Next 48 Hours Critical in Denying NAI and their application

What am I missing? How is this any different than British Airways or Lufthansa?

BA is a British company and flies from England to the US. They follow British labor and employment laws.

Lufthansa is a German company and flies from Germany to the US. They follow German labor and employment laws.

NAI is an Irish company that flies from Norway to the US. They follow Irish and Singaporean (and maybe Thai... I've lost track now) labor and employments laws.
 
BA is a British company and flies from England to the US. They follow British labor and employment laws.

Lufthansa is a German company and flies from Germany to the US. They follow German labor and employment laws.

NAI is an Irish company that flies from Norway to the US. They follow Irish and Singaporean (and maybe Thai... I've lost track now) labor and employments laws.

So why is that a thread to US pilots and more specifically, cabotage laws in the US? I don't see the link, but I am pretty stupid.
 
So why is that a thread to US pilots and more specifically, cabotage laws in the US?

Because if a company can pick where they incorporate, what labor laws they hire their pilots under and what labor laws they hire their FAs under, they can find a combination that will allow a much lower operating cost than other comparable carries. The labor laws in Norway force rather high compensation and benefits for the pilots there. So by being an "Irish" company and hiring workers through contracts in other places they can reduce their costs considerably. Because of that it makes it very difficult for a US carrier to compete on costs on a US-Norway route.
 
Because of that it makes it very difficult for a US carrier to compete on costs on a US-Norway route.

The articles I read said that NAI will be Norwegian in name, based in Ireland (but not actually fly there - at all), use Singapore pilots that are "rented out" to NAI, and cheap FAs. They will fly from US cities to Gatwick. Not even Norway. Maybe they'll have some routes to Norway but I thought I read the first flights would be to London.
 
@typhoonpilot seems to have addressed most of these issues. At the end of the day, if the US carriers can't compete, they shouldn't try. Why not focus on more profitable routes?

So allow this company to get its foot in the door. Then other companies, and other upstarts, start using the same business model. Eventually the US can't compete because of our laws. Airlines go Chapter 7. Pilots on the street. Now we get hired at one of these foreign airlines with absolute crap work rules and crap pay.

I don't like that idea. Maybe I, and others, are just being "scared of the Boogie Man." Maybe NAI would do this and no one else would try, and eventually they fold. However, that is not a gamble I'm willing to take. I like the idea of stopping it early like they did.
 
Last edited:
So allow this company to get its foot in the door. Then other companies, and other upstarts, start using the same business model. Eventually the US can't compete because of our laws. Airlines go Chapter 7. Pilots on the street. Now we get hired at one of these foreign airlines with absolute crap work rules and crap pay.

Our cabotage rules are what prevent this type of scenario from happening. As far as I can tell, there is nothing on the table that is threatening those laws. Stopping competition to prop up unprofitable businesses means everyone loses in the long run.
 
Our cabotage rules are what prevent this type of scenario from happening. As far as I can tell, there is nothing on the table that is threatening those laws. Stopping competition to prop up unprofitable businesses means everyone loses in the long run.

So at the very least you're comfortable with U.S. carriers potentially being run out of international operations? Meaning down sizing, and the loss of the best paying seats in the industry and some of the more profitable routes airlines fly, etc.? Unless my understanding of the potential ramifications of this NAI business are wrong, this would be a very real possibility.

I get being a fan of capitalism but only to a point. In my opinion we need to look out for our companies and more importantly our labor force and it needs to happen constantly and proactively.
 
So at the very least you're comfortable with U.S. carriers potentially being run out of international operations? Meaning down sizing, and the loss of the best paying seats in the industry, etc.?

As @typhoonpilot already pointed out, go compete in markets that have open skies laws.

Let me just understand this:

If an Irish company started airline service to the US, with the same work rules as are being discussed, no one would have a problem with that? So we are cool with a company like Ryan Air expanding to the US, but not cool with a Norwegian company operating under Irish law? Do I have that correct?
 
As @typhoonpilot already pointed out, go compete in markets that have open skies laws.

Let me just understand this:

If an Irish company started airline service to the US, with the same work rules as are being discussed, no one would have a problem with that? So we are cool with a company like Ryan Air expanding to the US, but not cool with a Norwegian company operating under Irish law? Do I have that correct?

Part of the issue is that the issue is that the crews aren't Irish or Norwegian. They are from countries where labor is significantly cheaper and unable to unionize or protect their work rules like we can here, and in many other countries. The whole point of this venture for NAI is to sidestep Norwegian workers and the subsequent work rules and higher pay the company would be held to should they use their own crews. If that is the case there is no realistic way for U.S carriers to remain viable competitors in these markets. The other issue is that how can the Irish authorities realistically maintain some semblance of oversight if the company they claim to oversee doesn't even pass through Ireland at any point during this venture?

