Quoting BestWestern (Reply 98): Typical American airline Engineering to Xiamen Reservations to Manila IT to Bangalore Catering outsourced to Gate group Lounges outsourced to Sodexo Check-in outsourced to lowest cost operator Baggage outsourced to Swissport Ireland scores very highly in the ICAO ranking - higher than the United States - so rest assured the Irish CAA know what they are doing. Inflight safety will be well monitored. Perhaps if the United States paid more attention to their own aviation environment they could improve their scoring and preach to the world about how great they are. If the US can't compete on price, they need to compete on service. Lacklustre service and high fares are not a long term solution

        

Quoting atypical (Reply 99): This appears to be a loophole in "Open Skies Agreement" that allows non-signatory countries to exert significant economic influence within the provisions made in this treaty.

What non-signatory country?

Quoting atypical (Reply 99): Basically, in no agreement between parties should a third party, not participating in the agreement, be able to influence or reap the benefits of that agreement.

It is really very simple, using three years the DOT could not find any reason to refuse. Is this a sign of the efficiency of the USA authorities?

Quoting atypical (Reply 99): Is this protectionism? Yes, that is a basic function treaty. Is this fair? In principle it is, however if all parties do not agree then they have no business making the treaty.

The Open Skies Agreement bans this kind of protectionism.

Quoting atypical (Reply 99): I believe at one point (if I am wrong just go with the example) Russia was advocating an economic union with Ukraine while allowing Ukraine to also forge one with the EU. Russia considered this a great idea. Goods could stream tariff free some day to Ukraine and then stream tariff free to Russia. This would allow Russia to share many of the benefits of EU membership without any of the obligations. (This is not meant as commentary on Russia, frankly I can't see any country not taking this kind of opening, including the US.)

Very bad and wrong example.

Applying for the EU, or at least trying to get nearer to the EU angered Russia and lead to the Krim crisis and the war in the east Ukraine.


And again only signatories to the open sky agreements are here involved. The EEA is the EU + Iceland + Lichtenstein + Norway all signatories.
No constraints on Norwegian to own or operate any airline anywhere in the EEA. No constraints of flying from anywhere in the EEA or to anywhere inside the EEA.

There is no difference, even if some of the US American posters believe their is, to an USA company moving some business unit or headquarters to Delaware even without operating there.

If there will be, as many of our good US American flagged posters fear, some problems with staff from outside the EEA, than that is a case the USA airlines or unions should take up with the US authorities than, if it occurs.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 98): Engineering to Xiamen Reservations to Manila IT to Bangalore Catering outsourced to Gate group Lounges outsourced to Sodexo Check-in outsourced to lowest cost operator Baggage outsourced to Swissport

You missed the outsourcing of regional flying to the lowest bidder.   

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 81): I know for a fact that UA regional bases such as BKK and SIN did not get paid same as US workers, and had their own and separate work rules.

I agree. That's always been the case. It's also notable these foreign crew bases weren't in London or Paris, but were instead in places where wages and work rules are cheaper.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 83): Note, I'm not defending outsourcing at all here just acknowledging that yes, US airlines are guilty of doing that as well.

Yes, please do acknowledge that. The U.S. carriers have ZERO moral ground after outsourcing virtually all heavy check work to Central America.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 85): How well can a country oversee a carrier that doesn't even operate within their borders?

Or the reverse...how well can the U.S. monitor U.S. carrier maintenance in Costa Rica? I think I read the number of inspection visits is virtually zero.

Reaction in the media to yesterday's announcement :

First scheduled flights between Cork and the US set to take off this summer

Niall MacCarthy, the managing director at Cork Airport said: “This is absolutely fantastic news for the airport, the airline and the region. We have worked so hard to make this happen over many months in both Washington and locally. I acknowledge the great support received from our local business stakeholders, local politicans and the Irish Government. I would particularly commend Cork Chamber for their solid support in these efforts.”

“We are looking forward to getting the pathway cleared so that tickets can go on sale as soon as possible for flights from Cork to Boston initially and to New York in due course.”

http://www.independent.ie/business/f...take-off-this-summer-34631096.html

U.S. paves way for more Norwegian Air flights, competition

Norwegian has said its fares persuade new people to travel, instead of stealing rivals' customers. Spokesman Anders Lindstrom said the company looks forward to announcing flights from Boston to Cork - which it previously postponed - and potentially other U.S.-Ireland routes once approval is final.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-norwegian-air-usa-idUSKCN0XC2IW

[Edited 2016-04-16 06:55:30]

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 85): We compete just fine on a level playing field or we'd have been run out of town already.

Oh I can guarantee you, if the US opened its skies completely (the current Open Skies isn't very "Open"), none of the current US majors would continue to exist more than a year.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 30): Frankly in a globalized world, there should be more liberal flow of capital and labor and we forget old world and rigid concepts of strict nationality.

Nice words but why would voters like me vote to decrease their own income by 50-80%?

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 31): How about if Norwegian decided to employ all Bulgarian or Cypriot crews? Still very much part of the EU, but at fraction of Northern European cost.

That would be fine just like Delta can employ crews from Puerto Rico or Mississippi.

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 105): none of the current US majors would continue to exist more than a year.

True for any industry. The Partnership for a New American Economy (= destroy the old one) basically involves importing global labor, firing all first world workers, eliminating the global middle class, paying around $5-$10,000 per year to pilots, FAs, accountants, etc, who all live in huts or concrete homes on dirt roads surrounding the luxury compounds of the 0.1%, who would probably live in palaces on lush grounds of 5,000 acres each.

Many people work day and night thinking how to hotwire democracy such that the global workers can vote and support a globalist world, by way of first immigrating, then gaining voting rights, in the successful countries, disemploying all the existing workers, then handing all the capital to the masters.

All of these uppity middle to upper-middle class people (who make their money from work), who today still hold about half of global wealth, will be crying and begging on the streets. The global lower classes outvote them in a globalist world. The masters want to go from 40 to 80% of global wealth, pushing mid-income people back into (first world) grinding poverty. Which $5-10k certainly is, even if that is a good wage in Bangladesh. Just a little preview of the future.

