. Do you see what I'm saying. They are not doing what these other airlines are doing.They are operating flights from the US to destinations that ARE NOT OF THEIR FLAG. Again British, Lufthansa, Alitalia, etc all have flights in the US that GO TO THEIR FLAG.
How much reading have you done on this? How well do you understand flags of convenience?
I don't see why it matters that that one end of the flight is not in Norway.
See Cooter's post and read up on flag of convenience.
I understand cabotage, which this is not, and I also understand that some airlines, and ships, may register in a different country for business reasons. Heck, I fly an airplane that is owned by a foreign company but is registered to a US trust.
It almost seems as if you are being purposely obtuse. Spend three minutes reading about flags of convenience and what happened to the maritime industry. The point, as has been said many times here is that they avoid our labor laws and tax laws and compete directly in our market.
I answered in the post above yours. I know that in both the aviation and maritime industry that companies sometimes register ships and airplanes under other flags for business reasons. I also understand the union opposition in this case. But I'm looking at it from a larger perspective. I don't see how that one operation is more harmful than others to the general public.
Because NAI is basically the only carrier doing this.
Not as long as they meet the standards we have set to fly into the US.
Would you be OK with relaxing all of our laws to meet that same standard?
Not sure how I've become the spokesman defending deny NAI, I'm not an airline guy. But the problem is with the business model on which it is based. It provides an incentive for companies to register in countries with the lowest tax rate and labor standards. It penalizes the companies whose flag is in the US.