Perhaps someone can offer a more educated guess but I'm not necessarily sure there are enough Open Skies agreements to offset the potential loss of flying U.S. carriers might face under these circumstances. I don't know enough about them to offer much more than one WAG though.

In any case, if Aer Lingus or NAI for that matter wants to expand to Bumblescum, USA using their own country's pilots and cabin crew and operates in accordance with their national rules and regs/the EU's rules and regs (if applicable) then by all means, go right ahead but at least our own airlines will be fighting a fair fight in those cases.
 
Last edited:
Our cabotage rules are what prevent this type of scenario from happening. As far as I can tell, there is nothing on the table that is threatening those laws. Stopping competition to prop up unprofitable businesses means everyone loses in the long run.

This has nothing to do with cabotage. Completely separate issue. This a "flag of convenience" issue. The are picking and choosing where to headquarter, fly, and employ. So if one country has the most lax aviation regulations (or tax laws, whatever they're aiming to avoid), they'll put their corporation there. If another country has lax labor laws for pilots, they'll base their pilots there. If yet another country has lax labor laws for flight attendants, then they'll base their FAs there. Meanwhile, they don't actually fly to any of these countries where they're incorporating or basing crews. How does an Irish aviation safety inspector inspect an airplane for a carrier he is responsible to oversee that never comes through Ireland? Even if the aviation authority makes an effort to get the inspector out to the airline's area of operation, do you think the level of oversight will be even close to what it would be for the carriers operating in Ireland?

A whole lot of problems here. And cabotage has nothing to do with any of them.
 
http://www.dn.no/nyheter/naringsliv/2014/01/13/norwegian-flyr-fra-sas-pa-lonn
How does an Irish aviation safety inspector inspect an airplane for a carrier he is responsible to oversee that never comes through Ireland? Even if the aviation authority makes an effort to get the inspector out to the airline's area of operation, do you think the level of oversight will be even close to what it would be for the carriers operating in Ireland?

A whole lot of problems here. And cabotage has nothing to do with any of them.

Those are all legitimate concerns, but I think Lee Moak and company are barking up the wrong tree, as are most people in this thread. Of course, how do we know what kind of oversight any foreign airline regulatory agency has over operators?
 
http://www.dn.no/nyheter/naringsliv/2014/01/13/norwegian-flyr-fra-sas-pa-lonn
Of course, how do we know what kind of oversight any foreign airline regulatory agency has over operators?
You're right, but at least countries can be held more accountable if the airline is flying their own people to and from their country.

Also in the USA I would like to think that we have laws regarding safety and labor (i.e. treat all humans like humans) that is far greater than where NAI is looking to employ their pilots from. If you would rather fly on airlines that have sub par safety and labor oversight feel free to go to Malaysia or South Korea and see how well that has worked out for them recently :rolleyes:.
 
You're right, but at least countries can be held more accountable if the airline is flying their own people to and from their country.

Also in the USA I would like to think that we have laws regarding safety and labor (i.e. treat all humans like humans) that is far greater than where NAI is looking to employ their pilots from. If you would rather fly on airlines that have sub par safety and labor oversight feel free to go to Malaysia or South Korea and see how well that has worked out for them recently :rolleyes:.
Or I could just fly on a regional.
 
Part of the issue is that the issue is that the crews aren't Irish or Norwegian. They are from countries where labor is significantly cheaper and unable to unionize or protect their work rules like we can here, and in many other countries. The whole point of this venture for NAI is to sidestep Norwegian workers and the subsequent work rules and higher pay the company would be held to should they use their own crews. If that is the case there is no realistic way for U.S carriers to remain viable competitors in these markets. The other issue is that how can the Irish authorities realistically maintain some semblance of oversight if the company they claim to oversee doesn't even pass through Ireland at any point during this venture?


Norwegian flight deck crew are from France, Finland, Germany, Sweden, England, and many other first world countries. So how is that "significantly cheaper" labor. They have cabin crew from Thailand and other places. Guess what, the major U.S. airlines have had foreign based cabin crew for decades and they pay them much less than their U.S. counterparts. So that it all a false argument.

In regards to oversight. Do you know how long it takes to go from Dublin over to Gatwick and how many flights per day there are? I had Feds fly longer and farther to do ramp checks on a previous airline within the USA.


TP
 
Norwegian flight deck crew are from France, Finland, Germany, Sweden, England, and many other first world countries. So how is that "significantly cheaper" labor. They have cabin crew from Thailand and other places. Guess what, the major U.S. airlines have had foreign based cabin crew for decades and they pay them much less than their U.S. counterparts. So that it all a false argument.

In regards to oversight. Do you know how long it takes to go from Dublin over to Gatwick and how many flights per day there are? I had Feds fly longer and farther to do ramp checks on a previous airline within the USA.


TP

As far as I know, all of the crew members you mention are flying for Norwegian Long Haul (NLH) which is registered in and operates out of Norway. This means they are still subject to Norwegian taxes, labor laws, rules and regulations. NLH is a sister airline to Norwegian Air International (NAI), and currently does all of the long-haul flying. The proposal for NAI adopts the afore mentioned flag-of-convenience model which means NAI can circumvent Norwegian tax and labor laws by hiring crews from one country a labor can be found at a significantly lower cost than in Norway, and not be subjected to Norwegian labor laws because NAI is registered in Ireland.

If foreign labor has an issue with the treatment of their workers by U.S. they are free to push back and change the circumstances much like we are doing with NAI. I know that at least one U.S. airline that had domicile in Europe afforded those foreign nationals they employed the same union contract and protections their U.S. counterparts were allowed. This came straight from the horse's mouth so-to-speak when I met a couple of them a few years ago. Beyond this specific example I don't know much about how U.S. carriers treat or pay foreign nationals that they employ so I will defer to others with more knowledge on that subject.

As far as oversight goes, the issue isn't necessarily about NAI in and of itself. It is about setting the precedent for the flag-of-convenience business model and the potential ramifications. The proximity of two countries in and of itself doesn't equate to effective oversight, what happens when a country with questionable safety regulations or a lesser developed regulatory body becomes responsible for the oversight of an airline that utilizes less than reputable safety and/or labor practices? Why even open the rules to allow for that possibility?

This is about preventing the business model that absolutely decimated the U.S. maritime industry from becoming a very legitimate threat to the U.S. aviation industry.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, all of the crew members you mention are flying for Norwegian Long Haul (NLH) which is registered in and operates out of Norway. This means they are still subject to Norwegian taxes, labor laws, rules and regulations. NLH is a sister airline to Norwegian Air International (NAI), and currently does all of the long-haul flying. The proposal for NAI adopts the afore mentioned flag-of-convenience model which means NAI can circumvent Norwegian tax and labor laws by hiring crews from one country a labor can be found at a significantly lower cost than in Norway, and not be subjected to Norwegian labor laws because NAI is registered in Ireland.

If foreign labor has an issue with the treatment of their workers by U.S. they are free to push back and change the circumstances much like we are doing with NAI. I know that at least one U.S. airline that had domicile in Europe afforded those foreign nationals they employed the same union contract and protections their U.S. counterparts were allowed. This came straight from the horse's mouth so-to-speak when I met a couple of them a few years ago. Beyond this specific example I don't know much about how U.S. carriers treat or pay foreign nationals that they employ so I will defer to others with more knowledge on that subject.

As far as oversight goes, the issue isn't necessarily about NAI in and of itself. It is about setting the precedent for the flag-of-convenience business model and the potential ramifications. The proximity of two countries in and of itself doesn't equate to effective oversight, what happens when a country with questionable safety regulations or a lesser developed regulatory body becomes responsible for the oversight of an airline that utilizes less than reputable safety and/or labor practices? Why even open the rules to allow for that possibility?

This is about preventing the business model that absolutely decimated the U.S. maritime industry from becoming a very legitimate threat to the U.S. aviation industry.



The NLH crew are the ones to whom I was referring. They are Bangkok based employed under a Singapore contract agency.

My brother's wife was an American Airlines Buenos Aries based flight attendant for 30 years. Her salary was significantly below a U.S. based flight attendant. United and Northwest also have/had foreign based flight attendants for decades. That makes some of the arguments a little bit hypocritical, don't ya think?

You are aware that the FAA has categories for different countries based on their regulatory oversight, right?

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/iasa/

Additional Background on the FAA’s IASA Program:
As part of the FAA’s IASA program, the agency assesses on a uniform basis the civil aviation authorities of all countries with air carriers that operate or have applied to operate to the United States and makes that information available to the public. The assessments determine whether or not foreign civil aviation authorities are meeting ICAO safety standards, not FAA regulations.

They are defined as follows:
  • Category 1, Does Comply with ICAO Standards: A country's civil aviation authority has been assessed by FAA inspectors and has been found to license and oversee air carriers in accordance with ICAO aviation safety standards.
  • Category 2, Does Not Comply with ICAO Standards: The Federal Aviation Administration assessed this country's civil aviation authority (CAA) and determined that it does not provide safety oversight of its air carrier operators in accordance with the minimum safety oversight standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
Category 2 is further refined as:

One group are countries that have air carriers with existing operations to the United States at the time of the assessment. While in Category 2 status, carriers from these countries will be permitted to continue operations at current levels under heightened FAA surveillance. Expansion or changes in services to the United States by such carriers are not permitted while in category 2.

The second group are countries that do not have air carriers with existing operations to the United States at the time of the assessment. Carriers from these countries will not be permitted to commence service to the United States while in Category 2 status.

So again, fear mongering based on lack of knowledge. It's not like somebody is going to start an airline in Liberia and be allowed to have unlimited to service to the USA because they won't even be approved for service under the FAA/DOT guidelines.


Typhoonpilot
 
Back
Top