Norwegian Air explained:
12-04-2016, 09:53 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by Nantonaku
So we are suppose to believe as a direct result of NAI you had to take a 40% pay cut and so do many other European pilots? But no one in Europe has any disdain towards NAI? That makes no sense, you say you are an expert in all things Europe but that really makes no sense to me. Why would anyone in Europe support NAI? It seems strange to me that you support something that took away 40% of your salary and will decimate wages in Europe. And you haven't done a very good job of proving it is legal, the ALPA argument is way more convincing than the twisted logic you are trying to use.
Norwegian opened their NAI subsidiary to take advantage of air transport treaties the EU has with other nations and as is widely reported, Ireland has outstanding corporate tax rates. This is why many global companies have operations based in Ireland, a notable and controversial example is Apple. NAI is not needed to get take advantage of the EU - US treaty because the 2012 amendment included Norway and Iceland in the treaty.
So since you claim my argument is twisted, please tell me how NAI is violating the treaty. The treaty only restricts provisions of the treaty being used to lower labour standards. So tell me, which clause in the treaty did NAI use? The treaty does not limit a company from using EU/EEA agreements to their advantage, it says specifically that they cannot use provisions of the Open Skies treaty. So look through the treaty and tell me which provisions of the treaty they have used to lower labour standards. I await your answer.
As for Thailand based pilots, they do that for the same reason airlines like Delta, United, SAS, Lufthansa and countless others have, or still do, based flight and/or cabin crews in the Far East.
Lastly, if you actually inquire to Norwegian directly, or have the opportunity to know a pilot who flies for them and will show you their contract, you will see the contract is through a U.K. agency, not in Asia.
12-04-2016, 10:21 AM
#62
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 375
Competition is always good for the economy. Lots of greed is floating around here, wanting to set up protectionism just to enrich oneself at the expense of sound economics.
Yall need to read Fredrich Bastiat's "Candlestick Maker's Petition" followed by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson"
Yall need to read Fredrich Bastiat's "Candlestick Maker's Petition" followed by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson"
12-04-2016, 10:32 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by NMuir
Competition is always good for the economy. Lots of greed is floating around here, wanting to set up protectionism just to enrich oneself at the expense of sound economics.
Yall need to read Fredrich Bastiat's "Candlestick Maker's Petition" followed by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson"
Yall need to read Fredrich Bastiat's "Candlestick Maker's Petition" followed by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson"
12-04-2016, 10:33 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by NEDude
I did not take a 40% cut in pay myself. My wife lost her job with SAS because of Norwegian encroachment.
Norwegian opened their NAI subsidiary to take advantage of air transport treaties the EU has with other nations and as is widely reported, Ireland has outstanding corporate tax rates. This is why many global companies have operations based in Ireland, a notable and controversial example is Apple. NAI is not needed to get take advantage of the EU - US treaty because the 2012 amendment included Norway and Iceland in the treaty.
So since you claim my argument is twisted, please tell me how NAI is violating the treaty. The treaty only restricts provisions of the treaty being used to lower labour standards. So tell me, which clause in the treaty did NAI use? The treaty does not limit a company from using EU/EEA agreements to their advantage, it says specifically that they cannot use provisions of the Open Skies treaty. So look through the treaty and tell me which provisions of the treaty they have used to lower labour standards. I await your answer.
As for Thailand based pilots, they do that for the same reason airlines like Delta, United, SAS, Lufthansa and countless others have, or still do, based flight and/or cabin crews in the Far East.
Lastly, if you actually inquire to Norwegian directly, or have the opportunity to know a pilot who flies for them and will show you their contract, you will see the contract is through a U.K. agency, not in Asia.
Norwegian opened their NAI subsidiary to take advantage of air transport treaties the EU has with other nations and as is widely reported, Ireland has outstanding corporate tax rates. This is why many global companies have operations based in Ireland, a notable and controversial example is Apple. NAI is not needed to get take advantage of the EU - US treaty because the 2012 amendment included Norway and Iceland in the treaty.
So since you claim my argument is twisted, please tell me how NAI is violating the treaty. The treaty only restricts provisions of the treaty being used to lower labour standards. So tell me, which clause in the treaty did NAI use? The treaty does not limit a company from using EU/EEA agreements to their advantage, it says specifically that they cannot use provisions of the Open Skies treaty. So look through the treaty and tell me which provisions of the treaty they have used to lower labour standards. I await your answer.
