Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Terms and Endearment
Reload this Page >

Norwegian B737 Pilot selection (Updated)

Terms and Endearment The forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.

Norwegian B737 Pilot selection (Updated)

Old 4th Jan 2017, 00:18
  #821 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: upper hemisphere
Posts: 81
Pilots will be employed by OSM Aviation on permanent contracts, OSM Aviation is 50% owned by Norwegian.
Hehe..."permanent" contracts.
LeftHeadingNorth is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 05:02
  #822 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Every bit as permanent as the ex employee's of XL airways, Globespan, bmibaby to name a few who employed their pilots directly.

They receive sick pay, holiday pay, private medical*, pension, uniform, crew meals, mobile phone allowance, ID travel, sim checks on working days, positioning on working days, hotel & food ( B&B ) out of base. BALPA agreement with OSM ( UK) with crew council made up of pilots flying for Norwegian, not unnamed pilots to "protect" them from intimidation and certainly not 'zero hour' contracts

* from January 2017

Could be a lot worse, interesting route structure, with winter seasonal volunteer options to fly out of the Caribbean to the East coast of the US + Chicago/Milwaukee based charter flights to Jamaica & Mexico

This is of course for the 738 fleet.
INKJET is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 08:13
  #823 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
Pilots will be employed by OSM Aviation on permanent contracts, OSM Aviation is 50% owned by Norwegian
As detailed in the post by MM from the provided link; OSM Aviation is 50% owned by Norwegian Air Resources Holding Ltd ('NARH', Ireland):

“Norwegian's operations are separated into a commercial airline group with the appropriate Air Operator Certificate holders ('AOC holders'), an asset group, a resource group and other activities” - such as fractional ownership of a Ship Management company turning its hand to airline staff rental.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/merg...7949_400_3.pdf

In short, you are most definitely “unemployed” by a Norwegian AIRLINE.

The contract may be permanent with OSM, however, at any time during the contract the respective Norwegian airline may return you to your employer, OSM, without notice, reason or recourse. OSM may find you alternative work (unlikely) - so much for "permanent".

Pilots will be subject to the labor laws of their country of employment, so if you are based LGW or EDI it will be (is) UK labor law
Only if the choice of law specified in their employment contract is coincidental with the base. Otherwise, the choice of law specified may be from another country. The EU Rome Convention, Employment Contracts, Choice of Law is very specific. Norwegian has stated Irish labor law will be applicable to NAI. The applicable labor law is further complicated by Norwegian’s propensity to base crews temporarily all over its European gateways. Here is a case example of the complexity in establishing jurisdiction:

http://conflictoflaws.net/2011/ecj-r...ent-contracts/

BALPA agreement with OSM (UK) with crew council made up of pilots flying for Norwegian, not unnamed pilots to "protect" them from intimidation
BALPA cannot represent you to any Norwegian airline, if it could you would not need a token gesture ‘crew council’ (they do not need protection as they have no authority or power whatsoever). Does the signature of Bjorn Kjos or a Norwegian AIRLINE representative appear on any BALPA/OSM agreement?

The word ‘circumvention’ has never been more appropriate than when applied to Norwegian’s atypical labor model.

I predict that Norwegian’s US permit will be revoked or suspended by the Trump administration:

https://larsen.house.gov/sites/larse...I_12202016.pdf

The number is presently 108 and rising.
Direct Bondi is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 15:05
  #824 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Dear DB

I don't think anyone working for OSM on behalf of Norwegian is under any illusion that they are 'employed' by Norwegian, but again what difference does it make in practical terms?

I know personally of only a couple of people who had their contracts terminated without notice whilst working for the previous agencies now long defunct in short haul.

You may well be right in your prediction about Trump having a bonfire of Obama era legislation, but because you wish it so will not make it so and as i have said previously it will make very little difference, i do not see Trump wanting to pull out of open skies with Europe and neither do the American airlines.

This is very straight forward, either NAI and/or NUK does meet the requirements of open skies in all areas including the labor provisions or it doesn't the fact that the DoT spent 3 years under huge lobbying pressure looking for a reason to say NO but ultimately granted approval (reluctantly or other wise) speaks volume.

