US Congress Moves to Block Norwegian Longhaul from US Expansion

[Iver]

ALPA Lauds U.S. House Action to Block Federal Transportation Funds from Skewing Marketplace against U.S. Airlines
Would Block U.S. Foreign Air Carrier Permits for Flag-of-Convenience Models Such As NAI




WASHINGTON––The Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l (ALPA) commends an amendment passed unanimously by voice vote today by the U.S. House of Representatives that would help safeguard the U.S. airline industry’s ability to compete on a level playing field by making certain that federal transportation funds are not used to grant foreign airlines that violate U.S. law or the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement access to U.S. markets.
“Thanks to the tremendous leadership of Rep. Westmoreland and Rep. DeFazio, this amendment specifically prohibits shopping for cheap labor and simply requires the Department of Transportation to follow the law and provisions agreed to in the U.S.-EU Transport Agreement,” said Capt. Lee Moak, ALPA’s president. “Congress has a responsibility to make sure that U.S. airlines do business in a fair marketplace and that the U.S. government’s transportation funds don’t hand an advantage to foreign airlines that try to cheat the system.”
Introduced by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the amendment to the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 4745) stipulates that none of the funds in the bill may be used to approve a foreign air carrier permit or application “where such approval would contravene United States law or Article 17 bis of the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agreement.”
The amendment passed today would prevent the Department of Transportation from approving Norwegian Air International’s (NAI) foreign air carrier permit application because the airline’s operations would contradict the U.S.–EU Air Transport Agreement, which specifically prohibits any efforts to undermine labor standards.
Despite the fact that Norwegian Air Shuttle, NAI’s parent company, has centered its operations in Norway and that NAI does not plan to fly to or from Ireland, the company has gained permission from Ireland to operate its long-haul flights as an Irish airline expressly to avoid Norway’s employment laws. With an Irish air operator certificate, NAI will outsource its flight crews through a Singapore employment company using individual contracts with wages well below those of the company’s Norway-based employees.
“By passing this amendment that blocks the Norwegian Air International scheme and any similar bid to contravene the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement, the U.S. House has taken a strong stand for fair competition for U.S. airlines,” said Capt. Moak. “We urge the U.S. Senate to support the U.S. House position and send a clear signal that Congress is committed to ensuring U.S. airlines and their employees do business on a level playing field.”
Founded in 1931, ALPA is the world’s largest pilot union, representing more than 51,000 pilots at 32 airlines in the United States and Canada.

[Airbubba]

With an Irish air operator certificate, NAI will outsource its flight crews through a Singapore employment company using individual contracts with wages well below those of the company’s Norway-based employees.

Looks like this plan skirts European employment laws by outsourcing. Are the Europeans in favor of this?

Now, if we can just repatriate all those Norwegians flying in the U.S. Just kidding, TowerDog. ;)

[RAT 5]

I think the US should be asking some severe questions from the Irish. If this action had been in UK then I expect a parliamentary committee would be putting the spotlight on the CAA & NAI. I wonder if any senate committee has the right to ask the IAA "what the hell it thinks it is doing approving such an arrangement in violation of the US-EU agreement."
The answer might be toe-curling and fun to watch.

[captplaystation]

Can you actually imagine the IAA NOT approving something ? := Nope, me neither :hmm:

[Aluminium shuffler]

Any regulator that attracts Italian, Baltic and Russian operators because their own regulators aren't pliant enough makes me suspicious.

[Piltdown Man]

You can count me in on those who approve of NAI being denied access to US destinations. I hope they will also be denied access to Europe for the same reasons, but I doubt it - our spineless regulators are bullies. They play hard until you push them - then they give in. But the reality is, if you want a European airline then you have to have European employment contracts (Mikey the Pikey take note - not sub-contractors!) for all of your employees. NAI's only connection with Norway is money and name. Everything else is Asian. But what really grips me is that the Irish allowed this! Shame on them!

[blind pew]

You should be carefull what you write about the IAA ...after I criticised them last year I recieved a letter from the revenue investigation branch....
I wouldn't dare say anything else even when I read an aaiu reprt that talked about wind over the wing ;-(

[6000PIC]

I fully support and applaud the US House of Representatives in this action. The business plan for this blatant " flag-of-convenience " airline , NAI is nothing but predatory , unfair , unjust and would result in permanently changing the airline industry for the worse. Hopefully soon it will be illegal. Shame on the Irish CAA.

[Iver]

If NLH decides to pull back, makes you wonder if Ryanair would step into the clearly successful market NLH has tapped. I have heard load factors are very high on the vast majority of NLH flights to the States - clearly a market exists. And nobody could stop Ryanair from that expansion because it would be legal - they just need the airplanes and the landing slots (depending upon which airports they would select)...


NLH might have been a good test case for Ryanair's future entry.

[LNIDA]

1) the Americans grant route licence

2) the Irish revoke NAI AOC

3) Fudge NAI give the Americans assurance over crew nationalities/contracts

Either way it won't stop NAI flying from Scandinavia to the USA

[poorjohn]

Iver:And nobody could stop Ryanair from that expansion because it would be legal - they just need the airplanes and the landing slots (depending upon which airports they would select)...The US has thousands of airports typical of Ryan stops in the EU. Just might have to pave some of 'em.

