DOT (Finally) Approves Norwegian Operating Permits

Aesma · Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:41 am

I can understand both sides of the argument, but I don't see why one industry should be protected while most others are open to unfettered global competition.

aryonoco · Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:44 am

I'm appalled at the protectionist tendencies shown by most US posters here.

The US was the leader and implemented the global world order that was created after WWII. The US has been the champion of free trade and free markets for over 70 years, and has greatly benefited from said policies. It's so disheartening to see so many Americans have become so inward looking and protectionist.

Glad to see this application was finally approved, though it never should have taken this long to begin with.

aryonoco · Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:48 am

Quoting thekorean (Reply 39):
It's pure exploitation. Nothing wrong with foreign crew as long as they are paid equally as locals.

What if they are happy to work for those lower wages? A lower paying job is still better than no job, no?

Hundreds of millions of people have come out of extreme poverty in China and many S.E Asian countries exactly because of globalization and those lower paying jobs.

Mortyman · Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:10 am

Quote

" Norwegian intends to continue hiring hundreds of American-based crewmembers, bring hundreds of thousands of European tourists to the United States, continue to offer the American people affordable fares and efficiently utilize an $18.5 billion order of planes from American manufacturer Boeing. "

End quote

http://media.norwegian.com/uk/#/pres...o-fly-to-the-united-states-1374896

The airline said complaints against it were "fatally flawed" and that labor rules and training will be governed by Ireland.

"Norwegian International is offering competitive wages and working conditions to all of its employees," the airline said in filings to the department. "At the same time, Norwegian International is bewildered at the Chicken Little 'sky is falling' hysteria propagated by some of the objecting parties."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel...y-approves-norwegian-air/83080974/

aviateur · Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:29 am

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 53):
Norwegian intends to continue hiring hundreds of American-based crewmembers,

Yeah, for a quarter of what they'd earn working for a legitimate airline.

bgm · Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:51 am

Quoting aviateur (Reply 54):
Yeah, for a quarter of what they'd earn working for a legitimate airline.

Wow, so at Norwegian they earn a quarter of what they would earn at Skywest, Republic, Mesa, or any other regional US airline?

Don't suppose you would have some facts to back up that ridiculous claim?

Mir · Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:52 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 50):
I don't see why one industry should be protected while most others are open to unfettered global competition.

It's perfectly logical to say "this scheme hasn't worked out well, we shouldn't extend it to other industries". Otherwise you'd be forced to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 51):
I'm appalled at the protectionist tendencies shown by most US posters here.

Nobody complained when Norwegian started flying to the US. Nobody complains about WOW Air flying to the US. Nobody complains about XL Airways flying to the US. This isn't about low-cost competition, it's about a legal scheme that allows Norwegian to bypass labor laws. And various countries in the EU have raised an issue about it at various points. So stop playing the protectionism card - it doesn't work.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 53):
Norwegian intends to continue hiring hundreds of American-based crewmembers

Hired where? If they're not hired in the US, calling them "American-based" is quite disingenuous.

-Mir

futureualpilot · Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:53 am

Quoting vs11 (Reply 47):

Norwegian is not going to operate domestic US flights so not sure what "home" you are referring to. As to international flights, it has been pointed out by others earlier in the thread , that lower costs airlines already operate to the US.

The US. I'm an American, who holds a decent paying job with an American company and is like to keep it that way. Letting the nose of the flag of convenience camel into our tent is a bad idea.

Quoting ASFlyer (Reply 48):

Oh yeah, they sure do. Sadly, until there's some sort of catastrophe, nobody cares - they just want it as cheaply as they can get it, regardless of what that means.

Unfortunately, your exactly right.

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 51):
I'm appalled at the protectionist tendencies shown by most US posters here.

Yeah, how dare we want good, well paying US jobs to be protected! Darn us.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 53):
Quote

" Norwegian intends to continue hiring hundreds of American-based crewmembers, bring hundreds of thousands of European tourists to the United States, continue to offer the American people affordable fares and efficiently utilize an $18.5 billion order of planes from American manufacturer Boeing. "

You don't understand. Which country's work rules will they operate under? How will they be paid relative to their EU peer groups?