[Edited 2016-04-16 08:44:31]

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 105): Oh I can guarantee you, if the US opened its skies completely (the current Open Skies isn't very "Open"), none of the current US majors would continue to exist more than a year.

  

Quoting Mir (Reply 35): Nothing wrong with the people themselves. But when they're working for an EU carrier, they should be paid according to an EU system. The whole point of Norwegian going for an Irish certificate is that Ireland lets them outsource outside the EU, whereas other countries do not. That's why there was no issue with them having a UK certificate or a Spanish certificate, or of course a Norwegian certificate. The Irish certificate is specifically set up to facilitate social dumping, which is not allowed under the US-EU agreement. But apparently those don't mean things anymore. -Mir

Ireland lets them outsource outside the EU.
With this statement you hit it on the head. It's not that Norwegian is breaking any laws, your issues are the fact that this is allowed in the EU but not in the US. The fact that Ireland is more liberal than the USA show's how backwards the USA really is.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 43): Plenty of folks here championing this decision need to read up on the flag of convenience model and the impact it had on the US maritime industry. I see from posts here that there is a distinct lack of understanding about what this means. This would be disastrous for the thousands of decent paying, middle class jobs that will be lost in the U.S. if this can of worms is opened. Mark my words, this will not bode well for US pilots or cabin crew. All in the name of a cheaper ticket. You get what you pay for folks. Air travel is already dirt cheap. You don't want it to be even cheaper when this is how that cost is afforded.

The DOT approving Norwegian proves you wrong. Looks like you need to read up on what Norwegian is doing and maybe you'll understand a thing or two more about running a business. After all, it is a business and not a convenience for pilots to decide how an airline should be operated.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 45): The entire idea behind this flag of convenience model is to circumvent EU laws.

Circumvent which laws? The airline is registered and operating within EU laws otherwise it would not have received its AOC.

Quoting Mir (Reply 49): Quoting Mortyman (Reply 46): So the US and British crews that Norwegian employs are third world crews ? Really ? It's the nationality of employer that's the issue, not the nationality of the employee.

With pilot shortages worldwide and foreign pilots working in different airlines all around the world, how can it be nationality at the heart of the problem. Let's say what it really is, US unions and legacy airline management teams brainwashing local workers into believing that Norwegian is breaking a string of laws when it really isn't.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 50): I can understand both sides of the argument, but I don't see why one industry should be protected while most others are open to unfettered global competition.

It's not a question of industry, its a question of the US pilot labor market being too expensive, legacy airlines not being able to compete and US unions forcing their local US labor laws on everyone outside of the US to secure the future of their legacy airline jobs. It's all pure politics and self interest.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 54): Quoting Mortyman (Reply 53): Norwegian intends to continue hiring hundreds of American-based crewmembers, Yeah, for a quarter of what they'd earn working for a legitimate airline.

What planet are you from? All airlines with an AOC are legitimate airlines operating under local laws whether you like it or not.

Quoting Mir (Reply 56): Quoting aryonoco (Reply 51): I'm appalled at the protectionist tendencies shown by most US posters here. Nobody complained when Norwegian started flying to the US. Nobody complains about WOW Air flying to the US. Nobody complains about XL Airways flying to the US. This isn't about low-cost competition, it's about a legal scheme that allows Norwegian to bypass labor laws. And various countries in the EU have raised an issue about it at various points. So stop playing the protectionism card - it doesn't work.

No, its about US unions and legacy airlines attempting to force the US airline model on foreign airlines. Wake up, the USA isn't the world gatekeeper that everybody needs to abide by.

Quoting bgm (Reply 55): Wow, so at Norwegian they earn a quarter of what they would earn at Skywest, Republic, Mesa, or any other regional US airline?

A 787 isn't an RJ.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 53): The airline said complaints against it were "fatally flawed" and that labor rules and training will be governed by Ireland. "Norwegian International is offering competitive wages and working conditions to all of its employees," the airline said in filings to the department. "At the same time, Norwegian International is bewildered at the Chicken Little 'sky is falling' hysteria propagated by some of the objecting parties."

Hurray lowest paid 787 pilots in the western world.

Quoting Mir (Reply 56): It's perfectly logical to say "this scheme hasn't worked out well, we shouldn't extend it to other industries". Otherwise you'd be forced to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

Who is saying this ? Obama ? GOP leaders ? The US pushed for China to be part of the WTO even though it didn't comply with many rules, that cost western countries millions upon millions of jobs, yet no one has tried to revert such policies or even apologized. No apologies either for the subprime disaster that several countries are not out of yet.

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 64): So its easier for an airline from over seas to get certified to fly US flights then for a US based airline to get started?? Seems to me EA is the only one in a long time. Right or Wrong??

If you want to start an airline you need a billion. Most of these US start-ups are ponzi schemes, not real airlines.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 60): At the moment, there are US-based crews, but how long will they be around now that NAI has a certificate and knows that they are not required to have US-based crews and no longer need to put on a front to show they are friendly to US labor? They are not employees of NAI so they can be replaced tomorrow if NAI wished.

There is no requirement in the EU-US bilateral agreement that stipulates that crews must be from one of the signing countries, so who cares what the nationality is of the crews as long as they are licensed to due the job at hand according to airline requirements and international air laws.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 62): I'm appalled that so many people who have the American flag on their profile are celebrating this idea that will inevitably lead to the loss of thousands of decent, well paying middle class jobs. Look at the US maritime shipping industry. It is a shell of what it once was. That same thing is what we are trying to prevent with our airlines here and now yet we (US citizens) continue to shoot ourselves in the feet then try and blame everyone else for pulling the trigger.

What's happened to the US maritime industry has happened to every other country, that's called moving forward whether we like it or not. The potential loss of jobs in the USA as you point out nonstop is an issue for you guys in the USA to work out and come to a model that would make the US labor market more competitive rather than force foreign countries to abide by your local US laws.

Quoting bgm (Reply 69): Also, another question. How exactly does this affect employees at US airlines, who have to work under US laws and regulations? (read: not EU/Irish law).