The IAA have some curious airlines on the their register from all over Europe and beyond including the the Airbus that came down over Northern Egypt. They also have Ryanair, Aer Lingus and of course all of Europe's Norwegian short haul fleet outside of Norway are or will be by years end on the Irish register.

I have no doubt that there are many advantages basing an airline in a country/currency where you do the majority of your business, but Norwegian is a pan European airline with back office functions in Spain, the UK and parts of Eastern Europe.

So we await Trumps Tweet T - 16 and counting
INKJET is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 18:28
  #825 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
MM

Where the beef pal? what i see day after day are full flights, satisfied customers, award after award. You might feel threatened, but history shows that luddites only hold back the tide so long and when it does come in it overwhelms them.

The history of the UK who started the industrial revolution shows that change presents challenges.

You are just so wrong, chapter 11 and fly America subsidies have left a bloated industry unable to respond to the gulf carriers or Norwegian, the only response is to site labor concerns, this from from a country that imported 2.5m slaves (with British help!!)
INKJET is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2017, 17:57
  #826 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 20
"Based on the findings, we estimated the stock price of Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA to be NOK 283,1. On 31.03.2016 the stock price of Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA was NOK 311,5 and therefore our claim was that the stock is overvalued. Our recommendation is then to sell the stock.
Stock Price today, 05. 01. 2017 is NOK 286.3

To answer the problem statement, we will do a fundamental valuation of Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA.
First we did a strategic analysis, consisting one external analysis and one internal analysis. This gave us the foundation for predicting future development and environment of the company.
From the external analysis we found that the European market is driven by low margins and fierce competition. We also tested our findings with a sensitivity analysis to find what factors will have the biggest effect on the estimated value per share.

The sensitivity-analysis showed us that our model is highly sensitive to the fuel cost and the currency combined due to high volatility and sensitivity towards the cost of debt.
The sensitivity towards the cost of debt is driven by NAS having a high debt to equity ratio."

About Debt to Equity Ratio

Leverage ratio indicating the relative proportion of shareholders' equity and debt used to finance a company's assets. A low debt to equity ratio indicates lower risk, because debt holders have less claims on the company's assets.
A debt to equity ratio of 5 means that debt holders have a 5 times more claim on assets than equity holders.

A high debt to equity ratio usually means that a company has been aggressive in financing growth with debt,
and, often results in volatile earnings as a result of the additional interest expense and a driver of stock performance / risk.

S A S AB's Debt to Equity Ratio (Quarterly ) : 0.00 for July 2016.

Norwegian Air Shuttle Debt to Equity Ratio (Quarterly): 5.83 for Sept. 2016.

Norwegian Air Shuttle Debt to Equity Ratio ( Annual ) :

Dec09 Dec10 Dec11 Dec12 Dec13 Dec14 Dec15
0.99 > 1.38 > 2.19 > 2.28 > 2.37 > 6.30 > 6.61


Norwegian Air Shuttle And Companies / Investment Rating = Baa3

Investment Grade: Aaa → Aa1 → Aa2 → Aa3 → A1 → A2 → A3 → Baa1 → Baa2 → Baa3

Long-term Corporate Obligation Ratings are the relative credit risk of fixed-income obligations with an original maturity of 1 year or more.
The ratings reflect both the likelihood of default and any financial loss suffered in the event of default.

Global Credit Research

An indirect, wholly-owned, Irish-registered, subsidiary of NAS, Torefjorden DAC, will own the aircraft and lease them to NAS' Irish-registered airline, Norwegian Air International Limited ("NAIL") on 12-year operating leases. Torefjorden will issue the equipment notes owned by the Pass Through Trusts. The payments made by NAIL on the operating leases will fund the payments due on the equipment notes, which will fund the amounts due on the Certificates. Torefjorden is a designated activity company.
Its activities are limited solely to owning and leasing the specific aircraft in the transaction and issuing the equipment notes. NAS will absolutely and unconditionally guarantee NAIL's obligations to Torefjorden in respect of each Lease, and Torefjorden's obligations to the Trusts under the equipment notes. If NAIL cancels the leases, Torefjorden must redeem the equipment notes. Please see our detailed report on this transaction, "Norwegian Air Shuttle: 2016-1 Enhanced Equipment Trust Certificates Financing of Boeing B737-800s" available under Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA for further background about this inaugural EETC of NAS.