If Norwegian was going to hire folks to fly under EU rules at wages competitive with their EU peer groups, his wouldn't be an issue. The issue is that this allows them to hire people to work under non-EU work rules and pay them significantly less. Fair competition (EU airlines flying for their home flag, using EU labor under EU work rules at EU wages) is absolutely welcome. Competition under the flag of convenience model, however, is not.

[Edited 2016-04-15 18:55:16]

[Edited 2016-04-15 19:12:29]

Mortyman · Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:55 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 56):
Hired where? If they're not hired in the US, calling them "American-based" is quite disingenuous.

Their American crew is ofcourse HIRED IN THE USA !

Their US based fligths are with European and US crew

[Edited 2016-04-15 18:57:46]

Mir · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:12 am

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 58):
Their American crew is ofcourse HIRED IN THE USA !

For now. Will it continue?

-Mir

usflyguy · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:18 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34):

Aviation at the end of the day is a commodity business, so its no different that producing a car, TV or other product.
Its only natural a producer to seek manage its cost best, be it labor or anything else.

Hopefully your job is next. I'm sure someone in East Asia can do your job, and maybe even better, for much lower costs.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34):
If the US airlines are so afraid of this little airline and any perceived advantage they feel it might have, maybe they should put their effort into liberalizing the U.S. labor and capital markets so they may employ similar methods.

Again, hopefully your job is next.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34):
Norway is part of the EU open-skies market so it indeed only offering service from its home market.

Except NAI is not based in Norway.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34):
Its pretty normal for foreign airlines to employ foreign crews. One client of mine is EVA, and I recently learned they have a growing cadre of crews from Latin America which surprise surprise come at lower cost than Taiwanese pilot.

The Taiwanese pilots should be the ones concerned and up in arms. Maybe you are behind the team that implemented that scheme and that's why you are ok with this.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
All those airlines are not trying to skirt labor laws by opening subsidiaries in other countries which allow them to outsource to still other countries. They have lower costs because of the country in which they operate. That's nothing new.

Quoting Mir (Reply 44):
That would be like Emirates, rather than employing its crews in Dubai as it does now, deciding that it will hire American crews, base them in Dubai, but hire them through a subsidiary company in Yemen, and thus pay them as if they were employed in Yemen when they never work in Yemen and are clearly employed in Dubai. Or like a US carrier deciding that it will hire its crews through a company in the Cayman Islands, and claim that they are not employed in the US despite being based in the US. The difference should be immediately obvious.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 46):

So the US and British crews that Norwegian employs are third world crews ? Really ?

There will be no US crews in a couple of years, all crews will be from East Asia.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 53):
Quote

" Norwegian intends to continue hiring hundreds of American-based crewmembers, bring hundreds of thousands of European tourists to the United States, continue to offer the American people affordable fares and efficiently utilize an $18.5 billion order of planes from American manufacturer Boeing. "

End quote

Because quoting a companies press release is the truth? LMAO! Seriously?

Quoting bgm (Reply 55):
Wow, so at Norwegian they earn a quarter of what they would earn at Skywest, Republic, Mesa, or any other regional US airline?

Don't suppose you would have some facts to back up that ridiculous claim?

They earn about the same as those at regionals. Which of those regionals fly across the Atlantic on 787's?

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 58):
Their American crew is ofcourse HIRED IN THE USA !

Their US based fligths are with European and US crew

At the moment, there are US-based crews, but how long will they be around now that NAI has a certificate and knows that they are not required to have US-based crews and no longer need to put on a front to show they are friendly to US labor? They are not employees of NAI so they can be replaced tomorrow if NAI wished.

bgm · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:19 am

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 51):
I'm appalled at the protectionist tendencies shown by most US posters here.

They have no problems with their own regional airlines paying a wage so low they cannot attract pilots, or other industries which pay people wages below the poverty line, but heaven forbid if it's a foreign airline...ohhhh, bad bad bad!

