I'm sure there must be rules as to how many directors shareholders are entitled to appoint, based on their holding. I think that in EI's case, this will have to be reviewed, because (apart from the worker directors), all directors are appointed by the govt, which now holds about 28% (?). FR can bring its holding to that amount - indeed to 29.9% - and once it gets to that level, it could probably insist on two.
Then there are the others: IALPA/Tailwind, the ESOT, etc? I wonder if the govt could appoint Denis O'Brien as a director, even though his own holding isn't sufficient to justify a seat?
Incidentally, I came across this speech by one Mr. James Oberstar, a member of the US House of Representatives and head of the powerful transport cttee, which will be involved in the open skies issue. Basically, he is opposed to any change to the rule which increases the ability of foreign carriers to own shares in US carriers. Call it protectionism, but that's the way it is; anything that the DOT proposes in the new rule which goes beyond this will probably be shot down. Translation: Open Skies is on ice.
http://www.oberstar.house.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={00ED92DA-AC14-4AFA-8792-FAEA4515297B}&DE={0E3FD783-88AC-4CC1-9716-A1D25718E118}
That's not necessarily bad news for us; if this is the case, then the ability of the Commission to tell us to hold back and keep to 50/50 (and now new US routes) will be undermined; the govt will probably tell them to sod off and there are legal grounds for it to take action against the Commission, if it gets in the way.
However, what we don't yet know is when this decision will be made; the sooner the better, from our vantage point, because the sooner EI knows when it can add new routes (and consequently, when it needs to add more aircraft), the better.