Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




Typhoonpilot
05-30-2018, 03:51 PM
Norwegian has announced it will be cutting two routes between Sweden and the US, and it’s blaming the move on Sweden’s new aviation taxes.

Norwegian will end nonstop service between Stockholm (ARN) and Oakland (OAK) and Stockholm and Las Vegas (LAS). The budget carrier flies a Boeing 787 Dreamliner between the two cities, with three weekly flights to Oakland. Norwegian had already suspended its Stockholm-Vegas service due to weather related issues in 2016, but this appears to be the nail in the coffin for the route. We’ve reached out to Norwegian for details but have to yet receive a response.

In April, Sweden introduced a new tax on flights that can range from $7 to $49 per passenger, per flight. The tax is environmentally motivated and is supposed to nudge the country toward its sustainable development goals.

When in went into effect Norwegian cancelled one European route and threatened to cancel others. Now they are making good on that threat.

”The long-haul routes are more strained because there is a higher flight tax on them,” Norwegian Communications Manager Charlotte Holmbergh Jacobsson told Dagens Industri.

The shutdown of the routes isn’t due to the tax, Sweden’s Minister for Financial Markets Per Bolund claims. Bolund has a point, Norwegian is plagued by financial issues and operates many unprofitable routes. It reported a net loss of $38 million in 2017.

“The aviation industry is already subsidized through lower VAT and exemptions from fuel taxes,” Bolund said in a statement to Sveriges Radio. “In spite of this, Norwegian appears to have such poor profitability on certain routes that it does not manage the recent fuel-price increase. They should probably rather review how they do business than blame a relatively low aviation tax.”

”We would like to grow our business in Sweden and use Arlanda as a hub, but there is no political will for us to grow here,” Norwegian Spokeswoman Charlotte Holmbergh Jacobsson told Business Insider Nordic. “The aviation tax is a clear sign from the politicians that they want air traffic to decrease.”


stratofactor
05-31-2018, 08:18 AM
Good News, hopefully they will be stopped from coming into the US all together when he FAA Reauthorization Bill passes.

Quote from Sec 530: "preventing entry into United States markets by flag of convenience carriers."

NEDude
05-31-2018, 09:55 AM
Good News, hopefully they will be stopped from coming into the US all together when he FAA Reauthorization Bill passes.

Quote from Sec 530: "preventing entry into United States markets by flag of convenience carriers."

Yes, and then witness the start of the aviation trade wars. Do you think the European Union will idly sit by while Europe's third largest trans-Atlantic airline by available seats is barred from entry to the States in violation of the US-EU Open Skies agreement? (The argument that Norwegian is operating in violation of the Open Skies treaty has been shot down numerous times - by the U.S. courts, by the U.S. DOT, and by chief U.S. negotiator for the Open Skies treaty. It is a totally failed argument). Who do you think will win that trade war? You can be certain it will not be the pilots on either side of the Atlantic.


Flytolive
05-31-2018, 09:59 AM
Yes, and then witness the start of the aviation trade wars.A trade war over a failing LCC that flies Boeings and is undercutting European carriers too in the midst of the Brexit mess? Dream on.

NEDude
05-31-2018, 10:24 AM
A trade war over a failing LCC that flies Boeings and is undercutting European carriers too in the midst of the Brexit mess? Dream on.

It is not just Norwegian Air UK or Norwegian Air International that fit ALPA's definition of "flag of convenience". Swiss, Austrian, Brussels, Virgin Atlantic*, Thomas Cook, Aer Lingus and many others all fit that definition - being majority owned by an entity located in a country outside of their home country. There is no legal way to exclude just Norwegian, many other European Airlines will be negatively affected. And yes, that will start a trade war. Keep in mind too that Norwegian Air Shuttle, the Norwegian AOC, is in absolutely no way, shape or form, a so-called "flag of convenience".

*Virgin Atlantic is only 20% UK owned. 49% is owned by Delta and 31% is owned by Air France-KLM.

Flytolive
05-31-2018, 10:54 AM
ALPA's definition of "flag of convenience". Please post your source of, and ALPA's definition since you claim to know.

Varsity
05-31-2018, 08:02 PM
Yes, and then witness the start of the aviation trade wars. Do you think the European Union will idly sit by while Europe's third largest trans-Atlantic airline by available seats is barred from entry to the States in violation of the US-EU Open Skies agreement? (The argument that Norwegian is operating in violation of the Open Skies treaty has been shot down numerous times - by the U.S. courts, by the U.S. DOT, and by chief U.S. negotiator for the Open Skies treaty. It is a totally failed argument). Who do you think will win that trade war? You can be certain it will not be the pilots on either side of the Atlantic.

