You mean recruited direct from the school, rather than direct from Norwegian when you say " and was recruited by NA direct from them " I am certain. Just to clarify that in case anyone thinks "Norwegian" are recruiting anyone.

Is the roster a litlle bit more constant than it used to be ?
Can we forecast a stable 5/4 ?

What are the conditions for NTR on 737, do you have to pay the type rating directly, or can you do it in accredited TRTO ?PAN AM, AIRBALTIC?

The latest development in the destruction of the parent company NAS, is that the Danish part of "Core" PSD (Pilot Services Denmark ) has gone over to NAI (the Irish AOC), so one third of "Core" dead & buried , with ARN base & PSS due to follow within a year.

It is therefore only a matter of time before "Norwegian Norwegian" (PSN) is relegated to a distant memory, along with Scandi T's & C's. Already this Summer NAS used Go2Fly flight deck flying Damp lease for Norwegian with LN-NII on Slovakian AOC . . . . with interesting consequences on one occasion. . . . . "Core" CC were reportedly unimpressed with the hired helps way of doing things.


As reported to me, (seems the report is being kept in house. . . until now )


" They are flying with slovakian cockpit and norwegian Cabin crew
But they were flying from Kjevik airport in norway on friday, ENCN
in the beginning it was volantary for CC to fly with them, But now they are forced, Forced to fly on another AOC? okey nevetheless
On take-off they got Config Warning, and the crew was so stressed that they shut down both engines, on the runway, Hahah so everything became dark
No info to pax
And during the startup of the engines again, The cabincrew were walking in the Aisle, to calm down the passangers, And after they started the engines, They just Took off, with the Cabin crew standing in the Aisle And when they reached 10 000ft, they got Cabin altitude warning, They forgot the Packs, hahaha
So the SEnior, took on her mask, and went to the Cockpit, opened the door by emergency code
got some useless explenation in bad english
after landing in Osl, all CC members went off, refusing to fly more "

@cpt playstation That's a joke, isn't it ?

It is not, unfortunately. . . . but, I do stand corrected as regards keeping the Scandi T's & C's, & am happy to report that an ex colleague in one of the pilot associations has told me

"Both.
Over the winter starting 1. JAN.

But they keep the Scandinavian CLA
and no change of employer. "

So, not as much of a disaster as I was fearing. . . . . . don't know of course how it is working out for the Cabin Crew, who were always on a very good deal in Norway ( & indeed good luck to them in retaining same :ok: )

Edited with evidence of "not joking" . . . . . . .

Short summary:
• 4 November, Norwegian B738, Kristiansand to Oslo
• Go2Sky flight crew; Norwegian Air Shuttle cabin crew
• tension exists amongst crews over employment T&Cs
• two-hour delay prior to departure
• aborted takeoff due to T/O CONFIG warning
• stopped on the runway, shut down both engines, started APU
• after five minutes started both engines again and commenced takeoff
• no communication from the flight deck during the whole time
• the cabin crew was still walking around the cabin, calming the passengers down (some wanted to get off the aircraft) when the takeoff commenced
• C/C rushed to their seats during the takeoff run
• after the initial climb, the crew received a CAB ALT warning
• the alarm could've been heard from the cabin
• it was later found that the air conditioning systems were not operating
• cabin crew figured something was not right; donned their oxygen equipment
• they tried to obtain any kind of information from the flight deck; unsuccessful; tried to enter the cockpit using the emergency code
• flight crew unlocked the door; very little information was exchanged due to language barriers
• the aircraft maintained FL150 during the whole flight (FL300 usual)
• landed in Oslo
• cabin crew demanded the flight crew make an announcement explaining what everyone had to go through
• pilots just mentioned 'operating a wrong switch'
• due to the total breakdown of CRM and communications, cabin crew disembarked and ended duty
• Norway's AIBN reported to 'have not received any report matching the flight data'

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4a1ae8c4&opt=0

"You think safety is expensive ? try looking at the cost of an accident " . . . . . . . nuff said.

Buenas Angry Birds,
How was the assesment going? Did you do it already? Where? I am about to complete my online tests and I would like to know how long did it take for OSM to date you for the compass tests, interview, roll play, etc.

Now apparently offering only temporary contracts to new joiners, definitely not the way to attract candidates to an already unattractive company.

What about commuting bases?
does the company ask you to move to another base with just one month of notice? I mean if you are in BCN, then next month you have to move to LGW or FCO?

