Norwegian - Last 36 pilots not needed during the winter.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr gammon flaps
I'm so sorry that a did not respect your British Airways sky God status, with the personal abuse and bad language You use I can see that my predictive text was one step ahead of both of us...... You are indeed floudering for answers !
I have done the BA thing it was an institution that kept a lot of very good and technically competent people down because the lack luster managnent that lived in fear of being shown up by these people and so suppressed any career progression by offering the fur lined rut of a very secure life and a good pension......... A slice of that I will enjoy shortly. But in short it was the most unforfilling place I have ever worked.
As you say EZ has pensions and this is in ongoing work with OSM it takes more than a few months to put in place and it was only seven months back that OSM took over as employers from what was a pure contract deal.
It matters not what company you are in if you make yourself unpopular enough with the management they will find a way to get rid of you, one contributor has said that someone has been fired for things written on the Internet forums, I need to remind you that even that paragon of employment correctness BA has it's own little official secrets act and has fired people for things written online BA even got very close to firing someone who's Facebook page had been clearly been hacked by a person with a grudge against the employee.
I have done the BA thing it was an institution that kept a lot of very good and technically competent people down because the lack luster managnent that lived in fear of being shown up by these people and so suppressed any career progression by offering the fur lined rut of a very secure life and a good pension......... A slice of that I will enjoy shortly. But in short it was the most unforfilling place I have ever worked.
As you say EZ has pensions and this is in ongoing work with OSM it takes more than a few months to put in place and it was only seven months back that OSM took over as employers from what was a pure contract deal.
It matters not what company you are in if you make yourself unpopular enough with the management they will find a way to get rid of you, one contributor has said that someone has been fired for things written on the Internet forums, I need to remind you that even that paragon of employment correctness BA has it's own little official secrets act and has fired people for things written online BA even got very close to firing someone who's Facebook page had been clearly been hacked by a person with a grudge against the employee.
Last edited by A and C; 15th Jul 2015 at 08:32.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an OSM employee do you receive paid holidays, maternity leave, and other UK/EU employment goodies? If, after 12 months employment, you are 'let go' then surely you are made redundant with all the ramifications and compensations that entails under Uk law? Does that happen?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Limbo
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...which is why the norwegian pilot union(NPU and PARAT) has sued the company(NAS) to establish who the real employer is 
Parat saksøker Norwegian - DN.no
Parat saksøker Norwegian - DN.no
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone able to translate and sum up that article in a couple of lines?
If NPU and PARAT are successful, I wonder if the same employee/employer link will follow for the Euro/UK contractors.
If NPU and PARAT are successful, I wonder if the same employee/employer link will follow for the Euro/UK contractors.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The media are notoriously inept when reporting aviation technical matters. They are competent and accurate when reporting aviation personnel matters. As demonstrated by the E24 Norway, news headline today:
" 24 pilots who incurred $200,000 debt after receiving training from Norwegian, feel swindled because they have to settle for a part-time job, says Norwegian Pilots Union (NPU)"
News Link: Fagforening: Norwegian-flygere føler seg bondefanget - Norwegian Air Shuttle - Jobb - E24
*copy and paste to Google Translate
It beggars belief that some chumps on this site still refuse to believe that Norwegian's exclusive use of agency pilots and cabin crew, is in part, to effect a circumvention of employment rights and employment principles. Perhaps simple logic might work:
If you accept that the Norwegian Pilot Union, PARAT, European Cockpit Association and Norwegian Airline Pilots Association, all represent the best interests of their member pilots and cabin crew, then simply contact any representative to confirm all I have written in regard to Norwegian and the Kjos circumvention regime.
