Did someone mention Hainan?
Good luck with this. 3 day medicals. 3 liters of blood. CT & MRI scan . Echocardiogram. Carotid Ultrasound. Lymph node examination. Full drug and achohol screening.

If you are out of the archaic medical tolerences set by the CAAC , kar pow. Off you go . Bye bye .

Norweegian are one of the few carriers to employ direct entry commanders in europe. Period.
Is it worth the 30-40000 euros deposited in Norwegians bank account, probably not.

But some will want to live the dream ( liner) . Maybe not here though.

Bond
 

so do have to give them 30000€ ?

Yes. €20,000, €30,000 or €40,000 depending upon your current rating

Bond
 

No wonder they are hiring all the time ......who wants to put so much money in the bank especially if have a familly to support.:ugh:

Pilots :ugh: 20/30/40K to fly the carbon fibre toob, which gets you the qualif to fly the carbon fibre toob in . . . . Qatar :{ China :( what do we use for brains ? ?

Norwegian Bond unenforceable in the UK and rest of Europe

First, the Rishworth website states that pilots are "employed by our UK crewing company" - an employment agency leasing pilots to other airlines, specifically, Norwegian. However, there is no reference to this so-called "UK crewing company" in the Contact Us section of the Rishworth website. I suspect it is a broom cupboard somewhere in Crawley.
All employment agencies in the UK are regulated by:- The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Business Regulations 2003. Any pilot engaging with Rishworth via their "UK crewing company" should be familiar with this legislation.

I contend the bond is unenforceable for the following reasons:-
In the UK registered unemployed are obliged to seek work or have their benefits reduced and in some cases stopped entirely (JSA - Job Seekers Allowance regulations). Therefore, if you are registered unemployed (even for a week), interview for a position with Norwegian and offered employment, you are obliged to accept employment at the first opportunity or have your benefits stopped. Effectively, you are forced to sign a bond against your will. If at some later stage you decide that the working conditions are not to your liking (much has been written about the shameful management etc.), and seek alternatively employment, you are prevented form doing so by virtue of the bond. This is effectively Indentured Servitude and illegal under the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights.

Bondi, probably if you were in a position to give a bond or cash you would not be in receipt of JSA in the first place, anyway, not withstanding that scenario and second mortgages, borrowing from relatives, etc etc. the Bond system is legal and enforceable..training costs are not limited to aviation and test cases tend to fall in favour of the contract: Example:A much more limiting clause was considered in the case of Strathclyde Regional Council v Neil [1984] IRLR 11. Here, a provision in the employee's contract required her to refund a sum calculated on the basis of her salary, course materials and examination fees if she left within two years of completing a study course paid for by the local authority.
This was a liquidated damages clause because it represented genuine loss to the employer, contemplated at the outset. The clause only sought recovery of the cost of training the employee and was proportionate to the unexpired portion of the two year period. The clause was upheld as valid. .
A clause providing full recovery of course fees even in the event that employee resigns, say 10 years later, would be a penalty clause. It would not seek to place limitation on the employer's right to recover damages for actual loss. The benefits of the course would have been realised in the years of employment following the course and the employer will have had that benefit. In this context NLH could reasonably argue that 3 years is a suitable period to recover the training costs and benefit from them.
Of perhaps more " concern" would a "contract " signed with NLH for training be enforceable when " employed through a third party" .. probably not..in this event the training costs would have had to been paid by the agency. Of course, no agency is going to stump up costs for pilot training and probably this case, if tested, would fail..

i don't consider the pay that bad now we are guaranteed a decent euro - pound rate, and of course it's a compromise you make if you can't face being dumped in the Middle East. In actual fact I'd rather be on jobseekers than go to that hole.

It is what it is , don't consider joining if you can't see that.

Oh, and maybe LGw based but still with a rishworth contract from Singapore so I'm not sure about all the bond stuff.

Notwithstanding my previous comment, Norwegian are legislatively required to provide training to the crews on the aircraft they operate. A training bond is NOT enforceable as the training is not voluntary, it is mandatory. Norwegian cannot recover a loss as none has occurred due to the mandatory requirement.
Furthermore, the agency is the employer and leases its employee crew to various airlines. If the airline, Norwegian, is required to provide training to the contractor, it is not the responsibility of the contractor to pay the leasing airline for that training.

