1 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

___________________________________________ ______________________ ) Application of ) ) NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ) ) Docket DOT
- OST
- 2013
- 0204 For an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 40109 and a ) foreign air carrier permit pursuant to ) 49 U.S.C. § 41301 ) )

_________________________________________________________________

ANSWER OF THE SOUTHWEST AIRLINES PILOTS’ ASSO C I ATION

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: Paul Jackson Government Affairs Southwest Airlines Pilots ’ Association 1450 Empire Central Dallas, TX 75247 (800) 969

- 7972 pjackson@swapa.org2 I. INTRODUCTION
The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (“SWAPA”) is the exclusive b argaining representative for more than 6 , 7 00 Southwest Airlines pilots

. Having reviewed the written summary of a non - public conversation conducted to address to the significant opposition to the foreign air carrier filing by Norwegian Air
International , SWAPA strongly opposes the application of Norwegian Air Shuttle for an exemption under Article 17 of the U.S.

- EU Air Transport A greement , Title 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101(a)(5) and Title 49 U.S.C. 40101 §§ (a)(15).

II. ANALYSIS OF THE SUMMARY OF ORAL COMMENTS BY EUROPEAN DELEGATION
A. SWAPA objects to the highly unusual format of having only a “written summary” of a private conversation regarding a docketed issue to which to reply
. As SWAPA was not pr esent for this non

- public conversation, it is difficult for our organization to address issues that were not formally filed in written format, as is customary.

1. The very first paragraph of the US DOT document establishing the procedural
schedule states, “On the basis of information provided by Norwegian Air Shuttle, the European delegation gave the Joint Committee some detailed ( sic ) factual information about the co mpany’s plans.”
2. While we appr eciate the inclusion of what was described as “some” detailed information, it appea rs that the material generated by this document was first generated through a conversation between the EU delegation and Norwegian Air International. The delegation then re layed the information to3 the US DOT in a non

- public conversation, at which point the DOT then
summarized the original statements , presumably presented originally in a summarized format, for our examination and response.
3. We were unable to find the “detailed” information promised, the “Summary
of Information” which provided only three paragraphs addressing presumed responses to the significant opposition brought forward to this application , with such vague statements as “makes more sense...intends to...f or the start

up period...would prefer... ” none of which allows a cogent reply. We given a description of what Norwegian Air International current practices are, but then are told that future practices will differ , or are intended to differ from
their current practices.
B. ARTICLE 17 OF THE U.S.
- E.U. AGREEMENT WAS DRAFTED SPECIFICALLY TO PREVENT THIS TYPE OF FLAG
- OF
- CONVENIENCE STRATEGY
The “Social Dimension ” article was added in 2010 , three years after the Air Transport Agreement was originally penned in 2007 , to address the danger of venue shopping to select the most lenient host state(s) for selected regulatory compliance. Although other docket responses have addressed this fact, it bears repeating in our
response : a Norwegian

- based carrier operati ng u nder an Irish operating certificate, crewed by employees hired by a staffing agency based in Singapore, to be based in Thailand doesn’t pass even a cursor y examination of whether it meet s the intent of international

treat ies and regulatory agreements. SWAPA also argues that there is a lack of sufficient information in the Norwegian Air International verbal discussion summary to allow a determination of whether the “ fair wages and working conditions” requirement will be met under 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101(a)(5).4

C. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS NOT SERVED BY GRANTING NOR WEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL A FOREIGN CARRIER PERMIT In the absence of a global regulatory framework for the granting of airline operating
certificates with standardized requi rements, the use of treaties and inter

- country agreements to recognize the validity of sovereign designations must be treated with great

care . A thorough examination of compliance with the intent of treaty language must be
conducted. It has certainly no t been argued that t he United States giving up oversight of the maritime industry that carries US cargo and passengers to regulatory authorities in
countries such as Liberia with less

- stri ngent regulatory requirements was t he intent of the Jones Act. Sect ion 17 of the U.S.

- E.U agreement makes it clear that the Agre ement is specifically designed to avoid this well

- recognized pitfall. Because the maritime industry is mostly cargo with only a small contingent of
passengers, only sporadic issues arise in the public eye that result from the US abdication of regulatory oversight which took place more than 90 years ago , having the perverse effect of allowing regulatory flags

- of

- convenience for shipping when the intent was to instead strengthen the U .S. maritime industry. On the other hand, aviation is more thoroughly regulated than shipping , presumably
because it involves the reverse , a transportation industry comprised mostly of the transport of passengers alongside only a small contingent of cargo
. Allowing former maritime attorney Bjorn Kjos, founder and CEO of Norwegian Air Shuttle, to utilize a strategy reminiscent of what caused the 1920 Jone s Act , that resulted in the mass exodus of US Shipping interests to Liberia , Panama, Cypr us an d the Ma rshall5

Islands is a poor approach if the U.S. wishes to retain even a semblance of regulatory oversight for its citizens flying from US soil internationally

. SWAPA is specifically concerned that approving the Norwegian Air International application would not meet the “ strengthening the competitive position of air carriers to at least ensure equality with foreign air carriers, including the attainment of the opportunity for
air carr iers to maintain and increase their profitability in foreign air transportation ” stipulation 49 U.S.C.§§ 40101(a)(15).

III. CONCLUSION

The u se of a strategy clearly born from a flag

- of

- convenience regulatory schema formulated by a former maritime attorney cum airline CEO should be rejected with prejudice by the Department of Transportation , unless the Department’s ultimate goal is to acquiesce airline regulatory authority to what ever sovereign na tion that has chosen a more relaxed approach to oversight while holding at the same time a treaty req uiring U.S. recognition. The fact that Norwegian Air has bee n fined by various EU countries such as France and Spain , is a clear indication that the flag

- of

- convenience strategy has overstepped legal
boundaries even within the EU

. The applicatio n should be rejected because it does not meet U.S. law , specifically
Title 49. It also does not meet the Open Skies treaty req uirements under Article 17 . Lastly, if the DOT chooses to ignore Title 49 and Article 17, it runs the very real risk of maintaining6

even cursory authority over international flying from within our shores . We do not wish
the DOT to inadve rtently allow a fl ag - of

- convenience strategy , which will reverberate for
decades.