Just as Lorenzo found ways to abuse the bankruptcy laws in the 80s, Kjos will continue to find ways to undermine anything that costs him money.


December 2, 2016
ALPA Blasts DOT's Norwegian Air International Decision
Fight On to Reverse Flawed U.S. Aviation Policy
WASHINGTON––The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) order released near the end of the business day Friday granting Norwegian Air International (NAI) a foreign air carrier permit is an affront to the letter and spirit of U.S. Open Skies agreements and exposes serious flaws in the current Administration's aviation and trade policy and a profound lack of support for U.S. workers by the Administration, according to the Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l (ALPA).
"We are extremely disappointed by the Department of Transportation's decision to run roughshod over the U.S. Open Skies agreement and allow Norwegian Air International to fly to and from the United States," said Capt. Tim Canoll, ALPA's president. "This flawed action is a lasting legacy of the Obama administration and demonstrates an egregious lack of support for working men and women in this country. ALPA would never have supported this Air Transport Agreement if we had known how our government would apply it. Given this decision, why should anyone trust the U.S. government to enforce its own trade agreements?"
"This decision is an affront to fair competition and will ultimately result in the loss of U.S. jobs and, potentially, significant losses for the U.S. international aviation industry," continued Canoll. "ALPA is considering all options to reverse this action."
In spite of the fact that Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS), NAI's parent company, centers its operations in Norway and currently enjoys the authority to operate to the U.S., NAS established its subsidiary NAI as an Irish carrier expressly to avoid Norway's employment laws. NAI's business plan indicates that it plans to use flight crews hired on Singapore and Thai employment contracts with compensation substantially below that of Norwegian's Norway-based employees.
In June 2016, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Transportation John Porcari, who oversaw the U.S.-EU negotiations for DOT, affirmed that the ATA labor provision known as Article 17 bis applies to NAI's foreign air carrier permit application. This provision directs that the access created by the agreement is not intended to undermine labor standards.
NAI's business plan has also generated an outpouring of concern from Congress. Bipartisan legislation (H.R. 5090) has been cosponsored by 175 members of Congress. The bill would have prevented NAI from operating in the United States under its current business model by ensuring that grants of operating authority to European airlines under the ATA be consistent with the intent of Article 17 bis of the ATA.
"We are pleased with U.S. President-Elect Donald J. Trump's stand on trade, and we look forward to working with the next administration to safeguard U.S. jobs," said Capt. Canoll. "ALPA will take appropriate action to overturn this decision and block the NAI business model from spreading. While NAI is the first, it is not likely to be the last attempt to flout U.S. policy and labor standards to gain an unfair competitive advantage."
Read Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA) News Release
Read Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD) News Release

ALPA represents more than 54,000 pilots at 31 airlines in the United States and Canada.
Visit us online at www.alpa.org.
FEEDBACK & E-MAIL ADDRESS CHANGES
Questions or comments on this FastRead? Send your feedback to [email protected].
Moved or changed your e-mail address? See instructions here on updating your contact info.

Air Line Pilots Association, International
www.alpa.org

 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...article-17.pdf

Take some time to read this...

 

I might also remind everyone that denying NAI would not have meant Norwegian would disappear.

Norwegian is currently operating in the United States under its Norwegian AOC, and had NAI been denied, Norwegian would have still continued operating to and from the US.

So another question I have is what do you think would have happened had NAI been denied?

 

I believe that if you show me it in writing in a legal document? Where is the commitment to using non-Asian contracted crews? Where is that commitment to the DOT?

They would commit to not under cutting labor laws in the countries they fly to/from and will then get their approval. Then they will compete on a level playing field.

 

Wow. What a shell game.

 

Globalization is a choice necessitated by capitalism and free markets. Competition will always put downward pressure on the price as competing firms compete for market share. This in turn has each firm looking to put downward pressure on their costs (in this case, fuel, parts, labor, etc).

The only way to keep this from happening is massive government intervention and protectionist policies. There is a difference between "fair trade" and "protectionism," which is lost on most people.

Interesting argument you make stating that new jobs are not created. However, if we look at data published by the US Bureau or Labor Statistics you will not find evidence to support your claim. Arguments are great backed by facts, but if they are not they are just empty words.