I provided the contact details once again. Please report back with their response:
NPU website:
NPU - Norwegian Pilot Union
PARAT website:
Paratluftfart
European Cockpit Association website:
https://www.eurocockpit.be/
Norwegian Airline Pilot Association, NF website:
Norsk Flygerforbund
" 24 pilots who incurred $200,000 debt after receiving training from Norwegian, feel swindled because they have to settle for a part-time job, says Norwegian Pilots Union (NPU)"
News Link: Fagforening: Norwegian-flygere føler seg bondefanget - Norwegian Air Shuttle - Jobb - E24
*copy and paste to Google Translate
It beggars belief that some chumps on this site still refuse to believe that Norwegian's exclusive use of agency pilots and cabin crew, is in part, to effect a circumvention of employment rights and employment principles. Perhaps simple logic might work:
If you accept that the Norwegian Pilot Union, PARAT, European Cockpit Association and Norwegian Airline Pilots Association, all represent the best interests of their member pilots and cabin crew, then simply contact any representative to confirm all I have written in regard to Norwegian and the Kjos circumvention regime.
I provided the contact details once again. Please report back with their response:
NPU website:
NPU - Norwegian Pilot Union
PARAT website:
Paratluftfart
European Cockpit Association website:
https://www.eurocockpit.be/
Norwegian Airline Pilot Association, NF website:
Norsk Flygerforbund
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your concern, but I live in a large city with excellent public transport.
Reference has been made to the pending US DOT decision of Norwegian's Foreign Air Carrier Permit application. The EU-US Air Transport Agreement (Open Skies) includes Article 17, which states:
"The opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labor standards or the labor related rights and principles contained in the Parties respective laws"
Clearly, by the exclusive use of agency pilots and cabin crew to circumvent the employer responsibilities and obligations of a direct employment relationship, the Kjos regime does not comply with Article 17. The Norway media reports labor issues at Norwegian almost on a daily basis. It is highly unlikely a US Permit will be forthcoming.
The Norwegian Airline Group has its principal place of business in Norway. As confirmed on its website - Link:
Investor Contacts - Norwegian
Norway is a non EU Member State, therefore, Norwegian does not qualify for the benefits of the EU-US ATA. It should be of concern that Norwegian receives full EU Commission representation to the US at the expense of every EU citizen taxpayer.
Next.
Reference has been made to the pending US DOT decision of Norwegian's Foreign Air Carrier Permit application. The EU-US Air Transport Agreement (Open Skies) includes Article 17, which states:
"The opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labor standards or the labor related rights and principles contained in the Parties respective laws"
Clearly, by the exclusive use of agency pilots and cabin crew to circumvent the employer responsibilities and obligations of a direct employment relationship, the Kjos regime does not comply with Article 17. The Norway media reports labor issues at Norwegian almost on a daily basis. It is highly unlikely a US Permit will be forthcoming.
The Norwegian Airline Group has its principal place of business in Norway. As confirmed on its website - Link:
Investor Contacts - Norwegian
Norway is a non EU Member State, therefore, Norwegian does not qualify for the benefits of the EU-US ATA. It should be of concern that Norwegian receives full EU Commission representation to the US at the expense of every EU citizen taxpayer.
Next.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bondi
You have one hell of an agenda going here
You are incorrect to say that Norway does not enjoy the benefit he EU-USA open skies agreement, it might not be a European country but does enjoy the same or similar benefits.
You constant carping about temporary contract staff has been over taken by events. The LH haul crews are based in LGW pay UK tax and social insurance.
If the DoT were going to throw this application out it would have done so by now, its already 15 months in.
This has now been taken up at European level and will shortly result in one of two out comes, 1) Norwegian will get approval fuss over 2) Norwegian does not get approval and the EU will ask the American DoT which of the US majors it want to ban from flying to Europe.
Turning to NAI you often assert that the IAA AOC is to someway avoid oversight and regulation, which is of course is an insult to the Irish authorities, but staying with your theme, then please explain why Norwegian have now applied for an UK AOC and will in due course apply for a Spanish AOC ?
