Bondi
 

In the race to the truth LNIDA is ahead of you by about eight furlongs in a ten furlong race.

A and C:

Thanks for the chuckle.

In addition to my posts, if you have further interest in the truth regarding Norwegian's employment rights and employment principles circumvention regime, please contact any NPU, NF, ECA, PARAT representative, or the respective journalist from the several newspaper articles I have previously listed.

NPU website:
NPU - Norwegian Pilot Union

Norwegian Airline Pilot Association, NF website:
Norsk Flygerforbund

European Cockpit Association website:
https://www.eurocockpit.be/

PARAT website:
Paratluftfart

A and C, please be sure to report back with their responses - then we will see who is telling the truth.

What is the current status of the Captain allegedly fired by Norwegian via his agency employer, for refusing to accept a unilateral change to his previously agreed base, and how is the 'white knight' of BALPA assisting him ?

It is quite extraordinary that despite claims Norwegian follows "transparent procedures" and agency employed pilots are now represented by BALPA, pilots are still too frightened to post on this site, any information of the above for fear of a management witch-hunt and personal retribution.

An entrenched fear culture indeed.

Bondi
 

A few years ago..... well more thad a few but Im avoiding old git status on these pages I was reading a truly shocking post about an airline that treated its staff with utter contmpt at all times.

I was truly shocked that a compny could treat its employees in such a way, as I continued to read the post it slowly became apparent that the guy was talking about the airline I was working for ! His perseption and mine being miles apart, the airline is long gone but it is very hard to find someone who has a bad word to say about them.

I cant help thinking that your perseption of Norwegian and the average perception of those flying for Norwegian are seperated by the same sort of distance.

In this world direct employment my give some a walm and fluffy feeling of security but that is all it will do for you, a number of airlines have gone bust while I was working for them and the employed status did diddly squat for my job security and very little in terms of compensation.
The Norwegian job is via the OSM agency and has only been running this way for seven months but has already got few things in the cotract such as loss of licence insurance and private heath care is being talked about as the next move....... that a lot better than my last two airlines.

All this makes a move from an airline ooop north quite attractive.

I have to wonder as to the motives for your persistently anti Norwegian attitude being that they are far from being the worst airline to to fly for in this business ?

Oh ! one last question, would you have any idea of the location of the Malmo Aviation FDO's car ?

A and C:

After questioning the truth of my posts, you are unable to provide any substantive response whatsoever other than to reminisce and provide more weak excuses for Norwegian's circumvention of employment rights and employment principles, by their exclusive use of agency employed pilots and cabin crew.

You refuse to confirm the specific facts of my posts by contacting the pilot representative organizations and journalists via the details I provided, because in doing so your defense of Norwegian's circumvention regime would fall flat (much like your horse).

The gross contradiction and misrepresentation is that Norwegian has the affront to declare (falsely) on its website that in respect of Human worth:

"We place great importance on ensuring compliance with 'employees' basic human rights as outlines in the International Labor Organization core conventions"

Website link: Human Worth - Norwegian

Categorically, Norwegian does not comply with ILO core conventions. Norwegian has taken punitive action and terminated crew for submitting safety reports, some of which were mandatory occurrence reports. Such action is a violation of the national laws required by EU Directive 2003/42/EC Article 8.4. Norwegian has also disclosed the personal data of crew to third parties without their express permission, including bank details and account numbers. Such action is a violation of the Norway Personal Data Act and EU directive 1995/46/EC.

My motive is to ensure those applying for Norwegian are fully informed of the truth and not mislead by the persistently delusional.

Next.

Bondi
 

Just like LINDA I give up, I will leave you to obit the third moon of the planet Zog in the outer reaches of a galaxy far from what most of us understand as reality.

Oh ! Any news of the car ?