H1B Visas are temporary and limited, with a few exceptions, to 65,000 per year. Most of these white collar visas are granted in engineering and tech sectors. I'm trying to find data for how many are in the aviation sector (pilots in particular) and I'm not able to come up with a figure. My guess is that it has been few, though it could increase with the mass retirements coming.

What "Rollback" are you speaking of? What would you like to roll back? Kick out NAI? Emirates flies flights into the U.S. Kick them out. Cathay Pacific? Kick them out. Qatar. Out. Then these actions are reciprocated. Do you want to know who the winners are losers are in a trade war in this scenario? I can't begin to list all of the losers, but I can assure you US based pilots are on that list. Guess who the sole winner is? Anyone who has shorted any of these airline stocks.

Globalization, trade agreements, etc. all have winners and losers. It is impossible to have a policy that is beneficial for 100% of a country's population or a particular industry. What does happen is countries begin to focus on industries where they can be most productive and output (GDP) increases on both shores. This is a great fact on the whole, but those that are harmed by it find little solace in the fact that their country is better off.

 

Screw globalization, I want isolationism and protectionism. The USA is a rich country. The barbarians are at the gate wanting in to steal the riches.

 

And to think of all those years Pan Am was flying out of Frankfurt and Berlin with a bunch of 727s. They also had European pilots flying them as well, yanks too.

Then to think of the line around the corner when AA introduced B scale and they had no troubles finding people.

The picket line crossers at Continental in 1983. The Eastern crossers in 1989/90. And the famous 500+ at United in 1985.

NAI is no more a race to the bottom than we ourselves. Also, the products of U.S. carriers is terrible and they nickle and dime you for the crap service you get. They all model themselves after Peoples Express now. It was a big issue the majors were trying to get rid of.

Hypocrisy is best served cold.

 

H1B's aren't being used for pilots to my knowlege. It was an example that even high end jobs that require you to be in the US can still be "outsourced" with enough lobbying money. Almost any job can be outsourced. I do agree there is a difference between fair trade and free trade. US workers should not be forced to compete with sweat shops that would be illegal here. Free trade with Japan, Canada, and Europe? I'm cool with that.

I also question the wisdom of sending our manufacturing base to a large totalitarian adversary with designs on ruling Asia.

I'd also add that even though our GDP has grown, in part due to free trade, this has hurt the average American. Wages have dropped, the middle class is dying and free trade is partly, if not mostly to blame.

 

Free markets didn't create globalism. It has been subsidized by many organizations like the Ex-Im Bank which guaranteed that US companies setting up facilities in foreign countries had no counter party risk because the US govt. would bail them out.

It has been a concerted effort to break the unions and to eliminate employees' power in the employee-corporate relationship.

The US subsidizes, for example, corn production by the giant agricultural concerns who then go over to China and Mexico and force their cheap GMO corn down their throat as a balance of trade issue. Studies have shown the subsidized corn has impoverished the Mexican farmer and this is a big reason we have so much illegal immigration.

Subsized GMO crops requring Round-up to be used with them, has severely damaged agricultural in India and Africa too, because these plants take over everything and then require Round-up to avoid insect infestation. The roundup is too expensive and the farmers go under--many in India killing themselves. Also super, unkillable weeds are sesulting and these global compnies are not forced to pay to eradicate that or to stop production because everything has to go through the WTO, instead of a bilateral agreement. That's not free trade because citizens don't benefit and have no imput. This the problem with all these trade agreements, esp. TPP--they are Anti-free-trade.

China, for example, won't allow production in it's country unless their is transfer of technology to a joint-venture partner.

IT companies open up Indian subsidiaries in order to grow cheap labor which they then try to lobby to get visas for. They play a game of underpaying someone in India and offering them a trip through Singapore or Hong Kong before getting them a US visa. Then they keep them as indentured servants for as long as possible. A sane immigration policy wouldn't allow this.

Prior to WW1 there was no income tax, revenues were raised through tariffs. Jefferson supported this. No, global free trade as it stands today is a dadgum lie.