PPRuNe Forums - Norwegian B787

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Terms and Endearment (https://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment-38/)

- - Norwegian B787 - LGW based (https://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/558123-norwegian-b787-lgw-based.html)

I would have more sympathy with the Bondi detractors if just once one of them could put up a reasoned argument against all the points he makes. But no, this never ever happens. As it is the labour model employed by Norwegian that occupies the central tenant of his argument I do wonder why anyone on here would support it, which is probably exactly why there remains radio silence. If you want him to quieten down, then put up a case for the defence please.

You see, I could take him more seriously if he was actually just reporting facts but that's not what he's doing. He quotes from reports out of context or uses anecdotal forum posts to support his position, like he did with that labour report or latest with that CAPA analysis, which goes much deeper than a simple suggestion, "that it might be raining on Norwegians application", which the report neither explicitly says nor implies.

So what are the facts? Norwegian employs contracted pilots through agencies. Certainly not ideal but also neither new nor abhorrent.

Terms and Conditions? I think some people need to have a serious reality check about terms and conditions outside the legacy carriers on offer nowadays and I would ask anybody to point to any operator in Europe, where you can enter directly with some experience as a Relief Captain and earn a 100k€ (total package)

Parkbremse, ermmm define exactly what you mean by out of context? A quick review of Bondi's efforts reveals very little in the way of contextual license, moreover the opinion offered is merely a reflection of the facts as they are presented.
For me Bondi has had a direct and positive influence on my decision making process thanks to me being able to ask the various contracting agencies specific questions relating to the various issues highlighted, in every case I've received at best a vague bit of waffle about nothing in particular which has convinced me to steer well clear of this sh1t outfit.
Sadly, there is always a % of koolaid drinkers everywhere, perhaps you are one of them Parkbremse? or maybe you are one of the koolaid providers?

Parkbremse. What tosh. Contracting is supposed to be used by proper employers as a means of managing peaks and troughs in demand. This way the majority are paying proper tax and social security (NI in the UK) payments and make required NI contributions - along with a lot of other labour and worker protection benefits. Norwegian do not do this.

Yeah right...

Everybody with Base LGW (and also Norwegian) will pay full NIC in the UK independent of their place of living as this is european legislation (educate yourself) and tax according to the bilateral agreement between UK and the country of living. So don't give me that BS about social security evasion...

Workers rights, yes that is better with a direct employement. Like i said, contracting work is certainly not ideal. How much that really matters when things get bad... well, i can quote a handful of examples from my home country where direct employement and supposedly very good workers rights have not mattered one bit and protected the individuals when things with the company for various reasons got bad. So ideal, certainly not like i said but abhorrent? A lot of practices in this industry are abhorrent, independent of contracts or direct employement and whether we talk about the EU or the US, if you wanna fight that, yeah more power to you but thats a totally different battle altogether.

Parkbremse. So, you think Norwegian re paying employer NI contributions for their self employed contract pilots. Hmmmmm. Education is a wonderful thing.

This is getting ridiculous...

Pilots in Norwegian are not self employed :ugh:

Ok.... so I may have misunderstood the modus operandi of OSM/Rishworth. I obviously do not work for Norwegian, but then, clearly, nor does anyone else.

Who really cares where your official employment is, as long as the paycheck comes in. As someone who has lost three direct employment jobs in this industry I can assure you that direct employment is not secure either. The simple fact is if the airline is doing well, the paycheck comes in, if the airline is not doing well, the paycheck is in danger of stopping. How your employment contract is set up does not matter. Two of the jobs lost were union jobs and that did not matter either.

I certainly care about who my employer is and the need for having a clearly defined relationship, as this is the corner stone as to my rights as an employee.

That relationship has got nothing to do with the profitability of the company and its likely longevity.

Ryanair, Ezy and now Norwegian are killing our profession by allowing the workforce to be employed on ever lower T&Cs, how are they doing that? primarily by employing pilots as individuals rather than as one workforce, thus allowing them to introduce a million different contracts.

