Who is against NAI?

[Seggy]

In this thread on page 3...

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/leave-aa-for-fedex.235630/page-3

@typhoonpilot had this quote concerning the threat NAI

Blown way out of proportion by ALPA.

I have attached the 'Order to Show Cause' from the DOT that is tentatively approving the NAI permit. Starting on page two you can see the parties against the permit...

Objecting Parties

NAI’s application is opposed by a number of U.S. and foreign air carriers, including Delta Air
Lines, Inc. (Delta), United Airlines, Inc. (United), American Airlines, Inc. (American), US
Airways, Inc. (US Airways), as well as Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) and Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS), Air France and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), and Austrian Airlines AG (Austrian). It is also opposed by numerous U.S. labor organizations, specifically the
Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the Southwest Airlines
Pilots' Association (SWAPA), the Transportation Trades Department AFL-CIO (TTD), the
Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA), the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers (IAM), the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), as well as Captain
Stephen Colman, the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Transport Workers’
Federation (ETF), the Norwegian trade union Parat, and the Signatories to the Joint Declaration
Against EU-Based Flags of Convenience in Aviation as Endorsed on 5 June 2014 by the Air
Crew Working Group of the Sectoral Dialogue Committee.

As one can easily see there is more than one party opposed to NAI. These parties clearly see the threat the 'Flag of Convenience' business model has in the aviation industry. Actually, more parties are opposed to this application than are for it. The parties opposed haven't always seen eye to eye with ALPA, some of them have locked heads over the years over various issues as a matter of fact.

So cut it out with the rhetoric, @typhoonpilot, this isn't only ALPA's battle. Other parties are opposed to this scheme, others can see through the B.S. of it. Others see the threat.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Relatively broad labor-management agreement is pretty nice to see on this one, for sure.

NAI themselves admit that the purpose of their venue shopping is to evade Norwegian social laws.

 

[Der rote Baron]

Relatively broad labor-management agreement is pretty nice to see on this one, for sure.

NAI themselves admit that the purpose of their venue shopping is to evade Norwegian social laws.

They did this already at Norwegian Air Shuttle. Most of the pilots are contractors.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

They did this already at Norwegian Air Shuttle. Most of the pilots are contractors.

Ick.

(BTW, @Seggy, SAPA put out a communication about this as well - on the "deny" side. Glad ALPA made it a more easily accessible issue.)

 

[NickH]

It's really more of a Tax Avoidance issue. NAI beat the cut off for a Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich.

Ireland also has relatively good labour laws, at least compared to countries like the US and Yemen, although Norway is better. The detail is that this has been tried before, almost in reverse. Ryanair tried to push in to Norway, while applying Irish labour laws to workers based in Norway. It didn't work. European courts ruled against Ryanair, and they have to submit to Norwegian law and the jurisdiction of their courts. NAI will have to do the same.

ALPA and the others do have an interest in stopping any kind of competition, be it the ME3 or NAI or any other non-ALPA carrier, but it's not about labour laws. That's just a hook they are using to make them sound more reasonable.

 

[Der rote Baron]

It's really more of a Tax Avoidance issue. NAI beat the cut off for a Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich.

Ireland also has relatively good labour laws, at least compared to countries like the US and Yemen, although Norway is better. The detail is that this has been tried before, almost in reverse. Ryanair tried to push in to Norway, while applying Irish labour laws to workers based in Norway. It didn't work. European courts ruled against Ryanair, and they have to submit to Norwegian law and the jurisdiction of their courts. NAI will have to do the same.

ALPA and the others do have an interest in stopping any kind of competition, be it the ME3 or NAI or any other non-ALPA carrier, but it's not about labour laws. That's just a hook they are using to make them sound more reasonable.

Tax avoidance, avoidance of social security contribution and a lot of more factors. But one of the key factors is the point that they evade the labour laws.

 

[NickH]

Tax avoidance, avoidance of social security contribution and a lot of more factors. But one of the key factors is the point that they evade the labour laws.

Except they don't. Workers in Norway get Norway's laws. (Or the respective European country).

They are avoiding Norway's ban on workers from outside Europe, but that doesn't affect the labour laws which apply to those workers.

 

[Der rote Baron]

Except they don't. Workers in Norway get Norway's laws. (Or the respective European country).