[sjm]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of this thread, it makes me chuckle that the good old USA cry anti competition.

Chapter 11

FEDEX in Europe?

. “Congress has a responsibility to make sure that U.S. airlines do business in a fair marketplace and that the U.S. government’s transportation funds don’t hand an advantage to foreign airlines that try to cheat the system.”/QUOTE]

Oh please!!!

[Widebdy]

FedEx in Europe is not Americas doing and has nothing to do with Norwegian. America are well within their rights to block "unique" set ups as is Europe. If Europe cannot be bothered that is there problem. I also suspect FedEx use American or European contracts not Asian?

[J.L.Seagull]

And why is Halliburton BASED in Dubai?

[Groundloop]

How do these Far East crews manage to get work visas for the EU? Have Norwegian provided evidence that they cannot recruit suitably qualified staff from within the EU?:ugh:

[Flying Clog]

No Groundloop, evidently they sadly can't.

At least, for the peanuts that they're willing to pay. The race to the bottom continues...

:D

Stand by for some smoking holes in the ground...

[TowerDog]

Now, if we can just repatriate all those Norwegians flying in the U.S. Just kidding, TowerDog.

Nah Bubba, I ain't gone be working at that sweat-shop.
Have grown used to the lazy Amercian lifestyle, working 8 days/40 hrs per month and goofing off for the remainder. :cool:

They may be flying the Flag, but really a scam with outsourcing and shaky "contracts" put together by lawyers laying awake at night trying to think of the next loophole.:sad:

[deptrai]

Ticket prices with norwegian from bangkok to oslo, or stockholm, started around 170 euro last time I checked (one way, including taxes and fees, but no meals, no seat reservation, no checked-in luggage, just taxes and the mandatory credit card fee). It's obvious that at a starting price of 170 euro for long-haul from asia to europe they might not offer the best employment conditions. A shiny 787, but...they gotta save somewhere.

[bankangle]

LNIDA

Hinted at above,

Surely a "paper exercise" between M. O' L and Norwegian - "Ryanair Long Haul" subbing in Norwegian to operate the flights, bit of blue and yellow paint etc or some other superficial arrangement and the US would have to allow, or face serious and costly repercussions.

[LNIDA]

Well bank angle i have learnt never to say never, but can't see it, more likely is MOL snapping up EK unwanted A350XWB's

I have no idea how the law stands on this one, the US/EU open skies allows any airline of either state to fly between any city pairs, at least that's the idea, it thought that this would encourage more airlines to fly more services, improve choice and result in lower fares, the result was the opposite, most US carriers still provide shoddy customer service and charge way to much compared with similar track mileages within the US

To be fair BA stand out as one airline who have not joined the anti Norwegian band wagon and that's probably because they know Norwegian are a bigger threat to US carries than BA who provide a far better service than the US airlines.

With 3 weeks to go until services start from LGW with 10's of thousands of tickets sold & 1000's of connecting tickets sold, plus all the accommodation pre booked i can't see this not happening, if the US were going to block this on valid legal or safety grounds they would have done so by now.

For those in the US reading this, you are right to have concerns over Norwegian's expansion into the US market, but for the wrong reasons, this is a very safety conscious airline that has won award after award throughout Europe for customer service, satisfaction and innovation.

Flying clog

Smoking holes? daft comment, if you think this is cowboy outfit i'd suggest you fly with them,most come away impressed and despite Spanish,Thai Eastern European, English crews it retains that Norwegian/Scandinavian culture....0-10%+ market share at LGW in under 2 years says it all.

I still go with a fudge "the US DoT has secured undertakings that flights between the US and Europe will be operated by crews meeting the spirit of the open skies agreement in respect of labour contracts blah blah"

[LNIDA]

press release from Norwegian

Norwegian has today received approval from The Civil Aviation Authority in Norway to move all of its 787 aircraft from the Norwegian subsidiary Norwegian Long Haul (NLH) to Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS). One 787 Dreamliner will, as before, remain in Norwegian Air International (NAI).

There are several reasons why Norwegian has chosen to make this move, says Geir Steiro, Norwegian’s COO; new EASA regulations, the need for an overflight permit from Russia and the fact the NAS already has the approval to fly between Europe and the U.S.

Another reason for the transfer is the need for overflight permit from Russia. The Russian authorities do not allow wetlease over Russian airspace, and while NLH is a wet lease operator, NAS is not. This means that we hopefully soon will be allowed to fly over Russian airspace en route to Bangkok, which will save 40-50 minutes per flight with the Dreamliner because we will not have to take the detour around the Crimean peninsula,” Geir continues.

With this transfer, the aircraft will be placed in an AOC with permission from the U.S. authorities. Also NLH has had this permit, while our Irish subsidiary Norwegian Air International is still waiting for the approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Norwegian has not considered applying for registration in Norway. All our long-haul aircraft will remain on Irish register.

one of the consequences is that we do not have to wait for the DOT approval.

