Deny NAI failed, given final approval by DOT
12-05-2016, 10:08 AM
#171
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by NEDude
Wait, what?!
The EU most certainly did go to bat for NAI, by filing for independent arbitration, as called for in the Open Skies treaty, on behalf of NAI. It was this filing for arbitration that caused the US DOT to finally relent because, in their own words, there was no legal grounds to deny the approval. The DOT knew they would lose in arbitration because NOBODY has cited which provision NAI used to violate Article 17 bis of the Open Skies Treaty. If you know which provision they used, I am sure ALPA and the US DOT would love to know because they have yet to name it.
I still want to know how anyone can argue that NAI is circumventing EU labour laws by sneakily registering in an EU country.
The EU most certainly did go to bat for NAI, by filing for independent arbitration, as called for in the Open Skies treaty, on behalf of NAI. It was this filing for arbitration that caused the US DOT to finally relent because, in their own words, there was no legal grounds to deny the approval. The DOT knew they would lose in arbitration because NOBODY has cited which provision NAI used to violate Article 17 bis of the Open Skies Treaty. If you know which provision they used, I am sure ALPA and the US DOT would love to know because they have yet to name it.
I still want to know how anyone can argue that NAI is circumventing EU labour laws by sneakily registering in an EU country.
As for "which provision" the entire scheme is set up to avoid labor markets. Why else would they be on foreign contracts?
12-05-2016, 10:28 AM
#173
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by NEDude
On what legal grounds?!
NAI has not violated the Open Skies treaty. The treaty does not prevent a European company applying for an AOC in another European country.
What everyone is confusing is that the labour provision in the Open Skies treaty (Article 17 bis) states that a carrier cannot use provisions of the treaty to undermine labour standards. So which provision of the treaty have they used to undermine labour standards? Please cite which provision exactly.
NAI has not violated the Open Skies treaty. The treaty does not prevent a European company applying for an AOC in another European country.
What everyone is confusing is that the labour provision in the Open Skies treaty (Article 17 bis) states that a carrier cannot use provisions of the treaty to undermine labour standards. So which provision of the treaty have they used to undermine labour standards? Please cite which provision exactly.
12-05-2016, 10:29 AM
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
12-05-2016, 10:33 AM
#175
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Originally Posted by iceman49
12-05-2016, 10:48 AM
#176
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by gloopy
And the USA, which is a sovereign nation, can easily say no. Their only remedy at that point would be to threaten to cut all US-EU flying. You think they'll do that to protect these scabs? HAHAHAHA! Not a chance.
As for "which provision" the entire scheme is set up to avoid labor markets. Why else would they be on foreign contracts?
As for "which provision" the entire scheme is set up to avoid labor markets. Why else would they be on foreign contracts?
As for cutting off all US-EU flying to "protect these scabs" (seriously, where is the strike?), clearly they would not do that. But they certainly would begin a tit for tat reduction, perhaps reducing US rights to Heathrow as an example. So tell me, who benefits from an EU-US Open Skies war?
And again, please tell me which provision of the Open Skies treaty did NAI use to violate Article 17 bis? You'd think if you were so sure that they did, it would be easy to cite which provision.
12-05-2016, 10:50 AM
#177
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by NYGiantsFan
Since Bush signed this agreement for the US-EU treaty, Trump has the power to get out of the treaty with a stoke of a pen. Congress wasn't involved so Trump doesnt need congress. Alot of people think that this treaty can just stay and we have to follow the rules... we can get out of this treaty just as easy as they got in...
12-05-2016, 11:33 AM
#180
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by NEDude
And who do you think you would benefit from that? Kill the treaty and go back to what you had before and Heathrow becomes restricted to only American and United again. Delta has to head back out to Gatwick as they were before the treaty. You honestly think that would be good for business?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