Big mistake... they will regret next summer

trancada, yes.

Any Spanish mainland base can result in a Winter (or two ) in the Canarias, lovely place, but, a bit of a commute depending on where home is.

They tried to forcefully rebase people from Spain to FCO (on inferior conditions ) but SEPLA (the Spanish Union ) intervened successfully.

Couple of years ago some guys were "removed" from LGW & sent packing to MAD to be replaced by more junior Capts who happened to be line trainers.

In a word, base stability is not a foregone conclusion, even during company conversion course people have had the "offer" changed with a clear choice, "accept or goodbye".

Times are changed and nowadays they should take care pushing people on that way.

They are slow learners when it comes to admitting their mistakes (pilot strike Feb 2015 being the glowing example, along with expensive wet leases becoming the norm, in preference to the long-term cheaper solution of fixing it with decent employment conditions )

If you keep beating your head against a drystane dyke it eventually feels normal (doesn't it ? :ugh: )

Transatlantic Crew Bases - Pilots and FAs?
 

Can someone clarify whether this indicates Norwegian will be hiring US-based pilots for the 737MAX as well or just FAs? I had heard about the U.S. 787 recruitment but not for the MAX. Also, will these crew members at these new "transatlantic crew bases" in Europe (EDI and Riga) just fly the MAX? Is that the plan? Separate from the intra-Europe 737NG flying?


Norwegian fixes Providence, Newburgh as US TATL bases - ch-aviation.com

It is of course possible that the Donald overturns the DoT, I personally think it's unlikely, the DoT despite 3 years deliberating over NAI application could not find any cause to reject it and it was the threat of arbitration that moved them to approve. It is worth remembering that even if Donald was to decide that Norwegian a large buyer of Boeing aircraft was more important than China,Russia, banning Muslims, building a wall with Mexico and so on, it changes nothing, Norwegian have the rights under their open skies deal with Europe to fly to the states, it just makes it a bit more messy for them, that's all AND if the D did overturn the approval it just takes us back to where we were a few weeks back.

The EU would seek arbitration, even if that went against Norwegian still nothing changes, although the EU would then seek redress starting with a recipical ban on a US airline none of which is likely, while all of this will no doubt bring glee to the detractors it changes absolutely nothing.

I would ask DB & co just what changes they would like to see, for me it would be direct employment, forget flying on a Norwegian national contract, the business model won't work, if Ryanair said tomorrow that they were starting long haul on their Irish AOC nobody would blink an eyelid, Ireland does not have less safety oversight than Norway, the labour laws might more business friendly, so what, that's true of many countries that fly to the US, what employment protection do EK crews have? In fact it's only in socialist Europe & the US that these rights exsist

Let's see what the Donald does once he's sworn in, he won't be interested in the US unions who bank rolled Hillary.

Norwegian have a fleet of 120 Boeing aircraft with hundreds more on order, by the end of 2017 the long haul fleet will number 21 787's alone

marvelman

Over the last 4 or so years I have witnessed all sorts of 'experts' who have ended up eating humble pie or their own hats over what Norwegian will or won't achieve in the long/short haul market, all to a man have been wrong, time after time, I very much doubt Trump will over turn the DoT he is a an hotieler and hotel need customers.

Whilst there are aspects of their business model I don't agree with, they could do much the same with Spanish (European cabin crew) I have flown long haul with all the major carries ex London and the Norwegian product at least in premium is up there with the best of them on a like for like basis.

Time will tell but but money and bookings are on Norwegian continuing to grow its long haul base.

The spat with Boeing over the Airforce one is over a couple of 747's not 250 aircraft, money talks and Trump is no socialist looking to protect Delta airlines and the rest of the chapter 11 escapees

It's far from over, in fact it's only just beginning, the airline is profitable, win best low cost airline year in year out, its growth is out pacing easyJet, flights are full, especially long haul, more importantly it is the first true pan European airline in operational infrastructure.

Let's revisit this at the end of January, Norwegian detractors are so embittered they see only what fit their narrow narrative.

Simple question: is the plan to have two different pilot groups for the standard 737-800 used intra-Europe and the 737-800MAX to be used on flights across the pond?

Nobody knows...

There will be a 'conversion' type course for those with a 737-800 TR and opportunities given to those that express an interest.

DB

You know the answer to your own question, but let me answer it for you.

Pilots will be employed by OSM Aviation on permanent contracts, OSM Aviation is 50% owned by Norwegian.