So the US is all for capitalism as long as they are the sole beneficiaries. If someone else benefits, then good old protectionism kicks in.

futureualpilot · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:26 am

Quoting bgm (Reply 61):

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 51):
I'm appalled at the protectionist tendencies shown by most US posters here.

They have no problems with their own regional airlines paying a wage so low they cannot attract pilots, or other industries which pay people wages below the poverty line, but heaven forbid if it's a foreign airline...ohhhh, bad bad bad!

So the US is all for capitalism as long as they are the sole beneficiaries. If someone else benefits, then good old protectionism kicks in.

Wrong, you obviously haven't read all of the responses. We've clarified and since repeated that the issue isn't competition, it is fair competition. Which the flag of convenience model is not. Norwegian already operates in the states using Norwegian pilots, operating under Norwegian work rules at competitive wages. This changes that significantly.

The regional airline argument is a red herring here. I agree, it is a problem, but not one that belongs in this thread.

I'm appalled that so many people who have the American flag on their profile are celebrating this idea that will inevitably lead to the loss of thousands of decent, well paying middle class jobs. Look at the US maritime shipping industry. It is a shell of what it once was. That same thing is what we are trying to prevent with our airlines here and now yet we (US citizens) continue to shoot ourselves in the feet then try and blame everyone else for pulling the trigger.

[Edited 2016-04-15 19:27:49]

bgm · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:30 am

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 62):
I'm appalled that so many people who have the American flag on their profile are celebrating this idea that will inevitably lead to the loss of thousands of decent, well paying middle class jobs. We continue to shoot ourselves in the feet then try and blame everyone else for pulling the trigger.

Well, I guess we can both agree to be appalled, even if it is for different reasons...

sunking737 · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:34 am

So its easier for an airline from over seas to get certified to fly US flights then for a US based airline to get started?? Seems to me EA is the only one in a long time. Right or Wrong??

futureualpilot · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:36 am

Quoting bgm (Reply 63):

Well, I guess we can both agree to be appalled, even if it is for different reasons...

Except you have no cause to be. There is no "protectionism" here other than people wanting to protect American jobs. I'll say it again. Fair competition is just fine, even encouraged. Unfair competition is a problem. Unfair competition that is a legitimate threat to US jobs should not be squashed before it even has a chance to begin.

bgm · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:39 am

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 65):
There is no "protectionism" here other than people wanting to protect American jobs.

Alrighty then!

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 65):
Fair competition is just fine, even encouraged.

Define fair, please. With facts, not emotional opinion.

futureualpilot · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:52 am

Quoting bgm (Reply 66):

Define fair, please. With facts, not emotional opinion.

Fair: an airline not circumventing its own country's labor laws and regulations to utilize cheap labor and weaker work rules to achieve an advantage they would otherwise not have by following their own rules and regulations.

The flag of convenience model is not a good thing to support. Unless you like seeing US jobs disappear by the thousands. Norwegian already operates Ito the US. There is a reason they want to do this and are pushing for it.

Mortyman · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:53 am

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 60):
There will be no US crews in a couple of years, all crews will be from East Asia.

You base this on what ? If this was the case, then all of Norwegians flight in Europe would have been done by Asian crew by7 now. That is not the case.

bgm · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:01 am

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 67):
Fair: an airline not circumventing its own country's labor laws and regulations to utilize cheap labor and weaker work rules to achieve an advantage they would otherwise not have by following their own rules and regulations.

You mean like how US carriers send their planes to China for maintenance?

So if Norwegian was a home-grown Irish airline, you would have no problem with them doing that they do? Because under Irish law, what they are doing is perfectly legal.

Also, another question. How exactly does this affect employees at US airlines, who have to work under US laws and regulations? (read: not EU/Irish law).

Mir · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:09 am

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 60):
At the moment, there are US-based crews, but how long will they be around now that NAI has a certificate and knows that they are not required to have US-based crews and no longer need to put on a front to show they are friendly to US labor? They are not employees of NAI so they can be replaced tomorrow if NAI wished.

Norwegian loses a lot in PR by ending those contracts. So they likely won't do that. But remember that US-based does not equal US-employed. They could take all those employees and tell them that, starting next month, they will be working for Staffing Company X, which is a Panamanian company. They'll still be based in the US, but Staffing Company X (and thus Norwegian) will be able to skip out on paying taxes associated with employing people in the US (for social security, healthcare, etc.), which lets them offer lower costs with which they compete with companies who do have to pay said taxes because they actually employ people in the country in which they work.

That's not the free market at work. The free market at work would be Norwegian recognizing that they can get away with paying lower wages in Poland (for example), setting up a Polish subsidiary that hires people to be based in Poland and paying Polish taxes toward the Polish benefit system, and then using those lower wages to compete on cost with other airlines. In that scenario, the advantage comes from a physical change in where the business actually operates, not a paperwork change. Everyone recognizes the former as legitimate. The latter, not so much.

-Mir

aryonoco · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:11 am

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 65):
There is no "protectionism" here other than people wanting to protect American jobs.

Yeah, that's protectionism.

If we do believe in free markets and free trade, then American jobs should be no more desirable or worthy than Norwegian jobs, Irish jobs, or Thai jobs for that matter.

I hate that globalization and trade agreements have brought America's laws on Intellectual Property and Drugs (to name two examples) to most of the world. I find US patent laws ludicrous, the length of US Copyright terms anti-competitive (110 years?! really?!) and US drugs patents borderline immoral.

But the US forced these across most of the world in the name of free trade. And most OECD countries have played along and adopted them because we understood that there are benefits to having uniforms set of laws and standards, even if some of those laws are terrible. Now suddenly when on one issue the shoe is on the other foot, you're all crying "it's not fair"?!

panampreflight · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:12 am

I put a friend of Norwegian and had a GREAT Experience. Good For Them!!!, YAY. !!!.

enilria · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:16 am

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 67):
Fair: an airline not circumventing its own country's labor laws and regulations to utilize cheap labor and weaker work rules to achieve an advantage they would otherwise not have by following their own rules and regulations.

AA/DL/UA have a long history of using foreign crews.

U.S. Airline F/A Crew Bases (by ozark1 Feb 25 2012 in Civil Aviation)

futureualpilot · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:20 am

Quoting bgm (Reply 69):

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 67):
Fair: an airline not circumventing its own country's labor laws and regulations to utilize cheap labor and weaker work rules to achieve an advantage they would otherwise not have by following their own rules and regulations.

You mean like how US carriers send their planes to China for maintenance?

So if Norwegian was a home-grown Irish airline, you would have no problem with them doing that they do? Because under Irish law, what they are doing is perfectly legal.

Also, another question. How exactly does this affect employees at US airlines, who have to work under US laws and regulations? (read: not EU/Irish law).

Sort of...but not really. I agree that outsourcing our maintenance is a dispicable practice because it gets rid of jobs here, but that maintenance must still be held to our standards and not those applicable to Chinese registered airlines who fall under Chinese oversight. We also don't send all of our maintenance overseas to be performed. It in no way is under the flag of convenience model. If Norwegian were a home grown Irish airline, operating under Irish rules and regulations, paying their workers (no matter where they come from) wages competitive with other Irish workers in similar peer groups, then go for it. Aer Lingus has flown to the US for years and nobody pays them a nevermind for this very reason. But that isn't what is happening here.

This is bad for us because the flag of convenience model allows this venture to gain an unfair advantage by not being held to the rules of the very country they supposedly operate under. Hell, they'll be registered in Ireland and won't even serve the Emerald Isle. I'd be very surprised if proper oversight could be maintained. Our wages and our work rules won't hold up if this model is allowed to take root here. Look at our maritime industry and tell me how many decent paying jobs it provides now versus prior the implementation of the flag of convenience model and then see if there is a rational argument for why that wouldn't happen to our own airlines.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

LAXintl · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:21 am

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 60):
Hopefully your job is next. I'm sure someone in East Asia can do your job, and maybe even better, for much lower costs.

It happened. I've been part of downsizing. Its the nature of industry. But it was a great opportunity to do something else.

The secret is you must reinvent yourself, create and bring value to yourself.

Like in nature the fittest survive, but simply hiding behind government regulations or protectionism only helps prop up the mediocre.

If a U.S airlines or any company are so good, then let them stand on their two feet and meet the opponent in the market place. Lots of great American companies do it globally everyday regardless of the nature, ownership, labor or cost structures of their competitors.

frmrCapCadet · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:26 am

Perhaps if pilots were known for supporting other union workers, perhaps if they do not tie their airlines in knots over work rules, perhaps if they do not see themselves as benefitting from certain monopoly powers, perhaps if they were not more concerned for regional air crews we could be more sympathetic.

futureualpilot · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:27 am

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 71):

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 65):
There is no "protectionism" here other than people wanting to protect American jobs.

Yeah, that's protectionism.

If we do believe in free markets and free trade, then American jobs should be no more desirable or worthy than Norwegian jobs, Irish jobs, or Thai jobs for that matter.

I hate that globalization and trade agreements have brought America's laws on Intellectual Property and Drugs (to name two examples) to most of the world. I find US patent laws ludicrous, the length of US Copyright terms anti-competitive (110 years?! really?!) and US drugs patents borderline immoral.

But the US forced these across most of the world in the name of free trade. And most OECD countries have played along and adopted them because we understood that there are benefits to having uniforms set of laws and standards, even if some of those laws are terrible. Now suddenly when on one issue the shoe is on the other foot, you're all crying "it's not fair"?!

Protectionism of our jobs, but nobody is suggesting we don't want fair competition. Big difference, and that's the point I was trying to make. How is the flag of convenience in any way a uniform set of laws or standards? The whole point of that model is to get around those laws and standards to gain an advantage they wouldn't have by being a truly "Norwegian" company as they are now.

Quoting enilria (Reply 74):

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 67):
Fair: an airline not circumventing its own country's labor laws and regulations to utilize cheap labor and weaker work rules to achieve an advantage they would otherwise not have by following their own rules and regulations.

AA/DL/UA have a long history of using foreign crews.

U.S. Airline F/A Crew Bases (by ozark1 Feb 25 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Who were held to US work rules and paid according to their peer groups. Also an irrelevant comparison because the flag of convenience model is an entirely different beast.

[Edited 2016-04-15 20:39:20]

futureualpilot · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:32 am

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 77):

Perhaps if pilots were known for supporting other union workers, perhaps if they do not tie their airlines in knots over work rules, perhaps if they do not see themselves as benefitting from certain monopoly powers, perhaps if they were not more concerned for regional air crews we could be more sympathetic.

Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)

Get off your high horse. Plenty of pilots support their union peers, and plenty of other groups have gone right ahead without caring about the pilot group. That sword has cut both ways. Anyone who thinks that only pilots and flight attendants will suffer is sorely mistaken.

[Edited 2016-04-15 20:35:46]

Mir · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:37 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 76):
If a U.S airlines or any company are so good, then let them stand on their two feet and meet the opponent in the market place.

The US-EU agreement established a marketplace within which US and EU carriers can compete under a certain set of rules, one of which was labor standards (and there is quite a bit of variance within the EU, which is fine because it was a known or foreseeable thing when the agreement was reached). To grant an airline the ability to go outside either the US or EU to seek other labor standards with which to compete undermines the whole point of the agreement. If you don't like the agreement, then oppose the agreement - either call for it to be struck down or amended. But if rules are established, everyone should play by them.

-Mir

Curiousflyer · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:39 am

Obviously those people deserve to go to jail. It is just plain obvious.

LAXintl · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:39 am

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 78):
Who were held to US work rules and paid according to their peer groups. Also an irrelevant comparison because the flag of convenience model is an entirely different beast.

I know for a fact that UA regional bases such as BKK and SIN did not get paid same as US workers, and had their own and separate work rules.

I also doubt airlines like AA today pay their various South America crew bases similar wages as US crews. I know these local hires are not part or counted part of APFA bases or employee count either.

Pellegrine · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:42 am

All you sorry, sad Americans...blame your cheap a$$ compatriots. People love to shout "made in America" and then laugh to walmart buying Chinese produced miscellany they do not even need.

