Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
mcdu wrote:janders wrote:I never realized ALPA decided to sue the DOT.
Thank you ALPA for wasting my taxpayer money having to defend the DOT decision.
Tax dollars? Seriously, you think ALPA is funded by tax dollars?
Google ALPA and you may be surprised.
janders wrote:I never realized ALPA decided to sue the DOT.
Thank you ALPA for wasting my taxpayer money having to defend the DOT decision.
UPlog wrote:ALPA was always wasting their time, though they certainly mucked things up and slowed the process down for Norwegian at the expense of flying public.
CATIIIevery5yrs wrote:UPlog wrote:ALPA was always wasting their time, though they certainly mucked things up and slowed the process down for Norwegian at the expense of flying public.
I hope you know you’ll be wasting your time the next time you ask an alpa pilot if you can see the flight deck and take pictures. No. No you can’t.
MIflyer12 wrote:This probably looks weird to the many non-American participants on this forum, so let me offer the very short version:
Parties with standing (basically, anybody who can show direct damages) can sue a U.S. government agency to compel agency to show it followed the law. That means following defined rule-making practice and consideration of facts in evidence.
ALPA lawyers had to know this was unlikely to succeed.
NeBaNi wrote:CATIIIevery5yrs wrote:UPlog wrote:ALPA was always wasting their time, though they certainly mucked things up and slowed the process down for Norwegian at the expense of flying public.
I hope you know you’ll be wasting your time the next time you ask an alpa pilot if you can see the flight deck and take pictures. No. No you can’t.
I'm sure most ALPA pilots aren't like that, but that was just petty.
mcdu wrote:janders wrote:I never realized ALPA decided to sue the DOT.
Thank you ALPA for wasting my taxpayer money having to defend the DOT decision.
Tax dollars? Seriously, you think ALPA is funded by tax dollars?
Google ALPA and you may be surprised.
mcdu wrote:janders wrote:I never realized ALPA decided to sue the DOT.
Thank you ALPA for wasting my taxpayer money having to defend the DOT decision.
Tax dollars? Seriously, you think ALPA is funded by tax dollars?
Google ALPA and you may be surprised.
LAXintl wrote:DOJ had to spend tax dollars defending DOT's authority to make such decisions.
CATIIIevery5yrs wrote:UPlog wrote:ALPA was always wasting their time, though they certainly mucked things up and slowed the process down for Norwegian at the expense of flying public.
I hope you know you’ll be wasting your time the next time you ask an alpa pilot if you can see the flight deck and take pictures. No. No you can’t.
CATIIIevery5yrs wrote:NeBaNi wrote:CATIIIevery5yrs wrote:
I hope you know you’ll be wasting your time the next time you ask an alpa pilot if you can see the flight deck and take pictures. No. No you can’t.
I'm sure most ALPA pilots aren't like that, but that was just petty.
Go ahead and tell an alpa pilot -or any union pilot- your thoughts on NAI and see how it goes over.
bgm wrote:mcdu wrote:janders wrote:I never realized ALPA decided to sue the DOT.
Thank you ALPA for wasting my taxpayer money having to defend the DOT decision.
Tax dollars? Seriously, you think ALPA is funded by tax dollars?
Google ALPA and you may be surprised.
Who do you think funds the DOT?
Google it and you may be surprised.
mcdu wrote:bgm wrote:mcdu wrote:
Tax dollars? Seriously, you think ALPA is funded by tax dollars?
Google ALPA and you may be surprised.
Who do you think funds the DOT?
Google it and you may be surprised.
ALPA did not waste tax payers dollars. ALPA spent dues dollars lodging the suit they felt was justified.
UPlog wrote:Norwegian is no more a flag of convenience than US company that set up operations in Florida, Texas or South Carolina for example.
Be it Norway, UK, or Ireland, it's a single aviation market which means its under the same legal aviation framework.
p.s. - I am a UPS pilot and fully support vibrant market competition.
DiamondFlyer wrote:UPlog wrote:Norwegian is no more a flag of convenience than US company that set up operations in Florida, Texas or South Carolina for example.
Be it Norway, UK, or Ireland, it's a single aviation market which means its under the same legal aviation framework.
p.s. - I am a UPS pilot and fully support vibrant market competition.
Probably a management pilot, hired when IPA pilots were on furlough, with that attitude.
UPlog wrote:Sooner or later humans will be engineered out of piloting jobs. So whether this starts with cargo and evolves into fully autonomous craft, I'll let the experts figure out the path. Personally don't see point of betting against technology and societal evolution.
santi319 wrote:Super80Fan wrote:mcdu wrote:
Legal and ethical are not synonymous. There are lots of unspeakable characters wrapped in Italian suits and ties that occupy the skyscrapers in a many cities. They are often legal but very unethical.
As was mentioned earlier, NOrwegian will be TU soon enough and not a factor. The margin call on them is going to be the fork in carcass.
For the people hired from the US by NOrwegian. There will always be people with issues that make them unhireable by reputable carriers. For them an airline NOrwegian will hire them. They make less than many of the regional carriers do in the states. That should be a red flag to anyone buying their tickets on price alone.
