Direct Bondi has hit the nail on the head, as the whole situation is a tad Iffy, both in contract and financial terms.

The Rishworth sales dept fan fails to understand that some wanabees borrow money against their parents house, so if things don't work out as regards upfront or type rating bonds, they might all finish up on the street.
Many of them are in enough financial trouble already, without giving away more of their family fortune!

We are getting nowhere here.

/ I merely pointed out there is no shady deal between rishworth and a bank owned by rishworth . This is incorrect and into the realms of conspiracy theory . I offer no opinion on the ethics or anything else of the deal.

/ wannabes and their parents will not be on the street due to securing loans on their houses. We don't take wannabes, you need to be an experienced Boeing pilot ( or Airbus ) to go on the 787.

/ I'm not trying to persuade people to join , I don't care either way. I only posted here to r redress some of the bull being spoken as I am party to the actual reality.

The actual reality is a circumvention and misrepresentation scheme.

The Norwegian Airline Group recruits, interviews, hires, determines the base, roster, days off, vacation, promotion opportunities, layoffs and may also terminate pilots and cabin crew. By EU law definition, Norwegian is the employer.

Pilots and cabin crew working for Norwegian in the UK are not working under the UK Employment Act 2008. As such, they have no claim whatsoever against Norwegian in any employment dispute. Nor do they have the right to union representation or collective agreement with Norwegian.

Pilots and cabin crew in the UK employed by an agency, are working under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. Although Norwegian may have misrepresented itself as the "employer" on crew airport ID badges and US visa applications.

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. Serious concerns remain regarding Norwegian's circumvention of employment rights and principles.

Several weeks ago Kjos boasted in the Norway press that he did not need the US Permit - link:
- Vi kan fly til krampa tar oss med de tillatelsene vi har - DN.no
* copy and paste to Google Translate

More recently, Kjos has written a begging letter to DOT Secretary Foxx pleading for the US Permit - link:
Kjos frir til Obama for å få trafikkrettigheter i USA - Aftenposten

In reply to the Kjos letter the Secretary of the European Transport Workers Union, Francos Ballastero, stated:

"In an attempt to pursue the policy stated in the employment agreement, the Spain based pilots have organized themselves under SEPLA, the Spanish pilots union, and have made repeated attempts to engage Norwegian or representatives of Norwegian, for the purposes of constructive talks. For the past six months these repeated attempts have been completely ignored by Norwegian. As a reply to these efforts made by the pilot representatives, Norwegian has stated it does not have any pilots in Spain, but an agency called OSM does"

Article 17 of the current US-EU Air Transport Agreement, Open-Skies, states: "The opportunites created by the Agreemnt are not intended to undermine the labor standards or the labor related rights and principles contained in the Parties respective laws"

Norwegian categorically does not meet the prerequisite requirement of Article 17. A US Permit cannot be granted.

Aren't all the NLH crew now UK based? and if so, they will be subject to UK agency employment laws , in this respect, I fail to see what the 737 Pilots based in Spain have to do with the NLH DOT application, Incidentally, the Spanish are no blueprint for labour relations given their record of airline strikes and ATC strikes.. which brings me to the next point, if they are so unhappy in Spain, why don't they strike as usual.. answers on a postcard!

Agency pilots and cabin crew have no labor rights nor labor principles with their real employer, Norwegian - para 2 above (e.g. union representation and collective agreement).
If the Spanish agency pilots were to strike against Norwegian they could be summarily terminated without recourse. In a "direct employment relationship" striking pilots cannot be terminated without due process (recall the 600 directly employed pilots on strike in March). In the UK the difference between the Employment Act and the Agency Workers Regulations - right to strike vs immediate dismissal.
Kjos does not mind if agency pilots join one or ten unions, he has no obligation to communicate or even acknowledge any agency union, as evidenced by SEPLA's failed attempts.
The Kjos labor scheme circumvents the prerequisites of Article 17. Additionally, Kjos has stated in his application to the US DoT that agency crew are offered the same degree of job protection, terms and conditions as crew hired directly by Norwegian - they are not.

Avenger- the right to strike is a Human right in all western democracies. Circumventing the right to strike is a privalage restricted to Authoritarian states. Europe is currently going through a transitional phase which allows loopholes to emerge for unscrupulous employers to exploit. Fortunately the U.S. government are preventing this exploitation from being a commercial advantage.

Polax, Bondi, I am not talking about the right to strike or instant dismissal for industrial action or anything remotely connected to that topic. My comments, in specific connection to the NLH thread are simply this: The vast majority of the crews seem happy with their lot, the LGW LH crews are not up in arms over pay and working conditions, that privilege seems to be reserved for observers that don't even work for the company, are vocal about never wanting to work for the company and seem to take the opinion that if they don't want to work there, no one else should either..The thread has been contaminated by reference to the Spanish operations and every other aspect of NAS working conditions, which has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic. The concept of obtaining a commercial advantage by effectively having " slave labour" is not supported by the positive attitude displayed by the workforce themselves, and to be honest, is starting to smell of sour grapes. The US DOT are past masters of putting fingers in everyone else's pies and perhaps should exercise some of the "freedoms" they seek so hard to protect..

The crux:

They and the U.S. airline-pilots union
accuse Norwegian of seeking to set up a low-wage operation with foreign crews that will create unfair competition. ( Nonsense, of course the crews are "foreign" all European airlines operate with a mix of crew, people have the basic human rights to live in their own country.)

