BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Application of

NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 40109 and 

a foreign air carrier permit pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. § 41301 (U.S.-EU Open Skies)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket DOT-OST-2013-0204

JOINT ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC., 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., AND AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

Howard Kass

Vice President -- Regulatory Affairs

American Airlines, Inc. 

1401 H Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

202-326-5153

Howard.Kass@aa.com

Robert A. Wirick

Managing Director -- Regulatory and 

International Affairs

American Airlines, Inc.

P.O. Box 619616, MD 5635

DFW Airport, Texas 75161

(817) 963-0394

robert.wirick@aa.com

Hershel I. Kamen

Senior Vice President–Alliances,

Regulatory and Policy

Daniel A. Weiss

Managing Director–International

Affairs and Regulatory

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

233 South Wacker Drive

10th Floor – HDQIZ

Chicago, IL 60606

(872) 825-6828

hershel.kamen@united.com

dan.weiss@united.com

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director – Regulatory and International 

Affairs & Associate General Counsel

Christopher Walker, Regional Director –

Regulatory and International Affairs

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

1212 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 842-4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

January 13, 2014
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Application of

NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 40109 and 

a foreign air carrier permit pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. § 41301 (U.S.-EU Open Skies)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket DOT-OST-2013-0204

JOINT ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC., 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., AND AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

Delta, United, and American (the “Joint Carriers”) submit this Answer in response to 

the Department’s Notice dated January 30, 2014, inviting interested parties to comment on 

the summary of information provided by the European Delegation at the January 8, 2014 

Joint Committee meeting. NAI’s certificate application raises serious public interest, fair 

competition and policy concerns under U.S.-EU Agreement and the Department’s foreign air 

carrier licensing procedures.1 

The information contained in the Notice raises more questions than it answers: 

On the one hand, the Netskar Declaration, NAS’s public statements, and other 

documentary evidence provided by ALPA in its Answer lead to the conclusion that NAI is 

being established in Ireland for the primary purpose of evading Norway’s labor laws. This is 

contrary to Article 17 bis of the U.S.-EU Agreement which recognizes the importance of 

“high labor standards” and that “the opportunities created by the Agreement are not 

intended to undermine labor standards or the labor-related rights and principles contained in 

 1

 The terms NAI (Norwegian Air International), NAS (Norwegian Air System) and NLH (Norwegian

Long Haul) have the same meanings as the defined terms in the Joint Carrier’s December 20, 2013

Reply.
Norwegian Joint Answer

Page 2

the Parties’ respective laws.” If NAS and NAI are allowed to exploit the U.S.-EU agreement 

to evade otherwise applicable labor laws, NAI will have achieved an unfair competitive 

advantage over U.S. carriers in the transatlantic marketplace, which is contrary to the public 

interest and the DOT’s statutory mandate to “strengthen[] the competitive position of [U.S.] 

air carriers to at least ensure equality with foreign air carriers.” 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101(a)(15) 

and (e)(1). 

On the other hand, according to the Notice summary, the decision to establish NAI in 

Ireland, and dissolve NLH in Norway, had nothing to do with labor issues, but instead was 

motivated by unrelated business issues, including, inter alia, “access to significant additional 

traffic rights not available to it as a Norwegian carrier, access to additional financing options 

under OECD rules, and access to insurance and financing rebates because Ireland is a 

Cape Town Convention signatory.” (Notice Attachment at p.1).

 Before acting on NAI’s application, to ensure consistency with its public interest

mandate and the rights and expectations of U.S. aviation interests under the U.S.-EU 

agreement, we urge the Department to critically examine and conclusively establish the true 

facts regarding the proposed formation and certification of NAI. The information contained 

in the Notice is not sufficient to establish the facts necessary to decide upon this application. 