[Norwegian are legislatively required to provide training to the crews on the aircraft they operate.][/QUOTE]

No they are not! For type rated and current Pilots, Norwegian are only required to provide a company conversion course according to their part D manual and training as required to comply with their own SOPs. The " bond" refers to pilots whom require conversion training in order to be in a position to carry out their duties, under these circumstances, the bond is entirely enforceable as the pilots have the choice to except the employment under these terms or not according to the employment contract. My point regarding the agency you appear to have misunderstood. If an agency is providing pilots via a crew lease agreement, it is taken as read the pilots are already capable of performing the task required. In this case, the contract of employment is with the agency not the airline and as such any " additional training" given by the airline may be considered to fall outside of the contract. It would appear there must be two contracts here. 1) a training contract with the airline and 2) an employment contract with the agency. IF there is only one contract, with the agency, then the additional training carried out by the airline would have to be stipulated as an employment condition within the agency contract for the bond to be enforceable.

Basically, if you don't like it, as Mr Fade states, just stay away, simple as that.

Merely a reflection on a fairly significant number of cashed up but disenchanted experienced 777 guys from the ME.
Given that my license says 777/787 on it, I'd be telling them where to stick it for anything other than a differences course and a sim session or two.
Typically its the dateless and desperate who look at this as a means to remain in, or return to the UK, what other games in town are there for experienced people down south? JET poo?

I hear a few B777 guys from turkish have applied and one or two 767 drivers from Japan. And a bunch of cargo 747. All overseas crew, no doubt sick to death of the sand or kebabs,

Last year, there was no mention of a bond for B777 rated crew.

So now they are inundated with qualified crew applying. If you are Airbus , no chance.

Expect conditions to significantly reduce next year.
( they will no doubt make a simulator available at €1000 per hour for crew to train for their interview profiles, payed for in advance, cashiers cheque)

And of course todays pilots will take it , boasting to their mates that they will fly the dream.

Yes, please do stay away.

Gammon, don't rise to the bait, F to G, is merely reflecting the reality of the place.
My understanding is that just like the ME where I am, Norwegian is a place populated by misfits, refugees via redundancy, and lifestylers returning to the damp.
In any of those cases, there will always be those who seek to believe the BS and accept below market rates for their labour, leave them to it, and don't let the insipid remarks bait you into churlishness, F to G appears to want to personalise his reasons for accepting the Norewegian crumbs..or stinky fish etc.

Im not sure packing a case for 21-22 days away , to hack accross the atlantic sounds appealing. Im fascinated by this advert. Norwegian contact Rishworth, who set up another agency that then recruits for Norwegian. They ask all manner of questions, but ultimatly if you cannot deposit the required amount of dosh in their bank, its no go joe,

So why bother with the interviews, questions, aptitude tests. The first thing you should show at the interview, is a bag full of euros. Only then can you proceed. After handing it accross the table for safe keeping ;)

In days gone by, airlines recruited the best guys they thought were suitable for the job. Period. Then they would provide the training.
Now its show me the money, then and only then can we proceed with the formalities of an interview.

Typical interview question : Will you work for peanuts, no time off and inflexible rosters, have xxxx thousand hours of wide body, and are such a looser that you cannot hold down any other employment?

If the answers yes, then you clearly are not suitable to be a professional pilot.

On the presumption that no rated and experienced B787 pilot would leave a principled airline to fly for a fraction of his earnings with Norwegian, it is safe to assume that most, if not all, of Norwegian's B787 pilots have entered into bonded or indentured servitude (working for an employer for a number of years, before being allowed to freely seek other employment). I do not know of another airline where ALL the pilots of an entire fleet are bonded and, without any labour rights, standards nor principles to boot! In this respect, Norwegian is indeed in a class of its own. Those pilots signing on for such an arrangement have well and truly been "Kjossed", albeit voluntarily.

Well your understanding is wrong, monarch.

Can't find any misfits here - we have an excellent training department, populated by very experienced ex flag carrier trainers.

There is a tangible feeling of improvement. Paid in pounds , with a set rate that isn't bad. Roster just got a lot better. Planes nice, if that's your thing.bond money coming back on schedule no problem . It has massive potential.

as I've said before, you pays your money you take your choice.

As usual of pprune, lack of knowledge won't deter the self inflated from commenting on things they have no first hand experience of.

Which Flag carrier have these trainers come from? Out of interest.
I ask as since 2006 to my knowledge, no trainer has left BA to train elsewhere. Also the default ICAO retirement age going to 65 would mean anyone would be mad to leave their own outfit to seek employment with Norwegian?

