US Carriers are against Norwegian Air International for a few reasons. One of the reasons being that they would be able to sneak by labor laws and safety rules. This could potentially cause an ample amount of issues here in the United States. Also, due to the fact that Norwegian Air International is licensed in different countries, it would be very hard to hold someone accountable since there would not be one place that could be held responsible.
The United States Department of Transportation recently rejected Norwegian Air International from flying routes to the United States on the basis of the complexity of the situation. The DOT only grants temporary access in clear cut cases, so they decided to reject the case temporarily until a permanent decision can be made. I personally believe this is the best decision at least maintaining the intercontinental routes we have here in the United States.
If Norwegian Air International is granted access in the United States I think this will be very detrimental to the United States air carriers. We should continue to protect our routes and only grant subsidies to international airlines. This way we can protect US companies and allow their business to grow while still maintaining competition.
Here's food for thought...just because it may be "hard" to hold someone accountable, does this mean we shouldn't try?
ReplyDeleteI think that one day utilizing all these loop holes is going to backfire on them, especially trying to go around labor laws. Hopefully as a country we can obtain proof soon of NAI being unsafe or illegal so we can official deny their request to operate here in the U.S.!
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about NAI in your last paragraph however NAI is already operating in the U.S. also the DOT only temporarily denied the certification. Hopefully though we will never have to deal with the NAI operating more routes in the United States.
ReplyDeleteJust because they are licensed in other countries, it doesn't mean that they are harder to hold accountable. They are just as easy to hold accountable as Delta, Southwest, British Airways.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that: "[...]We should continue to protect our routes and only grant subsidies to international airlines[...]," how is NAI any different than British Airways, Cathay Pacific? All of these are "International carriers" and serve US destinations.
Introducing a "low cost carrier" isn't always a bad thing. It usually weeds out the competition that can't be competitive for different reasons (because they don't want to or don't know how to). Low cost carriers can help the general population by lowering fares throughout the carriers serving that region as well as increase profits for carriers that simply start flying more. If tickets are cheaper, more people fly, if more people fly? More aircraft and more flights are needed. With more flights and more planes, they would have to hire more pilots and crew.
This would shrink the profit margin per flight but would most likely increase general profit since revenue would go up.
All in all, could be a great thing for the US. For regular citizens, wouldn't you think that a regular middle class household could travel from Michigan to Washington or anywhere else in the country or even overseas if the cost would drop to a point where they could afford it?
I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. The fact of the matter is that NAI is already operating within the US. The question is, what do we do to stop that?
ReplyDeleteI agree but the US has not officially denied them yet. I don't believe that low cost carriers will help because of competition or because it will increase revenue because more flights would mean more pilots and staff from other countries most likely not from the US.
ReplyDelete