NAI has avoided providing any evidence or verified statements on the docket regarding its 

true motives. Rather than providing the Department with concrete and verifiable

information, NAI is attempting to resolve concerns regarding its certification through public 

relations efforts and unverified white papers. While the Joint Carriers appreciate the efforts 

of the EU Delegation to gather information from NAI and NAS, this is not first person 

evidence, is not supported by any documentary evidence, and has not been subject to 

critical scrutiny. The Notice simply contains NIA and NAC’s untested version of events as 

relayed to the Joint Committee. 
Norwegian Joint Answer

Page 3

Effective June 21, 2011, the United States, Norway, and the European Union agreed 

that Norway would accede to the terms of the U.S.-EU Agreement so that Norway’s carriers 

would have all the benefits and obligations applicable to any other EU carrier. The 

establishment of NAI in Ireland would give it no additional traffic rights to serve the United 

States than NLH already enjoys in Norway. Indeed, NLH was formed in Norway less than 

one year ago and it currently operates B787 aircraft on routes between the EU and points in 

the United States and Southeast Asia. Whatever unidentified additional traffic rights NAI 

might purport to gain in Ireland, they are not necessary to meet any of its current or 

announced service plans. Norway, like Ireland, has ratified the Cape Town Convention, and 

so it is unclear what additional advantages NAI could hope to obtain as an Irish certificate 

holder. The claim of additional OECD financing benefits to NAI as a carrier of Ireland are 

dubious as well, since OECD financing benefits are also available to carriers of Norway. 

Balanced against NAI’s current story regarding its “business” motives to establish in 

Ireland is a well documented history of labor problems in Norway, an apparent inability to 

obtain required work permits for contract laborers, and the stringent oversight Norwegian 

authorities have kept on NLH to operate its Irish-registered aircraft under a Norwegian Air 

Operator Certificate. Evading Norway’s labor laws is a compelling counterfactual to NAI’s 

current story. Ireland allows cabin crew to work on Irish-registered aircraft without the 

requirement of a work permit, which would otherwise be a prerequisite for a Norwegian 

licensed carrier. Ireland also allows carriers to employ pilots and other crew through 

recruitment companies and other personal service corporations, rather than requiring pilots 

to be directly employed by the airline. As a result, NAI can avoid social insurance taxes 

required by the country of Norway. Based on the current evidence, it is difficult to see how 

NAI’s motivation is anything more than a clever attempt to circumvent Norway’s labor laws 

in contravention of Article 17 bis.
Norwegian Joint Answer

Page 4

NAI claims to be “a foreign air carrier of Ireland” (App at 1), but NAI proposes no 787 

operations from Ireland, and it is not clear what, if any, contacts NAI would have with 

Ireland, apart from its place of certification. We note that in the March 2, 2007 

Memorandum of Consultations, “the EU delegation affirmed that, under European

Community legislation, a Community airline must receive both its AOC and its operating 

license from the country in which it has its principal place of business.” Given the facts of 

record it is not clear on what basis Ireland qualifies as NAI’s principal place of business.

In summary, the information contained in the Notice does not resolve any of the 

important outstanding questions about NAI, its fitness, and how granting it a permit would be

consistent with Art. 17 bis of the U.S-.EU Agreement and the DOT’s public interest mandate. 

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director, Regulatory and 

International Affairs

 & Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

/s/ Robert A. Wirick

Managing Director, Regulatory and International 

Affairs American Airlines, Inc.

/s/ Dan Weiss

Managing Director – International Affairs and 

Regulatory

United Airlines, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing Reply has been served this 13th day of January, 2014, upon the 

following persons via email:

romanow@pillsburylaw.com

peter.nelson@pillsburylaw.com

Russell.Bailey@alpa.org

steve.morrissey@united.com

dan.weiss@united.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

howard.kass@usairways.com

robert.wirick@aa.com

francis.heil@aa.com

rpommer@atlasair.com

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com

jesse.elliot@faa.gov

douglas.schwab@faa.gov

nicholas.tsokris@faa.gov

john.allen@faa.gov

anita.mosner@hklaw.com

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com

nssparks@fedex.com

dberg@airlines.org

jcasey@airlines.org

paul.gretch@dot.gov

brian.hedberg@dot.gov

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov

brett.kruger@dot.gov

urskr@state.gov

CristinaSA@state.gov

eugene_alford@ita.doc.gov

info@airlineinfo.com