Airline operating from another base with 5th freedom rights are a threat to working conditions no doubt, but we also have to look at things with information and not speculation, first of all, this contract is with rishworth and although the T&C'S are not the best on the international market, they are not too bad actually, they are comparable to the KAL contract, this contract DOES offer retirement, loss of license insurance, medical insurance for the pilot and his family, travel benefits, the salary as I understand is net (taxes paid in Thailand) this documentation can be used (depending on no double taxation treaties from the pilot's home country) to reduce their tax liability back home or even eliminate it. Taking into consideration cost of living and other things, I would hardly describe this as being "substantially" lower than what the pilots based in Norway are making, after all they are subjected to a pretty steep tax rate, all the pilots on this contract are from the EU with JAA licenses, and let's not forget, there are no jobs in Norway and the only jobs available are those of the Easyjets and Ryanair, the T&C'S on this contract are a LOT better than those offered by the LCC jobs available in the EU right now, let's not forget that the jobs market there is pretty bad at the moment.
Another issue is, Where do you get the idea that the cabin attendants are earning $500/month? Let's not put out wild speculations out there shall we.
Third, the maintenance of airlines operating in Asia is excellent, I don't have inside information on their maintenance programs but I wouldn't be surprised of it was pretty good actually.

I'm not advocating for this practices by any means, nor am I defending this particular contract because I couldn't care less about it, but utilizing wild speculation that could be easily discredited to make your point weakens your position.

You have a point, I can't prove it here on the board so it could appear to be "wild speculation".

My information comes from a source very involved in the regulatory process.

I don't think that MX in Asia is a bad thing, merely that the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the entire air carrier (op specs, FT/DT, safety, training, MX) the Irish Aviation Authority, is not going to be a hub, operations center, or even destination of NAI/NLH. How can the Irish regulators monitor these functions effectively?

You mean like the effective oversight that the FAA has on UAL, CAL, DAL, FDX, UPS when they do their subcontracted heavy checks in China and Taipei? Lots of FAA inspectors walking the ramp there.....!

My point is that if you want to be effective in a petition against this operation, factual information has to be presented, the way your friend sees things does not count.

Your point is well taken, hence the more detailed explanation.

Every US airline you mentioned does the vast majority of its operations within the US, including operations control centers, maintenance records, most line maintenance, training for pilots, FA's, ramp, dispatch and MX. The FAA is able to easily access all of those functions for any US certificated carrier, along with inspections on aircraft returning to service after a heavy maintenance visit overseas.

BTW, aircraft coming out of heavy maintenance still have to get approval to reenter service, and are ferried back to the US and given another inspection at home before flying revenue.

So if an airline owned by Canada was "certificated" by the US FAA, but only flew from say Perth, Australia to Mumbai and Nairobi you think the US FAA would be able to provide effective oversight of all those areas? Would the US FAA spend the tax dollar budget to accomplish that when the US will receive no tax revenue from the airline?

That is the problem.

Norwegian's Irish AOC approved

and they're getting 4 more 787s:

787 Order



TP

Hopefully the US and European legacies fight back early. Let those scum eat massive losses on each and every plane and route they operate and the streets run red with ink from their losses. Its us or them, and we can crush them now, easilly absorbing any loss on a route by route basis while still being wildly profitable, if our managers truly see it for the threat it is instead of getting tunnel vision over quarterly YoY revenue growth numbers.

Gloop, I agree with you...but this will also take government action to shut it down, I think the managers see the threat...but none of them have long term vision.

The govt shutting this fake treaty busting loophole scum bag airline would be the best course of action, preferrably after they've committed to serious long term capital outlays based on flying they won't be able to do. But failing a comprehensive and prompt response from the government, existing airlines need to absolutely crush these dirt bag scum. We can collectively, and very easily and very cheaply cause their total and complete liquidation by barely dipping into the record profit kitty.

Or we can try to get an extra 0.2% YoY and allow these scum bag poachers to metastasize their cancerous little experiment. We have got to put them under.

There are many airlines considering to exploit 5 freedom rights, not just this particular outfit. You will see companies like JAL, ANA offering flights from JFK or other places to Brazil for example where there is the largest community of Japanese expats, you already have companies like NCA doing a couple of routes within the US. It will be difficult to argue that it is unfair when US carriers have been operating a base out of Tokyo for decades and FDX,UPS fly routes point to point within foreign countries.

So while you salavate over a better schedule or more block hours for your foreign airline, our entire industry and profession could go the way of merchant ships and you'd be fine with that. Got it.