True dat: MD-11 Captains out of the MIA corrosion corner making less than $100k.
Heck, been there done that myself, while on furlough I took a job as a B-747 Captain hauling freight all over the planet for peanuts just to put food on the table.
Tried to resist for a year and worked as a Yacht Captain for cash for while but ended up scrubbing teak decks in the October heat in South Florida. Realized I was too old and lazy to do manual labor.
Took the cargo job for peanuts but due to rapid expansion I ended up a Check Airman and could write my own pay checks after a year.

I can see how pilots work for half pay rather than going hungry and not every swingin **** gets to work for a major airline with fantasy pay and benefits.

Now that we finally have a pilot shortage and China screaming for warm bodies @ $200k + per annum, Norwegian and others will have to increase their compensation shortly.

One of my buddies is a sim instructor for Norwegian on the 737 program and he keep telling horror stories about initial candidates with 180 TT. Quite a few don't make it through the program, duh..:rolleyes:

Supply and demand should take care of compensation. Wish I was 21 years old again:
Had 3000 Hrs TT before I saw the inside of a turboprop and 5200 TT before I climbed in a jet cockpit for the first time.

NAI and their subsidiaries are not breaking any laws and the pilots are not scabbing. Instead the company is run by a smart lawyer, pretty much like SWA was when they started up.

The real NAI threat is that it institutionalizes an atypical employment model in the United States.

Read more here:

https://www.regulations.gov/contentS...ontentType=pdf

https://www.regulations.gov/contentS...ontentType=pdf

Nope, but nice try. I work for a large European leisure airline that is well established and well paid and has zero affiliation to Norwegian or any of its affiliates. (Shouldn't be too hard to figure out)

But if you wish to use the analogy of me not having a legacy job then try this on for size:

The legacy pilots are like the guys living in mansions at the top of the hill and telling the guys that live in the shanty town at the bottom of the hill that they are selfish for taking an opportunity to build a split level ranch halfway up the hill because it might ruin their view. You may need to re-think your idea of what is selfish...

So with your analogy, should the guys living in the mansion just burn theirs down and join the shanty's.... that way no one has anything better then any others....

There is a FAR different market for pilots from 2002 to 2017......

Taking an opportunity is not selfish. Rationalizing an off shore player's air freedoms gambit, well...there's going to be a long wait if the mansion you seek is coming on the heels of that.

No, in my analogy you should enjoy living in your mansion and stop trying to keep others from improving their lot.

Please go back and re-read my posts. NAI is not an air freedom gambit any more than many other airlines that already have approval. I have given several examples of airlines that have been doing THE EXACT SAME THING NAI is doing but do have DOT approval with zero controversy. And NAI has not done many of the things ALPA has accused it of doing that others have been doing. Just a summary - NAI does not used contract employees based in Asia and all flight crew contracts are through agencies in Norway or the UK. Contrary to what ALPA would have you believe, Norwegian did not need to create the NAI subsidiary to begin using contract employees or open a Bangkok base as that was done for the Oslo based Norwegian Air Shuttle AOC, which has long held U.S. DOT authority, and was done in full compliance with Norwegian labour law.

NAI is a fully certified airline with the Irish Aviation Authority, operating in full compliance with the laws of the European Union and the Republic of Ireland. NAI was created within the framework of laws of the European Union and European Economic Area. All parties involved are covered under the Open Skies treaty. The U.S. DOT, the lead U.S. negotiator to the Open Skies treaty, the lead EU negotiator to the Open Skies treaty, and the European Union all agree that there is zero legal basis for denying NAI a U.S. operating certificate.

And just in case you were not clear, in my analogy the guys at the bottom of the hill were not seeking mansions at the top of the hill, they were seeking a split level ranch halfway up the hill.

PS - In case it is not clear, Norwegian has several AOCs operating under the Norwegian Air Shuttle brand:

Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS) - Certified in Norway, operating 787s and 737s. Crew bases in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Netherlands, France, Spain and Thailand. This AOC has held US DOT approval for many years and is the one you see operating 787s and currently the 737s to the States.

Norwegian Air Norway (NAN) - Certified in Norway and operating 737s domestically within Norway. Does not have nor seek US DOT approval.

Norwegian Air International (NAI) - Certified in Ireland and operating 737s within Europe. Just awarded US DOT approval.

Norwegian Air UK (NUK) - Based in the UK. A planned operator of 787s and currently seeking US DOT approval.

The reason I am in defence of NAI is because this type of scheme is quite common and fully legal in the European market. Norwegian is simply the first company to try doing it on a large scale. But the legal foundations for such a scheme are well established within Europe, many airlines utilise AOCs based in other countries and many airlines use contract employees through agencies based in other countries. As it is both legal and well established, all governments involved in the Open Skies treaty agree that such a scheme does not serve as a legal basis for denial of a U.S. DOT operating certificate. The consequences of a trade war between the U.S. and E.U. over the illegal denial of a U.S. operating certificate would be devastating for a very large portion of the industry, including the legacy airlines. It would be a real shame to see Delta kicked out of Heathrow, because it was the Open Skies treaty that allowed them there in the first place.

On a wet lease contract to vacation companies (such as Apple Vacations). Nothing any more sinister than when companies like Miami Air operate within Europe for the European vacation companies.

I'm clear on at least this, you can't make too much money. Wherever you're at on analogy hill, you'll take whatever can get but, like everyone else, you're along for the ride.

To defend what these "schemers" are attempting just because it's common & legal in Europe doesn't make sense to me. The Euro zone is a mess. This whole deal is a not so hard to read labor & compliance end-run. It should come as no surprise a defensive end is lowering his helmet.