George Bush got it approved. Is that who you were talking about?

Just in case you thought Republican politicians were concerned about workers.

"The initial agreement was signed in Washington, D.C., on April 30, 2007. The agreement became effective March 30, 2008."

Article 17 bis was added to the agreement in 2010 in anticipation of flag of convenience type schemes. The lesson thus far is that labor provisions in open skies agreements are about as meaningful as no furlough clauses in union contracts. The global push is to lower standards as much as possible, and it doesn't matter who the politicians are.

According to the chief U.S. negotiator, the chief E.U. negotiator, the U.S. DOT attorneys and the E.U. Article 17bis does not apply to NAI and does not constitute a legal basis for the denial of the operating permit. The people who wrote and enforce the agreement say it does not apply. Are you claiming that the people who wrote the agreement do not understand it?

Just out of plain curiosity NEDude, why are you such a proponent of NAI's strategy? I've read the other thread and seen your numerous posts defending them. I'm curious why you have such a strong stance towards their side of the argument?

Not implying that at all. It's obvious now that the language was crafted from the day it was added so that holes could be punched in it as required. Just like a no-furlough clause. ALPA's mistake appears to have been assuming that the language had teeth, when it obviously didn't. Perhaps they should have known better.

He works for a European ULCC who will do feed for NAI. He will benefit from NAI's success so his credibility is nil. He seems to want pilots in the US to suffer and make less money for some reason.

Here's a good background paper on the question you asked. http://dailyairlinefilings.com/public/furlan.pdf

In short, to ensure aircraft availability, ensure a reserve corps of pilots in case of a national emergency or war, to establish federal oversight of safety of operations, pilots, and maintenance, and national security issues.

It also deals with the The Civil Air Reserve Fleet. Don't know what that is?

Civil Reserve Air Fleet > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

I'm not convinced NEDude is necessarily a proponent.

I would guess from his posts that he IS a proponent of the legal system, and critical thinking. Too many posters here oversimplify the discussion.

It's not as though the Obama administration whimsically decided to screw US airlines by approving NAI arbitrarily. The DOT in fact tried to slow-roll approval for more than TWO YEARS, probably knowing full well the whole time that they didn't have a legal leg to stand on to deny the application.

Several parties are to blame for NAI, but if you want to point fingers at the folks most responsible you'd best start with Republican congressmen in the early 2000's bowing to the free trade and 'reduce regulations' business lobby...

So you're saying that it's impossible to be objective when you have an interest in something?

I know quite a few people who are able to have a critical discussion and evaluate facts that aren't what they wished.

Allow me to be devil's advocate ...

If NAI is agreeing to use 50% American pilots and to buy Boeing airplanes, what is the problem?