U.S Airline unions have launched an appeal against the DOT for giving NAI a U.S carrier permit:

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ul-flights

Your thoughts? I hope that this doesn't mean that they will have to delay the launch of their flights from SWF/BDL/PVD.

No chance, Spicer and Trump seem to be supportive of Norwegian. When you can't stop EK, EY and the rest then there is no point.

Market forces at work in the transatlantic market and the legacies would love to have the same advantage.

I suspect this will ultimately prove as equally unsuccessful as the unions' original push because, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the merits (moral, economic, etc.) of the unions' arguments, it's hard to find any basis in law for the U.S. government to stop Norwegian.

lesfalls wrote:

Your thoughts? I hope that this doesn't mean that they will have to delay the launch of their flights from SWF/BDL/PVD.

I hope there is a sensible outcome to the "flags of convenience", in the end run it is the European tax payer that is subsiding this operation as they are missing out on their taxes to build and maintain the roads, schools, hospitals, and pensions. The airline could still be very competitive without circumventing social responsibility.

They are doing not much different to what Apple, Google, Microsoft has been doing for years, but I think it needs to come to a stop. If a private individual were to arrange their affairs like this they would be in jail, large corporations just get away with it.

I can see where this thread will be shortly

I think this appeal will be futile

Legacy airlines need to adapt. For a long time the 3 major alliances had a lock on TALT market, the result was Norwegian, WOW, and others...even IAG has LEVEL now.

$300/400 TALT and is here to stay and $200 will soon be here

For those who want J class Sub $2,000 TALT fares are common now too

makes no sense. People buy phones made by Chinese companies, cars made by korean companies, etc etc. However we can't have an airline owned by a non american company?

There's the common use of the word appeal, and there's the formal meaning of appeal (of a court decision, of an administrative decision) under U.S. law. I don't believe that the named groups have standing to appeal the DOT's action.

micstatic wrote:

makes no sense. People buy phones made by Chinese companies, cars made by korean companies, etc etc. However we can't have an airline owned by a non american company?

Because the law says we can't. If you don't like the law, advocate to change the law - don't ignore it.

zeke wrote:

in the end run it is the European tax payer that is subsiding this operation as they are missing out on their taxes to build and maintain the roads, schools, hospitals, and pensions. The airline could still be very competitive without circumventing social responsibility.

But as it so happens, it was actually the European side which pushed the U.S. to issue Norwegian Long Haul's permit to operate to the U.S. The European Union late last year notified the U.S. government that their failure to grant Norwegian's Irish-flag subsidiary permission to operate to the U.S. was a breach of the Open Skies agreement in the eyes of the European Commission. If the E.U. hadn't acted upon Norwegian's behalf, it's quite likely DOT would still be sitting on the application.

Dissepointing. Sara Nelson of The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA was in Oslo, Norway a week or two ago in meetings with various managers at Norwegian headquarters. Media reported that even though they had dissagreements, both parties agreed that it was a good meeting and they would work for a new start. Didn't last for long did it ?

Norway through it's oilfund and Norwegian companies, including Norwegian Air is responsible for creating almost 500 000 jobs in the USA through local set ups and Investments. Almost 1 million jobs if you count indirect employment. Sadly the American Public seems to have a very one sided view also on this. The USA is certainly loosing jobs to other countries ( like all other countries ), but you are also gaining millions upon millions of jobs from foreign Investments in Your country.

If the union's best argument is "put US jobs at risk", then the case is most probably lost already.

Norwegian Longhaul has 14 787's and is waiting for another 18.
The parent Norwegian Air Shuttle is flying around 112 737's and waiting for 119 more. (all figures from wiki).

I doubt the administration will allow such a valuable client to go thru any trouble. Besides, unions are not the most loved entities in the world.

ScottB wrote:

But as it so happens, it was actually the European side which pushed the U.S. to issue Norwegian Long Haul's permit to operate to the U.S. The European Union late last year notified the U.S. government that their failure to grant Norwegian's Irish-flag subsidiary permission to operate to the U.S. was a breach of the Open Skies agreement in the eyes of the European Commission. If the E.U. hadn't acted upon Norwegian's behalf, it's quite likely DOT would still be sitting on the application.

The irony of the situation is not lost on me. I still think member states are looking for ways to tax at the source.

Mortyman wrote:

Dissepointing. Sara Nelson of The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA was in Oslo, Norway a week or two ago in meetings with various managers at Norwegian headquarters. Media reported that even though they had dissagreements, both parties agreed that it was a good meeting and they would work for a new start. Didn't last for long did it ?

Norway through it's oilfund and Norwegian companies, including Norwegian Air is responsible for creating almost 500 000 jobs in the USA through local set ups and Investments. Almost 1 million jobs if you count indirect employment. Sadly the American Public seems to have a very one sided view also on this. The USA is certainly loosing jobs to other countries ( like all other countries ), but you are also gaining millions upon millions of jobs from foreign Investments in Your country.

The UNIONS fighting Norwegian and others are not representative of the American Public View.....If you put it to a poll most Americans would want Norwegian, WOW and any others that can get them lower fares.