Ethical like UA beating people up? Or AA agents not following their policy and berating a mother? Or DL kicking off a guy for using the bathroom? Yeah most employees of the US3 treat the people who pay their salaries as the enemy.
You should definetly move to Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates...
Super80Fan wrote:santi319 wrote:Super80Fan wrote:
Ethical like UA beating people up? Or AA agents not following their policy and berating a mother? Or DL kicking off a guy for using the bathroom? Yeah most employees of the US3 treat the people who pay their salaries as the enemy.
You should definetly move to Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates...
Basically every other country's airlines on the planet treat their customers with respect. And why should I move for admitting the truth, struck a nerve did I? Employees at the US3 don't respect their customers and certainly don't respect employees at other air carriers in the US let alone worldwide.
mcdu wrote:bgm wrote:mcdu wrote:
Tax dollars? Seriously, you think ALPA is funded by tax dollars?
Google ALPA and you may be surprised.
Who do you think funds the DOT?
Google it and you may be surprised.
ALPA did not waste tax payers dollars. ALPA spent dues dollars lodging the suit they felt was justified.
rbavfan wrote:mcdu wrote:bgm wrote:
Who do you think funds the DOT?
Google it and you may be surprised.
ALPA did not waste tax payers dollars. ALPA spent dues dollars lodging the suit they felt was justified.
Yes and the result is the US Taxpayer has to pay for the governments end. So it cost tax payers money when ANY group sues a government agency.
JBLUA320 wrote:ALPA's initial argument was that NAI had a remote pilot base in Singapore, but all the pilots were actually European and the airline didn't even serve Singapore. As a result of ALPA's pressure, the base was shut down over a year ago.
All of Norwegian's pilots are based in Europe and the United States and many of them work/are based in countries that are quite expensive to do business in, like the United Kingdom and France. I'm not sure what the sticking point is with ALPA now... the Singapore business (which was shady) was shut down. For these transatlantic flights, the cockpit crews are almost all primarily based in London and have positive space deadheads to/from work.
There is a lot of attention thrown on "cheap farmed out Asian labor" but the only Asian crew are a very small FA base in Bangkok who fly all of the BKK routes and some transatlantic during those trips. The rest are European and American (over 600 now in USA).
Now, if ALPA is concerned about the pay rates, then I think that's a separate argument, as the rates do not compare to what a US 787 pilot would make. But there isn't a recruitment problem at Norwegian, so for as long as qualified pilots want to work there, I think ALPA is picking the wrong fight. These pilots are unionized - almost the whole airline is unionized - so if they don't like the pay, they can fight that battle themselves.
mcdu wrote:JBLUA320 wrote:ALPA's initial argument was that NAI had a remote pilot base in Singapore, but all the pilots were actually European and the airline didn't even serve Singapore. As a result of ALPA's pressure, the base was shut down over a year ago.
All of Norwegian's pilots are based in Europe and the United States and many of them work/are based in countries that are quite expensive to do business in, like the United Kingdom and France. I'm not sure what the sticking point is with ALPA now... the Singapore business (which was shady) was shut down. For these transatlantic flights, the cockpit crews are almost all primarily based in London and have positive space deadheads to/from work.
There is a lot of attention thrown on "cheap farmed out Asian labor" but the only Asian crew are a very small FA base in Bangkok who fly all of the BKK routes and some transatlantic during those trips. The rest are European and American (over 600 now in USA).
Now, if ALPA is concerned about the pay rates, then I think that's a separate argument, as the rates do not compare to what a US 787 pilot would make. But there isn't a recruitment problem at Norwegian, so for as long as qualified pilots want to work there, I think ALPA is picking the wrong fight. These pilots are unionized - almost the whole airline is unionized - so if they don't like the pay, they can fight that battle themselves.
Do the pilots work work the company with their name on the side of airplane or do they work for a third party staffing company?
Mortyman wrote:mcdu wrote:JBLUA320 wrote:ALPA's initial argument was that NAI had a remote pilot base in Singapore, but all the pilots were actually European and the airline didn't even serve Singapore. As a result of ALPA's pressure, the base was shut down over a year ago.
All of Norwegian's pilots are based in Europe and the United States and many of them work/are based in countries that are quite expensive to do business in, like the United Kingdom and France. I'm not sure what the sticking point is with ALPA now... the Singapore business (which was shady) was shut down. For these transatlantic flights, the cockpit crews are almost all primarily based in London and have positive space deadheads to/from work.
There is a lot of attention thrown on "cheap farmed out Asian labor" but the only Asian crew are a very small FA base in Bangkok who fly all of the BKK routes and some transatlantic during those trips. The rest are European and American (over 600 now in USA).
Now, if ALPA is concerned about the pay rates, then I think that's a separate argument, as the rates do not compare to what a US 787 pilot would make. But there isn't a recruitment problem at Norwegian, so for as long as qualified pilots want to work there, I think ALPA is picking the wrong fight. These pilots are unionized - almost the whole airline is unionized - so if they don't like the pay, they can fight that battle themselves.