The structure crosses three legal jurisdictions (Ireland, Norway and the United States) and it contains several Norwegian group entities, including one SPV (see below).
Torefjorden DAC (Torefjorden - an Irish SPV) will issue senior and junior loans (equipment notes made individually on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis) to partially fund a purchase of 10 737-800s. Torefjorden is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arctic Aviation Assets Limited (AAAL - NAS's wholly-owned Irish leasing subsidiary). Torefjorden will fund the remainder of the aircraft balance by either an equity injection or intercompany loans from AAAL.
The aircraft will be leased (triple net operating leases) to Norwegian Air International Limited (NAIL - an Irish-registered, airline operating company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of NAS).

Last edited by marvelman; 6th Jan 2017 at 21:06. Reason: Norwegian Air Shuttle Debt to Equity Ratio Annual
marvelman is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2017, 19:46
  #827 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
DB

Do BA, Easyjet and Jet2 passengers really care when they jump on a Titan aircraft on a flight they booked with the above? Unfortunately passenger think and rightly so that flying is totally safe, which in risk terms it is, is it any different to a code share?

I say this because i don't think it matters so long as the standards are maintained , ultimately they are Norwegian pilots in everything but contract of employment name.
INKJET is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 11:32
  #828 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,351
More or less. . . . . . .


Incident: Go2Sky B738 at Kristiansand on Nov 4th 2016, "racing start"
captplaystation is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 12:18
  #829 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 272
INKJET,

It does indeed matter when crew members have no employment relationship with the airline certificate holder, even more so when applicable to an entire airline division.

Unfortunately, many of you are still confused by a smoke and mirrors shell game and have an insatiable thirst for Kjos Kool-Aid.

Neither BALPA nor SEPLA has a collective agreement with a Norwegian airline and cannot represent you to a Norwegian airline. Norwegian may summarily return crew members to their agency employer without reason or recourse.

Norwegian’s Safety Management is described on page 14 of its 2015 Annual Report. A declaration appears on its website of compliance (allegedly) with ILO core conventions:

http://www.norwegian.com/globalasset...eport_2015.pdf

http://www.norwegian.com/uk/about/co...y/human-worth/

Reported facts of incidents suggest a fear culture environment, where staff are summarily terminated before Norwegian has even conducted a mandatory safety investigation - as required by its AOC [GM1 ORO.GEN.200 (a)(2)].

The events surrounding DY7006 (EI-LNF), JFK ARN, and the prior concerns of crew members regarding Go2Sky, exemplify a fear culture environment:

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/kabi...einen/60837192

“Dare not say anything for fear of not getting renewed contract”

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/norw...heten/60229786

Norwegian is now soliciting applications to join the “Norwegian family”. Watch out for those dysfunctional relatives in Fornebu.
Direct Bondi is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 17:53
  #830 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Kristiansand
Posts: 28
Have you been in direct contact with Bjorn to raise these points and concerns?
annakm is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 18:47
  #831 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 10
Direct Bondi,

Was there ever an official report filed on the DY7006 incident?
flybywire44 is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2017, 20:42
  #832 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 20
Any company without solid foundation, sound corporate culture and management, would experience Safety Factors / Issues, that makes them prone
to incidents, and/or, lead to an accident. Especially during "expansion".

However, the Non-sustainable, preceding paramount issues here, are:

Rising Overcapacity, Rising Debt, Rising Financing Interest Rates, Rising Volatility, Rising Fuel Prices, Rising Competition, Escalating Fare Wars, and,
Underpaid / Overworked Labor Force.


" To answer the problem statement, we will do a fundamental valuation of Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA.
First we did a strategic analysis, consisting one external analysis and one internal analysis. This gave us the foundation for predicting future development and environment of the company.
From the external analysis we found that the European market is driven by low margins and fierce competition. We also tested our findings with a sensitivity analysis to find what factors will have the biggest effect on the estimated value per share.