Because the local US industry is about to get a reality check and suddenly realize that they are so much more expensive that in turn will result in local airlines rushing into chapter 11 and forcing labor to take huge pay cuts. In my view, this will happen but its management and the unions fault for it getting to this level in the first place. When labor contracts come up for renewal, neither side looks at the wider picture of domestic AND international operations, the view is what will labor cost for domestic operations and they tend to make pay rises based on this. Mind you, very little of their operations are international, airline is the USA live off the domestic market rather than international operations.

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 71): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 65): There is no "protectionism" here other than people wanting to protect American jobs. Yeah, that's protectionism. If we do believe in free markets and free trade, then American jobs should be no more desirable or worthy than Norwegian jobs, Irish jobs, or Thai jobs for that matter. I hate that globalization and trade agreements have brought America's laws on Intellectual Property and Drugs (to name two examples) to most of the world. I find US patent laws ludicrous, the length of US Copyright terms anti-competitive (110 years?! really?!) and US drugs patents borderline immoral. But the US forced these across most of the world in the name of free trade. And most OECD countries have played along and adopted them because we understood that there are benefits to having uniforms set of laws and standards, even if some of those laws are terrible. Now suddenly when on one issue the shoe is on the other foot, you're all crying "it's not fair"?!

I agree! And now they want to force the world to operate airlines according to their local labor laws, pay scales, etc. How many US corporations registered in foreign countries make hundreds or billions of dollars in sales and only pay up to five million in taxes? Where's the morality in all this while trying to force a foreign airline to abide by their preceptions of rules and regulations?

Quoting Curiousflyer (Reply 80): Obviously those people deserve to go to jail. It is just plain obvious.

Hahahaha. Now you sound as though your from North Korea.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 82): All you sorry, sad Americans...blame your cheap a$$ compatriots. People love to shout "made in America" and then laugh to walmart buying Chinese produced miscellany they do not even need.

  

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 85): We compete just fine on a level playing field or we'd have been run out of town already. This model, for the reasons already listed over and over, does nothing to promote fair competition.

No you don't, you change the field so US industry is at more of an advantage than the competing country. So what in your view is fair competition? Every industry in the world looks for a competitive advantage against competition which may also include lower costs of labor. Why is the airline industry any different from any other industry?

Quoting 321neo (Reply 95): Any AND Air Djibouti">DY hiring practices, however they manifest themselves, will likely be in line with the true nature of modern day commercial aviation i.e. not some rose-tinted delusion of it still being the glory days of the 1950s

  

[Edited 2016-04-16 10:19:02]

Quoting ual777 (Reply 109): Hurray lowest paid 787 pilots in the western world.

And the problem is? By definition, someone, somewhere has to be the lowest paid pilot in the World.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 101): What non-signatory country?

A country that has not signed Open-Skies

Quoting scbriml (Reply 102): If there will be, as many of our good US American flagged posters fear, some problems with staff from outside the EEA, than that is a case the USA airlines or unions should take up with the US authorities than, if it occurs.

I don't see fear of the staff. What I see is that Open-Skies can potentially allow crews employed under the laws and regulations outside the signatory countries. Hence an example of a potential issue not necessarily an issue in Open-Skies:

Consider the potential security. While Open-Skies might have a provision for the US to request the criminal record of an EEC citizen or foreigner employed under EEC laws, Open-Skies does not allow the US to make that request for an employee where their employment is governed by a non-signatory country. In fact none of the signatory countries may have access to these records because only the US has insisted to that provision in its treaties.

If this is the case I would be surprised since most treaties would cover this. However, if this is the case the US better be negotiating an treaty update yesterday and be ready to pull out. A hole this size has implications for issues that are far more important than employment. This is not a position that the EU signatories should also be exposed to either. It is bad for everyone.

Quoting 321neo (Reply 90): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 86): We compete just fine on a level playing field or we'd have been run out of town already. US majors are trash, sorry.

I doubt anyone would disagree. But, our trash is consistently among the most profitable airlines in the world in recent years, a rare period of success in an otherwise historically struggling industry. I'd like to see this trend of profitability continue to benefit our companies and our workers. Allowing thousands of well paying, somewhat stable, middle class jobs to disappear isn't going to benefit anyone.

Quoting jambrain (Reply 94): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 75): Look at our maritime industry But yet you are quite happy to buy / use all the goods that the maritime industry imports at a cost that is a fraction of what it would be if US still crewed their vessels at 1st world wages. Now those Asian crews can afford to buy airline tickets on Boeing airframes, HBO subscriptions and iPhones and watch Captain America in the cinema it's a win-win even if it's hard on the people being outsourced. Globalisation is a reality, we can't turn the clock back without destroying the benefits, in my corner of the Aero industry (Aero MRO & Supply Chain IT) we have gained far more opportunities from globalisation but it has meant many jobs are off-shored, we in the privileged 1st world all need to innovate and evolve. Or alternatively you just put your head in the sand put up a 2000 mile wall to mexico and pretend it's not happening and go back to subsistence farming!

I don't have much of a choice, do I? I vote when election time comes around, I voice my opinions and I participate as much as I can. I do my part. I'd rather see the middle class flourish and see gainful employment in decent, stable, well paying jobs than see them outsourced overseas to save a buck. I happily pay more if I know something was produced by US workers here in the states.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 96): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 57): How will they be paid relative to their EU peer groups? Doesn't matter.

To you, searching for the cheapest possible ticket, perhaps. To those of us who see our earning potential and our quality of life threatened by this it matters significantly. Which is part of why so many of us are against this.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 96): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 83): Note, I'm not defending outsourcing at all here just acknowledging that yes, US airlines are guilty of doing that as well. I guess it's OK as long as it's just engineering jobs, eh?

How on earth did you get that idea out of what I said? At no point have I defended outsourcing, nor have I said I agree with it. I'm not sure what made you jump to this conclusion but you're 100% wrong if you think I find that to be an acceptable practice. I also can't fight everyone's battles for them. If engineers are being outsourced, it is up to them to fight to do something about it much like it is up to us right now to protect our jobs against this.

Quoting enilria (Reply 103): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 83): Note, I'm not defending outsourcing at all here just acknowledging that yes, US airlines are guilty of doing that as well. Yes, please do acknowledge that. The U.S. carriers have ZERO moral ground after outsourcing virtually all heavy check work to Central America.

...I just did. Nor have I said we have some perceived moral high ground.