KLM adding letters as otherwise post isn't long enough.

Sure F to G, so those good guys that sat down with me last week in blighty and explained about all the issues, rosters, money, rosters etc were telling porkie pies?
These are the same blokes who also spoke about the 3 categories of individuals as described previously and mentioned in terms they used themselves.
Without ACTUALLY working there, I've been given a pretty good snapshot. Of course as you say "you pays your money" etc, and I suppose thats the reality, but please don't sugar coat or polish a turd, the job is merely another example of the race south.
I'm in little better shape, 90hrs a month in a sandy furnace, but at least making about 3 times what I would at Norwegian softens the pain..a bit

Gammon.....stop going on.....it's not £4800 net anymore, and in last of cases it's more than 8 days off. Move on, you are out of touch with the recent improvements .

Monarch, well, the experience is somewhat variable still. Some with good rosters some less so. I'm not known for hyperbole, so all I can say is it is ok for me at present and I have no agenda.

The recent improvements are very small and they cost Norwegian almost nothing ...
NLH now mainly attracts European pilots working in Asia and in the Middle East who are ready to accept poor terms and conditions to be closer to home...

twentyyearstoolate, you (and others here) made headline news in a major Norwegian newspaper, quoted here

( g translate version here )

:D

I don't fit in any of those categories.
I think you have to compare apples with apples - this long haul low cost is a new idea with a tight cost base.

If anybody abroad is expecting NLh to offer captains pay in line with a legacy carrier at pay point 25 to attract them, I think they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

As for the Norwegian short haul, they have there own deals. But not overlooking the captains will be voluntarily demoting themselves as we don't except narrow body capts direct onto long haul.

I can't see why Ryanair guys would see this as a useful rating to invest in over their 738 ratings. Where the hell are you going to go with a 787 rating?

Thomson? Union

Virgin? Forget that unless you flew a fast pencil, wore badges and had a name like "badger"

BA? Tenuous reason to spend the money. May as well stay on the 738, you'd still be able to apply if you wanted.

The ME/FE/ rest of world etc? Just apply directly to these companies with 738 time if you are hell bent on leaving the UK. The ME etc are all taking non rated.

That some are defending this package illuminates one of the reasons why this job is completely ****** as a future. "On my own, I can't do anything about it, it's the way terms are heading. You're all in cookoo land, accept it, that's capitalism".

I'm not even going to attempt to get into a bun fight over this. I've said my piece. It is the way it's going, but do I accept it? No bloody way. I'll fight to the end when I work out my escape, if not for me, for the next blind idiot. Because the bosses aren't getting poorer. If there was some magnanimous idea that even the owners were in ribbons of clothing perhaps, but they aren't. They picked this fight to undercut each other and reduce their prices. The squeeze went on their workforce. If there's no resistance then the squeeze goes on the workforce. Only us dimwits at the coal face defending their practices look like prize turkeys. Do the bosses drive Ladas? No they bloody don't. They go home at night the same as ever to their loved ones, enjoying the joys of life and good living and get to back slap each other at the business awards. Why the hell would I want to shorten my life span on **** longhaul under the modern terms- let's cut to the chase - to finance some management/ directors fancy lifestyle. Because that's all you're doing.

I'm getting out of this sorry industry when I can. I have worked many jobs outside flying and know the grass ain't greener money wise, but the lifestyle bloody is. You can't spend money in your coffin. And I'm downright tired letting some clown offer me a lifestyle that's putting me closer to that coffin just so he can turn a buck and own the next Porsche.

With regards statement above , this has been practiced for many years in another uk carrier, Virgin ! I cant think Branson's has ever resided in some terrace house, wondering about his mortgage repayments not been met because his rostered allowances are down this month.

The new way into uk avaiation in the next decade for wannabes will be as follows: Get 200 hr licence. Go overseas for 20 years. Earn enough to be mortgage free and , having already educated the kids, apply for a an allowances only flying job for your last 10 years before
retiring.
After all, who pays you to cut the lawn right? Might as well be flying for food .

However, Virgin crew are employees of the airline and treated accordingly. As opposed to Norwegian’s contractor crew who are treated shamefully with respect to labor rights.