A and C quote:

"In the race to the truth LNIDA is ahead of you by about eight furlongs in a ten furlong race"

Upon review of my posts with specific facts, newspaper reports, website links and even contact details for verification, and your posts, particularly your last adolescent effort, readers will determine who is ultimately first past the post(s) in the race to the truth.

A and C quote: ''In the race to the truth LNIDA is ahead of you by about eight furlongs in a ten furlong race.'

Are you serious? I can't believe that anyone who is even acutely aware of the modus operandi of Norwegian management could make such a ridiculous statement. Bondi points to reported news articles that make it clearly apparent that abhorrent employee practices are frequently in use within Norwegian. I can only assume that you: a) Don't work for Norwegian and have no idea whatsoever about the appalling way these clowns choose to operate, or b) have your head buried in the sand or inserted into a 'brown-nosable' Norwegian management arse. Option c is that you represent Norwegian management and would like to mislead and deceive the wider pprune audience that these sharp practices don't occur within the company. 600 Norwegian pilots don't go on strike for no reason at all.

Whilst LNIDA says he has not been on the receiving end of such dispicable treatment, he does not go as far as to say that he is completely unaware of Norwegian treating other pilots within the company in this way. If LNIDA were to claim that such underhand and devious practices did not exist then I would suggest a username change to 'LNnoIDeA'.

I know who I believe and it isn't you or LNIDA.

Well said. A colleague of mine recently left an "ooop North" airline to join Norwegian on a full time, permanent contract.

They have just found out they won't have a job or income during the winter.

Merry Christmas.

Was wondering the same LoCo. I am a little bemused how this company attracts so much negative reaction from so many in so many different areas yet has a handful of clear advocates. I think Bondi has a point as he has set out a number of very specific issues but these are not being addressed directly by the pro lobby. I am not convinced by the "I am OK and I love it" argument and would appreciate those in favour actually saying why some of these issues are acceptable. I am not a Norwegian pilot but have experienced redundancy three times in the last 10 years and it would be good to really understand the accusation rebuttals in case they ever become an employer I have to consider.

All this ping pong between different camps is amusing, I can understand why if someone works for an airline they might have a more positive view, but i can't understand why someone who doesn't like direct bondi puts so much time and effort into a demolition job, unless they have an axe to grind, in which case their input ceases to be impartial

On line industry media reports today say that Norwegian will have a UK AOC next month, also that they won the Skytrax Best Low Cost airline in Europe for the 3rd consecutive year, and the worlds Best Low Cost Long Haul airline for the first time. so they must be doing something right??

Given there are plenty of jobs out there right now i can't understand the obsession with one airline, but they do seem to polarise opinions..

Reading the posts from the pro Norwegian lobby, its apparent that the posters are perhaps Co-pilots , single and still enjoying their flying? Youth and enthusiasm can be very important in this industry, for management to exploit !

However, once you accept the responsibility of command, what happens when things dont go as planned? A level bust or lost comms? Do Norwegian have a safety culture and what are the protections for a pilot to call upon? There is no legal support for you as there is no pilot union
or association. You are contracted and therefore the agency can be tough and act with impunity if the employer deems that the pilot is in error.
Not a nice feeling to be all alone.

Decent airlines have a defined safety culture, safety reporting, just or otherwise. You have support of a union. And a neutral company safety department. You are not alone. You have a loss of licence protection and private medical insurance for your whole family.

I can see the attraction of Norwegian , Wizz air and the like, for the 20 something brigade. However, after meeting that beautiful latvian lass, marrying and starting a family you will desire a decent house in a respectable area of town for that quality school. But then you realise that the mortgage will cost 10 x your salary to buy that house.And the 4x4 for the school run. So ultimatly your kids miss out .You will now be embarassed that you are an airline captain who has the talk but cannot walk the walk. Unlike your mates who joined BA 10 years ago.

Will be interesting to know how things pan out for you guys in the next decade.

Ah i forgot, seems some guys only have until this Christmas to earn a crust.

Bondi may have highlighted shortcomings with the employment ethics, take it or leave it, as observed young co pilots hungry to p lay airplanes will not give a dam it's their first job. Old gits topping up the retirement fund same boat. Rejects from other airlines ditto. The problem with pilots is we blow a lot of hot air and do nothing. Apart from the aer lingus action in 2008 there has been no successful protest by pilot groups, the NAS action last year vapourised and it must be said we reap what we sow. The view is generally it is better to have 100 percent of something than 100 of nothing . Advice falls on deaf ears and just accept people make their own choices

Just like Greeks ( well some of them)
 

A week or so back the Greek nation voted to reject the bailout from the EU, this was a last chance deal to avoid a financial meltdown....... So why ?

All you got from the No voters was a lot of suff about not humiliating a nation and a a clear message that if they hold on tight enough to the fantasy of spending their way out of debt then all will magically become OK.

Some of the things written about Norwegian above are hitting the same sort of fantasy levels, press reports are being taken as unquestionable truth despite the lamentable track record of the press when it comes to aviation, some are inventing hypothetical questions about subjects and then providing hypothetical answers to the questions that seem to want to out hype the last anti Norwegian post they have seen. No doubt the gutter press will be looking at these pages any use the so called opinions of aviation insiders to base its next story on and so renewing that outrage cycle.

While observing this from the sidelines I see a lot of people who say that flying for Norwegian is far better than flying for Ryanair in terms of stability and lack of fear culture but the number one issue is getting the roster sorted out.

Some of the critics have an equally distorted view of conventional direct employment as being some sort of ultra secure utopia........it is not ! Just talk to those employed by Flyglobspan, Astraeus, Silverjet, Zoom, British world, , XL, and a host of others that overnight left that aviation arena owing their employees huge amounts of money and without a job.......... So much for the security of employment !

While I am sure that things within Norwegian are far from perfect I am also sure that the most of what is written above is further away from the perfect truth by a considerable margin.

In my opinion most of the stuff written above is done so because the anti Ryanair brigade has run out of things to be outraged about with Ryanair and has found a new sorce of outrage a little further north.

So Mr Gammonflaps
 

By now someone in an airline the size of Norwegian should have been fired for transgressing some rule................ Can you point to someone who been fired under circumstances that would not have got them fired from a conventional employment airline ?

As the discussion has polarised to a contractor v permanent one, I would ask why does anyone think that Norwegian use the former model. Is it not for their benefit ? Does it not allow them to hide away from decades of employee protection legislation ? Who pays (in UK) NI employee and employer contributions ?
Mr GF has a good point. There may or may not be examples of inappropriate contract non renewal, those on the outside cannot know, but the fact does remain the opportunity for the employer to abuse exists and this is what employment legislation is there to protect against.

No one is arguing that Norwegian have fired people for breaking rules. Non compliance of SOPs or poor performance can get you dismissed from any airline. The issue you fail to see is that Norwegian are guilty of despicable treatment against those who have made no such mistakes or who have not broken any rules.

For starters, I had heard (so I stand to be corrected) that of the 600 Scandi pilots that went on strike, Norwegian had told them that there were 400 contract positions available with much reduced benefits. The first 400 to accept the contract change would keep their jobs - the remainder would be dismissed.

Then we have the poor treatment of the FO's who are the subject of this thread, they broke no rules......then the Captain who refused to sign the Spanish contract when he already had a binding contract for LGW. That Captain broke no rules whatsoever but made the mistake of thinking that his contract was actually worth something... I am sure others could give further examples. The fact is that Norwegian think that such poor treatment is acceptable and that its acceptable to act with impunity - it is not. Like Ryanair, Norwegian fail to see the benefit of treating people fairly. They do not understand that building a happy workforce in a fair workplace goes a long way to creating a strong brand with strong brand awareness. A happy workforce will speak highly of their employer. Just look at what similar treatment has done for Ryanair, poor brand value and a business that most love to hate.

Regarding your point of direct employment: Granted, many airlines have ceased trading and those directly employed lost their jobs. Those businesses failed for a variety of reasons. However, during the time those businesses operated, some for many many years, direct employment afforded those employed legislative protection which is not available to those on a contract. Through the practises of Norwegian it is clear for all to see how such protections are circumvented through the use of contract pilots.

Mr gammonflaps
 

If you think the pressure to fly the last sector is one that only happens in contract pilot airlines then you are a poor misguided sole, I have seen such things happen in the past in UK full employment airline.

No airline wants to go firing pilots as the drop of a hat, it is disruptive, expensive, and leaves holes in the program that have to be filled with day off payments until another crew member is trained, it makes no business sence what so ever. In the case of Norwegian the UK based pilots are employed by OSM ( and that employment involves UK NI & PAYE ) and so have the full range of empolyment rights just like any other person employed in the UK.

All that much of this therortical ranting shows is a paranoia and personal lack of security in the views held by some of the contributors above most of who know three tenths of FA about what it is like to fly for Norwegian.

May be it is time to move to the sunny saaaf and see what life with the Nordics is like...... it cant be as black as it is painted by some, after all a bit of negative publicity spread about from the management of airlines likely to loose staff when Norwegian move north is a good investment if it keeps the more insecure from jumping ship.

Of course, from a statutory point of view that is true, although, that is nothing to do with the contract model. In addition, I'd be surprised if OSM was fully appraised of all of them?

For arguments sake, are they aware of UK employees Parental Leave rights?

As usual the truth lies somewhere between the protagonists in this debate. There is no question in my own mind that Kjus has organised his non-core workforce after spending much time in the company of a certain MOL, and thereby sought to minimise Norwegian's obligations to them, and, make it as difficult as possible for the labour force to organise and subsequently negotiate with them. That much is uncontestable.

It is not clear to me how much merit there is in any collective agreement with OSM? Whilst it is a step in the right direction, and "concessions" may have recently been made in that respect, if they are zero-sum concessions, the "rubber has hardly hit the road" in ascertaining whether there is any real willingness to engage the workforce as valuable stakeholders integral to the success of the business.

What is clear, is that through no choice of their own, Norwegian employees are really part of a leading edge business model that has the huge potential to be yet another destructive cancer in our industry and they would do well to fight it with all the tools at their disposal.

One awaits the US DOT judgement with baited breath and hopes that will embolden European employees of the airline to fight, similarly, for a level playing field back on this side of the Pond....

And, if Norwegian tell OSM they do not wish to utilise the services of a particular individual ? what claim does an OSM employee have that involves NAS in any way ? none. . . diddly squat. . . . . . unless of course a Court found that the "real employer" was in fact Norwegian all along.

Given that OSM have only one airline available to "offer" their crew to, that's it for your supposed "full time contract" (Ha ! ) , "sorry, not our decision, but we have no suitable employment to offer you" . . . . simples.

Well, lets see.

Mr Gammon Flaps said "as a contractor they can let you go if you have an argument with the chief pilot"


or even express the "wrong" opinion on line (as in on t'web, not flying the line ) . . . . . . . . .

Mr gammon flaps
 

I'm so sorry that a did not respect your British Airways sky God status, with the personal abuse and bad language You use I can see that my predictive text was one step ahead of both of us...... You are indeed floudering for answers !

I have done the BA thing it was an institution that kept a lot of very good and technically competent people down because the lack luster managnent that lived in fear of being shown up by these people and so suppressed any career progression by offering the fur lined rut of a very secure life and a good pension......... A slice of that I will enjoy shortly. But in short it was the most unforfilling place I have ever worked.

As you say EZ has pensions and this is in ongoing work with OSM it takes more than a few months to put in place and it was only seven months back that OSM took over as employers from what was a pure contract deal.

It matters not what company you are in if you make yourself unpopular enough with the management they will find a way to get rid of you, one contributor has said that someone has been fired for things written on the Internet forums, I need to remind you that even that paragon of employment correctness BA has it's own little official secrets act and has fired people for things written online BA even got very close to firing someone who's Facebook page had been clearly been hacked by a person with a grudge against the employee.

As an OSM employee do you receive paid holidays, maternity leave, and other UK/EU employment goodies? If, after 12 months employment, you are 'let go' then surely you are made redundant with all the ramifications and compensations that entails under Uk law? Does that happen?

Rat 5
 

The employment contract is subject to all UK employment law's.

...which is why the norwegian pilot union(NPU and PARAT) has sued the company(NAS) to establish who the real employer is :E

Parat saksøker Norwegian - DN.no

Anyone able to translate and sum up that article in a couple of lines?

If NPU and PARAT are successful, I wonder if the same employee/employer link will follow for the Euro/UK contractors.

Wonder why IALPA & BALPA are not following the same route for some of their members.

The media are notoriously inept when reporting aviation technical matters. They are competent and accurate when reporting aviation personnel matters. As demonstrated by the E24 Norway, news headline today:

" 24 pilots who incurred $200,000 debt after receiving training from Norwegian, feel swindled because they have to settle for a part-time job, says Norwegian Pilots Union (NPU)"

News Link: Fagforening: Norwegian-flygere føler seg bondefanget - Norwegian Air Shuttle - Jobb - E24
*copy and paste to Google Translate

It beggars belief that some chumps on this site still refuse to believe that Norwegian's exclusive use of agency pilots and cabin crew, is in part, to effect a circumvention of employment rights and employment principles. Perhaps simple logic might work:

If you accept that the Norwegian Pilot Union, PARAT, European Cockpit Association and Norwegian Airline Pilots Association, all represent the best interests of their member pilots and cabin crew, then simply contact any representative to confirm all I have written in regard to Norwegian and the Kjos circumvention regime.

I provided the contact details once again. Please report back with their response:

NPU website:
NPU - Norwegian Pilot Union

PARAT website:
Paratluftfart

European Cockpit Association website:
https://www.eurocockpit.be/

Norwegian Airline Pilot Association, NF website:
Norsk Flygerforbund

bondi,
what about the car - is it still gone?

Thanks for your concern, but I live in a large city with excellent public transport.

Reference has been made to the pending US DOT decision of Norwegian's Foreign Air Carrier Permit application. The EU-US Air Transport Agreement (Open Skies) includes Article 17, which states:

"The opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labor standards or the labor related rights and principles contained in the Parties respective laws"

Clearly, by the exclusive use of agency pilots and cabin crew to circumvent the employer responsibilities and obligations of a direct employment relationship, the Kjos regime does not comply with Article 17. The Norway media reports labor issues at Norwegian almost on a daily basis. It is highly unlikely a US Permit will be forthcoming.

The Norwegian Airline Group has its principal place of business in Norway. As confirmed on its website - Link:
Investor Contacts - Norwegian

Norway is a non EU Member State, therefore, Norwegian does not qualify for the benefits of the EU-US ATA. It should be of concern that Norwegian receives full EU Commission representation to the US at the expense of every EU citizen taxpayer.

Next.

Bondi
 

You have one hell of an agenda going here

You are incorrect to say that Norway does not enjoy the benefit he EU-USA open skies agreement, it might not be a European country but does enjoy the same or similar benefits.

You constant carping about temporary contract staff has been over taken by events. The LH haul crews are based in LGW pay UK tax and social insurance.

If the DoT were going to throw this application out it would have done so by now, its already 15 months in.

This has now been taken up at European level and will shortly result in one of two out comes, 1) Norwegian will get approval fuss over 2) Norwegian does not get approval and the EU will ask the American DoT which of the US majors it want to ban from flying to Europe.

Turning to NAI you often assert that the IAA AOC is to someway avoid oversight and regulation, which is of course is an insult to the Irish authorities, but staying with your theme, then please explain why Norwegian have now applied for an UK AOC and will in due course apply for a Spanish AOC ?

The whole European operation excluding Scandinavia will shortly move to the Irish AOC and the UK operation will move a UK AOC

NAI is a wholly owned by Norwegian its corporate HQ is in Ireland, when DY changes to D8 in the Autumn the revenues will flow through Ireland, which just like the likes of Google & Amazon find it financially beneficial to book their € revenue through Ireland, it doesn't make them any less American and won't make Norwegian any less Norwegian. It will also reduce exchange rate losses against the NOK.

The UK AOC will allow access to routes that current European AOC does not, its about business costs and traffic rights, not safety as you like to imply, further i would remind you that with an average fleet age of under 4 years its one of the newest in Europe

You make frequent reference to media links in Norway about labour relations, but only the negative stories that suits your agenda.

The amount of time and energy that you put into your anti Norwegian campaign speaks volumes about your agenda, there is zero balance in your argument, no one pretends that its perfect, but show me an airline still trading that is?

I would suspect that your agenda is driven by rejection.

Either way time will tell, my money is on gaining full US approval.

LNIDA:

Welcome back. Unfortunately, you have nothing to offer except 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.

Obviously, you have not taken my advice and sought confirmation of my posts via the pilot and cabin crew representative organizations, the links to which I provided. However, I thank you for keeping this thread active and at the top - well done!

As you work for Norwegian perhaps you might confirm something for me:

I am informed the Norwegian crew identification badge has no reference to the employer of the holder. The badge does not contain any reference to ARPI, OSM or Rishworth, however it does contains the letters EMPL in two locations and may therefore be construed as misrepresenting the employer to be Norwegian, when in fact it is not. Who sponsored you for your LGW airside pass, was it Norwegian or your employer?

Bondi
 

That a simple one to answer, Norwegian apply for and issue 'community crew cards' so they all say Norwegian on them as far as i recall, as for LGW crews cards i have no idea.

It used to say 'Bristol' on the front of buses, didn't mean it was going there....:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

LNIDA quote: "NAI is a wholly owned by Norwegian its corporate HQ is in Ireland"

A letter dated June 1, 2015, from Bjorn Kjos to DOT Secretary Foxx to request a speedy resolution to the NAI US Permit application, is written on Norwegian company letterhead with the corporate address given as Fornebue, Norway, not Ireland. No reference is made to Ireland. Kjos states in the letter:

"Norwegian has regularly utilized the services of employment agencies for the recruitment and temporary provision of crews for a transitional period of 24-36 months in connection with the opening of new bases"

Anyone from Spain, Helsinki or Tenerife remember hearing this in 2012?

LNIDA quote: "If the DoT were going to throw this application out it would have done so by now, its already 15 months in"

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 and serious concerns remain.

LNIDA quote: "Your constant carping about temporary contract staff has been over taken by events. The LH haul crews are based in LGW pay UK tax and social insurance"

Norwegian directs and controls the bases, working rosters, days off, vacation periods and promotion opportunities for both the short haul and long haul crews, this makes Norwegian, effectively, the real employer. However, Norwegian seeks to circumvent its obligations and responsibilities as the employer via its exclusive use of agencies. Pilots and cabin crew have no employment rights and receive no employment principles from their real employer, Norwegian. Despite the false claims by Norwegian that they comply with International Labor Organization core conventions, there is evidence to prove they do not. Such a regime categorically does not meet the prerequisites required by Article 17 of the EU-US Open-Skies Agreement. The US Permit cannot be granted.

LNIDA quote: "Turning to NAI you often assert that the IAA AOC is to someway avoid oversight and regulation"

A serious safety incident involving a Norwegian 787 from JFK to ARN occurred in January 2015. The aircraft is registered in Ireland, the AOC is held in Norway, the crew were operating on EASA licenses issued in various EU and non-EU states and operating under different employment contracts with various agencies located in different countries. YES, there is a concern regarding the convoluted web of regulatory oversight the Norwegian scheme requires and how it is applied.

