Notices
Foreign Airlines that hire U.S. pilots

Trump supports NAI

Old 02-08-2017, 08:14 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 137
Default

Originally Posted by SilverandSore View Post
I think you're the one that needs the sympathy. Tell us again how this got approved and who was in charge when it happened?
George Bush got it approved. Is that who you were talking about?

Just in case you thought Republican politicians were concerned about workers.

"The initial agreement was signed in Washington, D.C., on April 30, 2007. The agreement became effective March 30, 2008."
bay982 is offline  
Old 02-08-2017, 09:09 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CousinEddie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,080
Default

Originally Posted by bay982 View Post
George Bush got it approved. Is that who you were talking about?

Just in case you thought Republican politicians were concerned about workers.

"The initial agreement was signed in Washington, D.C., on April 30, 2007. The agreement became effective March 30, 2008."
Article 17 bis was added to the agreement in 2010 in anticipation of flag of convenience type schemes. The lesson thus far is that labor provisions in open skies agreements are about as meaningful as no furlough clauses in union contracts. The global push is to lower standards as much as possible, and it doesn't matter who the politicians are.
CousinEddie is offline  
Old 02-08-2017, 09:37 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
NEDude's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,067
Default

Originally Posted by CousinEddie View Post
Article 17 bis was added to the agreement in 2010 in anticipation of flag of convenience type schemes. The lesson thus far is that labor provisions in open skies agreements are about as meaningful as no furlough clauses in union contracts. The global push is to lower standards as much as possible, and it doesn't matter who the politicians are.
According to the chief U.S. negotiator, the chief E.U. negotiator, the U.S. DOT attorneys and the E.U. Article 17bis does not apply to NAI and does not constitute a legal basis for the denial of the operating permit. The people who wrote and enforce the agreement say it does not apply. Are you claiming that the people who wrote the agreement do not understand it?
NEDude is offline  
Old 02-08-2017, 09:44 AM
  #14  
Child of the Magenta
 
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Position: 737
Posts: 387
Default

Just out of plain curiosity NEDude, why are you such a proponent of NAI's strategy? I've read the other thread and seen your numerous posts defending them. I'm curious why you have such a strong stance towards their side of the argument?
LuckyNow is offline  
Old 02-08-2017, 10:07 AM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CousinEddie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,080
Default

Originally Posted by NEDude View Post
According to the chief U.S. negotiator, the chief E.U. negotiator, the U.S. DOT attorneys and the E.U. Article 17bis does not apply to NAI and does not constitute a legal basis for the denial of the operating permit. The people who wrote and enforce the agreement say it does not apply. Are you claiming that the people who wrote the agreement do not understand it?
Not implying that at all. It's obvious now that the language was crafted from the day it was added so that holes could be punched in it as required. Just like a no-furlough clause. ALPA's mistake appears to have been assuming that the language had teeth, when it obviously didn't. Perhaps they should have known better.
CousinEddie is offline  
Old 02-08-2017, 10:44 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Half wing's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: 787 right
Posts: 504
Default

Originally Posted by LuckyNow View Post
Just out of plain curiosity NEDude, why are you such a proponent of NAI's strategy? I've read the other thread and seen your numerous posts defending them. I'm curious why you have such a strong stance towards their side of the argument?
He works for a European ULCC who will do feed for NAI. He will benefit from NAI's success so his credibility is nil. He seems to want pilots in the US to suffer and make less money for some reason.
Half wing is offline  
Old 02-08-2017, 10:55 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PurpleToolBox's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,621
Default

Originally Posted by iahflyr View Post
In basically any other industry, anyone can own a company that operates inside the United States. Why are airlines different?

I'm not saying we should change it, but what makes us different.
Here's a good background paper on the question you asked. http://dailyairlinefilings.com/public/furlan.pdf

In short, to ensure aircraft availability, ensure a reserve corps of pilots in case of a national emergency or war, to establish federal oversight of safety of operations, pilots, and maintenance, and national security issues.

It also deals with the The Civil Air Reserve Fleet. Don't know what that is?

Civil Reserve Air Fleet > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display
PurpleToolBox is offline  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:08 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 137
Default

Originally Posted by LuckyNow View Post
Just out of plain curiosity NEDude, why are you such a proponent of NAI's strategy? I've read the other thread and seen your numerous posts defending them. I'm curious why you have such a strong stance towards their side of the argument?
I'm not convinced NEDude is necessarily a proponent.

I would guess from his posts that he IS a proponent of the legal system, and critical thinking. Too many posters here oversimplify the discussion.

It's not as though the Obama administration whimsically decided to screw US airlines by approving NAI arbitrarily. The DOT in fact tried to slow-roll approval for more than TWO YEARS, probably knowing full well the whole time that they didn't have a legal leg to stand on to deny the application.

Several parties are to blame for NAI, but if you want to point fingers at the folks most responsible you'd best start with Republican congressmen in the early 2000's bowing to the free trade and 'reduce regulations' business lobby...
bay982 is offline  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:12 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 137
Default

Originally Posted by Half wing View Post
He works for a European ULCC who will do feed for NAI. He will benefit from NAI's success so his credibility is nil. He seems to want pilots in the US to suffer and make less money for some reason.
So you're saying that it's impossible to be objective when you have an interest in something?

I know quite a few people who are able to have a critical discussion and evaluate facts that aren't what they wished.
bay982 is offline  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:20 AM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PurpleToolBox's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,621
Default

Allow me to be devil's advocate ...

If NAI is agreeing to use 50% American pilots and to buy Boeing airplanes, what is the problem?
PurpleToolBox is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Scoop
Delta
54
02-16-2017 10:35 AM
DenyNAI
Major
23
12-22-2016 07:36 PM
CBreezy
Major
292
12-11-2016 04:06 PM
UALfoLIFE
United
2
12-07-2016 08:53 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices