only partially related to the ongoing strike...some food for thought, when "clever" corporate structures end up in court (such as ltd companies providing "pilot services" by one employee), a court of law may consider whether the set-up was made to circumvent a law, and may decide to disregard it. Another obvious example, a parent company may not set up a daughter company as an operating entity solely to run it into bankruptcy and thus get rid of debt. And another example, there is some precedent in some jurisdictions, including Norway, that a parent company may have certain responsibilities towards employees of a subsidiary, even if the subsidiary is the legal employer. Lets consider the unlikely case that NAN goes bankrupt: NAS may well be held responsible for certain obligations. Legal structures are not written in stone, a court of law can disregard "creative" coprorate structures that are used to circumvent other laws. Same goes for collective bargaining, or strikebreaking, a court of law could well decide that a "clever" set up with pilots employed in different legal entities is irrelevant ...however the outcome of a legal process is highly unpredictable, and can take years, so obviously it's best if the parties can agree