As for Thailand based pilots, they do that for the same reason airlines like Delta, United, SAS, Lufthansa and countless others have, or still do, based flight and/or cabin crews in the Far East.
Lastly, if you actually inquire to Norwegian directly, or have the opportunity to know a pilot who flies for them and will show you their contract, you will see the contract is through a U.K. agency, not in Asia.
U.S. tipped off EU to Apple's ultra low taxes in Ireland - Sep. 9, 2016
12-04-2016, 10:43 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,236
Originally Posted by NEDude
I did not take a 40% cut in pay myself. My wife lost her job with SAS because of Norwegian encroachment.
Norwegian opened their NAI subsidiary to take advantage of air transport treaties the EU has with other nations and as is widely reported, Ireland has outstanding corporate tax rates. This is why many global companies have operations based in Ireland, a notable and controversial example is Apple. NAI is not needed to get take advantage of the EU - US treaty because the 2012 amendment included Norway and Iceland in the treaty.
So since you claim my argument is twisted, please tell me how NAI is violating the treaty. The treaty only restricts provisions of the treaty being used to lower labour standards. So tell me, which clause in the treaty did NAI use? The treaty does not limit a company from using EU/EEA agreements to their advantage, it says specifically that they cannot use provisions of the Open Skies treaty. So look through the treaty and tell me which provisions of the treaty they have used to lower labour standards. I await your answer.
As for Thailand based pilots, they do that for the same reason airlines like Delta, United, SAS, Lufthansa and countless others have, or still do, based flight and/or cabin crews in the Far East.
Lastly, if you actually inquire to Norwegian directly, or have the opportunity to know a pilot who flies for them and will show you their contract, you will see the contract is through a U.K. agency, not in Asia.
Norwegian opened their NAI subsidiary to take advantage of air transport treaties the EU has with other nations and as is widely reported, Ireland has outstanding corporate tax rates. This is why many global companies have operations based in Ireland, a notable and controversial example is Apple. NAI is not needed to get take advantage of the EU - US treaty because the 2012 amendment included Norway and Iceland in the treaty.
So since you claim my argument is twisted, please tell me how NAI is violating the treaty. The treaty only restricts provisions of the treaty being used to lower labour standards. So tell me, which clause in the treaty did NAI use? The treaty does not limit a company from using EU/EEA agreements to their advantage, it says specifically that they cannot use provisions of the Open Skies treaty. So look through the treaty and tell me which provisions of the treaty they have used to lower labour standards. I await your answer.
As for Thailand based pilots, they do that for the same reason airlines like Delta, United, SAS, Lufthansa and countless others have, or still do, based flight and/or cabin crews in the Far East.
Lastly, if you actually inquire to Norwegian directly, or have the opportunity to know a pilot who flies for them and will show you their contract, you will see the contract is through a U.K. agency, not in Asia.
Which US airlines set up cabin/flight crew in a base in the far east to a place they don't fly? Delta has crews in the Far East - Japan, one of the most expensive places in the world, because they fly there! They don't base crew in places like Thailand. Maybe NAI has hit all the right legal loop holes, but what is your angle?
All NAI has to do is play by the intent of the law and ALPA has said they will stop opposing their DOT approval - NAI refuses to commit to play by the same rules as everyone else. What is your angle for supporting this again?
12-04-2016, 10:46 AM
#66
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox
FAIR competition is good. Crony capitalism is not.
12-04-2016, 12:48 PM
#67
On Reserve
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by trip
That's what I was thinking, some seriously low pay. Sad part is they will have no problem getting pilots to go work for them in FLL.
Travel benefits are not yet defined either on Norwegian.
And you have to study for the EASA licence.
You can make more as an FO at a regional.
12-05-2016, 08:00 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,764
Originally Posted by BigGrecian
No typo.
Travel benefits are not yet defined either on Norwegian.
And you have to study for the EASA licence.
You can make more as an FO at a regional.
Travel benefits are not yet defined either on Norwegian.
And you have to study for the EASA licence.
You can make more as an FO at a regional.
12-05-2016, 08:42 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by Nantonaku
They are breaking the intent of ATA 17. Why won't they commit to hiring either Irish crews or US crews under local labor laws?
Which US airlines set up cabin/flight crew in a base in the far east to a place they don't fly? Delta has crews in the Far East - Japan, one of the most expensive places in the world, because they fly there! They don't base crew in places like Thailand. Maybe NAI has hit all the right legal loop holes, but what is your angle?
All NAI has to do is play by the intent of the law and ALPA has said they will stop opposing their DOT approval - NAI refuses to commit to play by the same rules as everyone else. What is your angle for supporting this again?
Which US airlines set up cabin/flight crew in a base in the far east to a place they don't fly? Delta has crews in the Far East - Japan, one of the most expensive places in the world, because they fly there! They don't base crew in places like Thailand. Maybe NAI has hit all the right legal loop holes, but what is your angle?
All NAI has to do is play by the intent of the law and ALPA has said they will stop opposing their DOT approval - NAI refuses to commit to play by the same rules as everyone else. What is your angle for supporting this again?
So if I understand the argument correctly, Norwegian violated the intent of article 17 bis but did not use any provisions of the Treaty to do so, and is supposedly getting around EU labour law by opening a division within an EU country that is party to the Open Skies treaty and complies with EU labour law? Can you seriously not see how absurd that logic is?!
As to your question about hiring local Irish crews, the EU/EEA/Switzerland is for the most part a single market and citizens of the included countries have the unlimited right to live and work anywhere within that area. So an Irish airline does is not required to only hire Irish crews, they can hire from anywhere within the zone without discrimination. Yes, there are Irish pilots flying for Norwegian, as there are people from all within the union. You cannot fly for Norwegian without having the unlimited right to live and work in the EU/EEA/Switzerland, as all the AOCs are based within the EU/EEA area. As such, all the pilots are covered under EU labour laws. US based crews are also covered under US labour laws.
As for Thailand, Norwegian does fly there, so I fail to understand your question about Thailand based crews.
As for the same rules as everyone else, Norwegian is playing by the same rules as all the EU airlines. The Lufthansa group owns several AOCs in multiple countries - Germany, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland and most of them have US DOT approval (and use contract pilots with agencies based in the middle east!)l. EasyJet has AOCs in the UK and Switzerland. Small Planet has AOCs in Lithuania, Germany, Poland and the UK. Germania has AOCs in Germany and Switzerland. Thomas Cook has AOCs in the UK, Denmark and Netherlands (and has US DOT approval). Jet Time has AOCs in Denmark and Finland. There are countless other examples. So Norwegian IS playing by the same rules as other European carriers with US DOT approval.
My angle with all of this? Well there are several. First of all I am a dual US and EU national. I have lived and worked on both sides of the pond. I am in favour of anything that expands job opportunities for pilots. Norwegian does that. While many US based pilots may say the job is bad, many in Europe do not view it that way because European pilot pay is lower overall, training bonds are far more common, and once you pass 30-35 years of age your opportunities for jobs begin to diminish because many of the European legacy airlines practice age discrimination.
My second angle is that Norwegian is not doing anything that has not been done by others who have received DOT approval. Airlines with AOCs in multiple countries and who use contract crews have received DOT approval before. And Norwegian already does have DOT approval on its NLH AOC. The denial of NAI makes no logical sense, both in terms of precedent with other carriers and by the provisions of the Open Skies treaty (again, please tell me which provision of the Treaty they used to violate Article 17 bis).
I forgot to add my third angle behind all of this, so here it is: It is closely related to my first. Despite the argument of Norwegian dragging down pay, the demand for pilots by Norwegian has in fact done just the opposite. In order to stop pilots from going to Norwegian, many companies have begun to increase pay or improve roster patterns. I have seen this in my current company. So from the perspective of a pilot on the east side of the Atlantic, the presence of Norwegian has caused upward pressure on salaries, not downward. I personally want to see that upward pressure continue..
Last edited by NEDude; 12-05-2016 at 08:53 AM.
12-05-2016, 09:17 AM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
From a different angle, what is to stop the new contracted WB skippers from getting their own representation? The US flight attendants apparently are off the koolaid already as they sued at NMB for the right to form a union. Norweign tried to claim their employer was OSM. The company lost thanks to AFA.
Norwegian US-based Flight Attendants Vote for Representation - Association of Flight Attendants-CWA
Norwegian US-based Flight Attendants Vote for Representation - Association of Flight Attendants-CWA
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