EU carriers make most of their money on trans atlantic flying. US carriers lose most of their money on TATL.

Our domestic market is the golden goose.

All ahead full.:cool:

NEDude
05-31-2018, 08:29 PM
Please post your source of, and ALPA's definition since you claim to know.

Here ya go smart guy. Every single airline I mentioned offers contracts which differ, sometimes greatly, from contracts available in the country of their majority owner.

A flag-of-convenience airline is a carrier that is established in a country other than the home country of its majority owner(s) in order to avoid regulations of the home country. Flags of convenience are often used to decrease labor costs and undercut established markets.

Flags of Convenience (http://www.alpa.org/advocacy/flag-of-convenience)

NEDude
05-31-2018, 10:22 PM
Here ya go smart guy. Every single airline I mentioned offers contracts which differ, sometimes greatly, from contracts available in the country of their majority owner.

A flag-of-convenience airline is a carrier that is established in a country other than the home country of its majority owner(s) in order to avoid regulations of the home country. Flags of convenience are often used to decrease labor costs and undercut established markets.

Flags of Convenience (http://www.alpa.org/advocacy/flag-of-convenience)

It should be noted that in the case of Norwegian, they do not have different terms and conditions based on the AOC you operate for. For example an LGW based pilot on the NAS AOC operates under the exact same terms as an LGW based pilot on the NUK AOC. So there goes ALPA’s argument that it is being used to “decrease labor costs”.

As noted numerous times, NAS, NAI, and NUK all operate under EASA regulations, so the argument that they are being used to “avoid regulations of the home country” is invalid as well.

Fredturbo
06-01-2018, 07:53 AM
Yes, and then witness the start of the aviation trade wars. Do you think the European Union will idly sit by while Europe's third largest trans-Atlantic airline by available seats is barred from entry to the States in violation of the US-EU Open Skies agreement? (The argument that Norwegian is operating in violation of the Open Skies treaty has been shot down numerous times - by the U.S. courts, by the U.S. DOT, and by chief U.S. negotiator for the Open Skies treaty. It is a totally failed argument). Who do you think will win that trade war? You can be certain it will not be the pilots on either side of the Atlantic.

Buh bye now, Norwegian. Trump is taking back our jobs. About time versus his failed predecessor.

Fredturbo
06-01-2018, 07:54 AM
It is not just Norwegian Air UK or Norwegian Air International that fit ALPA's definition of "flag of convenience". Swiss, Austrian, Brussels, Virgin Atlantic*, Thomas Cook, Aer Lingus and many others all fit that definition - being majority owned by an entity located in a country outside of their home country. There is no legal way to exclude just Norwegian, many other European Airlines will be negatively affected. And yes, that will start a trade war. Keep in mind too that Norwegian Air Shuttle, the Norwegian AOC, is in absolutely no way, shape or form, a so-called "flag of convenience".

*Virgin Atlantic is only 20% UK owned. 49% is owned by Delta and 31% is owned by Air France-KLM.

Bye now.....

NEDude
06-01-2018, 08:46 AM
Bye now.....

Where are you going?

Flyhayes
06-01-2018, 08:52 AM
But Norway isn’t part of the EU.... so wouldn’t the fact that they use cheaper labor by utilizing labor they can source through EU countries make them flag of convenience?

NEDude
06-01-2018, 11:24 AM
But Norway isn’t part of the EU.... so wouldn’t the fact that they use cheaper labor by utilizing labor they can source through EU countries make them flag of convenience?

This has been covered many times. Norway, while not part of the EU, is part of the EEA. This means they must comply with all aspects of the EU common market, including labour laws, but are excluded from having to comply with fishing and agricultural laws. As citizens from all EU/EEA countries, plus Switzerland (CH), have equal right to live and work in any area of the EU/EEA+CH, and the Open Skies Treaty plus internal EU/EEA laws gives Norwegian the right to operate any EU/EEA city to the United States, from a labour perspective there is nothing to be gained by opening an AOC in another EU/EEA country. Any EU/EEA airline (in fact any EU/EEA corporation in any industry) can hire anyone from the EU/EEA+CH, and base them anywhere in the EU/EEA. In short, being in an EEA country, Norwegian corporations already have full access to the EU labour market. A new AOC is not required to achieve that.

