Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

Mortyman · Wed May 04, 2016 5:42 pm

My problem with your post, were these "facts"

Quoting ual777 (Reply 32):
but the bottom line is that it is the safest group of airlines on the planet

Quoting ual777 (Reply 32):
Your average pilot hired at AA, DL, or UA has over 5,000 hours, a 4 year university education, and probably has command experience elsewhere or in the military. No other airline on the planet can boast such stats.

Do you actually have a source that says that US pilots are better than other countries pilots ?

N62NA · Wed May 04, 2016 6:03 pm

Quoting ual777 (Reply 32):
I am hesitant to even post in response to this but here goes.

Norwegian employs their pilots as independent contractors from Ireland to skirt rules. While yes these people have a choice, Norwegian also forces them to sign a 3 or 5 year "training bond" to the tune of $30,000 dollars that Norwegian KEEPS if they leave before that bond is up.

They also like to tout hiring US workers, but in reality they hire low-paying flight attendants (in my opinion as a PR stunt). Their pilot pay for the aircraft they fly is atrocious, their hotels suck, and they generally churn and burn flight crews. The ONLY reason they even find anyone is because the pilot market is so bad, and they offer a quick upgrade. The reason a lot do it is so they dont have to move their family to the sandbox, get worked to death, and leave with a divorce.

I didn't crack $40,000 a year my first 6 years flying professionally and getting to a major is an extremely difficult task. We already face a pilot shortage from the "lost decade" and are finally seeing stability and mass hiring. Its good for the industry and its good for the US. Nuking it all for a flag of convenience carrier is insanely short-sighted. US carriers get an overly bad rap here, but the bottom line is that it is the safest group of airlines on the planet, and has led the way in safety for decades. Your average pilot hired at AA, DL, or UA has over 5,000 hours, a 4 year university education, and probably has command experience elsewhere or in the military. No other airline on the planet can boast such stats.

So my .02.

Thanks, interesting to know.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
The perils of being a contractor (remember, no pilots or flight attendants work for Norwegian), seasonal layoffs, training bonds, a general inability to plan one's life because bases are continuously being shifted around, etc. And that's before you talk about the pay. It's a really unprofessional way to run an airline.

If they can get people who want to play along for a little while or sucker in some people who don't know what they're getting into and staff the airline that way, that's their business. But the broader point is that while Norway's social safety net may be far stronger than that in the US, what goes on at Norwegian in terms of work rules is very subpar when compared to even mediocre US regionals (and Norwegian is not unique among European LCCs in this - Ryanair does similar things as well, among others).

And thank you too!

DualQual · Wed May 04, 2016 6:38 pm

Quoting WaywardMemphian (Reply 49):

Good to see you've keyed on hotels and not the many other giant red flags this is raising in a new type of race to the bottom.

ual777 · Wed May 04, 2016 6:54 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 50):
Do you actually have a source that says that US pilots are better than other countries pilots ?

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 50):
with your post, were these "facts"

It's not that they are necessarily "better" but pilots hired at the majors tend to have far more experience than those hired elsewhere in the world.

The safety figure was presented at an internal presentation so I obviously cannot post that graph. It tracked the accident rate globally over the last 60 or so years. Europe is very close to the US but still slightly lower (over the past 10 years or so).

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 48):
I suspect he's trying to get a source for your "safest group of airlines on the planet" claim. I can't find any authoritative source that even has them all in the top 20.

Of course they are as safe as any other, but has all that military experience and university education you cite above actually made things more safe? I would argue that it has made zero statistical difference. So why should the traveling public be forking out extra for it?

It absolutely has made a difference. We are really starting to dive deep into safety culture and we could discuss for hours, but the US industry has led the way in CRM and fatigue managment. Take the QR flight that went approach light bowling in MIA. What was the result? They fired all the pilots. Why? Because those operations rule by fear. A US or European airline would have sent them back to the school house but it becomes a learning opportunity.

I suggest all here go over to pprune.org and check out what guys flying for the ME3 are saying. They get flown to death and if you call in sick too many times or fatigued, they can block your upgrade to captain or withhold profit sharing.

NAI and this flag of convenience model is a scummy operation and is trying to skirt as much regulation and taxation as possible.