Pilots will be subject to the labour laws of their country of employment, so if you are based LGW or EDI it will be (is) UK labour law.

This is not a FR type self employed/Director of some obscure Irish off the shelf company, you will pay all relevant taxes per your country tax code and national insurance.

The road show in Edinburgh is part of an ongoing recruitment drive for both TR and NTR Captains & First officers.

It is intended that EDI will be a 738 MAX base only at least to start with, the road show is not about EDI base.

Hehe..."permanent" contracts.

Every bit as permanent as the ex employee's of XL airways, Globespan, bmibaby to name a few who employed their pilots directly.

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

* from January 2017

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

This is of course for the 738 fleet.

As detailed in the post by MM from the provided link; OSM Aviation is 50% owned by Norwegian Air Resources Holding Ltd ('NARH', Ireland):

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

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

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

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

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

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

BALPA cannot represent you to any Norwegian airline, if it could you would not need a token gesture ‘crew council’ (they do not need protection as they have no authority or power whatsoever). Does the signature of Bjorn Kjos or a Norwegian AIRLINE representative appear on any BALPA/OSM agreement?

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

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

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

The number is presently 108 and rising.

Dear DB

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we await Trumps Tweet T - 16 and counting

MM

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

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

You are just so wrong, chapter 11 and fly America subsidies have left a bloated industry unable to respond to the gulf carriers or Norwegian, the only response is to site labor concerns, this from from a country that imported 2.5m slaves (with British help!!)

"Based on the findings, we estimated the stock price of Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA to be NOK 283,1. On 31.03.2016 the stock price of Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA was NOK 311,5 and therefore our claim was that the stock is overvalued. Our recommendation is then to sell the stock.
Stock Price today, 05. 01. 2017 is NOK 286.3

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

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

About Debt to Equity Ratio

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

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

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

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

Norwegian Air Shuttle Debt to Equity Ratio ( Annual ) :

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


Norwegian Air Shuttle And Companies / Investment Rating = Baa3

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

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

Global Credit Research

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

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

DB
 

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

I say this because i don't think it matters so long as the standards are maintained , ultimately they are Norwegian pilots in everything but contract of employment name.

More or less. . . . . . .


Incident: Go2Sky B738 at Kristiansand on Nov 4th 2016, "racing start"

INKJET,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norwegian is now soliciting applications to join the “Norwegian family”. Watch out for those dysfunctional relatives in Fornebu.

Have you been in direct contact with Bjorn to raise these points and concerns?

Direct Bondi,

Was there ever an official report filed on the DY7006 incident?

Any company without solid foundation, sound corporate culture and management, would experience Safety Factors / Issues, that makes them prone
to incidents, and/or, lead to an accident. Especially during "expansion".

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

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


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

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

About Debt to Equity Ratio

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

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

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

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

Norwegian Air Shuttle Debt to Equity Ratio ( Annual ) :

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


Norwegian Air Shuttle And Companies / Investment Rating = Baa3

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

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

Global Credit Research

You obviously know how to google facts but you lack understanding and background knowledge to interpret these facts in a business context

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

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

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

Here are some other airlines corporate credit ratings from 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also yes you work more for your money compared to a legacy carrier but its not worse than any other airline taking advantage of EASA max FTL. And honestly, what makes people feel tired and overworked is really subjective and is different for each individual.

--------- JUST IN ... 01/09/17 08:10 AM EST


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. aviation is at a crossroads.

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

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

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

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

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

Hilarious. I have no clue where you get that 50% figure from but if it is from this website (and there is literally no other reference to this value), everybody can see how much meaning this values really have:

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

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

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

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

Maybe you should get your head out of the sand. The airline industry is about to get heavily disrupted any no crying and whining by unions and legacy airlines will stop it now that it has been proven that you can create a competitive longhaul lowcost product and slash fares in half on the north atlantic. If Norwegian will survive and flourish, time will tell, but I think (personal opinion) that before we will see Norwegian fail, at least one big name will fall and vanish because they will be slow to adapt to the fast changing market.

If you want a discussion about the topic you should stop with the personal bs.

Then you should think about starting a blog or a webpage. A forum is all about discussions.

Solely the hard Facts. Opinions and comments are inconsequential.


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


TIP: "FOLLOW THE MONEY ".

Wake up and stop dreaming.

I would still like Marvelman and Direct Bondi to elaborate why they have such a personal issue with NAS. Ex employees?