They are avoiding Norway's ban on workers from outside Europe, but that doesn't affect the labour laws which apply to those workers.

There is no real ban in Norway, as long as a company provides data that they can't find enough skilled labour, they can bring in as much expats as they want/need. But Norwegian Air Shuttle has no intention to bring in pilots under the Norwegian labour law. Their Scandinavian pilots are legally employed by Norwegian. The biggest group (the foreign pilots) are contractors with an agency. A lot of them use the old Ryanair model of setting up a LLC in Eire and this LLC is the contractual partner of the agency in UK.

The longhaul part of Norwegian uses a agency based in Singapore and the pilot contracts are based on the Singapore law.

Edit: The contract for the scandinavian pilots isn't bad, but that's because they are organized in a union and well known to fight for their rights.

 

[NickH]

There is no real ban in Norway, as long as a company provides data that they can't find enough skilled labour, they can bring in as much expats as they want/need. But Norwegian Air Shuttle has no intention to bring in pilots under the Norwegian labour law. Their Scandinavian pilots are legally employed by Norwegian. The biggest group (the foreign pilots) are contractors with an agency. A lot of them use the old Ryanair model of setting up a LLC in Eire and this LLC is the contractual partner of the agency in UK.

The longhaul part of Norwegian uses a agency based in Singapore and the pilot contracts are based on the Singapore law.

Edit: The contract for the scandinavian pilots isn't bad, but that's because they are organized in a union and well known to fight for their rights.

But just like Ryanair workers based in Norway, NAI will have to follow Norwegian law for workers there.

I'm against NAI, for the same reason US airlines and their puppets are, because foreign competition is bad for everyone in and close to the industry. Not because I have some miss-guided notion of out-sourced foreign labour with no employment rights. No matter which country in Europe, workers have better protection from labour laws than in the US. Workers in Singapore have better rights!

 

[Der rote Baron]

But just like Ryanair workers based in Norway, NAI will have to follow Norwegian law for workers there.

I'm against NAI, for the same reason US airlines and their puppets are, because foreign competition is bad for everyone in and close to the industry. Not because I have some miss-guided notion of out-sourced foreign labour with no employment rights. No matter which country in Europe, workers have better protection from labour laws than in the US. Workers in Singapore have better rights!

As long as you're an NAI/NAS employee you are right, but most of their workforce are contractors. And a contractor for NAI, NAS Ryanair etc. has less protection then an US employee. Believe me, I'm currently the MD of an one man privat Ltd., the purpose of that privat Ltd. is to sell the MD's service as an Pilot to an european ULCC. I know the rules of the f*** game.

 

[NickH]

As long as you're an NAI/NAS employee you are right, but most of their workforce are contractors. And a contractor for NAI, NAS Ryanair etc. has less protection then an US employee. Believe me, I'm currently the MD of an one man privat Ltd., the purpose of that privat Ltd. is to sell the MD's service as an Pilot to an european ULCC. I know the rules of the f*** game.

So you're saying the problem is contracted labour, rather than labour laws in one country vs. another. But then why are you playing if you don't like the rules?

 

[Der rote Baron]

So you're saying the problem is contracted labour, rather than labour laws in one country vs. another. But then why are you playing if you don't like the rules?

Yepp, flagg of convenience and contracted labor is the poison. Similar like in the merchant shipping.

The question why I played the game is easy. It was my dream and the only way to make it happen during that time was to play that game. I couldn't start with Lufthansa Group and Air Berlin so I had to decide what to do. Getting a frozen ATPL and joining my ex carrier was one of the possibilities I had. My timing was good, because the needed a lot of pilots. Time to upgrade was reasonable and live in an eastern european base isn't that bad. But I've also seen that the T&C during the sat 7 years getting worse. I was flying with FO's which get less then 1.000 €/month in their first year. they come out of the ab initio with 120.000 € debt and they are chained with the company until they payed the debt back. I've seen contractors working when they where sick, because they didn't get paid sick leave. Think about the following situation. You are the captain and you know that one of the FA's is sick and not able to perform her duties. But she had already sick leave (unpaid) and another sick leave would lead to her contract termination, what would you do?

