Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1664057)

A choice to fly illegal routes?

At least a scab has the decency to wait til you're on strike. NAI pilots will do it, illegally, tomorrow if given the chance.

Originally Posted by Readback (Post 1664077)

Your ignorance is showing(again) regarding the definition of scab.

Amazing, you would think that someone out soliciting support for a cause would cease the name calling and idle threats.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1663865)

If the goods you mention are already in violation of US law, policy and agreements, then those particular goods should be denied entry to the US.

That doesn't fit your narative though. You are trying the worn out populist debate trick of claiming hypocrisy and then using it, mother of all argumentative outrages it is, to disgard the entirety of the rest of the discussion. Sadly, that methodology is supericially effective in "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" as nothing, and I mean nothing gets people riled up and full of righteous indignition more than pointing out something apparently hypocritical. It effectively ends all discussion and debate despite the fact that it does absolutely nothing in and of itself to argue for, much less prove, one's case.

So even if your assumption was correct and there really was hypocrisy WRT, say, inhumane child labor/environmental or whatever laws as they applied to things on the shelves of Wal Mart or whatever, you still wouldn't have made your case as to why we should permit the already illegal NAI model to be illegally approved.

The best you could even come close to "proving" would be the particular Wal Mart goods in question should be denied entry, and that's assuming it was even true in the first place.

The emirati airlines flagrantly violate US labor standards and other things that are laws here but not there, but they aren't directly violating our laws in doing so. Same for the Wal Mart goods. That may make them wrong, but legal. NAI, OTOH, is already illegal. Sad that we have to pass laws to enforce existing laws though, especially about this.

If you are trying to make the case for some sort of mandate (law or no law) of being forced to allow everything if we allow anything, and then using that line of thinking to point out supposed hypocrisy, and then using that to justify your premise of allowing everything despite the law just to appear not to be hypocritical, well, that's a pretty big stretch. Which is why no one is falling for it.

Originally Posted by Joachim (Post 1664087)

Could you please educate me as to which laws specifically are being violated and how?

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1664083)

First of all, what threats? Are you referring to the hiring issue? If I had a say, I wouldn't hire a former labor busting NAI lawbreaker, but perhaps they will slide on over to US airlines with their excellent 787 qualifications and stories about backpacking through Europe. I don't really care.

As for the definition of a scab, I never called NAI pilots scabs. I called them worse than scabs. At least a scab waits until you are on strike. You can at least theoretically avoid being scabbed by one by not going on strike. They can't scab if they have nothing to scab. Strikes are incredibly rare anyway, and even rarer are any serious modern management attempts to even try to scab. But NAI pilots would be illegally flying routes into our country in blatant violation of the very agreement they claim enables them to do so. They will sue and attempt to blackmail their way in (already have, and failed…for now...) and I hope they do not succeed.

If the law is ignored and they are allowed to proceed, I hope existing US airlines will bury them on evey single route they ever attempt. There is nothing their little labor buster dirt bag investors can throw at us before they run out of money that we can't easily defend against at massive, hemorrhaging losses for them while still being wildly profitable over all ourselves, even if we do take a sector hit for a while until they bleed out.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1664090)

The US-EU "open skies" agreement that allows EU flag airlines to fly to and from EU-US cities specifically says the agreement can't be used to circumvent EU labor law. This clearly, obviously and inescapably circumvents EU labor law, in a massive, flagrant way. Unless you want to claim using Singapore crews under Thailand labor laws (or is it the other way around? lol) doesn't circumvent EU labor law, and then hope you get it in front of an activist court or lawmaker who green lights it anyway because they just want it to happen anyway. Good luck on that I guess.

Originally Posted by Readback (Post 1664103)

You might want to get your facts straight, (here we go again) it's BKK BASED crews under Singapore labor contracts.

Funny, ALPA-S(a member of IFALPA) has no problem operating under Singapore labor law. They negotiate contract after contract without complaint about the strike prohibition sections of Singapore labor law.

Originally Posted by NERD (Post 1664264)

As Forrest would say"I'm not a smart man", but why don't they just hire within the EU, base it out of Norway and be done with it? Why the need to spread things out over 3 countries? Seems like a lot of extra layers.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1664090)

The US-EU "open skies" agreement

Originally Posted by Readback (Post 1664095)

You might want to check and see what the latest NAS strategy is before you continue your outdated anti-NAI pilot rant. It's starting to sound more outdated and foolish with each post.