There's still quality options out there if you want to pay for them. Most of my domestic flying is up and down the east coast...F (A) tickets are almost always $500-$700...that ain't bad.

futureualpilot · Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:49 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 82):

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 78):
Who were held to US work rules and paid according to their peer groups. Also an irrelevant comparison because the flag of convenience model is an entirely different beast.

I know for a fact that UA regional bases such as BKK and SIN did not get paid same as US workers, and had their own and separate work rules.

I also doubt airlines like AA today pay their various South America crew bases similar wages as US crews. I know these local hires are not part or counted part of APFA bases or employee count either.

Alright, I've been told otherwise by those foreign based FAs themselves that they have the same AFA contract as their US counterparts. As I understand it in United's case they did have regional flight attendants from TPE who worked under different rules and pay structure than did their AFA counterparts but we're still held to the rules and regulations of the country from which they were domiciled. What's your source, out of curiosity? Did these crews operate under their home country's rules and regulations or by where they were domiciled? Were they paid according to their peer groups within those countries? If that's the case, it's no different than outsourcing which is a very different animal than operating under the flag of convenience model which brings us back to the point of this whole discussion.

Note, I'm not defending outsourcing at all here just acknowledging that yes, US airlines are guilty of doing that as well.

[Edited 2016-04-15 20:57:43]

[Edited 2016-04-15 21:00:51]

BestWestern · Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:00 am

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 32):
Not at all, but when you go chasing the globe for the cheapest labor to operate a business between two countries that are more developed with much higher costs of living, there is an issue.

Ireland is hardly low cost. It is a high cost, high standards market.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34):

You don't think Irish or EU standards and oversight are adequate?

Irish aviation oversight is one of the best in the world. Ask ICAO. Ireand has a higher ICAO rating than the US.

http://www.iaa.ie/news/2015/11/13/av...tion-in-ireland---positive-results

Quoting ASFlyer (Reply 48):
Sadly, until there's some sort of catastrophe, nobody cares

Again, Irish aviation oversight is one of the best in the world.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 57):
Yeah, how dare we want good, well paying US jobs to be protected! Darn us

Well then compete on service and not on price.

futureualpilot · Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:05 am

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 85):

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 32):
Not at all, but when you go chasing the globe for the cheapest labor to operate a business between two countries that are more developed with much higher costs of living, there is an issue.

Ireland is hardly low cost. It is a high cost, high standards market.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34):

You don't think Irish or EU standards and oversight are adequate?

Irish aviation oversight is one of the best in the world. Ask ICAO. Ireand has a higher ICAO rating than the US.

http://www.iaa.ie/news/2015/11/13/av...tion-in-ireland---positive-results

Quoting ASFlyer (Reply 48):
Sadly, until there's some sort of catastrophe, nobody cares

Again, Irish aviation oversight is one of the best in the world.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 57):
Yeah, how dare we want good, well paying US jobs to be protected! Darn us

Well then compete on service and not on price.

How well can a country oversee a carrier that doesn't even operate within their borders? Is that a risk you're willing to accept? Out of curiosity, does that measuring system account for the size of a country and the relative quantity of operations it must oversee? Ireland isn't large, and doesn't have a bustling aerospace industry as compared to some of the other countries listed there. Not trying to poo on their parade, just an observation that brings up honest questions.

We compete just fine on a level playing field or we'd have been run out of town already. This model, for the reasons already listed over and over, does nothing to promote fair competition.

[Edited 2016-04-15 21:13:28]

[Edited 2016-04-15 21:14:12]

mercure1 · Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:30 am

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 75):
flag of convenience model

Question:
If such practices are allowed in virtually any industry - where US companies can go and set up shop overseas to produce or generate business, why cant it also be applicable to the airline sector? Why is airline sector immune from such draws?

Also this is not even a US company, its a foreign company employing foreign workers. I simply cannot see an appropriate place or even reason as to why the US would possibly have say to where such a company gets its workers from.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 84):
If that's the case, it's no different than outsourcing which is a very different animal than operating under the flag of convenience model which brings us back to the point of this whole discussion.