The whole European operation excluding Scandinavia will shortly move to the Irish AOC and the UK operation will move a UK AOC
NAI is a wholly owned by Norwegian its corporate HQ is in Ireland, when DY changes to D8 in the Autumn the revenues will flow through Ireland, which just like the likes of Google & Amazon find it financially beneficial to book their revenue through Ireland, it doesn't make them any less American and won't make Norwegian any less Norwegian. It will also reduce exchange rate losses against the NOK.
The UK AOC will allow access to routes that current European AOC does not, its about business costs and traffic rights, not safety as you like to imply, further i would remind you that with an average fleet age of under 4 years its one of the newest in Europe
You make frequent reference to media links in Norway about labour relations, but only the negative stories that suits your agenda.
The amount of time and energy that you put into your anti Norwegian campaign speaks volumes about your agenda, there is zero balance in your argument, no one pretends that its perfect, but show me an airline still trading that is?
I would suspect that your agenda is driven by rejection.
Either way time will tell, my money is on gaining full US approval.
You are incorrect to say that Norway does not enjoy the benefit he EU-USA open skies agreement, it might not be a European country but does enjoy the same or similar benefits.
You constant carping about temporary contract staff has been over taken by events. The LH haul crews are based in LGW pay UK tax and social insurance.
If the DoT were going to throw this application out it would have done so by now, its already 15 months in.
This has now been taken up at European level and will shortly result in one of two out comes, 1) Norwegian will get approval fuss over 2) Norwegian does not get approval and the EU will ask the American DoT which of the US majors it want to ban from flying to Europe.
Turning to NAI you often assert that the IAA AOC is to someway avoid oversight and regulation, which is of course is an insult to the Irish authorities, but staying with your theme, then please explain why Norwegian have now applied for an UK AOC and will in due course apply for a Spanish AOC ?
The whole European operation excluding Scandinavia will shortly move to the Irish AOC and the UK operation will move a UK AOC
NAI is a wholly owned by Norwegian its corporate HQ is in Ireland, when DY changes to D8 in the Autumn the revenues will flow through Ireland, which just like the likes of Google & Amazon find it financially beneficial to book their revenue through Ireland, it doesn't make them any less American and won't make Norwegian any less Norwegian. It will also reduce exchange rate losses against the NOK.
The UK AOC will allow access to routes that current European AOC does not, its about business costs and traffic rights, not safety as you like to imply, further i would remind you that with an average fleet age of under 4 years its one of the newest in Europe
You make frequent reference to media links in Norway about labour relations, but only the negative stories that suits your agenda.
The amount of time and energy that you put into your anti Norwegian campaign speaks volumes about your agenda, there is zero balance in your argument, no one pretends that its perfect, but show me an airline still trading that is?
I would suspect that your agenda is driven by rejection.
Either way time will tell, my money is on gaining full US approval.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LNIDA:
Welcome back. Unfortunately, you have nothing to offer except the 'agenda' witless response. This website is full of threads with this last resort accusation, commonly used when no other defense of a contentious issue is possible.
Obviously, you have not taken my advice and sought confirmation of my posts via the pilot and cabin crew representative organizations, the links to which I provided. However, I thank you for keeping this thread active and at the top - well done!
As you work for Norwegian perhaps you might confirm something for me:
I am informed the Norwegian crew identification badge has no reference to the employer of the holder. The badge does not contain any reference to ARPI, OSM or Rishworth, however it does contains the letters EMPL in two locations and may therefore be construed as misrepresenting the employer to be Norwegian, when in fact it is not. Who sponsored you for your LGW airside pass, was it Norwegian or your employer?
Welcome back. Unfortunately, you have nothing to offer except the 'agenda' witless response. This website is full of threads with this last resort accusation, commonly used when no other defense of a contentious issue is possible.
Obviously, you have not taken my advice and sought confirmation of my posts via the pilot and cabin crew representative organizations, the links to which I provided. However, I thank you for keeping this thread active and at the top - well done!