Quoting enilria (Reply 103): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 85): How well can a country oversee a carrier that doesn't even operate within their borders? Or the reverse...how well can the U.S. monitor U.S. carrier maintenance in Costa Rica? I think I read the number of inspection visits is virtually zero.

Precisely my point. I have to fly those airplanes hat are maintained elsewhere. My rear end is on the line. It's a concern of ours and we've voiced our opposition. Why do you think it concerns me that Irish oversight of a company that doesn't even operate there is a possibility?

Quoting dhr (Reply 108): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 43): Plenty of folks here championing this decision need to read up on the flag of convenience model and the impact it had on the US maritime industry. I see from posts here that there is a distinct lack of understanding about what this means. This would be disastrous for the thousands of decent paying, middle class jobs that will be lost in the U.S. if this can of worms is opened. Mark my words, this will not bode well for US pilots or cabin crew. All in the name of a cheaper ticket. You get what you pay for folks. Air travel is already dirt cheap. You don't want it to be even cheaper when this is how that cost is afforded. The DOT approving Norwegian proves you wrong. Looks like you need to read up on what Norwegian is doing and maybe you'll understand a thing or two more about running a business. After all, it is a business and not a convenience for pilots to decide how an airline should be operated.

I'm plenty educated on it, thanks. My degree is in business, I have plenty of experience with how businesses are run. That education is part of my concern here. My job will be threatened by this. Of course I'm going to speak out against it. I'm well aware of what the flag of convenience allows a company to do and why that is bad for our jobs here.

Quoting dhr (Reply 111): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 62): I'm appalled that so many people who have the American flag on their profile are celebrating this idea that will inevitably lead to the loss of thousands of decent, well paying middle class jobs. Look at the US maritime shipping industry. It is a shell of what it once was. That same thing is what we are trying to prevent with our airlines here and now yet we (US citizens) continue to shoot ourselves in the feet then try and blame everyone else for pulling the trigger. What's happened to the US maritime industry has happened to every other country, that's called moving forward whether we like it or not. The potential loss of jobs in the USA as you point out nonstop is an issue for you guys in the USA to work out and come to a model that would make the US labor market more competitive rather than force foreign countries to abide by your local US laws.

Nobody is forcing Norwegian to abide by our laws, I think you're confused by what are asking for. The US/EU Open Skies treaty doesn't hold any European carrier to our laws. It does hold EU carriers to the laws of the country of their origin. British Airways to British law. Lufthansa to German law. Air France to French law, etc, etc. We're asking our DoT to hold Norwegian to Norwegian law and labor practices and wages rather than allow the flag of convenience model which blows all of that out of the water. We don't ask other airlines to abide by our laws (unless you count flying by FARs in our airspace, much like how we abide by foreign rules in their airspace) to fly here. Just that the airline and the crews are held to the laws of the country the airline hails from. Big difference between that and operating under the flag of convenience model.



NOTE:

I'm strictly discussing the approval of NAI here. Nothing else. If you guys don't like having our laws imposed elsewhere then by all means, do something to change it and start a thread for that subject elsewhere.

Quoting dhr (Reply 111): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 85): We compete just fine on a level playing field or we'd have been run out of town already. This model, for the reasons already listed over and over, does nothing to promote fair competition. No you don't, you change the field so US industry is at more of an advantage than the competing country. So what in your view is fair competition? Every industry in the world looks for a competitive advantage against competition which may also include lower costs of labor. Why is the airline industry any different from any other industry?

I've already defined fair competition. I've already explained that the airline industry isn't immune and why I think this is bad news.

Take some time to read the entire thread. I don't defend a lot of the decisions our own airlines have made. I'm not going to say we have a moral high ground. US companies are guilty of outsourcing thousands of jobs. They're guilty of not overseeing outsourced maintenance like they probably should. No argument here and I've not attempted to defend such practices. I'll also say there is a distinct lack of understanding of what the flag of convenience model truly allows a company to do and why it is such a threat to so many well paying jobs here in the states.

This isn't outsourcing. This is allowing a company to benefit from a lucrative open skies treaty when it is not a member of said treaty while utilizing labor laws from a country of their choosing and using cheap labor from yet another country. I've already said this again and again. If a Norwegian airline wants to be registered in Norway and abide by Norwegian labor laws and pay their labor accordingly, game on. When they want to play the flag of convenience game and potentially threaten my career then there is a problem.

Quoting dhr (Reply 111): I agree! And now they want to force the world to operate airlines according to their local labor laws, pay scales, etc. How many US corporations registered in foreign countries make hundreds or billions of dollars in sales and only pay up to five million in taxes? Where's the morality in all this while trying to force a foreign airline to abide by their preceptions of rules and regulations?

See above, nobody wants to force Norwegian to operate according to our laws. We want them to operate according to Norwegian law, follow Norwegian labor rules and pay according to Norwegian labor groups. That's all. There is a tremendous difference between this, and what they want to do with the flag of convenience model. If Norwegian wants to take advantage of the Open Skies treaty, let them go through the motions and do so. That is fine by us.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 109): Hurray lowest paid 787 pilots in the western world.

Do you have proof of this ?

Quoting atypical (Reply 113): A country that has not signed Open-Skies

Norway has

Quoting atypical (Reply 113): A country that has not signed Open-Skies

To make the question clear for you. About what country not being a signer of the EU, Iceland, Noway and USA Open Sky Agreement are you talking?

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 115): Do you have proof of this ?

Yeah just roll over to pprune. Nobody has anything good to say about the place.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 117): Yeah just roll over to pprune. Nobody has anything good to say about the place.

Huh ?

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 114): See above, nobody wants to force Norwegian to operate according to our laws. We want them to operate according to Norwegian law, follow Norwegian labor rules and pay according to Norwegian labor groups. That's all. There is a tremendous difference between this, and what they want to do with the flag of convenience model. If Norwegian wants to take advantage of the Open Skies treaty, let them go through the motions and do so. That is fine by us.

The beauty of the European Union is that airlines within it can register additional airlines in different countries. Norwegian in Norway abides to Norwegian and EU laws, Norwegian in the UK abides to UK laws and so Norwegian in Ireland abides by Irish law. Why would all these different Norwegian airlines only abide by Norwegian law when they have their local laws? Your argument of Flag of Convenience doesn't hold, the DOT has just proven it by allowing the Irish based Norwegian to operate to the USA. Not one of your arguments stand, your own DOT has confirmed this so your issue is with the DOT, Irish laws, and the European Union. The framework is in place, you don't like it then that's your problem. Learn to live with it just as we have all learned to live with globalization.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 116): To make the question clear for you. About what country not being a signer of the EU, Iceland, Noway and USA Open Sky Agreement are you talking?

What several people seem to be saying is Norwegian can crew using people employed under the laws of a third, non-signatory country. For (possible) example a crew under the employment of a Seychelles company (it could be arm of Norwegian) working under contract to crew the aircraft. The important part being is that the employment of the crew is under the laws of a non-signatory country.

...maybe one or two other Americans will indicate if I am getting this correct

Quoting atypical (Reply 120): ...maybe one or two other Americans will indicate if I am getting this correct

Whether you got this right or wrong doesn't matter. There isn't a single air bilateral agreement in the world that stipulates where labor comes from. The agency could be a Norwegian subsidiary or an independent company, it has no bearing on the rights of an airline operating in any market of the world, at least not within the legal framework of an air bilateral agreement.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 81): I know for a fact that UA regional bases such as BKK and SIN did not get paid same as US workers, and had their own and separate work rules. I also doubt airlines like AA today pay their various South America crew bases similar wages as US crews. I know these local hires are not part or counted part of APFA bases or employee count either.

and they work flights to and from that base only, they do not work flights from BKK-NRT-LAX. They work BKK-NRT-BKK. Same thing for AA bases in S. America. 1 or 2 of the crewmembes are local and the rest are US-based and they do EZE-DFW-EZE, they do not do EZE-DFW-LHR, etc.

NAI will be doing BKK-ARN-JFK-LGW-JFK-OSL-BKK, etc., etc., etc. That's the entire point of them using an Irish AOC, otherwise, why wouldn't they just stick with their current operating certificate?

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 86): Also this is not even a US company, its a foreign company employing foreign workers. I simply cannot see an appropriate place or even reason as to why the US would possibly have say to where such a company gets its workers from.

because they are working within the US borders. Duh.

Quoting 321neo (Reply 90): US majors are trash, sorry.

and EI and FR are something special? LMAO!

Quoting enilria (Reply 103): It's also notable these foreign crew bases weren't in London or Paris

Actually, they were in LHR, AMS, CDG, etc. and they worked CDG-ORD-CDG. They did not work CDG-ORD-GIG.

Quoting atypical (Reply 120): What several people seem to be saying is Norwegian can crew using people employed under the laws of a third, non-signatory country

I believe that is correct. Apparently under Irish law you can do this, but not so much in other European countries, and certainly not in Norway. Norwegian has hired flight attendants in Thailand (through an agency) and uses them on their flights from Europe to Thailand. Now people are afraid that they will use this Thai crew to fly from Europe to the US.

In reality, however, Norwegian already has hired a lot of Americans (through an agency). And they say they will continue to do so. Why wouldn't they? The cost is really not that much different according to reports I have seen here. The Americans all speak English (some would debate that, haha)--no training needed there. The flight experience is much better for Americans when the crew speaks English as their first language.** And it is costly and complicated to shuffle the Thai crew through Europe and then to the US and then back to Europe and then back to Thailand.

I don't really see that this decision is going to change much. Norwegian will continue to use American and European crew on their flights to the US. It is too cumbersome and expensive to do otherwise. It may give them the option of using Thai crew from time to time when it makes sense.

**This is an important consideration. I've flown on Turkish a few times recently from the US to IST. As nice as the crew is, you ask for a glass of water or make a simple request and you get a puzzled look. The level of English comprehension is often very low. It doesn't bother me at all, but it does contribute to an impression that the level of service is not first class.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 122): and they work flights to and from that base only, they do not work flights from BKK-NRT-LAX. They work BKK-NRT-BKK. Same thing for AA bases in S. America. 1 or 2 of the crewmembes are local and the rest are US-based and they do EZE-DFW-EZE, they do not do EZE-DFW-LHR, etc.

There are a lot of airlines around the world who do this, Qantas have London based crews that fly between the UK and Asia, a lot of the European legacy airlines operate similar schemes. The only difference being that these airlines employed them directly, some may have used an agency but again, what's the difference between what these airlines do with foreign based crews that is different from what Norwegian is doing? The fact that Norwegian operates among other routes, services to the USA doesn't matter and is all perfectly within the laws of their home country and the air bilateral agreements.

Quoting dhr (Reply 119): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 114): See above, nobody wants to force Norwegian to operate according to our laws. We want them to operate according to Norwegian law, follow Norwegian labor rules and pay according to Norwegian labor groups. That's all. There is a tremendous difference between this, and what they want to do with the flag of convenience model. If Norwegian wants to take advantage of the Open Skies treaty, let them go through the motions and do so. That is fine by us. The beauty of the European Union is that airlines within it can register additional airlines in different countries. Norwegian in Norway abides to Norwegian and EU laws, Norwegian in the UK abides to UK laws and so Norwegian in Ireland abides by Irish law. Why would all these different Norwegian airlines only abide by Norwegian law when they have their local laws? Your argument of Flag of Convenience doesn't hold, the DOT has just proven it by allowing the Irish based Norwegian to operate to the USA. Not one of your arguments stand, your own DOT has confirmed this so your issue is with the DOT, Irish laws, and the European Union. The framework is in place, you don't like it then that's your problem. Learn to live with it just as we have all learned to live with globalization.

Except that the crews don't have to. They'll fall under yet another country's rules and regulations. That's the whole point. The won't be subject to Irish work rules or EU work rules, they'll be subject to the work rules of the country from where the staffing agency hails from. Hence the flag of convenience argument. It doesn't matter from where the labor comes but which work rules and labor laws they must abide by. In this case, Irish laws won't be applicable to these crews.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 125): Except that the crews don't have to. They'll fall under yet another country's rules and regulations. That's the whole point. The won't be subject to Irish work rules or EU work rules, they'll be subject to the work rules of the country from where the staffing agency hails from. Hence the flag of convenience argument. It doesn't matter from where the labor comes but which work rules and labor laws they must abide by. In this case, Irish laws won't be applicable to these crews.