Sadly for some defending this organization, Norwegian has become rather like a cult, headed by an individual who would make any James Bond villain appear compassionate. Similarly, there is an inner core of henchmen who crush any perceived criticism. Most notable amongst these cronies is ‘Doctor Spin’ in the form of a Press Officer. Spin defends and promotes his master’s global plan at every opportunity.

Within the Norwegian Airline Group at least two pilots are currently suspended for daring to speak out. Others have been summarily removed without any investigation for their perceived dissention after reporting safety matters. The FAA is currently investigating the precipitous termination of four NLH cabin crew based in JFK following a serious safety incident. Norwegian’s shameful attitude toward labor has been well reported, not by US unions, accused by Norwegian of only defending US jobs, but by their own countrymen, e.g. most of the media in Norway. The unsavory facts of this thread were reported on Monday 18th, in Norway’s Dagbladet newspaper. Link:-

Må betale 350 000 kroner for å fly for Norwegian - nyheter - Dagbladet.no

As reported, when asked if it was true that Norwegian has no employer responsibility toward its 787 LGW based pilots, Spin replied:

“No this is not correct. Our Dreamliner pilots at London Gatwick has the same rights as all other workers in the UK”

Reality: No direct employer/employment relationship exists with Norwegian. As such, it is categorically impossible for a LGW Dreamliner pilot to have the same rights as all other workers in the UK. When asked if it was true that Norwegian’s conditions are outrageously bad and the worst paid in the world for Dreamliner pilots, Spin replied:

“This is wrong. Our Dreamliner pilots based in London Gatwick get competitive conditons”

Reality: Norwegian’s Dremaliner pilots are in fact the worst paid in the world and have no redeeming conditions.

NLH Dreamliner pilots are contractors not employees. Norwegian may dispense with contracted pilot services and/or change the terms and conditions with the agency at any time. Remember, Norwegian was easily able to separate the Scandinavian pilots into three divisions during the recent strike. The 90-days notice period is with the agency, not the lessor airline, Norwegian. The agency is lawfully permitted to put pilots on 90-days notice, but may not have any contracts/work other than with Norwegian - check the contract for the liability of the agency to find you alternative work. You are effectively terminated forthwith and, without recourse against Norwegian due to the complicated web of the employment relationship, masterminded from Norwegian's headquarters in Fornebu Norway, through their Dublin satellite office, via their business partner agency in New Zealand and their associated London subsidiary (probably a broom cupboard in Crawley). This is an employment law and labor rights circumvention plan worthy of SMERSH.

In addition to other matters of grave concern, no doubt the US DOT is now examining NHL’s blanket bonding policy. As previously commented, I know of no other airline where all the pilots of an entire fleet are bonded. Combined with the facts of Norwegian’s documented punitive actions against its staff, this poses a potential issue regarding voluntary safety reporting. Before some of you react to my assertion, there can be no guarantees that a pilot owing thousands in training bond, together with mortgage, school fees, car payments, alimony, etc., will not be reluctant to speak out and put their means to effect this substantial debt repayment at risk (yes, I am aware there are regulatory protections when reporting safety matters, however, while proving your constructive dismissal case, you will still be without income).

The NLH business model/scheme is an added cause of stress and pressure for pilots and potentially obstructs voluntary safety reporting. It has no place in aviation.

To put matters in perspective, a direct hire supermarket shelf-stacker has more employment law protection and labor rights than a LGW based, NLH Dreamliner pilot.

Bjorn Kjos was previously named ‘Leader of the Year’ by temporary staffing agency Manpower Inc. A leader indeed – to the bottom.

It's one of those non-answers politicians give...

Of course they've got "statutory rights" but they're not the "rights" in question.

:ugh:

To Answer an earlier post about ex legacy carrier pilots currently operating in the LHS of NLH 787s (these are just the ones I know personally....have only been there six months so this is just a cross section).
2 retired Cathay guys
2 retired Austrian TRI/TREs
double figure numbers of retired KLM guys
Most of the Training Department from GSS
1 ex BA guy (had a medical issue then returned to fly the line at GSS)
Close to double digit numbers of ex Korean guys
1 Ex Emirates trainer
1 Ex Qatar trainer
Haven't counted
4 Boeing LGW trainers gaining 787 line flying experience (including ex BA guys)
2 Ex Thomas Cook (recently promoted from the Relief Capt
Position-RCA).
1 Ex Cargolux
1 Ex DHL TRI/TRE also about to be upgraded to LHS
or one of the top trainers in the RAF with a huge amount of heavy civil experience (currently an RCA as he also didn't have 777 time).