The sensitivity-analysis showed us that our model is highly sensitive to the fuel cost and the currency combined due to high volatility and sensitivity towards the cost of debt.
The sensitivity towards the cost of debt is driven by NAS having a high debt to equity ratio."

About Debt to Equity Ratio

Leverage ratio indicating the relative proportion of shareholders' equity and debt used to finance a company's assets. A low debt to equity ratio indicates lower risk, because debt holders have less claims on the company's assets.
A debt to equity ratio of 5 means that debt holders have a 5 times more claim on assets than equity holders.

A high debt to equity ratio usually means that a company has been aggressive in financing growth with debt,
and, often results in volatile earnings as a result of the additional interest expense and a driver of stock performance / risk.

S A S AB's Debt to Equity Ratio (Quarterly ) : 0.00 for July 2016.

Norwegian Air Shuttle Debt to Equity Ratio (Quarterly): 5.83 for Sept. 2016.

Norwegian Air Shuttle Debt to Equity Ratio ( Annual ) :

Dec09 Dec10 Dec11 Dec12 Dec13 Dec14 Dec15
0.99 > 1.38 > 2.19 > 2.28 > 2.37 > 6.30 > 6.61


Norwegian Air Shuttle And Companies / Investment Rating = Baa3

Investment Grade: Aaa → Aa1 → Aa2 → Aa3 → A1 → A2 → A3 → Baa1 → Baa2 → Baa3

Long-term Corporate Obligation Ratings are the relative credit risk of fixed-income obligations with an original maturity of 1 year or more.
The ratings reflect both the likelihood of default and any financial loss suffered in the event of default. "

Global Credit Research

Last edited by marvelman; 9th Jan 2017 at 20:51.
marvelman is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 10:01
  #833 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 116
You obviously know how to google facts but you lack understanding and background knowledge to interpret these facts in a business context

Debt to equity ratio: Norwegians Debt to equity ratio is 5.83. What does that number mean? Are you talking about long term, short term liabilities or total debt? Is it high or low? In respect to what industry? Start by educating yourself about what figures are normal for capital intensive industries like aviation and google the stats of other airlines.

Also, you particularly fail to to mention that Norwegian Debt to equity ratio has actually shrunken from December 15 to September 16 all while financing an aggressive expansion. What does this tell you?

Credit rating: Norwegians Corporate Credit Rating is baa3. That Moodys rating is equivalent to a S&P Rating of BBB- and denotes a lower medium grade investment rating.

Here are some other airlines corporate credit ratings from 2016.

United Continental Holding: BB-
American Airlines: BB-, upgraded from B+
British Airways: baa3, upgraded from ba1
Lufthansa: BBB-

Given your now newfound knowledge, how would you now rate Norwegians credit rating? Normal maybe?

Rising overcapacity? Given the fact that the airline has just surpassed SAS Group in terms of passengers carried in 16 and that a lot of the new planes this year will be used to increase capacity on routes as demand is high and the planes are full tells me overcapacity is not really an issue.

Rising interest rates? Yes Trump might shutdown Ex-Im Bank but in the end, do you really think that a company which is able to get financing for 100 brand new Airbus has trouble financing their airplanes?

Rising fuel prices? Rising fuel prices will affect everyone and will be in the end paid by the customer anyways. A young, fuel efficient fleet however will give you an advantage so i also don't see this as more of a problem for Norwegian than for any other airline.

Escalating Fare war and competition? The fact that companies are adapting to Norwegian and not the other way round shows how successful and good their product is. Competition is always good and will in the end benefit the customer and rightly so, the times of milking passengers on the NAT Routes with artificially high prices by the fare controlling JVs are over.

Underpaid and overworked work force. Highly subjective. You sadly can't really compare the salaries paid in the US to the EU in the aviation industry in any case, whats paid here is ridiculous compared to whats on offer in the US. The fact however that there are many people are leaving jobs/contracts in the middle and far east to join NLH on (compared to their previous level) reduced T&C tells me that money alone isn't what makes people happy in the long run. And again, i challenge everyone to find me a better offer in the EU right now, where you can join as a senior first officer / rca, earn 100k€+, can live at home and commute to your job from all over the EU, and have the prospect of becoming a captain on a widebody within a year.