How should that be accomplished by placing the subsidiary in Ireland instead of Norway?

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 125): Except that the crews don't have to. They'll fall under yet another country's rules and regulations. That's the whole point. The won't be subject to Irish work rules or EU work rules, they'll be subject to the work rules of the country from where the staffing agency hails from. Hence the flag of convenience argument. It doesn't matter from where the labor comes but which work rules and labor laws they must abide by. In this case, Irish laws won't be applicable to these crews.

Yes and the bilateral agreement clearly states that all workers should be paid fair wages according to local standards, which I'm confident the agency is doing, otherwise they would leave and seek employment elsewhere.

A couple of posts above clearly shows that US carriers operate crews under a flag of convenience, paid local Asian and South American wages, not US wage rates, where's the flag bearing here? Hell you even have governments doing this in their foreign embassies with local citizens being paid local wages not US wages. Does that mean the government is breaking any laws?

Quoting dhr (Reply 127): Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 125): Except that the crews don't have to. They'll fall under yet another country's rules and regulations. That's the whole point. The won't be subject to Irish work rules or EU work rules, they'll be subject to the work rules of the country from where the staffing agency hails from. Hence the flag of convenience argument. It doesn't matter from where the labor comes but which work rules and labor laws they must abide by. In this case, Irish laws won't be applicable to these crews. Yes and the bilateral agreement clearly states that all workers should be paid fair wages according to local standards, which I'm confident the agency is doing, otherwise they would leave and seek employment elsewhere. A couple of posts above clearly shows that US carriers operate crews under a flag of convenience, paid local Asian and South American wages, not US wage rates, where's the flag bearing here? Hell you even have governments doing this in their foreign embassies with local citizens being paid local wages not US wages. Does that mean the government is breaking any laws?

If you have any sources to support your argument, now would be a fine time to educate the rest of us. Everything I've read says Norwegian will benefit from the Open Skies agreement while avoiding having to hold labor to Irish laws and wages because the labor will come from Singapore and elsewhere via a Thai agency. They (Norwegian) get around EU laws because these crews will be "domiciled" in Thailand. Thus subject to Thai law, not Irish law.

As far as foreign based FAs, that too has been discussed already. It isn't flag of convenience because, for example, TPE based FAs were subject to TPE work rules and wages while flying for a US company that is registered in the US. That is outsourcing. I've said several times that I don't agree with outsourcing nor do I support the practice.

Flag of convenience would be those TPE workers being employed through an agency from, say, Ghana, and being subject to work rules and wages from Ghana (not picking on Ghana, just picked it at random) while flying for United, an American carrier that decided to register in, for example, Malaysia to avoid paying taxes in and following US regulations.

[Edited 2016-04-16 17:51:41]

Quoting dhr (Reply 121): There isn't a single air bilateral agreement in the world that stipulates where labor comes from.

While I used employment as an example I was clear that a much more serious issue was at hand:

Quoting atypical (Reply 113): A hole this size has implications for issues that are far more important than employment. This is not a position that the EU signatories should also be exposed to either. It is bad for everyone.

I will repeat what I think is very bad: No treaty should allow a third, non-signatory, country to have an influence on the parties of that treaty that it otherwise would not. It's bad for everyone because it opens back doors that may have servere, yet unforseen, concequences. It is no less a problem for the EU as it is the US.

It certainly needs to get closed.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 128): If you have any sources to support your argument, now would be a fine time to educate the rest of us. Everything I've read says Norwegian will benefit from the Open Skies agreement while avoiding having to hold labor to Irish laws and wages because the labor will come from Singapore and elsewhere via a Thai agency. They (Norwegian) get around EU laws because these crews will be "domiciled" in Thailand. Thus subject to Thai law, not Irish law.

I would say it is you who should provide a source and I do not mean statements like the propaganda from USA airlines, but the rules and laws that would allow this. In what way should an airline registered in Ireland be able to get around EU law in a country being part of the EU?

And according to that, why than has Air Lingus not faced opposition with flights to the USA and would the USA be opposed to Ryan Air flying the the USA in case they want to, as you seem to imply that it is a problem with airlines registered in Ireland.

Quoting atypical (Reply 129): I will repeat what I think is very bad: No treaty should allow a third, non-signatory, country to have an influence on the parties of that treaty that it otherwise would not. It's bad for everyone because it opens back doors that may have servere, yet unforseen, concequences. It is no less a problem for the EU as it is the US. It certainly needs to get closed.

It would be interesting about what third non-signatory country having influence you are talking about.

I have asked you that before and you are seemingly unable to describe what you are talking about.

Quoting atypical (Reply 129): o treaty should allow a third, non-signatory, country to have an influence on the parties of that treaty that it otherwise would not.

Again, what third party country having influence are you talking about ?

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 128): If you have any sources to support your argument, now would be a fine time to educate the rest of us. Everything I've read says Norwegian will benefit from the Open Skies agreement while avoiding having to hold labor to Irish laws and wages because the labor will come from Singapore and elsewhere via a Thai agency. They (Norwegian) get around EU laws because these crews will be "domiciled" in Thailand. Thus subject to Thai law, not Irish law.

Ok, we're getting somewhere now.
What sources are you looking for?
Yes everything you read is right, although your comment that Norwegian is getting around EU laws is a false and misleading statement. Norwegian (Ireland) operates to Irish laws that in turn are also part of the EU. The EU and the Irish government fully supports the application of Norwegian (Ireland) so what your stating is that both of these institutions have missed something and that US legacy airlines and the unions know EU and Irish laws more better than the locals. If this is the case, I'm speechless!

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 128): As far as foreign based FAs, that too has been discussed already. It isn't flag of convenience because, for example, TPE based FAs were subject to TPE work rules and wages while flying for a US company that is registered in the US. That is outsourcing. I've said several times that I don't agree with outsourcing nor do I support the practice.