Edit: https://skift.com/2015/02/12/the-creative-pilot-hiring-habits-of-ryanair-and-norwegian-air-shuttle/
A nice introduction into the habits of Ryanair and Norwegian

 

[NickH]

Yepp, flagg of convenience and contracted labor is the poison. Similar like in the merchant shipping.

The question why I played the game is easy. It was my dream and the only way to make it happen during that time was to play that game. I couldn't start with Lufthansa Group and Air Berlin so I had to decide what to do. Getting a frozen ATPL and joining my ex carrier was one of the possibilities I had. My timing was good, because the needed a lot of pilots. Time to upgrade was reasonable and live in an eastern european base isn't that bad. But I've also seen that the T&C during the sat 7 years getting worse. I was flying with FO's which get less then 1.000 €/month in their first year. they come out of the ab initio with 120.000 € debt and they are chained with the company until they payed the debt back. I've seen contractors working when they where sick, because they didn't get paid sick leave. Think about the following situation. You are the captain and you know that one of the FA's is sick and not able to perform her duties. But she had already sick leave (unpaid) and another sick leave would lead to her contract termination, what would you do?

Paid sick leave is a statutory requirement in Europe, unlike the US. As an employer, this is probably something you should be aware of. Personally I wouldn't work for a company that would terminate me for calling off sick on two occasions. I don't believe that scenario is realistic, since the 120K could legitimately be discharged through bankruptcy or liquidation of the company, providing both parties a motivation to maintain the contract.

 

[derg]

Paid sick leave is a statutory requirement in Europe, unlike the US. As an employer, this is probably something you should be aware of. Personally I wouldn't work for a company that would terminate me for calling off sick on two occasions. I don't believe that scenario is realistic, since the 120K could legitimately be discharged through bankruptcy or liquidation of the company, providing both parties a motivation to maintain the contract.

Merka is edging that direction, unfortunately.

 

[Der rote Baron]

Paid sick leave is a statutory requirement in Europe, unlike the US. As an employer, this is probably something you should be aware of. Personally I wouldn't work for a company that would terminate me for calling off sick on two occasions. I don't believe that scenario is realistic, since the 120K could legitimately be discharged through bankruptcy or liquidation of the company, providing both parties a motivation to maintain the contract.

Yes, it is if you are an legal employee and not an contractor. Believe it or not, the erosion of T&C is not only known in the US. And yes that scenario is realistic, it happened to me 2 months ago and the decision was easy.

 

[NickH]

Yes, it is if you are an legal employee and not an contractor. Believe it or not, the erosion of T&C is not only known in the US. And yes that scenario is realistic, it happened to me 2 months ago and the decision was easy.

When it comes to statutory pay, two days is not long enough for most employees in Europe. So it makes no difference if it's an employee or contractor being fired in terms of the law. Firing someone for calling off sick twice, in isolation, is implausible. When that employee owes the company 120K, it's unbelievable.

 

[NickH]

Merka is edging that direction, unfortunately.

Maybe.. But the US uses contracted airlines (regionals) rather than pilots, and they all seem pretty desperate right now. I don't think any regional would fire a pilot over two sick days.

 

[Der rote Baron]

You don't get it. They do not fire her, they terminate the service contract. Which is from the legal point of view something different.

As a pilot, I had a legal and moral obligation not to fly if I do not think I'm capable. But wer are all humans and if you’re not going to be paid (if you don’t fly) you start thinking "I can do this, I’m fine. I’ll just get on with it". That's life.....

 

[NickH]

You don't get it. They do not fire her, they terminate the service contract. Which is from the legal point of view something different.

As a pilot, I had a legal and moral obligation not to fly if I do not think I'm capable. But wer are all humans and if you’re not going to be paid (if you don’t fly) you start thinking "I can do this, I’m fine. I’ll just get on with it". That's life.....

OK, and she liquidates the company with the debt (and/or declares bankruptcy), and she moves on with her qualifications.

 

[Der rote Baron]

OK, and she liquidates the company with the debt (and/or declares bankruptcy), and she moves on with her qualifications.

That would be an interesting idea, but I doubt that you'll find a bank in Europe which gives a loan to a "one director pilot contracting show". At least in my case the bank asked for certain guarantees.

In case of the FA we are talking about her training bond and the cost for uniform etc. Not the biggest deal.