Do the pilots work work the company with their name on the side of airplane or do they work for a third party staffing company?
Do the pilots and cabincrew of US regionals work for the main airline of wich the fuselage is adorn with or is it a different airline With cheaper labour ?
Mortyman wrote:mcdu wrote:JBLUA320 wrote:ALPA's initial argument was that NAI had a remote pilot base in Singapore, but all the pilots were actually European and the airline didn't even serve Singapore. As a result of ALPA's pressure, the base was shut down over a year ago.
All of Norwegian's pilots are based in Europe and the United States and many of them work/are based in countries that are quite expensive to do business in, like the United Kingdom and France. I'm not sure what the sticking point is with ALPA now... the Singapore business (which was shady) was shut down. For these transatlantic flights, the cockpit crews are almost all primarily based in London and have positive space deadheads to/from work.
There is a lot of attention thrown on "cheap farmed out Asian labor" but the only Asian crew are a very small FA base in Bangkok who fly all of the BKK routes and some transatlantic during those trips. The rest are European and American (over 600 now in USA).
Now, if ALPA is concerned about the pay rates, then I think that's a separate argument, as the rates do not compare to what a US 787 pilot would make. But there isn't a recruitment problem at Norwegian, so for as long as qualified pilots want to work there, I think ALPA is picking the wrong fight. These pilots are unionized - almost the whole airline is unionized - so if they don't like the pay, they can fight that battle themselves.
Do the pilots work work the company with their name on the side of airplane or do they work for a third party staffing company?
Do the pilots and cabincrew of US regionals work for the main airline of wich the fuselage is adorn with or is it a different airline With cheaper labour ?
DiamondFlyer wrote:
They work for a company that operates under the same labor laws and customs as the country they're from. And the name of the company who pays them is on the airplane, unlike any NAI crap
mercure1 wrote:For those that call Norwegian a flag of convenience, you really fail to understand that Norway, Ireland, UK are not in any shape equivalent to nation like Liberia a true flag of convenience in the shipping business.
Norway, Ireland and UK have some of the strictest labor laws, and certainly are high-cost nations in comparison.
If Norwegian wanted to set up a real flag of convenience it could have done so in host of low cost 3rd world nations, not in 1st world Europe.DiamondFlyer wrote:
They work for a company that operates under the same labor laws and customs as the country they're from. And the name of the company who pays them is on the airplane, unlike any NAI crap
Every Norwegian crew members works within the labor laws of the country including the hundreds of U.S. crew members. I have yet to see anyone prove Norwegian violates US or European employment labor laws.
IPFreely wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:This probably looks weird to the many non-American participants on this forum, so let me offer the very short version:
Parties with standing (basically, anybody who can show direct damages) can sue a U.S. government agency to compel agency to show it followed the law. That means following defined rule-making practice and consideration of facts in evidence.
ALPA lawyers had to know this was unlikely to succeed.
It would be nice if the law forced ALPA to pay the government's cost of defense should they lose the case. That little adder to the law would stop all frivolous lawsuits like this one before they ever get started.
mcdu wrote:Mortyman wrote:mcdu wrote:
Do the pilots work work the company with their name on the side of airplane or do they work for a third party staffing company?
Do the pilots and cabincrew of US regionals work for the main airline of wich the fuselage is adorn with or is it a different airline With cheaper labour ?
They don’t work for that carrier. However, their company name is by the entry door. They also most likely have a flow to the major carrier or a career path to the major carrier. They work under the same labor laws of the country their company is based. They also make more money than the pilots flying 787 for “that” airline.
Perhaps a disclaimer would be needed to detail where the crew is staffed on those aircraft. Maybe ALPA can sue to get that added so the customer is not have the misconception that they are flying on pilots and crew staffed by the carrier from Norway. Bit of false advertising
mercure1 wrote:For those that call Norwegian a flag of convenience, you really fail to understand that Norway, Ireland, UK are not in any shape equivalent to nation like Liberia a true flag of convenience in the shipping business.
Norway, Ireland and UK have some of the strictest labor laws, and certainly are high-cost nations in comparison.
Aesma wrote:Do US pilots flying to Europe apply JAR ?
Cubsrule wrote:mcdu wrote:Mortyman wrote:
Do the pilots and cabincrew of US regionals work for the main airline of wich the fuselage is adorn with or is it a different airline With cheaper labour ?
They don’t work for that carrier. However, their company name is by the entry door. They also most likely have a flow to the major carrier or a career path to the major carrier. They work under the same labor laws of the country their company is based. They also make more money than the pilots flying 787 for “that” airline.
Perhaps a disclaimer would be needed to detail where the crew is staffed on those aircraft. Maybe ALPA can sue to get that added so the customer is not have the misconception that they are flying on pilots and crew staffed by the carrier from Norway. Bit of false advertising
That’s sort of silly, no? Most DL pilots aren’t from the (Mississippi) Delta, and plenty of UA pilots are anything but united.