Before my time I believe we had 30 odd Virgin guys who brought a lot of long haul experience to the operation for the best part of a year.

I have probably seen less misfits in this company than any of my previous....almost to a man this is a great bunch of people (undoubtedly the best thing about NLH)

Most of these guys here just were originally trying to avoid the sandpit / China...or top up their retirement income.

I know the ex Austrian guys, they got in early and have VERY different contracts ;-))

NLH are very lucky to have obtained such an impressive mix of talent as listed above. No doubt NLH managers have made full use of their vast experience to ensure safety and regulatory compliance. Or maybe not;

On January 26 an NLH Dreamyliner, DY7006 (LNF), departed JFK-ARN and flew across the Atlantic without the required number of cabin crew - "Of course this was illegal" states Einar Schjolberg, CAA Norway Director. This occurred while the Captain was undergoing a Line Check! Again, this was not reported by any of those nasty people in the US trying to stop NLH, but by the Norway media, Link:-

Norwegian-fly underbemannet over Atlanteren: - Uakseptabelt, sier Luftfartstilsynet - nyheter - Dagbladet.no

This event is very surprising given the experience on offer and the fact that Norwegian has a resident "aviation expert" in the form of a Post Holder, who regularly appears in the press to comment on safety matters and defend Norwegian's low cost business model and exclusive use of contract pilots.

As i hinted at before, Norwegian have, probably unwittingly, realised that there are heaps and heaps of massively experienced expat guys who are not interested in the money, but just want to keep their hand in for a couple of years before they retire, or ex legacy guys wanting to have a bit of fun. If they earn a salary while doing it, all the better.

The ex Korean guys are BKK employed and all were ex KE777.

The reality is that this pot of expat experience has no where to go especially if they want to return as commanders and be european based. There are no companies offering DEC in the UK on long haul, and employing none type rated to boot. A few tens of thousands of euros bond wont make much difference either way.


No doubt the first batch of guys who joined NLH (as mentioned in the post above) are burnt out and are approaching full retirement. Now the new contracts are considerably reduced, but the applications from the middle east just keep coming. Why would NLH offer competative salaries when the pot is overflowing with guys who will fly the plastic pencil for food ?

Thank you for clarifying that misunderstanding. When I realized the true cause of all the disagreement in this thread, you could have knocked me down with one of those convoluted NLH contracts.

I originally thought pilots were intentionally being exploited through low wages, no benefits, the circumvention of employment laws and labor rights by using third-party staffing agencies located in multiple countries of legal jurisdiction, the insistence that pilots sign a clause indemnifying the airline from responsibility as the employer and requiring an upfront payment of 40 thousand euro for the privilege of “employment” – commonly referred to as pay2fly.

Who would have believed the above is not an intended corporate policy, conceived, thoroughly planned and implemented by an unprincipled echelon of hypocrites, but rather a convenient business model occurring “unwittingly” and due entirely to a natural labor force phenomenon known as 'pilot overflow' (cancel the recruitment videos, agency gurus, tambourines and kool-aid).

You post “the new contracts are considerably reduced”. Let’s collectively, in a non-union sort of way, cross our fingers and hope the salary does not reduce to that of the CEO. Ref interview video - Link:-

VIDEO: Piketty hammers Norwegian founder on air - The Local

At 4.40 the CEO states:
“I am not among the highest paid in Norwegian. A lot of the pilots earn more than me”

Although at 5.20 the CEO is asked:
“What is your net worth and how much tax do you pay?” - the question is asked ten times, without answer.

However, an interesting ideology is stated by the CEO at 1.45:
“You should always have a system where you get return on the job you do. If you work very hard, you should have a return on it. If people do not have a return on it, they will not work very hard - it motivates them”

Based on the reported “new contracts being considerably reduced” and stated ethos of the CEO, it follows that a work slowdown at NLH is imminent. Will that be: 1. Collectively 2. Individually or 3. Not at all? - Answer on a postcard to CEO. First correct answer wins a direct employment contract with all associated employee benefits.

(Only NLH pilots permitted to enter. Prize is not transferable to NAS. Direct employment contract available only at Fornebue headquarters. Details of your entry may be kept on file and used to determine base, roster, promotion, contract renewal or workforce reduction. Other conditions may apply, but I’m not telling you about them. Only one entry per pilot allowed).

The above two posts pretty much sum up the two sides of the argument to me.