[oceancrosser]

Good to see Norwegian retreating. Now the pressure needs to be kept on them.

[Dannyboy39]

How dare these next generation locos take away passengers from the precious US majors?

[mini]

The Russian authorities do not allow wetlease over Russian airspace

Is this true? it sounds very strange.

[ArkPilot]

"Retreating"? Hardly, they just placed the 787s in a subsidiary that already has approval to fly to the US.:=

[Koan]

NAI:An pernicious scheme to circumvent the labor laws ands tax administrations of numerous countries, which violates the US/EU open skies agreement.

[lookoutbelow]

Wet and damp lease OPS are allowed over Rusian airspace. Or at least they were in 2011 when I last operated a wet leased aircraft through Russia.

[ArkPilot]

However, the a/c will be operated by NAS not NAI.

[CabinCrew2]

And as a US based Cabin Crew for Norwegian. We're not going anywhere

[caber]

Why on earth are there Europeans on here complaining about the United States trying to squash a scheme by a slimy CEO to have a European flag of convenience but not staff the airline with Europeans following local labor laws? :ugh:

[deptrai]

Calling him "slimey" isn't going to help anyone. He's a shrewd entrepreneur, creative, and yes, he tries to find some loopholes on intercontinental flights to exploit to his advantage... Yet I don't think he's totally unreasonable about everything, or "slimey". Norway-based staff have ok contracts as far as I know, also compared with SAS, the flag carrier. By far not the worst loco actually.

And of course his next move is to lobby the new conservative government of Norway to allow what the previous labour govt denied him...(circumventing norwegian labour law). So unions will have a job to do there. He's tough, I don't think he's retreating yet.

[20driver]

What laws are Norwegian breaking? Creating convoluted and creative corporate structures is hardly anything new, nor unique. Plenty of multinationals hiding the cash in Ireland and the Netherlands.

That some on here don't like what they pay. Well don't work for them. (A little perusing seems to indicate that their T&C aren't that bad)

Seems much more like they represent a threat to the established players who are creating smoke to cover up deficiencies in their own product.

I have a dog in the fight as I have a RT enhanced economy ticket from JFK to Oslo for August. Fully refundable/changeable for $ 1600 on a new 787. If they want to sell tickets for that price and figure they can make money , who am I to say no.

[LNIDA]

Actually they done nothing wrong, unfortunately most Americans are fairly ignorant when it comes to affairs outside of uncle Sam's back yard, most couldn't even place Norway on a map!!

Much of the union hype against Norwegian centres on so called by passing of Norway's labour laws, its not the laws that's the problem its social and employments costs in Norway that are eye watering, to put it in simple American terms we pay around $50000 pa to kids flipping burgers at the M add social taxes and the cost to the employers is around $90k, put simply if we employed all our employee's on Norwegian soil we'd be bust and Boeing would be down on 16 787 sales 100 B738 sales 150 B738MAX sales and options for another 100.....

Our worst paid staff are probably Spanish cabin crew, they earn less than the Thai cabin crew and way less than the American cabin crew, but that is supply and demand due to very high unemployment levels in Spain.

Off course its not all roses in the Norwegian garden, but there are far far worse companies to work for in Europe and if the Americans want to study convoluted employment methods they should look no further than Boeings biggest 738 customer based in, yep Ireland, when they start flying long haul and they will then you won't know what hit you.

So it seems that the DoT now have the fudge needed

Russian overflight wet lease.

SAS made a big fuss last year about knocking Norwegian's so called environmentally friendly B787 by pointing out that because the B787 we're in effect wet leased from NLH to NAS they couldn't overfly Russian airspace and the extra track miles flown by NAS/NLH aircraft offset any emission saving advantage that Norwegian had over SAS's much older long haul aircraft:ugh::ugh:

[Sky Slug]

And as a US based Cabin Crew for Norwegian. We're not going anywhere

Why would you? You get paid like a regional flight attendant, and don't have to fly six legs a day on a RJ or turboprop. You get to spend nights in Stockholm instead of Gulfport, Mississippi.

[Koan]

B787 cockpit crew operationally based in BKK. I assume NAI provides Thai resident visa and work permit?

[deptrai]

Regardless of what you think of Norwegian's cost-cutting tactics, the fact that US carriers are lobbying regulators to stop Norwegian's plans doesn't make them look very good, imho. I can understand and respect ALPA and SWAPA motivations, but US carriers should rather be promoting their own product, than trying to block competitors from entering. A bit off topic.

[DH_call]

@LNIDA
most couldn't even place Norway on a map!!

Don't confuse ignorance with indifference. I bet the average Norwegian or Brit couldn't place Guinea-Bissau on the map without using that fine American product called Google Maps. :ok:

[777X]

Yes LDINA, employment and income tax is high in Norway. But my understanding is NLH won't pay any employer tax (or pension or anything else) for its pilots anywhere! I assume you're a pilot with them so maybe you can tell us more.

If you ever get to work for a proper airline you will understand what NLH is doing wrong.

[pwalhx]

I find it highly amusing our friends across the Atlantic asking 'why don't the Europeans do something'.

