Notices

Deny NAI Again

Old 11-16-2014, 11:26 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: tri current
Posts: 1,485
Default

Originally Posted by jsled View Post
Just Google "maritime industry flag of convenience". See what can happen.


Did that a long time ago. Read this and then maybe we can talk intelligently:


http://scholarlycommons.law.northwes...&context=njilb



TP
Typhoonpilot is offline  
Old 11-17-2014, 03:15 AM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
NEDude's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,067
Default

Living in the shadow of Norwegian (Copenhagen), having been directly affected by Norwegian business practices (my wife was one the hundreds of SAS employees in Copenhagen who lost their job due to the encroachment of Norwegian) and knowing two pilots in my neighborhood who have worked for Norwegian, I feel I can provide a little input about the "Red Nosed Devil" (as the SAS folks call it).

Norwegian is actually many difference companies. The "airline" itself is actually three different companies, with three separate operating certificates, but they all share the same branding under the Norwegian Air Shuttle banner. "Classic" Norwegian Air Shuttle is the 737 short haul LCC operator. Norwegian Long Haul is a Norwegian registered 787 operator which is currently operating the international flights. Norwegian Air International is an Irish registered 787 operator that is proposing to operate the bulk of the 787 flights. The reason for the Irish registration is to take advantage of future EU/USA agreements. Norway is not part of the EU, though it is part of the EEA, and thus a Norwegian airline would not be fully covered by any agreements with the EU and USA. Norwegian also consists of multiple staffing corporations which actually employ the pilots, flight attendants, ground staff and other personnel. Some employees are employed through a wholly owned Polish company, some through a Swedish company, some through a Danish company and some through another Norwegian subsidiary. One of my neighbors who flew with Norwegian for a short while after Cimber Sterling died, was originally contracted on through the Swedish subsidiary and based in Gatwick. He was offered the opportunity to be hired by the "real" Norwegian (really the Norway based staffing company) and be based back home in Copenhagen. But at the same time he was offered a class with SAS and he took that instead. I could spend a day writing about all the ins and outs of what I have heard about Norwegian but the Reader's Digest version is this - Norwegian has as many different subsidiaries as it does so it can play the ultimate game of whipsaw. If flight attendants through the Swedish subsidiary want more money, their contracts are terminated and more flight attendants are contracted through the Danish subsidiary. If pilots in Norway want more money, or the Norwegian government says they need more benefits, they airlines dumps them and hires more through the Singapore agency. If the EU strikes more beneficial agreements for routes, more aircraft get transferred to Norwegian International. If EU taxes get too high, they move airplanes back to Norwegian Long Haul. Smart moves from a management perspective, but it is horrible for the employees. It gets even more dubious for the flying public because it gives them a lot of loopholes around regulatory authorities - eg. how can the Irish CAA conduct inspections on an airline that never flies into Ireland.
NEDude is offline  
Old 11-17-2014, 07:25 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 263
Default

Originally Posted by NEDude View Post
Living in the shadow of Norwegian (Copenhagen), having been directly affected by Norwegian business practices (my wife was one the hundreds of SAS employees in Copenhagen who lost their job due to the encroachment of Norwegian) and knowing two pilots in my neighborhood who have worked for Norwegian, I feel I can provide a little input about the "Red Nosed Devil" (as the SAS folks call it).