KingChuck
06-13-2018, 05:09 PM
Go away NAI.

Flytolive
06-13-2018, 05:29 PM
Here ya go smart guy. Every single airline I mentioned offers contracts which differ, sometimes greatly, from contracts available in the country of their majority owner.

A flag-of-convenience airline is a carrier that is established in a country other than the home country of its majority owner(s) in order to avoid regulations of the home country. Flags of convenience are often used to decrease labor costs and undercut established markets.All the carriers you listed were originally established by entities in their operational countries and were later acquired by other EU owners whose intent was NOT "to avoid regulations of their home country."

Nice try, but no cigar.

NEDude
06-14-2018, 10:11 AM
All the carriers you listed were originally established by entities in their operational countries and were later acquired by other EU owners whose intent was NOT "to avoid regulations of their home country."

Nice try, but no cigar.

What regulations do you think Norwegian is escaping by operating EU registered companies that are operated under EASA regulations?

Denti
06-14-2018, 10:31 AM
All the carriers you listed were originally established by entities in their operational countries and were later acquired by other EU owners whose intent was NOT "to avoid regulations of their home country."

Nice try, but no cigar.

Actually, that is exactly what happened in the case of all of the carriers that were acquired by Lufthansa Group. They did get into Austrian, Brussels and Swiss not only to get the market, which in the case of Brussels they are now starting to give up. They did get in their to use the much less strict labour laws in those countries. And even used illegal tactics to lower those T&Cs even more. Funny enough, they T&Cs at those carriers are around half or less of what their Lufthansa counterparts earn, and in doing so they put massive pressure on Lufthansa mainline as well, which has just last december been forced to lower their own T&Cs by roughly 15% in the best time for the airline ever. Flags of convenience right there with very real results. Of course, even more so through the pressure of Eurowings which has even worse T&Cs and is mainly based on an austrian company, expressively build to avoid german labor laws, and Brussels who is employing nowadays nearly only contractors on the former Ryanair model.

What NEDude is referring to is of course the fact that Norway is part of the european single market (with absolutely no say in the rules of that market) and for aviation therefore part of EASA. It has to follow all the EU rules, has to pay for access to that market, and can not vote on those rules. Why the heck they do that, having to follow rules they cannot influence, is beyond me, but it works for them.

NEDude
06-14-2018, 06:16 PM
Actually, that is exactly what happened in the case of all of the carriers that were acquired by Lufthansa Group. They did get into Austrian, Brussels and Swiss not only to get the market, which in the case of Brussels they are now starting to give up. They did get in their to use the much less strict labour laws in those countries. And even used illegal tactics to lower those T&Cs even more. Funny enough, they T&Cs at those carriers are around half or less of what their Lufthansa counterparts earn, and in doing so they put massive pressure on Lufthansa mainline as well, which has just last december been forced to lower their own T&Cs by roughly 15% in the best time for the airline ever. Flags of convenience right there with very real results. Of course, even more so through the pressure of Eurowings which has even worse T&Cs and is mainly based on an austrian company, expressively build to avoid german labor laws, and Brussels who is employing nowadays nearly only contractors on the former Ryanair model.

What NEDude is referring to is of course the fact that Norway is part of the european single market (with absolutely no say in the rules of that market) and for aviation therefore part of EASA. It has to follow all the EU rules, has to pay for access to that market, and can not vote on those rules. Why the heck they do that, having to follow rules they cannot influence, is beyond me, but it works for them.

What I find humorous is that so many people think Norwegian needs NAI or NUK in order to escape Norwegian labor laws. When the fact is everything they are doing, such as the temporary contracts, the crew base in Thailand (which is no longer available BTW), etc. is 100% legal under Norwegian laws. Norwegian did all of those things under their Norwegian AOC, not under NAI or NUK.

Also totally disregarded is that because of the multiple AOCs, Norwegian crews and employment is governed under more sets of regulations, not less. They are not only governed by the laws of the country where the AOC is located, they are governed under the laws of the country where they are based, where their contract agency is based, the EU and EASA. So a NAS pilot based in Paris, under a Global Crew UK contract, is governed under French regulations, Norwegian regulations, UK regulations, EU regulations, and EASA regulations. If Norwegian were to use the Argentinean AOC to hire non-EU/EEA/CH nationals, base them in Europe, and then used them to operate EU-US routes, you'd be on to something. But that would be in violation of EU laws and in violation of the US-EU Open Skies treaty.