The unions are being overprotective here and protectionism is never the answer. If the US3 want to sustain their TATL presence they should not fight Norwegian, they should adapt to them.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The unions are being overprotective here and protectionism is never the answer. If the US3 want to sustain their TATL presence they should not fight Norwegian, they should adapt to them.

Therein lies the issue, though. The U.S. airline industry's labor unions perceive - correctly, in my view - that the obvious, inevitable way that the US3 will "adapt" to Norwegian and other foreign low-fare carriers, when required to do so, will be to dramatically reduce labor costs. For better or worse - there's no way around it. And that is what the unions are worried about - again, correctly, in my view.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The unions are being overprotective here and protectionism is never the answer. If the US3 want to sustain their TATL presence they should not fight Norwegian, they should adapt to them.

Overprotective? Hardly, just trying to prevent what happened in the shipping industry happening to the airline industry.

zeke wrote:

lesfalls wrote:

Your thoughts? I hope that this doesn't mean that they will have to delay the launch of their flights from SWF/BDL/PVD.

I hope there is a sensible outcome to the "flags of convenience", in the end run it is the European tax payer that is subsiding this operation as they are missing out on their taxes to build and maintain the roads, schools, hospitals, and pensions. The airline could still be very competitive without circumventing social responsibility.

A sensible outcome would be a first. Tons of companies take advantage of differing laws amongst the various US states to their advantage such as incorporating in states where they have no presence other than a mailbox. It's the EU's problem to fix rather than the US DOT.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The unions are being overprotective here and protectionism is never the answer. If the US3 want to sustain their TATL presence they should not fight Norwegian, they should adapt to them.

As long as they 'adapt' their prices as well. Not like European legacies adapting their services to LCC but not their prices.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The unions are being overprotective here and protectionism is never the answer. If the US3 want to sustain their TATL presence they should not fight Norwegian, they should adapt to them.

Overprotective? Hardly, just trying to prevent what happened in the shipping industry happening to the airline industry.

Indeed they're trying to prevent what can't be prevented. It'll happen anyway and trying to prevent it is just ordinary protectionism. No matter how hard the unions fight, they'll never succeed.

Yes, labor costs have to be cut in order to keep up the competition. Otherwise the US3 will soon turn into 3 Air Frances or Alitalias. You know, airlines where the staff refuses to have their wages cut and thus destroy their own airline.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The unions are being overprotective here and protectionism is never the answer. If the US3 want to sustain their TATL presence they should not fight Norwegian, they should adapt to them.

Overprotective? Hardly, just trying to prevent what happened in the shipping industry happening to the airline industry.

Indeed they're trying to prevent what can't be prevented. It'll happen anyway and trying to prevent it is just ordinary protectionism. No matter how hard the unions fight, they'll never succeed.

Yes, labor costs have to be cut in order to keep up the competition. Otherwise the US3 will soon turn into 3 Air Frances or Alitalias. You know, airlines where the staff refuses to have their wages cut and thus destroy their own airline.

The model that's in place today - where you spend your first 15 years as an indentured servant, flying nights, weekends and holidays, all so that in the latter half of your working life you only have to show up twice a month - is hardly worth preserving. That's who Sara Nelson and her friends are fighting to protect - a cadre of "career" flight attendants who think it's their right to work two trips a month and collect a fat paycheck, because "that's how it's always been." That model is not sustainable, and the unions know it. Rather than come up with something new, they'll fight to the death to preserve their beloved broken system, and waving a US flag to hide their intentions.

Step onto any UA or AA longhaul flight and you'll see who all this effort is designed to protect. You might have to look for them - they're probably sitting on the jumpseats gossiping or reading.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The unions are being overprotective here and protectionism is never the answer. If the US3 want to sustain their TATL presence they should not fight Norwegian, they should adapt to them.

Overprotective? Hardly, just trying to prevent what happened in the shipping industry happening to the airline industry.

Indeed they're trying to prevent what can't be prevented. It'll happen anyway and trying to prevent it is just ordinary protectionism. No matter how hard the unions fight, they'll never succeed.

Yes, labor costs have to be cut in order to keep up the competition. Otherwise the US3 will soon turn into 3 Air Frances or Alitalias. You know, airlines where the staff refuses to have their wages cut and thus destroy their own airline.

Smoking holes all over the world. Thousands will die but hey airfares are cheap

Where do they propose to get the pilots for this expansion when they pay so much lower than standard and pilots that do accept jobs there take the chance on possibly being blackballed by the rest of the industry?

DiamondFlyer wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The unions are being overprotective here and protectionism is never the answer. If the US3 want to sustain their TATL presence they should not fight Norwegian, they should adapt to them.

Overprotective? Hardly, just trying to prevent what happened in the shipping industry happening to the airline industry.

The only fact that is hindering this development is, that the Airline Crews cannot live on board of the aircraft. Norwegian tries to overcome this Problem by creating "Destination" Airlines which enables them to staff these flights with local rews that not only get paid less. Even more important is the fact that the social costs and Standards in These Destination countries are by far less than in European cuntries. Whatever the take home pay of a German employee is, the social contributions paid by the employer, including the pay, is at least twice as high. Amazing that a Country like Norway, which leads with the highest social Standards in the world, has no Problems with such developments.

So why not registering all Airlines under flags of convenience? And kick out those cost driving facilitation bodies IATA and ICAO?.