As you work for Norwegian perhaps you might confirm something for me:
I am informed the Norwegian crew identification badge has no reference to the employer of the holder. The badge does not contain any reference to ARPI, OSM or Rishworth, however it does contains the letters EMPL in two locations and may therefore be construed as misrepresenting the employer to be Norwegian, when in fact it is not. Who sponsored you for your LGW airside pass, was it Norwegian or your employer?
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bondi
That a simple one to answer, Norwegian apply for and issue 'community crew cards' so they all say Norwegian on them as far as i recall, as for LGW crews cards i have no idea.
It used to say 'Bristol' on the front of buses, didn't mean it was going there....
It used to say 'Bristol' on the front of buses, didn't mean it was going there....
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LNIDA quote: "NAI is a wholly owned by Norwegian its corporate HQ is in Ireland"
A letter dated June 1, 2015, from Bjorn Kjos to DOT Secretary Foxx to request a speedy resolution to the NAI US Permit application, is written on Norwegian company letterhead with the corporate address given as Fornebue, Norway, not Ireland. No reference is made to Ireland. Kjos states in the letter:
"Norwegian has regularly utilized the services of employment agencies for the recruitment and temporary provision of crews for a transitional period of 24-36 months in connection with the opening of new bases"
Anyone from Spain, Helsinki or Tenerife remember hearing this in 2012?
LNIDA quote: "If the DoT were going to throw this application out it would have done so by now, its already 15 months in"
Since the March 31, 2008 effective date of the EU US Open-Skies Agreement, 57 EU carriers have applied and been granted US Permits. The average time between application and granting the requests was 55 days. After 15 months, the longest time of any application, the DOT is no closer to granting NAI its permit and serious concerns remain.
LNIDA quote: "Your constant carping about temporary contract staff has been over taken by events. The LH haul crews are based in LGW pay UK tax and social insurance"
Norwegian directs and controls the bases, working rosters, days off, vacation periods and promotion opportunities for both the short haul and long haul crews, this makes Norwegian, effectively, the real employer. However, Norwegian seeks to circumvent its obligations and responsibilities as the employer via its exclusive use of agencies. Pilots and cabin crew have no employment rights and receive no employment principles from their real employer, Norwegian. Despite the false claims by Norwegian that they comply with International Labor Organization core conventions, there is evidence to prove they do not. Such a regime categorically does not meet the prerequisites required by Article 17 of the EU-US Open-Skies Agreement. The US Permit cannot be granted.
LNIDA quote: "Turning to NAI you often assert that the IAA AOC is to someway avoid oversight and regulation"
A serious safety incident involving a Norwegian 787 from JFK to ARN occurred in January 2015. The aircraft is registered in Ireland, the AOC is held in Norway, the crew were operating on EASA licenses issued in various EU and non-EU states and operating under different employment contracts with various agencies located in different countries. YES, there is a concern regarding the convoluted web of regulatory oversight the Norwegian scheme requires and how it is applied.
LNIDA quote: "all say Norwegian on them as far as i recall" [the official crew badge]
and they all have the letters Empl (employee) on them too! making the badge a misrepresentation. This supports that Norwegian is effectively the real employer, but seeks to circumvent its employment obligations and responsibilities.
I am informed the US DOT is examining NLH applications for US C-1/D Crew Visas, to determine if any false declarations have been made as to the sponsor "employer" of the applicant.
Presumably some of those busses went to Bristol.
A letter dated June 1, 2015, from Bjorn Kjos to DOT Secretary Foxx to request a speedy resolution to the NAI US Permit application, is written on Norwegian company letterhead with the corporate address given as Fornebue, Norway, not Ireland. No reference is made to Ireland. Kjos states in the letter:
"Norwegian has regularly utilized the services of employment agencies for the recruitment and temporary provision of crews for a transitional period of 24-36 months in connection with the opening of new bases"
Anyone from Spain, Helsinki or Tenerife remember hearing this in 2012?