Also yes you work more for your money compared to a legacy carrier but its not worse than any other airline taking advantage of EASA max FTL. And honestly, what makes people feel tired and overworked is really subjective and is different for each individual.
Parkbremse is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 16:02
  #834 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 20
--------- JUST IN ... 01/09/17 08:10 AM EST


Our aviation trade rules with the EU unambiguously require that airlines abide by high labor standards and honor the respective labor laws on both sides of the Atlantic. NAI fails this test, and now is the time for the president to prove that his words hold weight and that commitments negotiated into trade agreements are not empty promises.

“I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules.”

Those were President Obama’s words in 2012 explaining his view of U.S. trade policy.

Following this same principle, the Obama administration negotiated a new air services agreement with the European Union (EU) which included, for the first time, a labor article to protect aviation workers on both sides of the Atlantic, and to ensure that the parties to the agreement all played by the same rules. The U.S. State Department at the time referred to that labor article (known as Article 17 bis) as “groundbreaking.”

But now, the President’s trade principles are failing a critical stress test. Late last year, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) made the controversial decision to permit Norwegian Air International (NAI) to launch service into the U.S. in direct violation of this “groundbreaking” labor article.
The president’s decision on whether to intervene in the NAI case will define his aviation legacy.

The facts in the NAI case are clear and tell a chilling tale about the failures of U.S. trade policy. NAI is an Irish subsidiary of Norway-based Norwegian Air Shuttle, an airline that already has DOT authority to fly into the U.S. and currently serves several markets here. Why base NAI in Ireland you ask? Because in Ireland, NAI’s parent company can evade Norway’s tax and employment laws and escape collective bargaining obligations to its own employees. In Ireland it can instead hire pilots and flight attendants under short-term, individual employment contracts arranged by a hiring agency in Singapore.

Article 17 bis of the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement (ATA) was designed to explicitly bar this type of “flag of convenience” airline operation from benefiting from the agreement and gaining an unfair advantage over airlines that play by the rules. It states that “the opportunities created by the agreement are not intended to undermine labour standards,” and further states that this principle “shall guide the parties as they implement” the agreement. There could be no clearer effort to undermine labor standards than the operating scheme designed by NAI’s parent company.

Yet, in issuing the permit for NAI to begin flying to the U.S., the DOT coldly cast that provision aside stating that “Article 17 bis cannot be decisional in this proceeding.” With a quick swipe of the pen, the Obama DOT gutted the very “groundbreaking” labor protection that this administration previously championed. By ignoring NAI’s violations and refusing to enforce Article 17 bis, the DOT has defied the president’s core trade principle that declares our competitors will “play by the rules.”

So we have to ask, if Article 17 bis cannot be applied in this case, when can it be applied? In the waning days of his administration, the president has a chance to answer that question by stepping in and declaring that employee protections negotiated into trade agreements matter and will be enforced.

U.S. aviation is at a crossroads.

Decades ago our government sealed the fate of the U.S. Merchant Marine by opening the floodgates to the same type of forum shopping for low labor costs and standards that lies at the core of NAI’s business model. The result? Today, sadly, we have sweatshops at sea. Most of the ships calling at our ports are crewed by mariners working in low-wage and often dangerous conditions as global shipping giants earn billions in profits. Our maritime workforce is less than 10 percent of the size it was 50 years ago and only about 2 percent of shipping into U.S. ports is handled by U.S.-flag vessels.

Note: not coincidentally, NAI’s CEO honed his skills as a maritime lawyer.

President Obama can stop this. He can intervene and the secretary of Transportation can amend or revoke the DOT’s Dec. 3 order because it is in the public interest to do so. If President Obama fails to reverse this decision, it will be left to President-elect Donald Trump to ensure that our aviation trade agreements are fully enforced. Norwegian Air shouldn’t be rewarded for bad behavior — it should be forced to play by the same rules as every other airline in the transatlantic market.

Four years ago President Obama said he wouldn’t “stand by” when our competitors violate the rules dictated by trade agreements.