What happened when we questioned the fact that U.S. Corporations place themselves in Europe under advantageous tax regimes i.e. Starbucks, Amazon and therefore pay little or no tax here in the U.K. yet making a lot of money.

And regards to what they are paid, I seem to recall articles about pay grades at U.S. regional s.

It is just an attempt at protectionism and over hypocritical.

[A and C]

A good point well made !

[FERetd]

pwalhx Quote " U.S. Corporations place themselves in Europe under advantageous tax regimes i.e. Starbucks, Amazon and therefore pay little or no tax here in the U.K."

How much tax do you pay? Not one penny more than you have to, I'll bet. Just the same as those U.S. Corporations that you mention.

If you don't like it, get your government to change the rules, that is where the fault lies.

[Huck]

It is just an attempt at protectionism and over hypocritical.


Nope.

It's an attempt to stop flags of convenience in the international airline business.

On a pro pilot web board, I'd expect a little more opposition to that idea.

Liberian oversight.... can't wait for that....

[Una Due Tfc]

European law supercedes national law. It wouldn't have mattered what EU nation's flag was on the tail in the regards of employment legislation. Taxation on the other hand.........

[pwalhx]

My point is it is fine to cry foul in when it suits you, then conveniently ignore it when it doesn't.

[Facelookbovvered]

Hilarious Lee Moak and his pal get congress to change the rules preventing the DoT funding to approve NLH application for a route licence, response Norwegian move its 787's from NLH to NAS who already have approval to operate and neatly side step Moak's moves

So now the Dot are faced with having to turn down Norwegian Air shuttle who already have approval from the DoT and are flying between Scandi land and the USA everyday using the same crews that Moak and his mates are objecting to

Round 1 to Norwegian me thinks.....:D

[ManaAdaSystem]

And 0 to all European pilots and cabin crew.
If this is not stopped now, Europe will be wide open to any pilot or cabin crew from any part of the world, regardless of availability of local European crew.

[porterhouse]

. My point is it is fine to cry foul in when it suits you, then conveniently ignore it when it doesn't.
If you showed that Amazon or Starbucks employed 'foreign crews' in the UK or paid sub-par wages then maybe you had a point, otherwise you don't.

[JWP2010]

Maybe not, but Amazon, Starbucks and many other American companies take advantage of the lenient tax laws of other countries. So why not do the same with employment laws? And a number of US presidents have made noises about this 'sort of thing', but the companies still route their tax payments through welcoming countries...

[olasek]

American companies take advantage of the lenient tax laws of other countries.
And all other companies (French, Japanese, Australian, Polish, ...) operating in those countries take advantage of the same identical tax laws, so this is clearly not what we are talking here about. Starbucks operates in UK not because of the tax laws there but because they find market for their coffee there, the last I checked Starbucks is a US company, registered in US.

[wiggy]

olasek

Starbucks operates in UK not because of the tax laws there but because they find market for their coffee there,

Ummmm....problem is if Starbucks are to be believed until very recently there wasn't a market in the UK for their product, which like it or not, did give them significant tax advantages over their UK based competitors.

Starbucks pays UK tax at last | World | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/409806/Starbucks-pays-UK-tax-at-last)

[porterhouse]

So why not do the same with employment laws? .
Sure, why not, open a coffee house in Dublin and hire staff under Thai labour contracts, if you are successful everyone will applaud your entrepreneurship and you will decimate your competition (Starbucks included).

[olasek]

. which like it or not, did give them significant tax advantages
No, using the standard corporate deductions available in UK is NOT a tax advantage over the competition.

[Aluminium shuffler]

Olasek, you are clearly not familiar with what has been happening, but numerous US companies trading in Europe have been playing fast an loose and flouting tax regulations. And if you have a look at the GA field, you'll see hundreds of US registered and operated aircraft in the EU dodging the regulations. This wouldn't be allowed the other way around, but if the EU governments and authorities clamp down, the US cries foul.

It is not the US's protectionism that winds others up - governments should protect their industries and businesses - it's their hypocrisy.

[Ancient Mariner]

Just curious, would some of you posting here spend your hard, and well earned post-tax cash on cruises which often takes place on ships flying flags of convenience with crews not exactly earning top-$?
Much of the same goes for imported goods, most if it entering your country on vessels flying those same flags of convenience.
Good luck in protecting aviation from globalization, but I am afraid it will be heading in the same direction as shipping.

[Piltdown Man]

I decide not cruise in ships that are flagged out. I refuse to buy produce grown in Israel. I will not step foot on an aircraft with a harp on its tail. I also refuse to drink coffee sold by a loss making, Swiss coffee bean buying, US corporate ID leasing operation. I have principles. And even though we live in a world full of hypocrisy, I think we should applaud a step taken in the right direction. Basically, if you are a European company, you employ people on European contracts, allow them to have European employment rights and PAY SOME BLOODY TAX! If not, you must expect to be treated as stateless organisation and be granted nothing!

[Flytdeck]

Piltdown Man. If all pilots maintained your high standard of ethics, there would be no pilots, especially those ex-pats flying in the Middle East!

