I can't decide how vehemently opposed to this I am, if at all.

I reckon if their name didn't have the word 'Norwegian' in it, there would be lot less chatter. It would just become another LoCo. The pilots are poorly paid, and free-market believers should stick to their belief, that the market would speak, both in terms of employees and customers.

To comment on the supposedly poor pay at somewhere like Virgin Atlantic; For a long time since all the bankruptcy carnage in the US, coupled with a very weak US Dollar, the US legacy pilots were paid way inferior wages compared to BA/Virgin/Lufthansa etc. A BA Captain was making $360,000, Virgin about $310,000 (for a 750 hours per yer contract) while the US guys had their pay slashed to 200 bucks an hour. Tens of thousands of US legacy pilots lost their jobs.

Nothing changed in the UK contracts - other than some inflationary adjustments. Thankfully the US guys have received long overdue pay raises, and let's not forget, the USD has strengthened 30% relative to the GBP, and moreso against the Euro. It's hard to compare apples with oranges, but in terms of multiples of median incomes, the guys in the major UK carriers are still on point.

I hate the idea of what's happening, but it's hard to argue against, because as protectionist as we all are of our profession, this is a free market move. Yes, it circumvents various laws - that is the intent. In a free market, that is NAI's prerogative. I think it sucks, because 'free market' enables the race to the bottom. But, the general APC consensus is a pretty conservative one from what I read, so it's mildly hypocritical to hear the outcry.

Dot get me wrong, I am all in favour of this crap being annihilated, and wish to see all conditions head north, but to do that in the free market means that you guys have to provide a better product at better prices, to match the market and squeeze out NAI. At the moment, trans-Atlantic on an NAI 787 is a far more pleasant prospect than economy on a US carrier. That's a sad fact. If the Cost base of the US carrier is too high to compete profitably, then that is free market, too. Dinosaurs die.

If you look at what it costs someone like Air France/Lufthansa to employ a pilot, with all of the social taxes the company bears, they could cry bloody murder at the unfair competitive advantage held in the US. This is globalisation; you can't just cherry pick one example.

I hate it, and I won't use them on principle, but then again, the rest of the market compares product against price. If it's expensive and **** - as per the current US offerings, then you'll need to adapt.

Look at the success Delta is having by tightly controlling international capacity, but becoming a domestic juggernaut. Their product doesn't compete at a price they're happy to sell at, so they have adapted.

Again, crying foul on JV/scope sounds great from a unionised perspective, but ultimately if it makes the company money, they will do it. In the long run, it's more damaging to the company if they continue to deploy their own capacity of rubbish, whereby they can't compete with their overseas competition.

Ultimately, the US and EU legacies have the balance sheets & ability to undercut and drive NAI out of the markets in which they compete. Whether they will or not remains to be seen. I hope they do, but your wishes and JV talk won't make the blindest bit of difference.