Quoting WaywardMemphian (Reply 49):
He's told you, better hotels

You can be snarky all you like but when your job involves crossing 6-12 time zones twice in a few days and doing it multiple times per month, your hotel is a very big deal. As is time off, reliable transportation to go get rest, how you're allowed to be scheduled, how long you have to be on the road, crew meals, etc. etc.

Until you've actually done it, I suggest you pay closer attention.

[Edited 2016-05-04 11:56:45]

WaywardMemphian · Wed May 04, 2016 7:18 pm

Quoting DualQual (Reply 52):

Only red flags it's raising is from pilot unions and their bosses that give them better hotels or salaries that support half million McMansons in suburbia Atlanta or Dallas while sticking somone in KC with a 1,600 ticket to London. The whole Hotel thing illustrates the entitlement that US based pilots feel.

I read where how the poor saps that go to work for Norwegian are subject to ever changing schedules, shifting of bases, seasonality, and so on. That sounds like a growing company to me, finding what works and ditching what doesn't. I'm sure it'll evolve along with the airline if it continues to grow. I can't wait for congressional action if WN closes a station this fall or scrubs a seasonal next season, oh wait..........

Bottom line, provide a better product at a reasonable price and you'll be rewarded. Seems to be the American Way. It's no different than Toyota and Honda in the 70s. Now, my Accord is put together in Ohio with more American components than my Ford F150 slapped together in KC.

If I'm the management of Delta, United and American I'm not against Norwegian, more reality to show their unions come negotiation time.

zeke · Wed May 04, 2016 7:21 pm

Quoting intermodal64 (Reply 45):
If the crews are based at LGW, would it not be the UK who determines whether these people have the right live and work in the UK?

"Based" would be nothing more than a rostering term where they commence their flight.

Quoting jns13 (Reply 47):
This is obviously not what the law was directed at, but could this be a side-effect?

No that is absolutely legit, all of EKs crews and aircraft are based in DXB.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 50):
Do you actually have a source that says that US pilots are better than other countries pilots ?

The difference between a US carrier and a LCC is invisible to a passenger, however if you look at the training footprints of each the US carrier will do more the absolute bare minimum and will have variety in the training scenarios. LCC will often do the bare minimum (sometimes none at all and require the crew to pay for service themselves), often a canned exercise that is the same every session. The end result is the US carrier pilots will have better retention of non normal procedures over the career as the airlines invest more into training their staff.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 53):
Until you've actually done it, I suggest you pay closer attention.

Amen, simple things like curtains to block out light, noise (cars, cleaners, doors, other guests) , and temperature control have a big impact on being able to recover.

WaywardMemphian · Wed May 04, 2016 7:34 pm

Quoting ual777 (Reply 53):
I suggest all here go over to pprune.org and check out what guys flying for the ME3 are saying. They get flown to death and if you call in sick too many times or fatigued, they can block your upgrade to captain or withhold profit sharing.

Sounds like the P&W policy at it's facility in Springdale Ar. Work with a couple of P&Ws that left better pay for less rigid rules. There's pros and cons to all jobs.

Norwegian could offer some American pilots, particularly retired ones , opportunities to just fly a couple of days a week, for some extra scratch or a whole host of other reasons. Well, besides the poor hotels that is.
You know fellow pilots will do it ,too. It's like an American machinist buying Harbor Frieght tools instead of Snap On tools. When we loss a part overseas, they sit around and moan about while looking for a deal on a Mitutoyo Mic instead of a Starrett one.

DualQual · Wed May 04, 2016 7:54 pm

Quoting WaywardMemphian (Reply 56):

Actually the red flags are there for good reason. Your professionals tasked with your safety should be experienced and show good judgement. They should have the full backing of the law and their company to be able to waive the safety card when needed.

I have no doubt that this type of operation will lead to safety pushing. Individual employment contract under at best, sketchy labor law will inevitably lead to being pushed to fly fatigued. To fly broken airplanes into lousy weather. Don't want to fly it? Great, your employment is terminated. Who are you going to complain to about it? But, as you've eloquently stated, doesn't matter as long as you save a couple of bucks on your ticket.

NAI is, frankly, a sweatshop for aviation that will pay a fraction of wages, offer questionable working conditions and support and puts a price on safety.