Many major airlines are operating aircraft where the maintenance is outsourced to foreign countries paying very low wages. Should pilots refuse to fly those aircraft? They are NOT out-sourcing in the Middle East as their maintenance staff is already paid low wages.

This thread is wandering around trade barriers. Looking from high enough up, we know that importing goods can severely impact local industries. It took the American automobile industry years to reorganise and recover. Legacy carriers were knocked on their heels by low cost carriers. It is understandable that they are are concerned about the Nordic onslaught (just ask the British and European coastal communities what they thought of the Vikings) but in the end, the PUBLIC is going to decide. In my perspective, the PUBLIC does not really get involved in the industry ramifications, they really just want the best price.

The politicians may be able to play hide the marble for a bit, but eventually someone is going mount sufficient political pressure to permit the landing rights. If ALPA tries to mount a public attack, they are likely to get caught in the flames. This is a delaying tactic only, and a dangerous one at that. Politicians are meddling with an entity charged with ensuring safe operations and standards, NOT enforcing political policy.

[olasek]

. you'll see hundreds of US registered and operated aircraft in the EU dodging the regulations.
It is not 'dodging regulations', it is operating under the FAA regulations if you are flying on US registry, the same way you can fly in US on European registry.

[captplaystation]

O..h kay, so why (exactly) do they then register them in the Good Ol You Ess of Ay ? plenty European crew available, plenty of European maintenance available, maybe they just like a little American flag on the tail. . . methinks there may be some reason , no ?

[Aluminium shuffler]

So, what you're saying, Olasek, is that it's OK for for FAA registered aircraft to be illegally based in the EU, pretending to be US based but having all their down time in a place like Luton or Farnborough, but it's not OK for a fleet of EU registered aircraft to even operate into the US, let alone be based there? That sounds like pretty typical US protectionism to me, just like the sloping paying fields made by allowing the US operators to fly under Ch 11 while making the competition jump through hoops. The EU should have banned all the US Ch11 operators and should be throwing out all these FAA registered bizjets, puddle jumpers and helicopters and levelling the field.

[Intruder]

Who said anything about "illegal" basing? If airplanes are based illegally, then I'm sure the appropriate authorities will take care of the situation!

I see airplanes registered in various EU countries operating in the US all the time, and have heard no objection to it. I have NOT, however, seen any "EU registered" airplanes. Is there such a thing as "EU Registry"? If so, what is the EU registration prefix?

It is VERY clear that the main objection to the "Norwegian" long-haul proposal is that it CLEARLY uses a flag of convenience in an attempt to cut costs below the norm, avoid regulation, and engage in cabotage. If that is NOT the case, then the operator would simply register the airplanes and base the crews where they do, in fact, operate. If operating Oslo to JFK, then either Norwegian or US registry and basing would be perfectly acceptable.

[cactusbusdrvr]

This thread is prime evidence in how Europe's airline industry has gone down the loo. You don't recognize harm to you when it stares you in the face. You would rather save a euro on a cheap ticket on a marginal airline than protect the established carriers that train and maintain by the rules.

Outsourcing dilutes your product, it only panders to the short term fiscal term.

[wiggy]

You don't recognize harm to you when it stares you in the face.

cactus


If you'd spent some time at previous and current threads about the likes of Ryanair and Norwegian you'll see "we" (i.e. many european pilots) recognised and have been very concerned about the impact of the LoCos for years.

You would rather save a euro on a cheap ticket on a marginal airline than protect the established carriers that train and maintain by the rules.

What's with the "You"? Not me or many of our colleagues, I'd rather walk than use the likes of FR. However the european travelling public are now hooked on cheap tickets and don't give a stuff about established carriers - why should they? As for a political solution - well our lot follow the votes and the money and know it would now be electoral suicide to interfere in the european air travel market...(no I don't like it).

[SOPS]

Having just spent a couple of weeks flying around America on a few "established carriers " all I can say is they all appear to provide close to FR service to me.

[deptrai]

Speaking of inflight service - Norwegian is doing some things right, they're profitable (unlike eg SAS, their competitor and flag carrier in the home market, which just announced another huge loss). Some of their cost-cutting measures are innovative, and ok. Eg from what I understand on their new 787 they only accepts card payments for inflight purchases, food or drinks. No cash handling. Every seat has a touchscreen with a card terminal (based on amdroid, google's free operating system. Probably another cost saving measure, instead of expensive proprietary IFE technology). No paper menus. No asking pax what they want. Want food or drinks (beyond what you prepaid) click on the screen, chose from the menu, swipe your card, and cabin crew get a notification. Want an amenity kit, like on real airlines? Push an onscreen button and swipe your card (25 usd...). Wifi on some aircraft/european flights (surprisingly, free). Power plugs for all seats. USB outlets. Young fleet. Not all they do is bad. Some loco concepts are interesting. Locos are here to stay anyway, cant put the toothpaste back into the tube. I don't see a reason to vilify everything NAS does. But they should be able to offer decent terms and conditions for all employees.

[LNIDA]

Good points well made, Norwegian customer service is up there with many legacy carriers in Europe and it's little wonder our American cousins are crapping themselves frankly.

