Originally Posted by David Puddy

NAI is high profile because it is intent on competing on the lucrative transatlantic routes.

Originally Posted by captjns

Even pilots in the U.S. work on the cheap. Only per Diem during training?

Originally Posted by full of luv

No NAI gets all the attention because their plan is designed to take advantage of our markets without competing fairly.

NAI wants to set up a shell company in Ireland to capitalize on the OPEN SKIES treaty with the EU, but they don't even intend on serving Ireland, just use contract pilots from wherever they can get them and operate from Europe cities to US cities. No one even knows what the wages will be, but that is not even the central point.

Originally Posted by Papoo

I can't decide how vehemently opposed to this I am, if at all.

I reckon if their name didn't have the word 'Norwegian' in it, there would be lot less chatter. It would just become another LoCo. The pilots are poorly paid, and free-market believers should stick to their belief, that the market would speak, both in terms of employees and customers.

To comment on the supposedly poor pay at somewhere like Virgin Atlantic; For a long time since all the bankruptcy carnage in the US, coupled with a very weak US Dollar, the US legacy pilots were paid way inferior wages compared to BA/Virgin/Lufthansa etc. A BA Captain was making $360,000, Virgin about $310,000 (for a 750 hours per yer contract) while the US guys had their pay slashed to 200 bucks an hour. Tens of thousands of US legacy pilots lost their jobs.

Nothing changed in the UK contracts - other than some inflationary adjustments. Thankfully the US guys have received long overdue pay raises, and let's not forget, the USD has strengthened 30% relative to the GBP, and moreso against the Euro. It's hard to compare apples with oranges, but in terms of multiples of median incomes, the guys in the major UK carriers are still on point.

I hate the idea of what's happening, but it's hard to argue against, because as protectionist as we all are of our profession, this is a free market move. Yes, it circumvents various laws - that is the intent. In a free market, that is NAI's prerogative. I think it sucks, because 'free market' enables the race to the bottom. But, the general APC consensus is a pretty conservative one from what I read, so it's mildly hypocritical to hear the outcry.

Dot get me wrong, I am all in favour of this crap being annihilated, and wish to see all conditions head north, but to do that in the free market means that you guys have to provide a better product at better prices, to match the market and squeeze out NAI. At the moment, trans-Atlantic on an NAI 787 is a far more pleasant prospect than economy on a US carrier. That's a sad fact. If the Cost base of the US carrier is too high to compete profitably, then that is free market, too. Dinosaurs die.

If you look at what it costs someone like Air France/Lufthansa to employ a pilot, with all of the social taxes the company bears, they could cry bloody murder at the unfair competitive advantage held in the US. This is globalisation; you can't just cherry pick one example.

I hate it, and I won't use them on principle, but then again, the rest of the market compares product against price. If it's expensive and **** - as per the current US offerings, then you'll need to adapt.

Look at the success Delta is having by tightly controlling international capacity, but becoming a domestic juggernaut. Their product doesn't compete at a price they're happy to sell at, so they have adapted.

Again, crying foul on JV/scope sounds great from a unionised perspective, but ultimately if it makes the company money, they will do it. In the long run, it's more damaging to the company if they continue to deploy their own capacity of rubbish, whereby they can't compete with their overseas competition.

Ultimately, the US and EU legacies have the balance sheets & ability to undercut and drive NAI out of the markets in which they compete. Whether they will or not remains to be seen. I hope they do, but your wishes and JV talk won't make the blindest bit of difference.

Originally Posted by full of luv

In a completely free market, your right....but the US has the most prized aviation market in the world, and this is essentially international cabotage by using a treaty with the EU that the US negotiated with the EU by a non-EU entity.
Actually I'm quite amazed that the EU is even allowing Norwegian to set up a shell company that will inevitably do as much (if not more) damage to their EU nation airlines than any US carrier, but alas, the EU has seemed to concede their airline industry and is slowly winding it down, domestically first, and ultimately internationally.
Soon the US and Europe will have an airline industry that closely resembles the maritime industry.
Funny thing is that their is the Jones act (anti maritime cabotage)in maritime, which is essentially mandates only domestic carriers carry between domestic ports, but shipping companies still realize it's much cheaper to use foreign registry, foreign labor ships (often Americans under contract) and just make international stops to get around the law.

It'll be interesting some day when it will be cheaper to fly from Orlando to LA via Tijuana or MEX than going nonstop.

Originally Posted by CousinEddie

We should lobby the US Governmet now for the repeal of FAR 117. Since this is all globalization at work, why should the services we US pilots provide be placed at a competitive disadvantage by our own Government? If the ME3 and now NAI can fly US citizens in and out of the US with far less restrictive and costly rest rules, why shouldn't we be allowed to to the same thing? For example, on international flights we should not be counting our time on rest breaks towards our monthly totals, just as they do. That way, we could get at or near a solid 100 hours a month in the flying seat month after month, just as they do. Therefore, we will be able to match me on a productivity basis from a competitive standpoint.

Originally Posted by Papoo

I don't dispute the premise of what you're saying, but I do dispute your inference that you should protect the 'worlds most highly prized aviation market'. There is no cabotage, and trans-Atlantic customers are an equal mix of Americans and non-Americans, so both sides of the pond should share equal rights.

I do agree that this pushes the industry closer to the toilet. In the EU, domestic flying (let's call it that, as its within the EU) has become incredibly difficult with RYR and EZY etc. The legacies are making all their profits on the wide body international flying. BA's short haul is pretty much a feeder for that. So, I see international flying flourishing, but as you say, domestic flying is going to get rough. Incidentally, this is the opposite to the US market.

I guess you can only play to your strengths.

Originally Posted by Papoo

By that argument, should the EU carriers lobby their governments over employment law advantages, as opposed to aviation law advantages?

It costs Air France/Lufthansa near enough an additional 110% of a pilots salary to employ them.

Countries are different. Laws are different. The US isn't the only country in the world. In fact, it has pretty shonky employment laws compared with most of the Western world. You'll call it free market, no doubt - which in the current context, is a sad irony.

Originally Posted by full of luv

I don't see it flourishing though because if I read the ME's playbook, I see them waiting in the wings, continually building their ME hub, but ready to pounce on a struggling EU carrier (Al Italia is nearly the first chance) to provide them with EU market access which they can then take on the EU/US markets head to head with again, their shiny taxpayer subsidized airplanes and rented labor. Maybe even doing the same if an asia carrier presents itself. Without being a public company, nobody needs to see their books. They don't have to prove anything to anybody but themselves.

Cabotage in the US market will be the last to go, if ever, but it's not an insurmountable barrier if foreign carriers are just patient enough. You need a good crisis.
Like Rahm Emanuel is famous for saying: "Never let a good crisis go to waste!"