Norway gained the right to fly to the US since 2011 and NAS has been flying to LAS since 2015. NAS now operate 40+ routes to the US, but the flights are not daily.

NAI is a mechanism for bypassing labor standards, tax dodging, gaining access to the rest of the world via 7th freedoms and the eventual transfer of 787 wet leases from NAS to the NAI. NAI 7th freedoms will add non-US flights that will be used to fuel further US penetration.

More details on this here.
https://skift.com/2016/10/06/norwegi...-afraid-of-us/

Many of the critical articles on NAI and Bjorn Kjos are in Norwegian. English search results are often not effective.

 

It would make sense it except for two glaring problems:

1)The outsourcing contracts have been done under NAS and are in full compliance with Norwegian laws. NAI has zero effect on that.

2) Ireland is an EU country and party to the US-EU Open Skies agreement.

In order to claim that NAI is violating the Open Skies treaty, you have to argue that the outsourcing needs Ireland (which it doesn't), that Ireland does not comply with EU labour laws (which it does), and that the ability to create the Irish AOC was created by the Open Skies treaty (it was done under the provisions of the EEA agreement which has ZERO to do with the Open Skies treaty). Feel free to dislike what they do, but dislike them based on actual facts, not on raw emotion born of inaccuracies.

 

You start your post of with it, what is "it" that would make sense to you?

Yes, NAS uses social dumping to staff Norwegian Air Shuttle in an attempt to bypass joint collective bargaining and the laws that govern this. This is what economic trade zones are about after all—bypassing or making inapplicable regulatory law? Now your contention is that this is legal? This is a continuously common theme of discussion, which is why there where arguments over Article 17bis.

NAS has been flying to the US since 2015—prior to NAI approval. So NAI creation does not provide meaningful service that NAS couldn't already perform. NAI's core goal is to obtain 7th freedoms to apply yet another airline whipsaw. Contracted NAS pilots and the wet-leased Norwegian Group 787s are expected to be transferred to NAI so that NAI can fly the long-haul 7th freedoms Norwegian Group could access without NAI.

This type of labor recycling and social dumping is in-part why the UK is leaving the EU. And the UK is not the only population unhappy as other EU countries (Germany, Greece, Italy, and France etc.) grow increasingly dissatisfied. Finally, there is Trump which is why we are seeing so many pilots signing up for the SWAPA rally in MCO.

 

It will hard for them to do all that flying anyway. The contracts are not that good and with all the hiring abroad it will be tough for them to attract people. The EASA license thing will be a killer. I give NAI a few years, at most, and it will die off.

 

Braniff, great point. So the CEO of NAI—Bjorn Kjos has 'pledged' NAI to using only US and EU crews. If you go to www.openourskies.com you'll see that they Market NAI as being about the creation of American Jobs. But the EASA waiver that NAI received for three years is an indication that NAI has no intention of using US pilots post waiver. In a media interview Kjos later admitted that the intent is to use EU based crews.

Additionally, NAI is not making any significant profit right now but this may be more related to their significant rate of expansion.

 

Back to the original question: Yes, they should be blacklisted along with every expat at the ME3.

 

Why should pilots who choose to fly as expats be blacklisted? You sound like a real moron! Like it or not, all the legacies gladly hire people who have been flying overseas.

 

What about those at contracts in China and other countries?

 

It would be totally out of line and rude to call you stupid for making such an inane remark about blacklisting pilots who had to make the hard choice of going overseas. Sure they had to put food on the family's table and keep the roof over their head. But no... I won't label you as stupid because calling you stupid would be an insult to those who are just plain stupid. I won't even label you as a putz.

 

So just to get this straight. For those of us who left the USA in 2001-2005 after getting furloughed from our U.S. Legacy ALPA jobs; having our pensions unilaterally terminated; and there not being any meaningful hiring in the USA who went overseas to pursue some semblance of a career at airlines that did not even fly to the USA at the time we were hired, should be blacklisted?

Please explain your rationale' for that concept.



Typhoonpilot