Where was the public outcry when Lufthansa outsourced longhaul holiday charter (US and Carribean and SE Asia) via Eurowings to Sun Express Germany, who pay for a Captain on A330 85k€ a year? At least Norwegian pays 100k€ for a RCA, 125k€ for a Captain (including allowance) which is not super good but really not that bad for europe. EW got DOT approval right away with no opposition from US Airlines or Unions, so all this talk about terms and conditions and lowering the standards is hypocritical, with the true reason being protectionism and fear of competition of an Airline, who seems to do it right and grows rapidly. Every company has the right to make maximum use of the available legislation to cut their costs and before anyone now explodes, think of the immense benefits that all major US airlines are reaping now after they took advantage of Chapter 11 restructuring.

And again, contracted work is not ideal but i still fail to see how this contract differs in any way from other contracts that are offered through Rishworth (or your favourite broker) which pilots have happily accepted for years everywhere in the world. And talking about Terms and Conditions, I invite anyone to point me to another job opening in the EU, where you can actually earn that kind of money with a similar career perspective and the ability to live where you want (in the EU)?

To summarize, a way one can see the Norwegian contract is that it's much like a chinese lunch buffet. It's not super good, but it's not as bad as it looks ;-)

Not only LH/EW but also CityLine opperating 340s, that was as much dumping of T&Cs as anything else we see today in the industry. Isn't AF/KLM also starting long haul low cost airline with different T&Cs to mainline crew?

NAI got the approval from the DOT....

EXCLUSIVE: Norwegian Air granted licence paving way for first ever direct routes between Cork and US - Independent.ie

Didn't expect that, thought the decision would be done by the new Administration

It was only a matter of time before NAI would be granted DOT approval, of course the Donald may overturn it, but that is unlikely, in any event the US pilots and various union groups backed the wrong horse and contributed massively to Clintons campaign.

Next up is NUK and that should be an even more straight forward case.

Direct Bondi

DC is clearly an articulate contributor and from the outside much of what he/she writes makes some sense, however from the inside whilst acknowledging the factual elements, it does rather comes across as agenda driven, especial given the huge amount of content and research & time DC puts in, which rather begs the question as to why? (there are far worse airlines out there)

I belive DC briefly worked for a agency on behalf of Norwegian, so has some knowledge and no doubt a few contacts, but much as changed, so there needs to be balance.

I enjoy reading his posts but they have become more bitter over time.

When i joined Norwegian I was never offered direct employment with Norwegian, i was offered the potential of permanent employment after 2 - 3 years, which came to pass, in the early days there were issues over NI and in some cases tax, but that is history, all SH are employed by OSM (outside of K area) OSM is now 50% owned by Norwegian and pay local NI in country base and tax.

So there is no non compliance with tax/NI regulations.

The roster are tough and depending on base you will work close to the 900 hour limit.

For me after 5 years it works well, i live close to where work, get (well) paid every month, its not perfect but who is these days?

I know next to nothing about the long haul set up but position their crews around a lot and sometimes stay in the same hotel, most are happy, but again roster are an issue.

“ALPA is considering all options to reverse this action” - Link:

News Room - ALPA

Norwegian continues to declare on its website that it complies with the International Labor Organization core conventions with respect to workers rights - it categorically does not:

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

Lets hope ALPA is successful in applying pressure to the new Trump administration and getting this decision overturned.

The sooner this kind of sleazy setup is halted the better.

The DoT have had THREE YEARS to find cause to reject this proposal, they have had the best lawyers money can buy and the advice that came back is that the application is lawful and meets the requirement under open skies for grant of traffic rights.

Trump may of course overturn the ruling but I think thats very unlikely, even if he did so, then you are back to arbitration and simply saying no without just cause will simply result in the EU taking retaliatory action.

This result is so Brexit like, with people who have campaigned strongly for their position being unable to accept a verdict that does not accord with their position.

