12-30-2023I've been saying for months that ALPA is fighting this with the wrong arguments. USA Today nailed it with their final 3 sentences:
Quote:
So Norwegian's critics try to cast it as a lawbreaker while implying that safety is being compromised.
What's lacking is any proof. Unless the critics can demonstrate that Norwegian is doing something unsafe or illegal, the U.S. government should let NAI fly.
Compare that with Lee's last 3 sentences:So Norwegian's critics try to cast it as a lawbreaker while implying that safety is being compromised.
What's lacking is any proof. Unless the critics can demonstrate that Norwegian is doing something unsafe or illegal, the U.S. government should let NAI fly.
Quote:
This isn't about "low cost" and "consumer choice." Consumers already have that option with NLH. It makes no sense to jeopardize U.S. jobs to accommodate this convoluted scheme.
The U.S. must deny NAI.
This isn't about "low cost" and "consumer choice." Consumers already have that option with NLH. It makes no sense to jeopardize U.S. jobs to accommodate this convoluted scheme.
The U.S. must deny NAI.
Nowhere in the article did he explain how NAI jeopardizes U.S. jobs other than to make a comparison to the U.S. maritime industry that most people are not going to understand. After all, they just watched Captain Phillips on HBO and know there are American captains in charge of big ships.
Further, the argument about low cost versus consumer choice and, "consumers already have that option", isn't well formed in the body of the article. To make it a closing point like that is poor debating style.
TP