LNIDA quote: "If the DoT were going to throw this application out it would have done so by now, its already 15 months in"
Since the March 31, 2008 effective date of the EU US Open-Skies Agreement, 57 EU carriers have applied and been granted US Permits. The average time between application and granting the requests was 55 days. After 15 months, the longest time of any application, the DOT is no closer to granting NAI its permit and serious concerns remain.
LNIDA quote: "Your constant carping about temporary contract staff has been over taken by events. The LH haul crews are based in LGW pay UK tax and social insurance"
Norwegian directs and controls the bases, working rosters, days off, vacation periods and promotion opportunities for both the short haul and long haul crews, this makes Norwegian, effectively, the real employer. However, Norwegian seeks to circumvent its obligations and responsibilities as the employer via its exclusive use of agencies. Pilots and cabin crew have no employment rights and receive no employment principles from their real employer, Norwegian. Despite the false claims by Norwegian that they comply with International Labor Organization core conventions, there is evidence to prove they do not. Such a regime categorically does not meet the prerequisites required by Article 17 of the EU-US Open-Skies Agreement. The US Permit cannot be granted.
LNIDA quote: "Turning to NAI you often assert that the IAA AOC is to someway avoid oversight and regulation"
A serious safety incident involving a Norwegian 787 from JFK to ARN occurred in January 2015. The aircraft is registered in Ireland, the AOC is held in Norway, the crew were operating on EASA licenses issued in various EU and non-EU states and operating under different employment contracts with various agencies located in different countries. YES, there is a concern regarding the convoluted web of regulatory oversight the Norwegian scheme requires and how it is applied.
LNIDA quote: "all say Norwegian on them as far as i recall" [the official crew badge]
and they all have the letters Empl (employee) on them too! making the badge a misrepresentation. This supports that Norwegian is effectively the real employer, but seeks to circumvent its employment obligations and responsibilities.
I am informed the US DOT is examining NLH applications for US C-1/D Crew Visas, to determine if any false declarations have been made as to the sponsor "employer" of the applicant.
Presumably some of those busses went to Bristol.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bondi
If Contract Pilots work for a UK AOC the airline applies for their security clearance not the Contracting Company.
Arguing the toss over what the I.D. says underpins any discussion you're trying to force in my humble view...
and they all have the letters Empl (employee) on them too! making the badge a misrepresentation. This supports that Norwegian is effectively the real employer, but seeks to circumvent its employment obligations and responsibilities.
Arguing the toss over what the I.D. says underpins any discussion you're trying to force in my humble view...
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Angry quote:
"If Contract Pilots work for a UK AOC the airline applies for their security clearance not the Contracting Company"
Categorically incorrect. The "employer" - ARPI, OSM, Rishworth - must apply for a Full ID Pass, and must themselves undergo security vetting by the Department for Transport. Only Temporary ID Pass holders, such as building contractors may be sponsored indirectly - as stated on the Gatwick Airport ID Centre website - Link: ID pass regulation | Gatwick Airport
"Full Airport ID Pass - this type of pass should be requested for anyone employed by your company who will require access to the critical part of Gatwick airport on a regular basis to carry out recognized company business".
Additionally, applicants for a US C-1/D Crew Visa must be sponsored by their "employer" - OSM or Rishworth for 787. As stated on the application: You are required to present a letter from your employer. Link: Crew (C-1/D Visas) | Embassy of the United States
PARAT currently seeks a ruling by the Norway courts that Norwegian is the real employer. As previously stated, Norwegian interviews, recruits, terminates, assigns the bases (then unilaterally changes them), determines the days off, vacation periods and promotion opportunities for its pilots and cabin crew, making Norwegian effectively the real employer. The misrepresentation surrounding the ID badge, pass and visa applications all support this. However, Norwegian seeks to circumvent employment responsibilities and obligations.