Trump will see this dispute for what it, protectionism, to protect a cosy club of mainly American airlines and a few inefficient European ones (AF/KLM, SAS & Lufthansa) wanting to maintain high prices across the pond as a money tree to prop up their loss making European short haul operations, Interestingly IAG supports the application as do many airports and regions in the US that benefit from inward tourism.

Norwegian probably need to move further with its employment methods and based on the changes to SH i suspect they will.

With oil prices on the rise again the economics of the 787 will get stronger with $ increase, by this time next year there will be dozens of flight a week from the US East coast to the west coast of Europe on the MAX in and out of smaller regional airports.

I would expect to see a raft of route announcement before Xmas

Let's see how this will end.....
Bipartisan Bill Introduced to Stop Short-Sighted DOT Decision to Allow Norwegian Air Operations in the U.S. | House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure

Quote:

Washington, D.C. – Today, Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Rick Larsen (D-WA), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), introduced H.R. 5090, legislation that would prevent the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) from permitting a foreign air carrier to operate between European countries and the United States unless the carrier complies with basic, fair U.S. or European Union labor standards. The legislation was introduced in response to the DOT’s tentative decision to grant a permit to Norwegian Air International (NAI). NAI established itself in Ireland, where labor laws permit the airline to hire its pilots and flight attendants on individual employment contracts under non-European law in order to cut costs. NAI’s overt practice of labor forum-shopping violates our Open Skies agreement with Norway and the European Union and gives it an unfair competitive advantage in the transatlantic market.

“Consumers may purchase tickets on Norwegian.com and they may board planes marked Norwegian in big bold letters, but this airline is ‘Norwegian’ in name only. The DOT record shows that Norwegian Air International is headquartered in Ireland and employs contract crews based in Thailand to circumvent Norway’s fair and strong labor standards. It’s a virtual airline set up to undercut competition by exploiting cheap labor. Our bipartisan legislation sends a strong message to DOT—we must stop this race to the bottom, and protect the open and fair transatlantic aviation market,” said DeFazio.

“Norwegian Airlines has sidestepped the bedrock labor agreements that are the foundation of the US-EU Air Transport Agreement. In so doing, they have compromised the competitiveness of American air carriers. There has been long-standing opposition in Congress to permitting this to go forward. The U.S. Department of Transportation must reconsider its position,” said LoBiondo.

“My colleagues and I have been clear with DOT that strong labor standards must factor into NAI’s air carrier permit decision. Today we are introducing legislation that would prohibit DOT from issuing a permit to NAI if doing so would undermine labor standards,” Larsen said. “Granting an air carrier permit to NAI would say to the world that the U.S. rewards other countries that break their commitments to protecting workers. Our agreements with other countries are only as strong as our ability and willingness to enforce them, which is why I am pushing hard for the U.S. to hold other countries accountable for their end of the deal,” said Larsen.

Article 17 bis of the U.S.-EU-Iceland-Norway Open Skies Agreement states that “[t]he opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labour standards or the labour-related rights and principles contained in the Parties’ respective laws” and further requires that these “principles . . . shall guide the Parties as they implement the Agreement.” With the decision to grant temporary approval, DOT has decided provisions in the U.S.–EU Agreement that address labor are not, on their own, a sufficient basis for rejecting an otherwise-qualified applicant.

The bipartisan legislation introduced today would require the DOT to find that a permit is consistent with article 17 bis before issuing a permit, maintaining the competitive balance in the transatlantic aviation marketplace.

In 2013, NAI applied for a foreign air carrier permit to permanently operate in the United States. DOT granted tentative approval on April 15, 2016. Behind the NAI application is a global outsourcing business model that will put U.S. airlines and their employees at a competitive disadvantage. U.S. and other European carriers rightly adhere to the high labor standards created through decades of hard work and commitment to a sustainable and socially-responsible aviation system. The point of Open Skies is to create an environment that fosters competition, not flags of convenience.

Yesterday, DeFazio, LoBiondo, and Larsen sent a letter urging the Department, in the strongest possible terms, to set aside the flawed tentative decision on Norwegian’s permit application and to deny the application.