LNIDA quote: "all say Norwegian on them as far as i recall" [the official crew badge]

and they all have the letters Empl (employee) on them too! making the badge a misrepresentation. This supports that Norwegian is effectively the real employer, but seeks to circumvent its employment obligations and responsibilities.

I am informed the US DOT is examining NLH applications for US C-1/D Crew Visas, to determine if any false declarations have been made as to the sponsor "employer" of the applicant.

Presumably some of those busses went to Bristol.

Add Content

Bondi

If Contract Pilots work for a UK AOC the airline applies for their security clearance not the Contracting Company.

Arguing the toss over what the I.D. says underpins any discussion you're trying to force in my humble view...

Mr. Angry quote:

"If Contract Pilots work for a UK AOC the airline applies for their security clearance not the Contracting Company"

Categorically incorrect. The "employer" - ARPI, OSM, Rishworth - must apply for a Full ID Pass, and must themselves undergo security vetting by the Department for Transport. Only Temporary ID Pass holders, such as building contractors may be sponsored indirectly - as stated on the Gatwick Airport ID Centre website - Link: ID pass regulation | Gatwick Airport

"Full Airport ID Pass - this type of pass should be requested for anyone employed by your company who will require access to the critical part of Gatwick airport on a regular basis to carry out recognized company business".

Additionally, applicants for a US C-1/D Crew Visa must be sponsored by their "employer" - OSM or Rishworth for 787. As stated on the application: You are required to present a letter from your employer. Link: Crew (C-1/D Visas) | Embassy of the United States

PARAT currently seeks a ruling by the Norway courts that Norwegian is the real employer. As previously stated, Norwegian interviews, recruits, terminates, assigns the bases (then unilaterally changes them), determines the days off, vacation periods and promotion opportunities for its pilots and cabin crew, making Norwegian effectively the real employer. The misrepresentation surrounding the ID badge, pass and visa applications all support this. However, Norwegian seeks to circumvent employment responsibilities and obligations.

The report on the PARAT legal action link: Parat saksøker Norwegian - DN.no - *copy and paste to Google Translate

Bondi
 

A court case just shows that someone is trying to prove something that is unclear in law.

Most of UK law is case law ( I am assuming that the Norwegian courts work the same way) and no one has done anything wrong untill a court says so.

As far as I can see PARAT are trying to clear this employment thing up as the law is unclear, if it was not the Norwegian govement authorities would have put a stop to it.

In short if PARAT can make a good enough case to the Norwegian courts the airline will have to change its practices, if not the status quo continues.

This sort of case law is not like say taking a car without consent where the law is clear, it is the very lack of clarity that is making PARAT take the action.

BK wouldn't take a car without the owners consent, he's not that stupid, but yes he's operating in legal gray areas.

If you took the time to read through the various threads & examine what happened last Winter, & what was proposed for this Winter, you would be anything but surprised.

SK1:

I infer you are surprised by Norwegian's 'Summer Only' temporary contract. Don't be.
Unless you have a direct employment relationship with Norwegian, ALL pilots may be considered as temporary when rented from an agency by Norwegian. Your employment is with the agency, not Norwegian. Rented pilots have no entitlement to labor rights nor labor principles with Norwegian whatsoever (including seniority).
As a rented pilot your services may be terminated by Norwegian at any time, without recourse. Norwegian simply notifies the agency your particular services are no longer required. The agency may or may not find you alternative work. Your notice period is with the agency, not Norwegian.
You may not even get paid during your notice period. You will not be protected by Employment Law because you have entered into an employment contract/agreement with the agency, which almost certainly indemnifies the agency from their obligations due to any action taken by the airline.
Read my previous posts.

Good luck.