NAI blocked by House Amendment

Reply Subscribe

Page 5 of 5

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

06-14-2014, 11:25 AM

#41

gloopy

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jul 2010

Position: window seat

Posts: 12,524

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Is that a "law"? What part of the US code applies?

Existing cabotage and freedom laws that prohibit it without the agreement. But you knew that.

The House amendment that just passed would slam the door on NAI, yet all it does is prevent the approval of anything already in violation of existing agreements; agreements that are directly linked to long standing cabotage and flying freedom laws. Seems like if this wasn't linked to a "law" in any way like you are implying, even that wouldn't matter, would it? I suggest you try another stratedgy to ink the waters, cause this one isn't working for you.

Is this really the arguement you want to hang your hat on? That "is it legal" depends on the definition of is?

06-14-2014, 05:50 PM

#42

DrivinTheDash

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jan 2007

Position: B-757/767 FO

Posts: 184

Quote:

Originally Posted by NERD

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.

They can't base it out of Norway, because Norway is not a member of the EU, and, therefore, not a party to the US-EU open skies agreement. While they can operate flights to the US under the US-Norway bilateral, they can't operate unlimited US-EU service under the more liberal open skies agreement. Basing NAI in Ireland is intended to allow it to operate, as an Irish airline, under the US-EU agreement rather than the US-Norway agreement.