"Norwegian in name only". Indeed.

Nice to see some politicians standing up to the sleazy and deceitful business model that is Norwegian.

Before the US election both Sanders and Clinton made statements opposing Norwegian’s race to the bottom scheme. No doubt this was to ensure workers votes. It is ultimately an Obama, workers betrayal. Considering the reaction to the misguided DOT decision, you may expect an uprising of opposition unprecedented in the airline industry. In a press release the Transport Trades Department of the AFL-CIO posted (12/3);

“Given the disgust with our trade policies expressed loudly by American voters on November 8, it is especially galling that the Administration has ignored the wants of the American people in favor of a rogue, foreign airline. We urge Congress to take whatever action is needed to undo this decision and prevent NAI and similar business models from poisoning the trans-Atlantic aviation market”

http://ttd.org/news-and-media/press-...ation-workers/

Southwest Airlines Pilot Association also posted a press release (12/2);

“Captain Weaks noted that the NAI subsidiary and its use of contract workers hired by a foreign staffing agency also poses potential serious safety risks. Crewmembers working under employment contracts with no direct line of communication to airline management often lack the ability to highlight potential safety oroperational issues. Clear and open communication between frontline operators and airline management is critical to running a safe and efficient airline."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...300372453.html

There are specific examples of the adverse safety affects associated with Norwegian’s labor model, involving extensive use of multi jurisdictional agency crew with no direct employment relationship to the airline. The most publicised being Norwegian's flight DY7006, JFK-ARN. Following an illegal flight across the Atlantic, some of the agency crew were summarily terminated before Norwegian conducted a proper and thorough internal safety investigation, as legislatively required by their AOC. The crew were quickly rehired after the Norway CAA became involved;

“As part of the work the company does, they should carry out all the employees who were involved to conversations and interviews, says CAA operational director - Einar Schjølberg”

http://www.dagbladet.no/2015/02/18/n...gian/37782004/

Of course, “conversations and interviews” are difficult to accomplish when some of the crew were immediately fired and no longer with the airline;

“I was told that I had been fired and the decision had been taken at the very top”

“A week later she suddenly got a new message that she was not dismissed, but suspended with pay while an independent investigation was ongoing”

“Feel exposed to witch-hunt from Kjos from Norwegian argument”

http://www.dagbladet.no/2015/03/03/n...kjos/37978024/

http://www.dagbladet.no/2015/06/23/n...fart/39793427/

A labor model where crew members “feel exposed to a witch-hunt” from the airline CEO, and/or punitive action taken against them after reporting safety concerns, can only be described as abhorrent and should be outlawed. Incidentally, the Captain involved had previously written a letter to the DOT in support of NAI and, to my knowledge, was not summarily terminated.

Norwegian has a history of silencing crew they perceive as critical of the regime;

“Norwegian has kicked [sacked] senior safety representative during strike”

http://www.dagbladet.no/2015/08/07/n...fart/40523738/

Norwegian later agreed to a settlement, however;

“Reprehensible issues came up during the trial on Monday and Tuesday that makes NPU need to see concrete changes of the company”

http://www.dn.no/nyheter/politikkSam...ovedverneombud

The purveyors of Norwegian’s “employment” snake-oil and insatiable consumers of Kjos Kool-Aid are no doubt expecting further sales and licking their lips after the recent DOT decision. But it was only in late July this year that 90% of Norwegian’s Spanish cabin crew surveyed were so disillusioned with their treatment by Norwegian, they were ready to strike;

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/her-...eider/60311265

Late last year 30% of the 800 Norwegian pilots surveyed were looking for a new job and 75% would not recommend Norwegian as an “employer”;

http://www.dn.no/nyheter/naringsliv/...-nsker--slutte

Even the Norway press refers to Kjos as “The boss and spin doctor”;

http://www.dn.no/meninger/2016/07/08...g-spinneri-ltd

Strong stuff that Norwegian “employment” snake-oil, and may even remove paint – in addition to removing labor rights and labor principles.