Norwegian is actually many difference companies. The "airline" itself is actually three different companies, with three separate operating certificates, but they all share the same branding under the Norwegian Air Shuttle banner. "Classic" Norwegian Air Shuttle is the 737 short haul LCC operator. Norwegian Long Haul is a Norwegian registered 787 operator which is currently operating the international flights. Norwegian Air International is an Irish registered 787 operator that is proposing to operate the bulk of the 787 flights. The reason for the Irish registration is to take advantage of future EU/USA agreements. Norway is not part of the EU, though it is part of the EEA, and thus a Norwegian airline would not be fully covered by any agreements with the EU and USA. Norwegian also consists of multiple staffing corporations which actually employ the pilots, flight attendants, ground staff and other personnel. Some employees are employed through a wholly owned Polish company, some through a Swedish company, some through a Danish company and some through another Norwegian subsidiary. One of my neighbors who flew with Norwegian for a short while after Cimber Sterling died, was originally contracted on through the Swedish subsidiary and based in Gatwick. He was offered the opportunity to be hired by the "real" Norwegian (really the Norway based staffing company) and be based back home in Copenhagen. But at the same time he was offered a class with SAS and he took that instead. I could spend a day writing about all the ins and outs of what I have heard about Norwegian but the Reader's Digest version is this - Norwegian has as many different subsidiaries as it does so it can play the ultimate game of whipsaw. If flight attendants through the Swedish subsidiary want more money, their contracts are terminated and more flight attendants are contracted through the Danish subsidiary. If pilots in Norway want more money, or the Norwegian government says they need more benefits, they airlines dumps them and hires more through the Singapore agency. If the EU strikes more beneficial agreements for routes, more aircraft get transferred to Norwegian International. If EU taxes get too high, they move airplanes back to Norwegian Long Haul. Smart moves from a management perspective, but it is horrible for the employees. It gets even more dubious for the flying public because it gives them a lot of loopholes around regulatory authorities - eg. how can the Irish CAA conduct inspections on an airline that never flies into Ireland.

It's a big corporate shell game. Should be outlawed in the EU then this crap wouldn't reach US shores. Step up if you haven't.....unless you want to lose all widebody flying to this scheme.
Jaded N Cynical is offline  
Old 11-17-2014, 07:34 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
cal73's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 853
Default

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot View Post
Did that a long time ago. Read this and then maybe we can talk intelligently:


http://scholarlycommons.law.northwes...&context=njilb



TP
Oh look a weblink!

You know what you're right.
We should just relax and let em finish.
cal73 is online now  
Old 11-17-2014, 07:38 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Default

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot View Post
What State are UAL and DAL incorporated in and do they have mainline, or any, service there?



TP
Without looking I would imagine it is Delaware, just like almost every other corporation in the USA. Comparing the two situations is ridiculous.
sleeves is offline  
Old 11-17-2014, 08:09 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Default

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot View Post
What State are UAL and DAL incorporated in and do they have mainline, or any, service there?



TP
What state? who cares. UAL and DAL are incorporated in the USA, the same COUNTRY their Operating Certificate is registered. NAI is a wholly owned subsidiary of NAS, incorporated in Norway, but registered in Ireland. Whether or not that is legal under the US/EU Open Skies agreement is in question. Norway is not part of the EU.
jsled is offline  
Old 11-17-2014, 08:17 AM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
WHACKMASTER's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 6,542
Default

Originally Posted by NEDude View Post
Living in the shadow of Norwegian (Copenhagen), having been directly affected by Norwegian business practices (my wife was one the hundreds of SAS employees in Copenhagen who lost their job due to the encroachment of Norwegian) and knowing two pilots in my neighborhood who have worked for Norwegian, I feel I can provide a little input about the "Red Nosed Devil" (as the SAS folks call it).

Norwegian is actually many difference companies. The "airline" itself is actually three different companies, with three separate operating certificates, but they all share the same branding under the Norwegian Air Shuttle banner. "Classic" Norwegian Air Shuttle is the 737 short haul LCC operator. Norwegian Long Haul is a Norwegian registered 787 operator which is currently operating the international flights. Norwegian Air International is an Irish registered 787 operator that is proposing to operate the bulk of the 787 flights. The reason for the Irish registration is to take advantage of future EU/USA agreements. Norway is not part of the EU, though it is part of the EEA, and thus a Norwegian airline would not be fully covered by any agreements with the EU and USA. Norwegian also consists of multiple staffing corporations which actually employ the pilots, flight attendants, ground staff and other personnel. Some employees are employed through a wholly owned Polish company, some through a Swedish company, some through a Danish company and some through another Norwegian subsidiary. One of my neighbors who flew with Norwegian for a short while after Cimber Sterling died, was originally contracted on through the Swedish subsidiary and based in Gatwick. He was offered the opportunity to be hired by the "real" Norwegian (really the Norway based staffing company) and be based back home in Copenhagen. But at the same time he was offered a class with SAS and he took that instead. I could spend a day writing about all the ins and outs of what I have heard about Norwegian but the Reader's Digest version is this - Norwegian has as many different subsidiaries as it does so it can play the ultimate game of whipsaw. If flight attendants through the Swedish subsidiary want more money, their contracts are terminated and more flight attendants are contracted through the Danish subsidiary. If pilots in Norway want more money, or the Norwegian government says they need more benefits, they airlines dumps them and hires more through the Singapore agency. If the EU strikes more beneficial agreements for routes, more aircraft get transferred to Norwegian International. If EU taxes get too high, they move airplanes back to Norwegian Long Haul. Smart moves from a management perspective, but it is horrible for the employees. It gets even more dubious for the flying public because it gives them a lot of loopholes around regulatory authorities - eg. how can the Irish CAA conduct inspections on an airline that never flies into Ireland.

