4 ms·

"The U.S. Department of Transportation, besieged with opposition from domestic airlines, labor unions, and other interest groups, took three years to approve No

"The U.S. Department of Transportation, besieged with opposition from domestic airlines, labor unions, and other interest groups, took three years to approve Norwegian’s transatlantic plan." This is the same government under Obama and Democrats that allowed for consolidation of United buying Continental and American buying US Air which resulted in less competition. The Democrats used to represent regular people instead of favoring special interests that result in higher prices. Instead of allowing the legacy carriers to slow down Norwegian and other innovators, the legacies should copy them. They have much more capital and they can make it happen if they want to.

15thandwhatever 9y ago
For what it's worth, just because one party has a president in office, doesn't mean the other parties, businesses, and special interests stop trying to push their agendas. I think you've forgotten that.
- davidf18 9y ago
  What I know is that the Democratic Obama Justice Dept wrongly bowed to the special interests to weaken competition among domestic carriers (perhaps bowing to union interests which also want less competition so that they can get higher wages). It clearly was an anti-trust issue and yet they approved not one but two consolidations. Consumers paid for these consolidations with higher fares and worse service.
bronco21016 9y ago
At what expense of high paying, quality, American jobs? A huge cost advantage that NAI enjoys on many of their international flights is through a flag-of-convenience scheme. NAI is a Norwegian majority owned company but has established their base of operations for international flying in Ireland. Through this arrangement they are able to hire pilots and cabin crews under contracts and work rules of southeast Asia where wages are low and work rules are less restrictive. You might imagine how cutting costs in that regard might have an impact on quality of service and more importantly SAFETY. If this precedent is allowed there is no doubt the major American airlines will do the same in the interest of remaining competitive but shockingly airlines in the US have actually resisted this in the interest of the jobs of American people. I can't speak to each airline individually but for example Delta Air Lines directly employs 80,000 people in addition to 10s of thousands of contractors. Multiply that by 3 or 4 and you're looking at a ton of well paying American jobs. Not to mention when is the last time you remember a fatality on a major US airline? I think the flag-of-convenience scheme leads us down a slippery slope where getting the lowest bidding pilot cadets trumps safety.
- davidf18 9y ago
  > "At what expense of high paying, quality, American jobs?" When I fly to Israel with a layover in Istanbul to visit friends in Istanbul, I am using Turkish pilots, thus depriving Americans of jobs. They are lower cost than many European pilots. Are you saying I shouldn't be flying Turkish Air? I don't understand? Incidentally, the flights from NYC to Istanbul use very modern planes and are staffed with very friendly staff. Direct flights to Israel on El Al use Israeli pilots whom I guessing don't get paid as much as their American counterparts and yet, highly trained as probably almost all of them were in the Israeli Air Force. So, please explain your position. I am concerned with safety and in fact part my work deals with safety in healthcare. Airlines landing in US airports should be following FAA regulations. It is important that the FAA regulate this. I encourage US domestic carriers to change the way they operate so that they can match the Norwegian fares while retaining American jobs. But to complain that Norwegian is offering fares that make Europe more accessible for people with fixed or limited income is just wrong.
  - _acme 9y ago
    How would you "encourage US domestic carriers to change the way they operate so that they can match the Norwegian fares while retaining American jobs." I think the point is that that is impossible.
    - davidf18 9y ago
      I don't agree. The consolidation of major carriers under Obama administration (United buying Continental, and American buying US Air) has reduced competition and thus higher fares, worse service. They don't fly out of regional airports at least in NYC I think that is rare. I"ll bet there are a lot of operational issues. Delta, United and others own low-cost carriers (the famous United case where the senior was dragged off the plane screaming and kicking was not on United but a low cost fully owned subsidiary carrier of United) as it is, so they could have a low-cost carrier that travels to Europe. These low-cost wholly owned carriers are domestic only. But none of them have them because they want to cannibalize the higher fares charged. They enjoy their margins. Norwegian (like Amazon, like Uber) is in a contest to capture market share and thus may be willing to operate on thin margins or even take a short term loss to capture share. The major American carriers may not want to invest the money to retain share and prefer to use politics instead.

15thandwhatever 9y ago

For what it's worth, just because one party has a president in office, doesn't mean the other parties, businesses, and special interests stop trying to push their agendas. I think you've forgotten that.

davidf18 9y ago
What I know is that the Democratic Obama Justice Dept wrongly bowed to the special interests to weaken competition among domestic carriers (perhaps bowing to union interests which also want less competition so that they can get higher wages). It clearly was an anti-trust issue and yet they approved not one but two consolidations. Consumers paid for these consolidations with higher fares and worse service.

bronco21016 9y ago

At what expense of high paying, quality, American jobs? A huge cost advantage that NAI enjoys on many of their international flights is through a flag-of-convenience scheme. NAI is a Norwegian majority owned company but has established their base of operations for international flying in Ireland. Through this arrangement they are able to hire pilots and cabin crews under contracts and work rules of southeast Asia where wages are low and work rules are less restrictive. You might imagine how cutting costs in that regard might have an impact on quality of service and more importantly SAFETY. If this precedent is allowed there is no doubt the major American airlines will do the same in the interest of remaining competitive but shockingly airlines in the US have actually resisted this in the interest of the jobs of American people. I can't speak to each airline individually but for example Delta Air Lines directly employs 80,000 people in addition to 10s of thousands of contractors. Multiply that by 3 or 4 and you're looking at a ton of well paying American jobs. Not to mention when is the last time you remember a fatality on a major US airline? I think the flag-of-convenience scheme leads us down a slippery slope where getting the lowest bidding pilot cadets trumps safety.

davidf18 9y ago
> "At what expense of high paying, quality, American jobs?" When I fly to Israel with a layover in Istanbul to visit friends in Istanbul, I am using Turkish pilots, thus depriving Americans of jobs. They are lower cost than many European pilots. Are you saying I shouldn't be flying Turkish Air? I don't understand? Incidentally, the flights from NYC to Istanbul use very modern planes and are staffed with very friendly staff. Direct flights to Israel on El Al use Israeli pilots whom I guessing don't get paid as much as their American counterparts and yet, highly trained as probably almost all of them were in the Israeli Air Force. So, please explain your position. I am concerned with safety and in fact part my work deals with safety in healthcare. Airlines landing in US airports should be following FAA regulations. It is important that the FAA regulate this. I encourage US domestic carriers to change the way they operate so that they can match the Norwegian fares while retaining American jobs. But to complain that Norwegian is offering fares that make Europe more accessible for people with fixed or limited income is just wrong.
- _acme 9y ago
  How would you "encourage US domestic carriers to change the way they operate so that they can match the Norwegian fares while retaining American jobs." I think the point is that that is impossible.
  - davidf18 9y ago
    I don't agree. The consolidation of major carriers under Obama administration (United buying Continental, and American buying US Air) has reduced competition and thus higher fares, worse service. They don't fly out of regional airports at least in NYC I think that is rare. I"ll bet there are a lot of operational issues. Delta, United and others own low-cost carriers (the famous United case where the senior was dragged off the plane screaming and kicking was not on United but a low cost fully owned subsidiary carrier of United) as it is, so they could have a low-cost carrier that travels to Europe. These low-cost wholly owned carriers are domestic only. But none of them have them because they want to cannibalize the higher fares charged. They enjoy their margins. Norwegian (like Amazon, like Uber) is in a contest to capture market share and thus may be willing to operate on thin margins or even take a short term loss to capture share. The major American carriers may not want to invest the money to retain share and prefer to use politics instead.