Originally Posted by
WHACKMASTER
Because NAI is directly undercutting (unfairly) the viability and financial health of U.S. carriers such as the Big 3 as well as the pilots who fly for them. Again, let's keep this an apples to apples comparison. You brought up cargo carriers which NAI is not.
The FedEx & UPS pilots need to be worried about Corrosion Corner freight haulers. They don't tie into this argument (of which I'm floored that there's even an argument on a PROFESSIONAL PILOT'S FORUM).
What part of "direct threat to the health of U.S. and European airlines and the quality airline pilot jobs that go with them" are you not understanding?!
I'll tell you what's even more sad than NAI itself is that there are pilots defending this shell game company. We truly are our own worst enemies.
Lots of pretty strong language here but not one specific yet you decry anyone who disagrees here on a "PROFESSIONAL PILOT'S FORUM".
First off, I don't believe this is NAI. It's NAS which has an AOC in Norway (could be the UK by now - they have moved their certificates). Right now, their bases are in Europe and comply with European labor laws so actually, ALPA won that battle. I don't believe they have the Bangkok base any more for pilots. (By the way, when they did, virtually all of the Bangkok based pilots were western and ALL had European licenses so the ALPA propaganda was just plain wrong on that front.) That kind of blows away the "flag of convenience" argument - they are not registering their aircraft outside of Europe and they are operating under the auspices of European regulation.
What part of "direct threat to the health of U.S. and European airlines and the quality airline pilot jobs that go with them" are you not understanding?!
Lets talk about this one because the "why" is important. They ARE a direct threat but that's because they are depressing yields and profits over the Atlantic with their low cost model. Let's see, how does that work; 1 fleet, high productivity, point-to-point. Sound familiar? It remains to be seen whether their long haul operation is making any money and certainly the conditions of the job on offer that we are discussing are pretty crappy. Sounds like a market thing to me.
I too would like to think that the T&C's are too low to attract the numbers and experience that they would need. I also think that, rather than continue to vilify the pilots who might actually be bettering their lot with this job, that ALPA take the opportunity to court and try to organize those pilots from day 1. The precedent is there with the N. America NAS FA's and after all, isn't that what unions do?
The thing that has really annoyed me about this ALPA drive against NAI is that many (not all) of their arguments were factually wrong. It was a campaign that appealed to emotion with fatuous sound bites like "flag of convenience". If we're to be honest here, ALPA opposes this BUSINESS MODEL because it threatens to upend the status quo of high yield international flying over the Atlantic which in turn will effect legacy profits which in turn will put pilot wages under pressure. At least be honest about that.
Real question: do U.S./union pilots have the right to oppose a new business model that is legal, simply because it threatens their status quo? (right now, Norwegian is complying with much of what ALPA originally complained about - third country regulators and bases that skirt home country/western labor laws)