No, now your going into misdirection. The fact that those crews are employed by US airlines and being paid TPE wages is literally the same as what Norwegian is doing. The difference being that they are employed via an agency. As far as I know, this doesn't break any laws nor is it illegal within the framework of the EU-USA bilateral. It is a widespread practice in many industries. The fact its an agency has no relevance to any government, only US labor unions and legacy airlines marketing efforts to brand the practice as unlawful when it isn't.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 128): Flag of convenience would be those TPE workers being employed through an agency from, say, Ghana, and being subject to work rules and wages from Ghana (not picking on Ghana, just picked it at random) while flying for United, an American carrier that decided to register in, for example, Malaysia to avoid paying taxes in and following US regulations.

Bad example! With this statement you've gone into another direction by saying that Norwegian is trying to avoid paying taxes, another false assumption. Using an agency is to lower the overall wage bill, not the tax bill. Whether Norwegian operates flights out of Ireland with this certificate or not is up to them and how they want to go about it, but they definitely be paying Irish taxes.

Quoting atypical (Reply 129): I will repeat what I think is very bad: No treaty should allow a third, non-signatory, country to have an influence on the parties of that treaty that it otherwise would not. It's bad for everyone because it opens back doors that may have servere, yet unforseen, concequences. It is no less a problem for the EU as it is the US. It certainly needs to get closed.

Unlike the USA, in Europe labor groups don't have a controlling or binding say in how an airline operates in either management or board level. How America's labor operates is not how the rest of the world operates, so we don't have a requirement to include unions in our everyday life unless we specifically request it. How on earth an agency employing crews from a third country can have even an ounce of say or influence in the everyday running of an airline is one of the craziest assumptions I've ever come across. So there is no third country or party influencing management. If you have an example, please feel free to share a source.

It's clear you don't have a strong understanding of how the bilateral agreements are devised, implemented and run. Take my advice, don't discuss something you know nothing about. I've been involved in five air bilateral agreements, so I know them from the back of my hand.

1 - Ireland is ranked higher than the US in aviation oversight.

2 - Ireland and Norway are signatories to EU US openskies

3 Norwegian Airlines Ireland is a bonafide airline under oversight of the IRISH CAA. It's ownership is fully within the scope of the Open Skies agreement.

4 - NAI is hiring staff legally

5- all staff are under the oversight of a worldclass CAA with extensive oversight of managing multi country operations.

Why should NAI be denied a licence?

Again if the US carriers can't compete on cost, they need to compete on product. Todays super profits from poor value service and high fares can't last forever. In the same way that lounges are outsourced to Sodexo, perhaps crewing will be next.

Quoting dhr (Reply 133): How on earth an agency employing crews from a third country can have even an ounce of say or influence in the everyday running of an airline is one of the craziest assumptions I've ever come across.

I agree, why are you assuming that? It wasn't based off of anything I wrote. Your repsonse clearly demonstrates you have read nothing I have written and your condescending attitude shows you don't care to. For me to repeat points that you have ignored furthers nothing. Although I have not been disrespectful to you, you have chosen not to extend me that same courtsey. You are not here for a dialogue, you are here for sport. Since I am not interested in further condescentation I declare that you have beaten me and banished me from the field. Congratualtions.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 114): Nobody is forcing Norwegian to abide by our laws, I think you're confused by what are asking for. The US/EU Open Skies treaty doesn't hold any European carrier to our laws. It does hold EU carriers to the laws of the country of their origin. British Airways to British law. Lufthansa to German law. Air France to French law, etc, etc. We're asking our DoT to hold Norwegian to Norwegian law and labor practices and wages

But the treaty does no such thing. Lufthansa owns Austrian outright. But Lufthansa is registered in Germany and has a German AOC. Austrian is registered in Austria and has an Austrian AOC. Nobody in the USA has kicked up a storm saying that everyone who works for Austrian should be employed under German employment regulations. What precisely is the difference between Norwegian having a wholly owned subsidiary in Ireland with an Irish AOC and Irish employment regulations, and the Lufthansa/Austrian situation?

I have seen nothing to indicate rules have been broken so no reason to deny certificate

Quoting 321neo (Reply 95): TBH if you're intending to work in such an unskilled position for the rest of your career then you ought to reassess your priorities.

I'm intending to work as a pilot but Norwegian plans to outsource that as well...

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 138): I'm intending to work as a pilot but Norwegian plans to outsource that as well...

Why should pilots not also be outsourced? What's different about a pilot in comparison to a lounge supervisor.

Remember that all pilots are under the same excellent quality Irish oversight.

Quoting Andy33 (Reply 136): But the treaty does no such thing. Lufthansa owns Austrian outright. But Lufthansa is registered in Germany and has a German AOC. Austrian is registered in Austria and has an Austrian AOC. Nobody in the USA has kicked up a storm saying that everyone who works for Austrian should be employed under German employment regulations. What precisely is the difference between Norwegian having a wholly owned subsidiary in Ireland with an Irish AOC and Irish employment regulations, and the Lufthansa/Austrian situation?

Again, you could easily clarify, what non-signatory country are you talking about?

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 125): The won't be subject to Irish work rules or EU work rules, they'll be subject to the work rules of the country from where the staffing agency hails from. Hence the flag of convenience argument. It doesn't matter from where the labor comes but which work rules and labor laws they must abide by. In this case, Irish laws won't be applicable to these crews.

Can you explain why you think that? any sources?

"crew will be hired under employment contracts governed by the laws of the European countries in which they are based."
Quoting Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/t...-contracts-on-us-flights-1.2568427

Quoting atypical (Reply 129): No treaty should allow a third, non-signatory, country to have an influence on the parties of that treaty that it otherwise would not.

Again, I have to ask what you mean by "allow a third, non-signatory, country to have an influence" . Makes no sence.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 58): Their US based fligths are with European and US crew

Are you sure? I must have read a hundred times that DY plan to run their Europe-US route with Thai pilots and cabin crew only.

If they hire in US and follow US labour law, I retract my objections. If they hire in Europe and follow European labour law, I retract my objections.

But if this is a "flag of convenience" scheme to bypass European and American labour law, and establishing a front for a Thai "sweat shop" sans paid sick leave, holidays and decent living wages (for a western cost base), I hope that the US DOT get their act together and shut this down for good.