What I also find funny is that now the argument is being made (by Flytolive) that it is totally okay to buy an airline for the purpose of escaping home country regulations, it is just not okay to start one from scratch.

Flytolive
06-14-2018, 06:43 PM
Actually, that is exactly what happened in the case of all of the carriers that were acquired by Lufthansa Group. They did get into Austrian, Brussels and Swiss not only to get the market, which in the case of Brussels they are now starting to give up. They did get in their to use the much less strict labour laws in those countries. And even used illegal tactics to lower those T&Cs even more. Funny enough, they T&Cs at those carriers are around half or less of what their Lufthansa counterparts earn, and in doing so they put massive pressure on Lufthansa mainline as well, which has just last december been forced to lower their own T&Cs by roughly 15% in the best time for the airline ever. Flags of convenience right there with very real results. Of course, even more so through the pressure of Eurowings which has even worse T&Cs and is mainly based on an austrian company, expressively build to avoid german labor laws, and Brussels who is employing nowadays nearly only contractors on the former Ryanair model.You make some strong points. I have heard scope protections are relatively non-existent compared to U.S. airlines so carriers like Lufthansa with all their wholly owned subsidiaries are quite vulnerable. It sounds to me like the EU itself is much of the issue from our perspective.

If the EASA is anything like the FAA is probably irrelevant from a business perspective.

Denti
06-15-2018, 02:54 AM
You make some strong points. I have heard scope protections are relatively non-existent compared to U.S. airlines so carriers like Lufthansa with all their wholly owned subsidiaries are quite vulnerable. It sounds to me like the EU itself is much of the issue from our perspective.

If the EASA is anything like the FAA is probably irrelevant from a business perspective.

Well, scope clauses do exist, i have written a pretty strong one myself as a union rep. But how it will hold up in court is a completely different case and does depend on each countries regulation. And of course, union contracts end at each countries border, the EU is after all not a country like the US, it is a rather loose conglomerate of countries with very different regulations in many areas, and common ones in others. Labor law, except a very minimal standard (at least 7 days off a month, 4 weeks of paid vacation, stuff like that), is not common law.

So a scope clause in germany does not hold sway in the other 28 EU countries plus the 3 EAA countries. Lufthansa mainline actually had a scope clause for a long time, and their management worked with that. In the end the union lost a court case and now they do not have any scope clause at all. Getting a company in a different country, or just building one up is an easy way to get around stuff in your home country.

Half wing
09-01-2018, 03:03 AM
Hopefully no one hires any of these Norwegian A-holes who try to undercut everyone else. I wonder how many more months they will be around.:cool:

captjns
09-02-2018, 06:47 AM
Hopefully no one hires any of these Norwegian A-holes who try to undercut everyone else. I wonder how many more months they will be around.:cool:

Do you share the same sentiments of pilots flying for US ULCC’s, undercutting fares on the same route as your airline? Do you consider those, A-holes too?

Would you refuse, and lead the charge by putting out the message to your group not to fly routes, that your airline is undercutting a competitor’s fare for the same domestic route?

Half wing, on the other side of the fence, if you did fly that same route, would you consider yourself to be???... well, you can finish the posit.

NEDude
09-03-2018, 03:21 AM
Hopefully no one hires any of these Norwegian A-holes who try to undercut everyone else. I wonder how many more months they will be around.:cool:

If Norwegian were to go under, Norwegian guys would not have any issues getting hired. There are very few Americans at Norwegian, and European pilots don't care as Norwegian is set up like many European airlines. Many airlines run on multiple AOCs, and while many utilize contracts, European employment law means that regardless of using a contract or not, the pilots are real employees and their work rules must comply with the labor law of the country in which they are based. Most Norwegian pilots are unionized too. Overall Norwegian pay rates and benefits are around the middle of the pack when it compared to other European airlines. Less than the legacy airlines, but higher than the likes of Tui/Thompson, Eurowings, Euro-Atlantic, and other smaller carriers who do wide-body long-haul flying.

Egg320
09-06-2018, 12:42 AM
Hopefully no one hires any of these Norwegian A-holes who try to undercut everyone else. I wonder how many more months they will be around.:cool:

Does that apply to Norwegian pilots who are based in Europe flying for a European airline with families to support.

Nobody is undercutting you and that is a FACT!!!

Grow a pair you spineless doechebag, get off your high horse and stop preaching to others on whom they should work for!!