Money wise all I can say is that it is a good package on short haul and most would be very happy if the contract was a permanent position, the fact that so many of our pilots choose to go on 80% contracts says volumes

From what I've read I think I'm correct in saying that NAS can now fly the 787 out of London next month for a time period of up two years without further approvals

June pax figures will make interesting reading, I've never know the flights so full across most of the net work

[Dannyboy39]

Having just spent a couple of weeks flying around America on a few "established carriers " all I can say is they all appear to provide close to FR service to me.


I think that's being unkind to Ryanair to be fair.

[Dannyboy39]

This thread is prime evidence in how Europe's airline industry has gone down the loo. You don't recognize harm to you when it stares you in the face. You would rather save a euro on a cheap ticket on a marginal airline than protect the established carriers that train and maintain by the rules.


Total rubbish. How do you define "marginal" airline? Are you suggesting the pan-European carriers are not compliant IAW...? Do you have any evidence for spouting this baloney?


Protecting the established carriers - every regional airline I've been on in the US, bar Virgin America, have been total rubbish. Old aircraft, uncomfortable seats, poor service (the last DL flight I was on, the cabin crew member at the back of the ERJ was using his phone during the boarding without a care in the world) and ageing and unorganised terminal facilities.

[BenThere]

To clarify DL (Delta) does not operate any ERJs. The ERJ may fly aircraft with Delta livery and the ticket may be sold by Delta, but they are all operated by a contracted independent regional carrier. That carrier may be owned by Delta, but it is not Delta.

[Dannyboy39]

Actually to correct my previous post, that occurrence was actually an American Eagle flight operated on a Bombardier CRJ. Totally wrong then!

[Hotel Charlie]

Totally wrong then!
You bet!!:ok:

[porterhouse]

FAA registered aircraft to be illegally based in the EU
Please immediately inform EU authorities of those illegally based FAA registered aircraft on your soil - no doubt they will be chased away or impounded. I will do the same with the "illegally" based EU-registered aircraft on my side of the pond and we will be even. :}

[Shanwick Shanwick]

BenThere

I last flew Delta propper between JFK and NCE about 6 months ago and I also experienced a crew member using their telephone during boarding whilst supposedly manning their door.

I would put Delta above their legacy competition but they have a way to go to compete with the likes of Virgin America, JetBlue or indeed any European or Asian carrier.

[BenThere]

I think unprofessional service rendered by individuals can be experienced on any carrier, making it anecdotal.

By 'compete', I'm assuming you're not talking about size, revenues or profits in comparing the airlines you mention, Shanwick x 2.

[ArkPilot]

It's a Delta product, hence, it's Delta.:=

[Una Due Tfc]

I find it hard to believe people here are saying the US legacies are are better than the likes of Ryanair. After all that Chapter 11 BS ten or so years ago when they were LEGALLY allowed fire thousands of employees without honouring their contractual obligations to those same people. How many of you guys and gals based in the US personally know somebody who was financially gutted by chapter 11 employers?

I'm all for legislators protecting the rights of the little guy on the street, but congress should look at it's own back yard too

[olasek]

I find it hard to believe people here are saying the US legacies are are better than the likes of RyanairI don't think 'better' was an intended word here. I don't think you can even compare one with another. You can only compare airlines which offer a similar type of airline service - whether it is Virgin America or JetBlue in the US these are low cost airlines which do NOT provide network-like connections through the US. Comparing them therefore with Delta or AA or United .. makes absolutely no sense.

[captplaystation]

Severe case of protectionism masquerading as self induced tunnel vision here, and American CC employed by NAI know it only too well, perhaps the only Yanks willing to admit it mind you.

[BenThere]

It's a Delta product, hence, it's Delta.

That's true. Delta is accountable. But the discerning traveller knows the difference.

[Dannyboy39]

Chapter 11 BSThe equivalent in the UK is "administration" when essentially, unless you can find a buyer (or a football club), there is no second chance. Your credit rating becomes dire and its virtually impossible to borrow money - its an 'insolvency event'. I use a football club example there - they've essentially been allowed to go into administration, clear the debts, start afresh, overspend and accumulate even more debt which they can't afford and the vicious cycle starts again. Everyone suffers apart from the 'brand' which doesn't change.

Connectivity is important, but so is profitability. There are two many pointless/unprofitable routes operated by US majors. 1000+ aircraft is an obscene number of airplanes you have to pay for. And as a result, the whole product suffers.

[Pointer]

For all the EU jocks up there; it's not that nobody wants them (Norwegian) to fly the routes.. But they are cheating the system! Even though the flight crew are 'based' in BKK, they are mostly Northern EU pilots living in Northern Europe.. Not in BKK! They commute to OSL/ARN/CPH to start their work schedule. Pay package on those contracts are well below the average contract on NAS. no benefits no taxes.. So when legislation catches up with them, guess who holds the short end of the stick.. (Agreed, when accepting a scheme like this.. Know the consequences, just like RYR). Low cost tickets get to be low cost over our backs, we are paying for it! All of us.. sooner or later!!