The report on the PARAT legal action link: Parat saksøker Norwegian - DN.no - *copy and paste to Google Translate
"If Contract Pilots work for a UK AOC the airline applies for their security clearance not the Contracting Company"
Categorically incorrect. The "employer" - ARPI, OSM, Rishworth - must apply for a Full ID Pass, and must themselves undergo security vetting by the Department for Transport. Only Temporary ID Pass holders, such as building contractors may be sponsored indirectly - as stated on the Gatwick Airport ID Centre website - Link: ID pass regulation | Gatwick Airport
"Full Airport ID Pass - this type of pass should be requested for anyone employed by your company who will require access to the critical part of Gatwick airport on a regular basis to carry out recognized company business".
Additionally, applicants for a US C-1/D Crew Visa must be sponsored by their "employer" - OSM or Rishworth for 787. As stated on the application: You are required to present a letter from your employer. Link: Crew (C-1/D Visas) | Embassy of the United States
PARAT currently seeks a ruling by the Norway courts that Norwegian is the real employer. As previously stated, Norwegian interviews, recruits, terminates, assigns the bases (then unilaterally changes them), determines the days off, vacation periods and promotion opportunities for its pilots and cabin crew, making Norwegian effectively the real employer. The misrepresentation surrounding the ID badge, pass and visa applications all support this. However, Norwegian seeks to circumvent employment responsibilities and obligations.
The report on the PARAT legal action link: Parat saksøker Norwegian - DN.no - *copy and paste to Google Translate
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bondi
A court case just shows that someone is trying to prove something that is unclear in law.
Most of UK law is case law ( I am assuming that the Norwegian courts work the same way) and no one has done anything wrong untill a court says so.
As far as I can see PARAT are trying to clear this employment thing up as the law is unclear, if it was not the Norwegian govement authorities would have put a stop to it.
In short if PARAT can make a good enough case to the Norwegian courts the airline will have to change its practices, if not the status quo continues.
This sort of case law is not like say taking a car without consent where the law is clear, it is the very lack of clarity that is making PARAT take the action.
Most of UK law is case law ( I am assuming that the Norwegian courts work the same way) and no one has done anything wrong untill a court says so.
As far as I can see PARAT are trying to clear this employment thing up as the law is unclear, if it was not the Norwegian govement authorities would have put a stop to it.
In short if PARAT can make a good enough case to the Norwegian courts the airline will have to change its practices, if not the status quo continues.
This sort of case law is not like say taking a car without consent where the law is clear, it is the very lack of clarity that is making PARAT take the action.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SK1:
I infer you are surprised by Norwegian's 'Summer Only' temporary contract. Don't be.
Unless you have a direct employment relationship with Norwegian, ALL pilots may be considered as temporary when rented from an agency by Norwegian. Your employment is with the agency, not Norwegian. Rented pilots have no entitlement to labor rights nor labor principles with Norwegian whatsoever (including seniority).
As a rented pilot your services may be terminated by Norwegian at any time, without recourse. Norwegian simply notifies the agency your particular services are no longer required. The agency may or may not find you alternative work. Your notice period is with the agency, not Norwegian.
You may not even get paid during your notice period. You will not be protected by Employment Law because you have entered into an employment contract/agreement with the agency, which almost certainly indemnifies the agency from their obligations due to any action taken by the airline.
Read my previous posts.
Good luck.
I infer you are surprised by Norwegian's 'Summer Only' temporary contract. Don't be.
Unless you have a direct employment relationship with Norwegian, ALL pilots may be considered as temporary when rented from an agency by Norwegian. Your employment is with the agency, not Norwegian. Rented pilots have no entitlement to labor rights nor labor principles with Norwegian whatsoever (including seniority).
As a rented pilot your services may be terminated by Norwegian at any time, without recourse. Norwegian simply notifies the agency your particular services are no longer required. The agency may or may not find you alternative work. Your notice period is with the agency, not Norwegian.
You may not even get paid during your notice period. You will not be protected by Employment Law because you have entered into an employment contract/agreement with the agency, which almost certainly indemnifies the agency from their obligations due to any action taken by the airline.
Read my previous posts.
Good luck.
