" Many who oppose NAI’s expansion have argued that the airline is unfairly taking advantage of the United States-European Union Open Skies Agreement, and have expressed concerns about NAI operating as an Irish air carrier, even though its parent company is based in Norway. Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, and American Airlines have openly criticized NAI’s business model, arguing that the airline is attempting to circumvent labor laws in Norway and the European Union."
I fail to see how an Irish subsidiary of a Norwegian company can circumvent EU labor laws considering Ireland is a member of the EU. Looking at the only 787 contract that Norwegian is presently offering and where their AOCs are located, nothing about the arguments ALPA, United, Delta, American, etc. seems to add up. Norwegian 787 pilots are based in London, not Thailand as the arguments have been made. The contract is with a UK subsidiary of a New Zealand agency (Rishworth), not an agency based in Singapore as the arguments have been made. Ireland is a member of the EU, so an Irish subsidiary is not going to be able to circumvent EU labor laws as the arguments have been made. Norway is fully covered under the US-EU open skies agreements, so an EU based subsidiary is not required for Norwegian to take advantage of the open skies agreements as the arguments have been made.
None of this makes any real sense. The arguments made against NAI by ALPA/Big 3 do not seem to line up with reality, and the need for Norwegian to set up its NAI subsidiary in Ireland seems non-existent. What am I missing?