Smartplane you’ve been given the answer to that in their flag of convenience model pushing for the race to the bottom for employees. If we’re going in the climate change direction then why the hell should DY be allowed to add needless capacity and emissions on routes that are already well catered for?
What about customer rights? Presume you always fly full fare and drive a US-made car?
I do agree with you about the race to the bottom. I have a grand children, and am concerned about future employment trends.
But I have worked with / do work with companies exploiting zero-based contracts, many of them the legacies you uphold, doing one thing on home soil, and quite another across the border or ocean. Who are the major players when it comes to exploiting low tax jurisdictions, tax effective funding, tax shelters? It's not the minnows and startups.
The nature of my work often requires dialogue with staff at all levels. All very well for entrenched legacy employees with a job, pension, home, bonuses, etc to take the moral high ground, but there are staff out there keen to work, almost any type of work, who are fiercely supportive and passionate of DY, U2, FR and others of their ilk for giving them that opportunity.
If legacies still ruled the World, Heathrow volumes would barely need 2 runways, let alone a third.
We need a re-distribution of income. It could start with US legacies undertaking all maintenance in the USA, which would result in lower or no bonuses for staff. How would that go?
If emissions are your fortress, who says legacies should have a monopoly on route capacity? If DY operate 787's and other modern aircraft, versus a legacy with 767's, 757's, and early 777's, surely it should be the legacy that concedes capacity for the greater good.