Outsourcing, offshoring, flag of convenience is all the same at the end.

It goes to desire to reduce ones cost of production. A very worth and apt desire for business to pursue particularly when operating in a global arena and in a commoditized sector.

futureualpilot · Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:43 am

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 87):

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 75):
flag of convenience model

Question:
If such practices are allowed in virtually any industry - where US companies can go and set up shop overseas to produce or generate business, why cant it also be applicable to the airline sector? Why is airline sector immune from such draws?

Also this is not even a US company, its a foreign company employing foreign workers. I simply cannot see an appropriate place or even reason as to why the US would possibly have say to where such a company gets its workers from.

If other countries and/or their labor groups have issues with this, then by all means, I hope they stand up and say enough is enough. I don't condone it by any stretch of the imagination and would hope they'd do everything in their power to put and end to practices like this. In this case, two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not saying it can't be applied to the airline sector. Quite the opposite, I know that it can be. Myself, and thousands of folks who rely on the airlines for a paycheck, are opposed to it being applied. Take a look at the US maritime industry prior to this model, and afterward for an example of why we are so vehemently opposed.

Further, we are not trying to dictate where labor comes from. Simply that said labor, no matter where it comes from, operates under the rules and regulations of the country from which he airline hails. In this case, a Norwegian airline, operating under a Norwegian certificate, following Norwegian labor laws and paying accordingly. That is already happening as Norwegian currently operates to the US and there is no issue to be found there.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 87):

It goes to desire to reduce ones cost of production. A very worth and apt desire for business to pursue particularly when operating in a global arena and in a commoditized sector.

It isn't the same, not even close. Outsourcing at least requires a company to employ workers according to their domiciled country's rules and regulations. The flag of convenience model does not.

I've said it again and again, fair competition such as that found under the EU/US Open Skies treaty is encouraged. A country's airline, operating under said country's rules and regulations utilizing labor bound by that country's labor laws, taxes and pay structures are welcomed. What Norwegian is attempting here should not be tolerated.

All that said, I'm off for the evening and likely the weekend as I have to work. I hope you all have a good weekend.

[Edited 2016-04-15 21:48:18]

[Edited 2016-04-15 21:56:13]

MesaFlyGuy · Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:00 am

This thread is hilarious.

That is all.

thekorean · Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:46 am

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 52):

Whos to say they are happy?

The problem isn't even that anyway.The problem is this is clear attempt to get around paying wages fought and earned by Unions for the working folks.

I know people hate Unions around here but we need Unions. And if these corporations are allowed to get around that it hurts the working class.

321neo · Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:12 am

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 86):
Ireland isn't large, and doesn't have a bustling aerospace industry as compared to some of the other countries listed there.

FYI Ireland is home to the largest international airline in the world, and is also a global aviation finance hub, from which approximately 50% of all the world's leased aircraft are managed.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 86):
We compete just fine on a level playing field or we'd have been run out of town already.

US majors are trash, sorry.

sbworcs · Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:19 am

Ok. I have a query . We have, on the one hand a group stating that this is not fair, not safe etc.and on the other a group saying the opposite.

Apart from a press release stating that crews will be subject to Irish rules and regulations there is very little evidence to back up claims.

Apart ftom "Trust me on this one" does either side have verifiable facts to back up their claims?

OB1504 · Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:22 am

Quoting 321neo (Reply 91):
US majors are trash, sorry.

So I don't deserve a livable wage and first-world working conditions because you don't agree with management decisions I have absolutely no influence over?

bjorn14 · Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:20 am

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 60):

"There will be no US crews"

Do you have a source to back this up or is this just from your cracked crystal ball?

jambrain · Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:50 am

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 75):
Look at our maritime industry

But yet you are quite happy to buy / use all the goods that the maritime industry imports at a cost that is a fraction of what it would be if US still crewed their vessels at 1st world wages.

Now those Asian crews can afford to buy airline tickets on Boeing airframes, HBO subscriptions and iPhones and watch Captain America in the cinema it's a win-win even if it's hard on the people being outsourced.