Thanks for the thorough explanation. It makes perfect sense now. It's the same thing the US legacies pulled after the Comair strike in 2001. In a few short years they were playing the same shell game that Norwegian is playing with it's employees and the governments. Obviously it needs to get stopped if at all possible.
WHACKMASTER is offline  
Old 11-17-2014, 03:46 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: tri current
Posts: 1,485
Default

Originally Posted by sleeves View Post
Without looking I would imagine it is Delaware, just like almost every other corporation in the USA. Comparing the two situations is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous. The main point I am trying to drive across is that you guys are debating with sound bites that sound great to like minded people, but sound rather selfish and pointless to the people who are going to make the decisions in this matter.

It's perfectly legal for a U.S. corporation to incorporate in any State they choose. It is also perfectly legal for a European company to set-up a subsidiary wherever they choose.

The other great one is NAI's or NAS's pay. How many South American, Eastern European, African, and even Asian carriers fly to the USA employing crews on substantially lower pay than U.S. carriers, and in fact lower pay than Norwegian?

Then you talk about Singapore contract agencies and outsourced crews. Ummm, American has flight attendants based in South America on 1/3 the pay of their U.S. counterparts. Kind of hypocritical to point fingers at another airline that takes advantage of employing crews in different countries with lower pay structures when U.S. airlines are doing it themselves.




TP

Last edited by Typhoonpilot; 11-17-2014 at 04:21 PM.
Typhoonpilot is offline  
Old 11-17-2014, 03:57 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: tri current
Posts: 1,485
Default

Originally Posted by cal73 View Post
Oh look a weblink!

You know what you're right.
We should just relax and let em finish.


Pretty dry reading actually. Would you like the Cliff Notes version?

It basically demonstrates that protectionism doesn't work.

Long Haul LCCs are coming, whether you like it or not. Norwegian just happens to be the first to try it flying to the USA. It's been going on for quite a few years elsewhere. Soon you'll have Azul, RyanAir, and others doing the same.

It might be better to learn how to compete against them instead of trying the protectionist route and burying your head in the sand.

I'm doing a lot of personal travel all over the world and I hate LCC carriers, especially the long haul ones. I will always buy a ticket on a legacy full service carrier before an LCC carrier. How about an education campaign for the passengers versus the fear mongering campaign that they are stealing your $200,000/year jobs. The travelling public couldn't give two **** about your salary and whether you keep it. They would, however, like to get on an international flight and have a little legroom for the long flight.



Typhoonpilot

Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 11-17-2014 at 07:54 PM. Reason: TOS
Typhoonpilot is offline  
Old 11-17-2014, 06:43 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Dave Fitzgerald's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,155
Default

I tell you the traveling public will care a lot when those minimum wage pilots end up with a hull loss and loss of life because they were fatigued on a maximum duty day with no work rules, pressured to fly an unsafe plane or they'll be fired and another low cost worker replace him.

To everyone else, this guy must not have a job flying. He's a management stooge or college professor not in the real world. He seems to lack a horse in this race. Just my opinion. Not worth debating anymore.

Still worth taking a few minutes to get the E-mail sent to your reps. Just do it.
Dave Fitzgerald is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
WARich
Delta
11220
06-10-2020 07:42 AM
Starcheck102
Major
9
08-21-2014 05:44 AM
ualjoe
Major
2
06-17-2014 09:53 PM
aapilotguy
Major
21
06-11-2014 03:11 AM
RiddleEagle18
Major
16
05-20-2014 08:28 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices