Next 48 Hours Critical in Denying NAI and their application

Jason5 said:
I despise ALPA and the Deny NAI campaign. Anybody out there who wants to get started with some talking points against #denyNAI and ALPA should read the articles below and, of course, urge your rep to vote no. Airline pilots are probably the biggest group of uninformed, unthinking sheep-people I've ever met. Don't let their cronies influence Washington. There has been absolutely no intelligent discussion of this issue by ALPA, only on-message, repetitive propaganda.

http://cafehayek.com/2014/03/pilot-error.html

http://cafehayek.com/2014/05/another-pilot-error.html
Click to expand...

"Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism"

Giggle.

They can probably just rename the study "Mogadishu Microeconomics"
 
Derg said:
"Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism"

Giggle.

They can probably just rename the study "Mogadishu Microeconomics"
Click to expand...

That's a chairship, not a study. It isn't very cutting when you completely miss the mark.
 
typhoonpilot said:
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?
Click to expand...

Are you 100% sure that the NLH crews are under a Singapore contract agency?

I'll admit I'm a little naive here. But how was your sister in laws "salary" significantly less than her US based counter parts? Aren't the AA in-flight AFA? Wouldn't they have had something to say about that? Thought they had one pay scale?
 
typhoonpilot said:
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
Click to expand...


Do you have any proof that the NLH crews are of a Singaporean agency? I'd be very interested to see it, and if they are I am curious as to why nobody here in the states has an issue with that. I certainly would if it gives them an unfair competitive advantage. What little literature I could find indicates that the operating subsidiary (NLH) currently operates from and bases it's crews within its current Scandinavian base structure.

From http://centreforaviation.com/analys...lag-of-convenience-or-fair-competition-146928:

"Under Norwegian new corporate structure, there are two principal operating subsidiaries. The Norwegian operating subsidiary operates from NAS’ existing Scandinavian bases and employs all pilots permanently employed in Scandinavia on the same wages and conditions as previously. Norwegian’s statement says that other staff remain employees of the parent company, Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA."

It goes on to dress the hiring of foreign nationals under the planned corporate structure changes meaning NAI:

"In Oct-2013, when announcing the planned changes to the corporate structure, NAS said “fully owned country-specific resource companies will be established”. Pilots hired outside Scandinavia were to be offered permanent employment in the respective resource companies, starting with those in Finland in 1Q2014, followed by those in Spain and the UK. Currently, these pilots are contract staff rather than permanent employees.
The purpose of the Irish operating subsidiary is to secure traffic rights to fly out of Europe and so is Norwegian’s long-haul vehicle. This subsidiary, named Norwegian Air International Limited (NAI), has a temporary AOC, with the authorisation of Norway’s aviation authorities, pending the approval of its application to the Irish Aviation Authority for a permanent AOC.

NAI has also applied to the US Department of Transport for a foreign air carrier permit to access traffic rights in accordance with the US-EUOpen Skies agreement. While neither application has yet been approved, sources in Norwegian told CAPA that both are proceeding according to its plans. In the meantime, Norwegian is continuing to operate its international operations with existing AOCs and its existing long-haul subsidiary Norwegian Long Haul. Norway is part of the European Economic Area, but not part of the European Union. An Irish AOC for NAI will give it the same traffic rights as other EU-based carriers."

With regard to the international flight attendants at US carriers part, we both seem to have conflicting examples. At the very least, to me this indicates varying standards that cannot be swept under one general claim about US airline labor practices in foreign countries. Hypocritical? Probably. We ARE talking about US based airlines. I would wager that you could write novels that would rival Game of Thrones in volume about how cheap our airlines can be at times. Our own bankruptcy laws are abhorrent if you're on the labor side of the equation but that is a separate discussion all together. If our airlines aren't paying their foreign national crews fairly then I have an issue with that too. US corporations can be downright scummy at times but I'll be damned if I'm going to let that be a reason to lie down and allow our industry to be ruined. As was already stated if they really have a problem with our practices then they are more than welcome to fight back and try to raise their wages or to stop the practice. The same way we have the right to try to prevent NAI and the flag of convenience model from becoming acceptable in the US airline industry.

Concern over proper oversight isn't fear mongering. One country overseeing the airline of another that doesn't even put a wheel down on its soil is a perfectly valid concern, further why open the can of worms? There is evidence from the maritime industry that the flag of convenience model reduces safety, worker's wages and quality of life and offers them little recourse against these issues. To simply assume because the FAA has two categories there will be no issues with this practice when there is evidence stating otherwise seems short sighted in my opinion.

Just one snippet of something online concerning the oversight issues with flag of convenience operations, which in the maritime industry includes minimum standards that are internationally agreed to include what appears to be a grad student's 31 page document detailing the flag of convenience model, and the issues it faces including failing regulatory oversight:

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/jilp/articles/1-1_Shaughnessy_Tina.pdf

An article from Cruise Law News referencing an OpEd piece in the NY times criticizing the FoC model and it's issues:

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2011/0...g-taxes-safety-labor-regulations-and-justice/

He'll, even wiki gets in on it:

"In the accompanying material of the ILO's Maritime Labour Convention of 2006, the International Labour Organization estimated that at that time there were approximately 1,200,000 working seafarers across the world. This document goes on to say that when working aboard ships flagged to states that do not "exercise effective jurisdiction and control" over their ships that "seafarers often have to work under unacceptable conditions, to the detriment of their well-being, health and safety and the safety of the ships on which they work."

The International Transport Workers' Federation goes further, stating that flags of convenience "provide a means of avoiding labor regulation in the country of ownership, and become a vehicle for paying low wages and forcing long hours of work and unsafe working conditions. Since FOC ships have no real nationality, they are beyond the reach of any single national seafarers' trade union." They also say that these ships have low safety standards and no construction requirements, that they "do not enforce safety standards, minimum social standards or trade union rights for seafarers", that they frequently fail to pay their crews, have poor safety records, engage in practices such as abandoning crewmen in distant ports."

Now, of course the maritime industry and the airline industry are two different birds. A few flights for NAI are admittedly likely easy to regulate but, as stated before, it is about preventing the precedent from being set. To think these issues facing the maritime industry won't become part of aviation as airlines under the FoC begin to expand and become larger and more difficult to regulate is to bury one's head in the sand.
 
Last edited:
Seggy said:
Do you think Dubai World Airports would allow a US Carrier to set up a mini hub there? Furthermore, those places are served by our code share partners.



Very true.
Click to expand...

Actually yes, they are allowed. This was announced over a decade ago. Any airline is welcome to setup a hub in Dubai. Of course they said this because it won't happen. Said airline doesn't have the resources or low cost of doing business in Dubai to be competitive.

My question is this, what is to prevent Emirates from contracting with a regional like SkyWest to feed their non-stop flights to Dubai using say EMB-195 or such. I'm sure Skywest has looked at it. Is it prohibited in their contract?
 
How is any competition fair, Southwest is a case in point, which the majors tried to squash.

Anyways, the days of soverign airlines is passing.

I'll happily support your position on NAI if you'll admit to being socialist...
 
mrivc211 said:
My question is this, what is to prevent Emirates from contracting with a regional like SkyWest to feed their non-stop flights to Dubai using say EMB-195 or such. I'm sure Skywest has looked at it. Is it prohibited in their contract?
Click to expand...

Nothing to prohibit it. They would have to set up a contract to do it as foreign ownership laws would prohibit them from buying a regional to provide feed outright (like they just did in Slovenia or some place like that?).
 
[No opinion on this matter implied or expressed.]

I haven't paid very much attention to this issue but have taken a recent run at comprehending it all. It's reached the point where "Ya can't tell the players without a program." Lots of allegations made about various aspects of it. The pilot supply aspect would interest me the most as a casual observer.

Perhaps Typhoonpilot can expand on the matter of the Singapore contract agency for pilots.

Rishworth, a NZ company with agency offices and reps all over the place, appears to have a hand in this and has back at least to Jan./2013 that I can see.

This from an ad dated today, the 11th:

"Rishworth Aviation on behalf of our client Norwegian Long Haul A/S are now accepting applications…"

http://www.bestaviation.net/jobs/listings/b787-non-type-rated-captains-and-relief-captains-6128/

This specifically about Rishworth/Thailand:

http://www.rishworthaviation.com/Featured/29/fly-in-thailand.aspx

And this. See the second post down:

http://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/402864-flag-of-convenience/
 
BobDDuck said:
Nothing to prohibit it. They would have to set up a contract to do it as foreign ownership laws would prohibit them from buying a regional to provide feed outright (like they just did in Slovenia or some place like that?).
Click to expand...
Plus unions are illegal in the UAE and Skywest is non-union which would make things even easier to set up something like that. Darwin Airlines of Sweeden has Saab 2000s painted in full Etihad colors connecting pax from neighboring parts of Europe to Etihad flights. I wonder if they could do the same here in the US painting Skywest RJs in Emirates colors and having them based in JFK feeding the Dubai and Milan flights.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
typhoon, ALPA is not lobbying against NLH. This is solely an NAI issue.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure this is to help clear up the interpretations of the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement.

NAI just happens to be the first to want to exploit a potential loophole.


As a side thing, I wish we could "earmark" where our money goes in the ALPA PAC. Knowing my money could easily go somewhere I don't want it spent (such as the Dubai thing) makes it hard to give. I would love a Chapter 11 reform budget.
 
Last edited:
Maurus said:
Pretty sure this is to help clear up the interpretations of the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement.

NAI just happens to be the first to want to exploit a potential loophole.


As a side thing, I wish we could "earmark" where our money goes in the ALPA PAC. Knowing my money could easily go somewhere I don't want it spent (such as the Dubai thing) makes it hard to give. I would love a Chapter 11 reform budget.
Click to expand...

PAC money is spent on campaign contributions, not on specific issues.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
That is real. PAC money isn't spent on lobbying, it's used to make campaign contributions to members of Congress.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll play. If you think those contributions go to those campaigns without the slightest discussion I think you are wrong. There is a reason PAC's exist. Since it's not a pure lobby it's still money changing hands, in return we get a sympathizer to our cause.
 
amorris311 said:
Ok, I'll play. If you think those contributions go to those campaigns without the slightest discussion I think you are wrong. There is a reason PAC's exist. Since it's not a pure lobby it's still money changing hands, in return we get a sympathizer to our cause.
Click to expand...

Of course, money always provides access, but my point is that you can't do what Maurus suggests, because the money isn't allocated to an issue, it's allocated to a candidate. Congressman John Doe gets $3,000. It might be because he supported us on a single issue, or it might be because he's supported us on a plethora of issues, so trying to "earmark" money for a specific purpose doesn't work.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Of course, money always provides access, but my point is that you can't do what Maurus suggests, because the money isn't allocated to an issue, it's allocated to a candidate. Congressman John Doe gets $3,000. It might be because he supported us on a single issue, or it might be because he's supported us on a plethora of issues, so trying to "earmark" money for a specific purpose doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Yea I understand that. I contribute a lot of money to the PAC and I agree with Maurus that we should allocate dollars of our choosing. Will it happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top