[LNIDA]

This whole issue is being driven the Airline union in the US they have have paid out in 'election campaign funds' $203,000 to secure backing in the lower house to block Norwegian approval of NAI route licences.

The fact is the US administration know there are no legitimate grounds to block this application, if they were, they would have done so by now!!

Norwegian is fully compliant with the European requirement for open skies and law makers both sides of the pond know it

Norwegians progress will be at the expense of others and they will succeed or fail on the quality and value for money they provide. London is the big test they need to attract passengers who are not Scandinavians (predisposed to flying with Norwegian) to a brand that is not well know globally or even nationally outside of the LGW catchment area, there will be feed traffic from Norwegians network with transit facilities but 90%+ will start/end the flight at LGW

[olasek]

The fact is the US administration know there are no legitimate grounds to block this application, if they were, they would have done so by now!! Wrong conclusion.
The issue is still pending before DOT, DOT hasn't yet ruled on the application.

[LNIDA]

Please note that all of Norwegian’s long-haul routes between the US and the UK are operated by Norwegian Air Shuttle, which has all the necessary permits to fly to and from the US. Our subsidiary is still waiting for an approval from the US Department of Transportation (DOT), but this doesn't affect our operations.




The above is cut & paste from the headline on the Norwegiam.com home page

These will be the same aircraft & crews using the same procedures, manuals, maintenance facilities, operational oversight, the only difference is that they are operated by NAS rather than NAI

DOT heel dragging at the behest of union/airline lobbying does not paint the US in a good light.

[No Fly Zone]

I agree with ALPA's position, but using the Congress to pursue it is silly. We'd all look and smell cleaner if we left NW to their own plan, slightly opened the gate under Fifth Rules and Open Skies - and then let them flunk on their own. With a firm grip on the economics my friends, their model cannot 'fly' any longer than they can continue to pump in huge volumes of cash. The might sustain it for three months, perhaps a bit more of they open during the High Season, but they cannot do it year-round. Perhaps adding that one requirement, year round service at a certain level would be enough to send them packing. No, we cannot just 'outlaw' and airline or a business model that we - mostly our pilots and FAs - do not like. The way to rid ourselves of this annoyance is to allow them, hold them to the best of standards (or more?) year round and when they cannot (or will not) comply, yank their operating certificate. By convention and treaty we cannot really just refuse them. What we CAN do is hold them accountable for every rule and regulation in the substantial book and yank if they do not comply with every period and comma therein. I do not want them either, but we must follow the rules, just as we will ask them to do. It can work - and they cannot comply. I would not want to be their designated Primary Operations Inspector (or whatever the current term may be). Enforce ALL of the part 121 regulations, as well as those dealing with maintenance - ALL of them, and these folks will soon go away. Their business model simply won't 'fly' in the lower 48 states. :}:}

[LNIDA]

Agree with you 100% let the market decide so long as any inspection is consistent with that applied to all other airlines, BTW they been operating to the USA from Scandinavia (clue its NE of England where Disney's Frozen movie was modelled and home to 95% of Telsa sales in Europe) for over a year now, if that counts for year round.

7th Dreamliner delivered at the weekend

[keel beam]

"What we CAN do is hold them accountable for every rule and regulation in the substantial book and yank if they do not comply with every period and comma therein."

Really? There won't be many airlines flying in the "good 'ol US of A" then.
I have no doubt that Norwegian Airlines will do as the American carriers do, ie when it is a lean season on a route they will use their aircraft on more profitable fat season route.
They have won this Norwegian is announced as the Best Low Cost Airline in Europe at the 2013 World Airline Awards (http://www.worldairlineawards.com/awards_2013/lowcosteurope.htm)

and this

Norwegian wins international award for best in-flight WiFi - Norwegian (http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/norwegian/pressreleases/norwegian-wins-international-award-for-best-in-flight-wifi-794829)

and this (scroll down the page

germanwings, Norwegian, Atlasjet Ukraine win Euro ANNIEs 2014 (http://www.anna.aero/2014/05/14/fifth-annual-euro-annies-part-ii-germanwings-gains-two-euro-annies-airline-awards-surprisingly-show-ryanair/)


Just for starters over the last couple of years. So this is competition for all carriers to watch out for and get their acts together. The American carriers will only be slightly worried for now but as Norwegian build up flights and destinations they will nibble more and more at the American carrier's heels.


All carriers will not be able to compete with prices that Norwegian offer, eg $268 LAX to ARN! They will have to compete and win in other aspects of airline operations.


So to use the phrase - Step up to the plate - and compete!

[deptrai]

No Fly Zone - re "let them flunk on their own"...their biggest issue right now on longhaul is delays...eg just recently a 787 was stranded for 40 hours waiting for spare parts (Boeing maintenance contract...they store parts anywhere but where they are needed, apparently). If this happens once in a while, no problem, pax forget, but scandinavian business travellers are already very aware of the fact that NAS has been struggling to get their dreamliners to arrive on time (and we're talking days here, not hours...). It doesnt help that they only have 6, or 7 aircraft, and that their business model requires the aircraft to be in the air virtually continuously, leaving little time for unplanned maintenance. If they manage to scare away all business travellers they will flunk...but yes I fully agree, they should be allowed to try. Yet I also think they should offer decent contracts.

