Originally Posted by
iahflyr
Move over legacy incumbents. If someone can provide a service that is both better and cheaper, then they deserve to gain market share, even if it's at the expense of an old entrenched company.
Netflix did it to Blockbuster. Uber is doing it to taxi cab companies. Tesla is doing it to other automakers (particularly autodialers). I don't see the issue with NAI...
I agree. But what I also agree with, is that the US legacy pilots should be protective of their lot. However, is important to realise the limits to that protectionism. This issue, I believe, is far beyond that point.
When the US airline senior managements started crying bloody murder about this and the ME carriers, they weren't doing it for the good of their crew. They did it because they can't compete, simple as that. The laws may suck, but they are adhered to.
There are no laws that say state-owned carriers can't operate into the US. There are no laws that say any carriers entering the US must be profitable by US accounting standards. Nor are there laws to stop lower paid crew operating into the US. Nor are there laws to stop NAI operating under the shonky model they've chosen.
If you operate globally, you have to accept variances in law. If you don't accept that, or can't compete, then there is proven profit to be made domestically.