Our aviation trade rules with the EU unambiguously require that airlines abide by high labor standards and honor the respective labor laws on both sides of the Atlantic. NAI fails this test, and now is the time for the president to prove that his words hold weight and that commitments negotiated into trade agreements are not empty promises.
marvelman is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 17:02
  #835 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 116
Hilarious. I have no clue where you get that 50% figure from but if it is from this website (and there is literally no other reference to this value), everybody can see how much meaning this values really have:

https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/mar...Major_Airlines

https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/rat..._Of_Bankruptcy

https://www.macroaxis.com/invest/rat...-Of-Bankruptcy

You have no clue what these values really mean and what they are used for, you just pick what suits your agenda and disregard the rest. You have no ability or willingness to engage in a non polemic factual debate without name calling, all you can do is reiterate an opinion in the same words again and again without any background knowledge or ability to back it up when challenged. And its annoying, because while certainly not everything is perfect and there are things which are debatable or need improvement, this extreme negative bias against Norwegian, especially on this forum, is completly unjustified, both for SH and LH.

Maybe you should get your head out of the sand. The airline industry is about to get heavily disrupted any no crying and whining by unions and legacy airlines will stop it now that it has been proven that you can create a competitive longhaul lowcost product and slash fares in half on the north atlantic. If Norwegian will survive and flourish, time will tell, but I think (personal opinion) that before we will see Norwegian fail, at least one big name will fall and vanish because they will be slow to adapt to the fast changing market.
Parkbremse is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 17:54
  #836 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Escaped the sandpit 53 32′ 9.19″ N, 9 50′ 13.29″ E
Posts: 596
Originally Posted by marvelman View Post
Get your head out of the sand. Even a Norwegian Troll can interpret these FACTS correctly.
If you want a discussion about the topic you should stop with the personal bs.
ExDubai is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 19:23
  #837 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Escaped the sandpit 53 32′ 9.19″ N, 9 50′ 13.29″ E
Posts: 596
Originally Posted by marvelman View Post
The Objective Is Just ONLY the hard facts.

NO discussion ----------- Waste of Time...
Then you should think about starting a blog or a webpage. A forum is all about discussions.
ExDubai is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 20:40
  #838 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 20
Solely the hard Facts. Opinions and comments are inconsequential.


AND, by the way, You know NOTHING FACTUAL about myself OR my Background OR what I know Or don't know about BUSINESS OR Otherwise.

Which Again proves my point. You are willing to state Anything, While knowing NOTHING.


NO 'personal" discussion. If you have something FACTUAL to offer on the subject, just state it , otherwise any other comment is just Waste of Time...


Again, The OBJECTIVE IS Just ONLY the hard facts on the subject.


Tanking NAS stock again, during the last few days of trading. From 302 Down To 271.

This happened, despite the Hype, immediately after Norwegian announced, the addition of 30 more planes this year.


Get your head out of the sand. Even a "Norwegian Air" Troll can interpret these FACTS correctly.

And, the Rated Probability Of Bankruptcy = more than 50 %.

Accordingly, ALL the many Norwegian financial analysis with explicit numbers and details out there must have the facts and the interpretations wrong as well.


ONLY the true facts count and plenty Indisputable facts are readily available.


The Non-sustainable, preceding paramount issues here, are:

Rising Overcapacity, Rising Debt, Rising Financing Interest Rates, Rising Volatility, Rising Fuel Prices, Rising Competition, Escalating Fare Wars, and,
Underpaid / Overworked Labor Force.


TIP: "FOLLOW THE MONEY ".

Wake up and stop dreaming.

Last edited by marvelman; 10th Jan 2017 at 02:06. Reason: Tanking NAS stock again, during the last few days of trading. From 302 Down To 271.
marvelman is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2017, 22:39
  #839 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Kristiansand
Posts: 28
I would still like Marvelman and Direct Bondi to elaborate why they have such a personal issue with NAS. Ex employees?
annakm is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2017, 01:02
  #840 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 20
The opinions and comments by Norwegian Air Apologists are ONLY inconsequential.

The OBJECTIVE IS JUST the hard facts on the subject.

And ALL the hard facts are Indisputable.

TIP: " FOLLOW THE MONEY "

Wake up and Stop dreaming.
marvelman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.