Globalisation is a reality, we can't turn the clock back without destroying the benefits, in my corner of the Aero industry (Aero MRO & Supply Chain IT) we have gained far more opportunities from globalisation but it has meant many jobs are off-shored, we in the privileged 1st world all need to innovate and evolve.

Or alternatively you just put your head in the sand put up a 2000 mile wall to mexico and pretend it's not happening and go back to subsistence farming!

321neo · Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:02 am

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 93):
So I don't deserve a livable wage and first-world working conditions because you don't agree with management decisions I have absolutely no influence over?

You are free to leave if you wish.

TBH if you're intending to work in such an unskilled position for the rest of your career then you ought to reassess your priorities.

Any DY hiring practices, however they manifest themselves, will likely be in line with the true nature of modern day commercial aviation i.e. not some rose-tinted delusion of it still being the glory days of the 1950s

scbriml · Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:05 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 44):
The difference should be immediately obvious.

It is, but given the crews are apparently happy to work for the wages they're paid and are as qualified as their higher-paid colleagues, I'm struggling to see a downside for the customer.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 54):
Yeah, for a quarter of what they'd earn working for a legitimate airline.

Norwegian is a legitimate airline and people are prepared to work for the wages they pay.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 57):
How will they be paid relative to their EU peer groups?

Doesn't matter.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 60):
Which of those regionals fly across the Atlantic on 787's?

What difference does the type of plane make?

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 78):
Get off your high horse.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 83):
Note, I'm not defending outsourcing at all here just acknowledging that yes, US airlines are guilty of doing that as well.

I guess it's OK as long as it's just engineering jobs, eh?

helhem · Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:23 am

This and current events tells me there are still people in the us who still care more about local labour and paying taxes. Over here the situation is much devolved that regard. It varies tons by airline but I have flown my share of lcc euro carriers. I would guess a big share of their crews are people from the eastern cheaper new eu member states. Workers from asia and elsewhere are coming in but to a much lesser degree. This is the current standard in Europe and it is going faster into that direction. Remember how the construction workers sounded like in the 90s and hear them speak now. The flight crews reflect that. This plays a big part in the economic and unemployment issues in Europe too. But the horses are out of the stables. The unions have lost their fight. I hear people even from developed western countries go to work in the tourist industry in Switzerland. And it has beeb going on for decades.

BestWestern · Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:25 am

Typical American airline

Engineering to Xiamen
Reservations to Manila
IT to Bangalore
Catering outsourced to Gate group
Lounges outsourced to Sodexo
Check-in outsourced to lowest cost operator
Baggage outsourced to Swissport

Ireland scores very highly in the ICAO ranking - higher than the United States - so rest assured the Irish CAA know what they are doing. Inflight safety will be well monitored.

Perhaps if the United States paid more attention to their own aviation environment they could improve their scoring and preach to the world about how great they are.

If the US can't compete on price, they need to compete on service. Lacklustre service and high fares are not a long term solution.

atypical · Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:43 am

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 93):
So I don't deserve a livable wage and first-world working conditions because you don't agree with management decisions I have absolutely no influence over?

A suggestion for all...

I think this conversation may be aided by stating the specific issue which may aid in bridging the gulf between the two points of view. Whether my suggestion or not, finding a definition of the issue might provide a framework both agree on in the first place rather that this stalemate

This appears to be a loophole in "Open Skies Agreement" that allows non-signatory countries to exert significant economic influence within the provisions made in this treaty.

Basically, in no agreement between parties should a third party, not participating in the agreement, be able to influence or reap the benefits of that agreement.

Is this protectionism? Yes, that is a basic function treaty.
Is this fair? In principle it is, however if all parties do not agree then they have no business making the treaty.

I believe at one point (if I am wrong just go with the example) Russia was advocating an economic union with Ukraine while allowing Ukraine to also forge one with the EU. Russia considered this a great idea. Goods could stream tariff free some day to Ukraine and then stream tariff free to Russia. This would allow Russia to share many of the benefits of EU membership without any of the obligations. (This is not meant as commentary on Russia, frankly I can't see any country not taking this kind of opening, including the US.)

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net