Highfive makes the "supply and demand" case. Based entirely on cold logic but without what we, as the labour providers, like to cause morals and fairness.

Directbondi takes the "fair days pay for a fair days work" approach. Again with plenty of logic although this time with some added humanity.

However, what happens when we as the labour providers find ourselves with the proverbial boots on our proverbial feet?

I don't recall seeing a single comment suggesting we as pilots should cap potential earnings in the Far East. "Quarter of a million dollars per year? Absoloutly, seems reasonable to me. Well, there's a reason they pay so much, no-one would do it otherwise".....or something along those lines.

If, in some parallel universe, Europe did suffer the long predicted pilot shortage would we turn down telephone number salaries the airlines would beg to pay us?

Sounds like the other side of supply and demand to me. Whilst I acknowledge that some airlines are taking everything they can now, I'm not sure we would behave any better.

Direct Bondi is clearly unhappy that NLH are exploiting a ready supply of willing and able candidates. He appears to be offended that some of his peers elect to supply their services to an employer he considers unworthy and is very keen to paint Norwegian in the worst possible light. I suggest that he is guilty of wishful thinking if he expects any employer nowadays to pay any more than the bare minimum required to recruit and retain pilots of adequate quality in sufficient numbers. That level of remuneration will differ between regions and between different companies in the same region. Norwegian happens to be the lowest paid wide body operator in their region but they would be crazy to pay any more than they have to.

We are all big boys and responsible for our own decisions. Don't like Norwegian? Then don't join. Want more money? Go to the Middle East or China. I really don't need anyone with an agenda to protect me from myself.

Uh, are you defending the race to the bottom?

Regardless, it IS supply and demand.
When I started in this business, flying big jets back in 1988, the pay as a new hire FO on the DC-8-73 for Evergreen on the Air India Cargo contract was pretty low, not horrible, just low.
I still took the job, needed the jet time and the training, as well as the job.
(No charge or bond back then)
After 3 months on the job with a Frankfurt base, German Air Cargo started up with the same jets, DC-8-73' and a Frankfurt base.
Half of the Evergreen guys, mostly Europeans, jumped ship and went to German Air Cargo.
A few days later we got a 35% pay increase. To keep more of us from leaving obviously.
Supply and demand indeed.

Out of the Blue, this arrived in my Mail..
Maybe they are reading PPrune too! " effectively a 15% pay increase" a leaf from the THY book me thinks...

Rishworth Aviation is pleased to announce improved terms for all Norwegian Long Haul B787 roles based at LGW. Contracts will now be paid in GBP - effectively a 15% pay increase.

If you have already completed your application you will also benefit from these new terms. There is no need to to reapply.

If you have not yet applied don't miss out, apply today!

Screenings will be held in Oslo in July, August and September with courses starting in October and the coming months into the first part of 2016.

Should you be successful you will be employed by Rishworth Aviation subsidiary company, Global Crew UK Ltd.

Invitations to the screenings will be sent out shortly by Norwegian. Complete your application now to make sure you don’t miss out!

Watch what pilots Captain John Woolfson, Relief Captain Matia Fracasso and First Officer Mubashar Kapur say about flying the B787 Dreamliner for Norwegian Long Haul as they show you around what your future office in the sky could look like!

"I really don't need anyone with an agenda to protect me from myself"

Oh dear, the “agenda” witless response. This website is full of threads with this last resort accusation, commonly used when no other defense of a contentious issue is possible.

My point is, and remains, the gross hypocrisy of a company that continually projects itself as a principled employer. Supply and demand always affects price – clearly the applications have slowed, as evidenced by the above post/advertisement. It does not necessarily follow that supply and demand should automatically create only third-party agency jobs, circumventing employment laws, rights, standards and principles, merely because of a labor excess. Such an abhorrent business model is intentionally man made:-

“Should you be successful you will be employed by Rishworth Aviation subsidiary company, Global Crew UK Ltd”

As if to add insult to the injury of this non-employment relationship with the airline, even more hypocrisy from their own website:-

https://www.norwegian.com/uk/about-norwegian/corporate-responsibility/working-conditions/

“We place great importance on ensuring compliance with employees’ basic human rights as outlined in the International Labour Organisation's core conventions”

If such great importance is placed on ensuring compliance with an employees ILO rights, why does this airline do everything possible to circumvent them?

Agenda no, facts yes. Your right to choose, absolutely.