The salaries and benefits of pilots in the Irish long-haul subsidiary are “substantially inferior” to those of its Norwegian-based pilots, ALPA claimed.( Really! not according to the published pay scales seen here and given the cost of living index UK vs Norway http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living...United+Kingdom)

A joint filing from American, Delta and United likewise argues
Norwegian’s application to operate as an Irish carrier is merely “a flag of convenience. to avoid Norway’s labor laws and lower labor costs … thus giving (Norwegian) a competitive advantage on transatlantic routes in direct competition with U.S. carriers.” What has Norways labour laws got to do with British based pilots?

Nice post Avenger but employing Pilots through agencies when they are clearly employed by one employer in a full time job is done unfairly and for a reason. The reason is to circumvent basic western human rights. Honestly it could not be more simple.

Even David Cameron, a Thatcherite conservative has spoken very vocally and clearly against this type of employment. Meeting DOT requirements is so easy.

Avenger:

The LGW 787 labor model and Spanish 737 labor model are identical, viz: the exclusive use of agency employed staff to circumvent labor rights and labor principles by the real employer, Norwegian.

It is entirely irrelevant if the vast majority of pilots are content (doubtful). The Kjos labor model does not comply with Article 17 - period. Both the EU and US negotiated and signed the Open-Skies Agreement.

The crux of the problem is that Kjos expects everyone to pander to him. The U.S. is having none of it.

In his June 1, 2015, letter to the DoT, Kjos states:

"It has been and will continue to be our firm policy to offer all pilots and cabin crew employed through agencies the opportunity to transfer their employment to a company in the Norwegian Group at the end of a transitional period"

The Kjos letter, Exhibit 1, can be viewed at the following link: Regulations.gov (ref: DOT-OST-2013-0204-0203, view NAI Motion, pdf attachment)

What plans are in place for the LGW 787 agency pilots and cabin crew to transfer their employment to a company in the Norwegian Group and when?

I just wonder how can the Gulf carrier operate to the US as those countries don't even contemplate basic human rights. Not defending NLH just trying to understand how is possible Emirates is not competing unfairly...

furbpilot. Same as every u.s. policy. How much oil do you have?

Don't know if that is it entirely . . . . Norway has some of that stuff too if I remember.

Discussion is somewhat off topic
 

It seems like some people here like to direct the discussion into other areas than terms and endearment. To me it is a little surprising that they put so much energy into Norwegian under this section of PPRuNe when they clearly are not interested in the job.

Anyways, long haul is recruiting a lot at the moment. A friend of mine passed a couple of weeks ago. They need 100 pilots for next year. Conditions are improving. A new airline (as the long haul part of Norwegian should be considered) doesn't give the best market conditions from day one. But since they started pay has increased for LGW based pilots, and will increase even more after three years of service. Days off will increase from November, and when this new company learn how to optimize the roster it will increase more.

But no, no, no (to some of you out there that will quote this post and attack it), the conditions are not the best. They are perhaps not good in most pilots' mind. But they are improving. In two years a lot has happened, and it will continue. Either you believe it will or you don't.

The crux of the matter is that by individuals accepting ever lower conditions at outfits such as NLH, *everyone* else eventually gets dragged down to the same unsustainable level. You say your conditions are improving, but as soon as they do some other starstruck wannabe comes along and undercuts you. Suddenly you've become expensive and looking for work.

Those of us who've been doing this a few decades know the price to be paid for long haul. Seeing your children grow up while you're watching reruns at 3am in some hotel half a world away, never being fully awake nor fully asleep. And we've fought a long fight for adequate compensation.

I'm not going to get into the other lcc issues; let the customers decide on those . But when you're threatening every other long haul colleagues income and few precious remaining days at home, it becomes a matter which certainly has its rightful place on these boards.

You're selling yourself way below what you're worth, and undermining everyone else in the process. Your conditions will not improve, everyone else's will deteriorate as you've just lowered the bar.

It's a battle we all should be fighting together as professional pilots. I'm at a loss how I can explain this any better and suspect you're ignoring the real issue.

quadspeed, IMHO your post is right on the money & NLH crew are guilty of what I (as an ex FR pilot ) was party to in the short haul world. . . . accepting less than my worth.

I don't have a solution, as sometimes at the time it is the best gig in town (or should I say the least onerous ) & certainly we all have bills to pay, & may not have the luxury of saying "no thanks" & taking our skills elsewhere.

What is indisputable however is that NLH has set the bar lower than ever for long-haul, of that point there can be no dissenting views worth listening to.

This thread is turning into a real soap opera... How about people NOT apply if you are not interested in the contract, schedule, etc.? Last time I checked applying to NLH was not compulsory...


There are other operators out there with better contracts - go apply if you meet their minimums and have contacts. Ryanair and Easy are hiring...

I think it is fair to say Iver that those being critical of NLH in the main have not applied and are well aware of what else is available. That does not mean their comments are not valid as when one bar gets lowered the tendency is for others to follow.

I totally agree with Quadspeed's comments and also feel much the same has already happened in the short haul market of Europe. Captplaystation has referred to the damage that FR and the likes have done as regards pilot's t&cs by pilots underselling themselves.

I was on the 787 on Tuesday from LGW to FLL. :) Lovely guys running the show, steered us round some chop, got us to Florida safely. Happy customer. :ok:

Just wanted to put in a positive note. My lad training in Jerez at the moment has his eye on a future with Norwegian too.

Mrs Bwsboy

100.5% right.