US Congress Moves to Block Norwegian Longhaul from US Expansion
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.K.
Age: 75
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tax?
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.
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.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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.........
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. My point is it is fine to cry foul in when it suits you, then conveniently ignore it when it doesn't.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foreign Crews?
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...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American companies take advantage of the lenient tax laws of other countries.
olasek
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
Starbucks operates in UK not because of the tax laws there but because they find market for their coffee there,
Starbucks pays UK tax at last | World | News | Daily Express
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why not do the same with employment laws? .
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. which like it or not, did give them significant tax advantages
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
It is not the US's protectionism that winds others up - governments should protect their industries and businesses - it's their hypocrisy.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ethics
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. you'll see hundreds of US registered and operated aircraft in the EU dodging the regulations.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