As always, I don't expect any of you that have never spent a day in the industry to get it, because honestly, you won't. This isn't about avoiding competition. It happens everyday. But it basically happens on a legal and level playing field. This is a can of worms that will have far reaching consequences.

Be careful what you wish for.

ual777 · Wed May 04, 2016 7:55 pm

Quoting WaywardMemphian (Reply 54):
Only red flags it's raising is from pilot unions and their bosses that give them better hotels or salaries that support half million McMansons in suburbia Atlanta or Dallas while sticking somone in KC with a 1,600 ticket to London. The whole Hotel thing illustrates the entitlement that US based pilots feel.

HA!

You really need to go get educated on pilot compensation and the career path.

The ONLY guys buying houses that large are senior captains working overtime or someone who has a spouse that works as well.

You harp on an entitlement mentality yet when it comes down to brass tax, YOU don't like the cost of doing business. BTW I just priced out tickets to LHR. They can be had for less than $1,200 less than two weeks out from MCI. Hope you don't feel stiffed.

Quoting WaywardMemphian (Reply 56):
Sounds like the P&W policy at it's facility in Springdale Ar. Work with a couple of P&Ws that left better pay for less rigid rules. There's pros and cons to all jobs.

Norwegian could offer some American pilots, particularly retired ones , opportunities to just fly a couple of days a week, for some extra scratch or a whole host of other reasons. Well, besides the poor hotels that is.

See here's the thing, you have multiple people who do this every day telling you that you are wrong and explaining why. It has nothing to do with less rigid rules and everything to do with a punitive safety culture.

zckls04 · Wed May 04, 2016 8:07 pm

Quoting ual777 (Reply 53):
It absolutely has made a difference. We are really starting to dive deep into safety culture and we could discuss for hours, but the US industry has led the way in CRM and fatigue managment.

It has, but you're not showing a link between that and the military experience and education level of the pilots. The people investigating accidents and issuing recommendations are the likes of the NTSB, not the active pilots. Many of them might be ex-military themselves, or have excellent degrees, in which case one can argue that the NTSB should be paying extra for that experience.

I understand where you're coming from. It does seem like hiring pilots with degrees and military experience should intuitively be a good thing, but I think it's still legitimate to question whether that's actually the case based on the actual evidence.

I agree wholeheartedly that a pure free-market race to the bottom is not a desirable outcome in the airline industry. However I think one has to approach the choice of which areas merit protectionism with a degree of outcome-based analysis, rather than intuitive guesswork.

Quoting zeke (Reply 55):
Amen, simple things like curtains to block out light, noise (cars, cleaners, doors, other guests) , and temperature control have a big impact on being able to recover.

Do we have evidence that the hotels used by Norwegian's pilots don't have these things?

[Edited 2016-05-04 13:10:48]

ual777 · Wed May 04, 2016 8:11 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 59):

It has, but you're not showing a link between that and the military experience and education level of the pilots. The people investigating accidents and issuing recommendations are the likes of the NTSB, not the pilots.

I understand where you're coming from. It does seem like hiring pilots with degrees and military experience should intuitively be a good thing, but I think it's still legitimate to question whether that's actually the case based on the actual evidence.

I agree wholeheartedly that a pure free-market race to the bottom is not a desirable outcome in the airline industry. However I think one has to approach the choice of which areas merit protectionism with a degree of outcome-based analysis, rather than intuitive guesswork.

ALPA does A LOT of accident/incident investigation work. They also do things like FOQA data analysis, safety recommendations, etc etc.

The Flight Ops departments at the US3 (and most regionals for that matter) are extremely well run and do A TON of safety/CRM related work as well.

In fact, many of their directors have been hired away to the health care industry recently to start/run CRM programs.

Take UA's recent LeAP class that they required for their pilot group. A day long class on CRM, safety, and crew communication simply to ensure the safest possible environment given the huge number of new pilots and captain upgrades they are seeing.

Most safety changes/evolutions occur long before the NTSB ever even comes into play.

[Edited 2016-05-04 13:14:17]

zckls04 · Wed May 04, 2016 8:28 pm

Quoting ual777 (Reply 60):
Most safety changes/evolutions occur long before the NTSB ever even comes into play.

How does that prove the link between airline safety and pilot education/military experience? You're not testing the hypothesis; you're just assuming it must be true.

I'm just a little skeptical that the USA leading the world in CRM and fatigue management can be attributed in any significant part to how many years the average mainline pilot has studied at university. It's a bit of a leap, wouldn't you say?

bigb · Wed May 04, 2016 11:45 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 61):
How does that prove the link between airline safety and pilot education/military experience? You're not testing the hypothesis; you're just assuming it must be true.

I'm just a little skeptical that the USA leading the world in CRM and fatigue management can be attributed in any significant part to how many years the average mainline pilot has studied at university. It's a bit of a leap, wouldn't you say?

Dude, go take a look at the accident statistics of the US vs the rest of the world, the data is there. It is also well known that we the US has the highest standards when it comes to airmen certification. There is a reason why people are sent to the US for flight training.

Two, pilots who are trained via the military have even higher standards. One top of that, they are constantly training in comparison to civilian flight school. There is no comparison, a person will understand that if they know how military pilots train vs how training is conducted in the civilian sector of aviation.

US has played a role in leading in CRM and fatigue management. They were the first to incorporate CRM into training activities. United Airlines actually took a lead in this back in the 80s after they had a DC-8 crash after running out of fuel. No other countries were using CRM in the 80s and I am sure there are many places in the word where it isn't emphasised as much as it should be.

WaywardMemphian · Wed May 04, 2016 11:48 pm

Quoting ual777 (Reply 58):
You harp on an entitlement mentality yet when it comes down to brass tax, YOU don't like the cost of doing business. BTW I just priced out tickets to LHR. They can be had for less than $1,200 less than two weeks out from MCI. Hope you don't feel stiffed.

Cheapest flight to London from MCI from May 25th to June 5, a Sat to Sat day trip is 1434, one stop via AA and BA. If Norwegian offered a Sat Only Gatwick run at an average 850 (based on current Oakland fares) when booked a coup of months out or even cheaper earlier, I could stand to save between 2,000 and 3,000 for my family of 4. Plus, it would be nonstop, saving 10 hrs of travel time. That's several nights of UA pilot approved hotel rooms of savings. Yeah, I'd come up with every way to quash that too if I was AA, UA, or DL.

zckls04 · Thu May 05, 2016 12:26 am

Quoting bigb (Reply 62):
Dude, go take a look at the accident statistics of the US vs the rest of the world, the data is there. It is also well known that we the US has the highest standards when it comes to airmen certification. There is a reason why people are sent to the US for flight training.

All very nice, but it's all just anecdotal. It's still not demonstrating any correlation between education level/military experience and air safety. There are many reasons air travel may be safer in the US than in any other country. But you haven't even shown that it is, never mind the reasons why.

(NB- A mantra amongst statisticians- any time somebody claims something is "well known", question it.)

Quoting bigb (Reply 62):
United Airlines actually took a lead in this back in the 80s after they had a DC-8 crash after running out of fuel.

Yes, after a safety recommendation from the NTSB (written by a psychologist and engineer, not a pilot). I'm not disputing that hiring NTSB personnel with four year degrees and/or military experience might be worth extra cost though. That's another question.

ual777 · Thu May 05, 2016 1:06 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 64):
All very nice, but it's all just anecdotal. It's still not demonstrating any correlation between education level/military experience and air safety. There are many reasons air travel may be safer in the US than in any other country. But you haven't even shown that it is, never mind the reasons why.

(NB- A mantra amongst statisticians- any time somebody claims something is "well known", question it.)

It's really a mix of safety culture and experience. The majors I the US are extremely picky on who they hire and most here would be suprised with the qualifications of those being hired.

Mir · Thu May 05, 2016 1:07 am

Quoting jns13 (Reply 47):
Not to digress too much, but could this also impact Emirates 5th freedom flights between MXP-JFK? Presumably US-UAE Open Skies came with labor standards, but it would certainly be convenient for US carriers if they could take aim at EK and kill two birds (pun not intended) with one stone. This is obviously not what the law was directed at, but could this be a side-effect?

No, Emirates wouldn't be affected. Their crew are all employed in the UAE (and based there as well, but it's the employment that counts). Fifth freedom with such crew is perfectly legitimate so long as the countries involved allow fifth freedom flights.

-Mir

Mortyman · Thu May 05, 2016 3:19 am

So what exactly is the problem with OSM Aviation ? They run a training for both pilots and cabin crew that is approved by the EASA ( European Aviation Safety Agency ) worldwide ...

Also, Norwegian is not the only operator they work for. Also Finnair and Turkish airlines among others uses their services. do you guys have a problem flying with Finnair or Turkish airlines too ?

[Edited 2016-05-04 20:24:16]

WaywardMemphian · Thu May 05, 2016 1:54 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 67):

It is just a combination of a "better than thou" attitude and the fear of competition. So, we get a Pilot Union regurgitation of polished talking points marked up by a PR/Marketing firm employed by their union/lobby.

ual777 · Thu May 05, 2016 2:34 pm

Quoting WaywardMemphian (Reply 68):

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 67):

It is just a combination of a "better than thou" attitude and the fear of competition. So, we get a Pilot Union regurgitation of polished talking points marked up by a PR/Marketing firm employed by their union/lobby.

I'm beginning to wonder where your disdain for pilots comes from. You keep spouting about attitudes and yet multiple pilots on here (one who I assume flies in Hong Kong) are giving you facts and talking about real issues. You are then condescending and insulting.

I welcome fair competition. I do not however welcome a competitor who tries to gain an edge by skirting as many regulations as possible.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 67):

So what exactly is the problem with OSM Aviation ? They run a training for both pilots and cabin crew that is approved by the EASA ( European Aviation Safety Agency ) worldwide ...

I don't have anything against them, and the others are pointing out differences in training that often occur between LCCs and major airlines.

FlyHossD · Thu May 05, 2016 2:38 pm

Quoting VX321 (Reply 25):
Congress is doing this to appease their constituents. Not because DY's business model is bad. In fact, it's very innovative and I wish some US airlines would do the same! DY applied the cruise ship model to the airline industry and it's making the competition freak out. I would hope that other airlines do the same thing they are because it reduces costs,

DY's model was specifically designed to not comply with the U.S.-E.U. Open Skies Agreement. Have you noticed that no one is disputing that they use flight crews on asian contracts? THAT is evidence enough that they're not obeying the agreement and reason for the DoT to deny their application to operate flights to the U.S.

If the rules or restrictions of the agreement don't matter, then why have one?

Mortyman · Thu May 05, 2016 2:56 pm

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 70):
DY's model was specifically designed to not comply with the U.S.-E.U. Open Skies Agreement. Have you noticed that no one is disputing that they use flight crews on asian contracts? THAT is evidence enough that they're not obeying the agreement and reason for the DoT to deny their application to operate flights to the U.S.

If the rules or restrictions of the agreement don't matter, then why have one?

From a different thread:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 194):
Long-distance routes between London and the US is manned by Britons and Americans on British and American terms

DOT (Finally) Approves Norwegian Operating Permits (by LAXintl Apr 15 2016 in Civil Aviation)

zeke · Thu May 05, 2016 3:06 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 67):

Your post is a little misleading. As far as I am aware OSM is a crew management company, it is not a currently a type rating trying organisation.

eurowings · Thu May 05, 2016 3:07 pm

Fortunately crew can't "live" onboard aircraft like ships so a lot of the labour practices are actually untransferable.

Any crew that are "based" (i.e. domiciled permanently) in Europe or the US can't be on Asian contracts, and will need permission to work in the country of their base. That also means that the vast majority of crew based in these places are likely to be EU/EEA citizens/visa holders in the case of Europe, or US citizens/green card holders at the US bases.

Certainly it appeared to me on my recent trip LGW-JFK that the crew were American.

The crew on Asian contracts will be domiciled at the BKK base, and yes for sure they operate the Bangkok - Scandinavia routes, but to what extent they're used Bangkok - Scandinavia - US I don't know.

CitrusCritter · Thu May 05, 2016 3:46 pm

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 42):
Well, although I am for competition, I am not in favor of Norwegian this time. What they are doing is social dumping. So they fly from European airports and hire in South East Asia with South East Asian contracts. This is unfair competition. Something like what Ryanair is doing although Ryanair is still using European contracts (Ireland).

Transatlantic fares got cheaper. There is a lot of choice. I really don't understand those that want to fly to New York for $100. Something has to give. One day, those that go for cheap fares won't find any job to pay for those ridiculous fares as their jobs will be moved to Africa or South America. This model is sustainable and will fire back at those who support it if it ever becomes the norm. So NO to Norwegian UK, Ireland, Moon and Mars.

Everyone is acting like Norwegian is some sort of renegade criminal acting without legal authority. Nothing could be further from the truth - Norwegian is availing itself of the labor laws of the Republic of Ireland, a European Union member-state. If the US wishes to complain about Norwegian's practices, they should approach the European Union entities responsible for the air treaty and labor laws, not anything else. This is the position that the Dept. of Transportation took.

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 43):
Norwegian is not attempting to break the terms of the air services agreement - to that end, it should be allowed to fly as per the agreement, and any other issues the US has with the company (i.e. labour) should be dealt with through more appropriate channels. This isn't an issue that just affects the airline industry - there are others. The only reason why the US is getting all excitable about this issue is because it affects international travel, and therefore potentially might impact US airlines and US jobs. If the US believes Norwegian's employment practices are aimed at circumventing EU labour laws, then the US should be lobbying the EU for a change in labour laws, and not back-handedly attempting to use the EU-US air services agreement as a lever to apply pressure to change laws in other countries. What amazes me is that there is a constant lobby in the USA to prevent minimum wage levels being increased (i.e. to prevent changes to labour laws), on the basis that it will increase the cost of products and services. When Norwegian attempts to reduce the cost of its products and services, within the limits of the labour laws that apply to it, it is castigated. The only reason why this is happening is a blatant attempt at protectionism of US jobs - it has nothing directly to do with the air services agreement. And congress is doing it because they think it will buy support from those affected. The world moves on - Norwegian have found a way of reducing costs, maybe a loophole that should be closed, but not one that should be closed by leveraging an agreement that has no direct relationship to the loophole.

Can't help feeling Norwegian have missed a trick though - if the airline was called Clampett Air or something similar rather than its name being based on georgraphy, I suspect fewer people would have noticed the issue...

Exactly. And frankly if little Norwegian can bring down the US3, who have been fortified by bankruptcy protection and anti-competitive mergers, then the US3 have bigger issues. This is nothing but a further attempt to stifle competition in the US market.

Mir · Thu May 05, 2016 3:48 pm

Quoting eurowings (Reply 73):
Any crew that are "based" (i.e. domiciled permanently) in Europe or the US can't be on Asian contracts

Sure they can. They still have to be able to live in the country in which they live, but they can be treated as employees of a foreign country. As has been pointed out "base" is just a rostering term that has nothing to do with where someone is employed.

-Mir

WaywardMemphian · Thu May 05, 2016 4:15 pm

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 42):
There is a lot of choice. I really don't understand those that want to fly to New York for $100.

People want greater value and choice for the money they can spend. Maybe they can only afford $100 (your figure, not mine) It's almost like class warfare with some. If you halve the cost of fares on transatlantic flight you may double the potential flyers as it opens up greater opportunities for those that can foot a 3,500 cost for 4 compared to 6,000 to 8,000 costs. That is the whole point of Norwegian's push into this, tapping markets that have been suppressed and in turn getting Americans out of America and Euros to America and try to make some money in the end while let the world meet each other.

If they fail, they fail. But, by darn let them try. Instead we get airlines with their unions in tow trying to further limit the American consumer for their own selfish greater good.

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 75):
Exactly. And frankly if little Norwegian can bring down the US3, who have been fortified by bankruptcy protection and anti-competitive mergers, then the US3 have bigger issues. This is nothing but a further attempt to stifle competition in the US market.

Hammer meet nail

eurowings · Thu May 05, 2016 4:41 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 76):
Sure they can. They still have to be able to live in the country in which they live, but they can be treated as employees of a foreign country. As has been pointed out "base" is just a rostering term that has nothing to do with where someone is employed.

This may be a matter of terminology, but for European airlines (especially the LCCs) a "base" tends to be where crew live, work from and pay taxes. It's not solely for rosters. I accept the meaning is different in other parts of the world, but Norwegian is after all a European LCC.

As for employing crew on foreign contracts, well, that depends on the jurisdiction in question. Ryanair was basically forced out of Denmark and France for not employing crew on local terms that were "based" (i.e. returning to that country each night) from airports in their jurisdiction, so the routes are now operated with crew living elsewhere in Europe.

CAPA has an interesting article about this European LCC base concept: http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...d-crew-abroad-unlike-others-131872

[Edited 2016-05-05 10:05:16]

Mir · Thu May 05, 2016 6:22 pm

Quoting eurowings (Reply 77):
for European airlines (especially the LCCs) a "base" tends to be where crew live, work from and pay taxes.

As you said yourself, Ryanair tried to make the argument that it was where they lived, but not where they worked or paid taxes (at least not where Ryanair paid taxes). Norwegian is trying to do the same thing, for the same reasons: it cheats the system. And the US-EU agreement says that it's not to be used to cheat the system.

There's a very simple solution to this: employ people on European or US contracts and not Singaporean or Thai ones. If NAI were required to do so, the legal discussion would be over.

-Mir

eurowings · Thu May 05, 2016 7:32 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 78):
As you said yourself, Ryanair tried to make the argument that it was where they lived, but not where they worked or paid taxes (at least not where Ryanair paid taxes). Norwegian is trying to do the same thing, for the same reasons: it cheats the system. And the US-EU agreement says that it's not to be used to cheat the system.

There's a very simple solution to this: employ people on European or US contracts and not Singaporean or Thai ones. If NAI were required to do so, the legal discussion would be over.

Yes, that is of course a solid argument. I'm not defending or supporting Norwegian, just trying to analyse the situation a bit closer from the issues that have been raised.

My personal opinion is that it's morally wrong to employ crew operating US-EU services on Asian contracts. If these offer poorer terms, then yes it is an unfair competitive advantage over other EU and US carriers. As for operating EU-Asia services with crew employed (and living) in Thailand, perhaps less of an issue?

Thinking pragmatically, irregardless of where these people live, how many NAI services between the EU and US are operated using flight and cabin crews employed on Thai/Singaporean contracts? I know for sure that their UK crews aren't.

So really there are two separate issues;
1. US/EU crews hypothetically on Asian contracts
2. The use of Asian crews on EU-US services.

[Edited 2016-05-05 12:37:28]

Mortyman · Thu May 05, 2016 7:44 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 78):
There's a very simple solution to this: employ people on European or US contracts

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 71):
From a different thread:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 194):Long-distance routes between London and the US is manned by Britons and Americans on British and American terms
DOT (Finally) Approves Norwegian Operating Permits (by LAXintl Apr 15 2016 in Civil Aviation)

Mir · Thu May 05, 2016 7:57 pm

Quoting eurowings (Reply 79):
Thinking pragmatically, irregardless of where these people live, how many NAI services between the EU and US are operated using flight and cabin crews employed on Thai/Singaporean contracts? I know for sure that their UK crews aren't.

There are currently no NAI services between the US and the EU. There are services under one or more of Norwegian's other certificates, which have different rules. So it's very difficult to draw parallels between what's going on now and what might happen when it's NAI doing the flying.

Quoting eurowings (Reply 79):
As for operating EU-Asia services with crew employed (and living) in Thailand, perhaps less of an issue?

That's between the EU and the other countries involved. The US only has a legal interest where routes involve US destinations. If the EU or other Asian countries want to object to flying Sweden-Japan, for instance, with crew employed in Thailand (regardless of where they live), that's their business.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 80):

You do realize that utilizing a business practice currently is not a legally-binding commitment to continue that practice, right?

The fact that Norwegian is so opposed to efforts to compel them to continue doing what they're doing is good evidence that they don't really intend to continue doing what they're doing.

-Mir

Mortyman · Fri May 06, 2016 4:11 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 81):
You do realize that utilizing a business practice currently is not a legally-binding commitment to continue that practice, right?

I am aware of this and if there will be a change in the future, you might have a reason to react to Norwegian with the law book in your hand. However as of now, that is not the case. As of now, Norwegian is not breaking any laws / rules. We have to wait to see what the future brings and possibly react then.

Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

RE: Norwegian Under Congressional Attack

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net