Quoting hilram (Reply 143): Are you sure? I must have read a hundred times that DY plan to run their Europe-US route with Thai pilots and cabin crew only. If they hire in US and follow US labour law, I retract my objections. If they hire in Europe and follow European labour law, I retract my objections. But if this is a "flag of convenience" scheme to bypass European and American labour law, and establishing a front for a Thai "sweat shop" sans paid sick leave, holidays and decent living wages (for a western cost base), I hope that the US DOT get their act together and shut this down for good.

That has been the statement all along. On Asian flights Asian and European crews, on US flights US and European crews. That is mainly for F/As I assume most pilots will keep being European.
I think it a bit strange anyway this talk about cheap Asian pilots, where would Norwegian find them? Somewhere I must have heard their is a shortage and Asian or Mid Easter airlines are actively recruiting Western pilots. So perhaps Asian pilots, but on cutthroat wages?

The move to Ireland is of course to get out under the Norwegian unions, but is that illegal? Ryanair is flying with crews contracted under Irish labour law. Ryanair is using staffing agencies. The brush Ryanair had with the authorities was mainly in regards of not paying the local social contributions etc. according to where the crews were based.
Is there any difference to Boeing moving production from unionized Washington to non unionized South Carolina?

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 114): To those of us who see our earning potential and our quality of life threatened by this it matters significantly.

There are already plenty of pilots flying in the World that earn less than US pilots do. Why is the sky suddenly falling because of Norwegian?

If the Us airlines could begin importing cheaper labour too. If they easily could they would. I think everyone agrees on this one.

This issue is because of the nature of the europe. Many different countries with different ways to do things. There is always one country which will enable these things. Broadly speaking there is no single european employment law but many of them . A knowledgeable lawyer could be helpful here. But as it is now it is possible workforce from the diverse and vast continent of asia might enter european work forces under some conditions. I won't even go into the legal immigration situation which has an effect on this. What can one do if something is legal under Irish rules one objects to? It is interesting the people living on the other side of the world are more opposed to this than the people who actually are affected this by a much bigger degree . It is all jobs and every industry. Some countries have a minimum wage, others do not. Some places have collectively bargained minimum wages by each industry. Maybe the us eu open skies rules were premature if they did not see the possibility of this happening , which should not have been a surprise to anyone.

But does it really matter all that much. Like others pointed out , a lot of carriers with a lower cost base fly to the us all the time. A relatively simple issue like this which by and large does only have a limited effect in the us causes thich much trouble. Just imagine how those tpp and ttip trade agreements will turn out.

Quoting atypical (Reply 135): I agree, why are you assuming that? It wasn't based off of anything I wrote. Your repsonse clearly demonstrates you have read nothing I have written and your condescending attitude shows you don't care to. For me to repeat points that you have ignored furthers nothing. Although I have not been disrespectful to you, you have chosen not to extend me that same courtsey. You are not here for a dialogue, you are here for sport. Since I am not interested in further condescentation I declare that you have beaten me and banished me from the field. Congratualtions.

I'm sorry you feel that way, I apologize if I offended you and it's not my intention to create tensions with fellow Anet members. I'm just trying to understand why Americans are interpreting laws totally out of context of what local laws allow and disallow in regards to labor laws and the air bilateral agreement.

On several occasions you have been asked by fellow Anet members to clarify which third party country you think will have an influence on Norwegian and you've failed to answer the question. So I'm assuming that your talking about Thailand because the agency is based there.

Quoting helhem (Reply 146): If the Us airlines could begin importing cheaper labour too. If they easily could they would. I think everyone agrees on this one. This issue is because of the nature of the europe. Many different countries with different ways to do things. There is always one country which will enable these things. Broadly speaking there is no single european employment law but many of them . A knowledgeable lawyer could be helpful here. But as it is now it is possible workforce from the diverse and vast continent of asia might enter european work forces under some conditions. I won't even go into the legal immigration situation which has an effect on this. What can one do if something is legal under Irish rules one objects to? It is interesting the people living on the other side of the world are more opposed to this than the people who actually are affected this by a much bigger degree . It is all jobs and every industry. Some countries have a minimum wage, others do not. Some places have collectively bargained minimum wages by each industry. Maybe the us eu open skies rules were premature if they did not see the possibility of this happening , which should not have been a surprise to anyone. But does it really matter all that much. Like others pointed out , a lot of carriers with a lower cost base fly to the us all the time. A relatively simple issue like this which by and large does only have a limited effect in the us causes thich much trouble. Just imagine how those tpp and ttip trade agreements will turn out.

  

If the US airline industry has thought any lesson, it's ' don't be like us '. Whilst they are raking in profits at this period in time, history tells us it's been riding a roller coaster on a mainly downward pattern almost since its inception, surviving only on the back of favourable but highly unjust legislation, sweet-deal bankruptcy laws, and mergers any anti-competition authority worth it's salt, would have put a stop to.

The latest round of mergers have only steepened the slope to lowest common denominator when it comes to customer experience, but has not been accompanied by more competition or lower prices. Quite the opposite, actually. Couple that with oil prices at a virtual bargain, it's a small wonder they're raking in the dough. But present them with one or two major obstacles, and it's off to Ch. 11 court within a half dozen of the hellish quarterlies they live by.

I'm not particularly fond of the labour practices enjoyed by DY but, on the other hand, we are talking about labour in an international market and, with all respect to cabin attendants, jobs in the back of the bus are not contingent upon a multi-year education. Similarities with the shipping industry? I dare say yes.

All that is, however, besides the point. The point being, that NAI fulfils the requirement to gain authorisation to operate between the EU and US. There are no if's or but's about it within the framework agreed by the US and EU.

In any democracy there should of course be ample opportunity to raise concerns over issues such as this, and I dare say we have certainly heard a lot of robust opinions being offered. One might, however, question a political system which allows a 40-day process to turn into a 2-year ordeal, and perhaps even start wondering how democracy turned to plutocracy. It certainly hasn't been pretty to watch. No, let me correct that: It's been an awful disgrace. Let us be clear of one thing: US airlines have outsourced far, far more jobs to '3rd world' countries than ANY airline operating into it's home country. But turn the page on them, and they collectively run off crying to mommy US political system. With some margin of success, even. It's pathetic!