[RTO]

LNIDA: You should be ashamed by forwarding the Norwegian lies on this once proud forum that consists of quite a few pilots. In mine and my collegues eyes you are nothing but a scab that are stabbing us in the back and assists the management in executing their grand devide and conquer plan. Karma will catch up with you one day.

[Koan]

The Hill ran an opinion editorial written by former Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today. In the piece, titled “Many Questions Still Unanswered about Norwegian Air’s Impact on Fair Competition,” LaHood says fair competition is one of the founding principles of Open Skies—and he should know, being the authority who oversaw the signing of Open Skies agreements with 16 different countries during his tenure. He raises a number of questions, and asserts: “While I am withholding final judgment until more facts become available, NAI’s proposal appears contrary to a key provision in our EU Second Stage agreement that ensured new commercial opportunities created by the agreement could not be exploited to subvert labor standards and create an unfair competitive environment.”

[LNIDA]

Show me a lie????

Some people are living in the misguided belief that Norwegian are operating akin to a Liberian flag of convenience, I meet long haul crew in our crew rooms on a regular basis and all seem happy, turnover of staff is next to non existent, they are a European airline with staff from dozens of different countries from around Europe and further afield I'm told our American cabin crew earn more than they can in the US and again are happy, yes the Dream liner reliability is an on going issue ditto spares, but i guess that's the risk when you buy new Boeing......lets see what happens over the Summer

[captplaystation]

LNIDA, "Liberian" mate, just sayin. . . . . .

[MrDuck]

is a phrase that only partly works with aviation.
Aviation as a totally free market is a terrible idea.
race for the bottom and all.

This doesn't necessarily apply to NA but geez, let's not be thinking the industry doesn't need regulation

[LNIDA]

Of course it needs regulation to ensure safe practice, but applying regulation by insisting on employment practices when those who seek it don't even apply it in their back yard smells of protectionism.

There are no cages that lock people into employment with Norwegian, yes of course there are industry standard bonds but not the sort of manacles that you see in Irish and some English airlines

The Norwegian culture is very much if you don't want to be here we'd rather you weren't here. It's not perfect of course, but our cousins from over the pond have only themselves to fear.

[Widebdy]

LNIDA just because the crew are happy does not make it right? Many of them are new on type and many from Ryanair of course they are happy :8 If you want to talk about pay their fixed salary is fairly modest for long haul wide body operations, especially if they are paying a fair amount of tax. We are not debating their feelings we are debating their contractual setup and our future.

It can not in my view be regarded as normal or acceptable for any airline from one country to fly between a second and third country while being regulated in a completely separate fourth country plus have contracts from a completely different continent.

The unions have every right to ask that such obscure setups be investigated. Also worth keeping in mind it is both the american and the european pilot unions lobbying.

I believe NAS is a good company which doesn't need to get involved in some of these obscure setups. But this is not about NAS or NAI or NHL etc.

Remember blocking NAS is not the agenda. This is actually not so much about NAS as it is about the broader issue. The agenda is to prevent the development of a system where a corporations can shop around globally and then mix and match various jurisdictions for the purposes of regulation, business, labour laws etc etc.

If a Chinese company started up in LGW next week with flying LGW to OSL whilst regulated in Jamaica with crews contracts from middle Africa I have no doubt that in my humble opinion every Pilot in the UK would be marching on the streets.

I personally suspect that NAS will be given approval once they tidy things up a little bit. Most probably one option is to put everything in Ireland including crew contracts. I guess some might regard the whole picking a fight as good publicity by NAS for NAS!!!!

[captplaystation]

LNIDA

The T's & C's in the less glossy US carriers are pretty woeful. As you say, before casting aspersions on NAS contracts in Singapore/Bangkok (which are indeed a little on the light side for flying a wide body, but then again so is the 787 :D) they should perhaps tackle the cr@p on offer in their own back yard.

US national NAS/NAI CC I have spoken to , are well pissed with all of this. . .go figure.



However, Widebdy I am also in total agreement with you. Basically, ladies & gentle(?)men. . . we are all being screwed . . .or hadn't you noticed :ugh: :bored:

[lookoutbelow]

Personally, I would consider a €30,000 up front bond for experienced Boeing Capt's and FO's converting to the 787 pretty tight shackles.

[Ian W]

Widebody
If a Chinese company started up in LGW next week with flying LGW to OSL whilst regulated in Jamaica with crews contracts from middle Africa I have no doubt that in my humble opinion every Pilot in the UK would be marching on the streets.

I am not sure that is the case. The EASA and local regulators such as UK CAA would check that all their safety requirements were being met (these are not driven by location of business). But apart from those safety/regulatory issues, I don't see any reasons to protest. Is it any different to regionals choosing which US right to work state they are based in? Their Ts&Cs are not too brilliant either.

Multinational companies have been making this type of choice of location of their HQ and business units for tax purposes for many decades. Provided all the safety regulations of the airspaces flown in are met, why is the multinational air carrier business different?