BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the matter 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 (US-EU Open Skies) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket OST -2013-0204 

----------------------------------- ) 

ANSWER OF SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM (SAS) 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

Hans Ollongren 

Head of Public and Regulatory Affairs 

SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM 

STODX 

SE-195 87 

Stockholm, Sweden 

June 10,2015 

Michael F. Goldman 

SILVERBERG GOLDMAN, L.L.P. 

1101 301

h St., NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3305 

Email: mgoldman(cV,sgbdc.com 

Counsel for 

SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM 
BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the matter 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 (US-EU Open Skies) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) _________________________________ ) 

Docket OST -2013-0204 

ANSWER OF SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM (SAS) 

Scandinavian Airlines System ("SAS") submits this answer in opposition to Norwegian 

Air International's ("NAI'') motion for expedited treatment of its foreign air carrier permit 

application filed with the Department in December 2013. 

SAS's position opposing the grant of the NAI application is unchanged by this latest NAI 

filing. The NAI application should be denied because it does not meet the "high labor standards" 

requiiement of Atiicle 17 bis of the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement. SAS's position has been 

set out in full in its prior filings in the NAI Docket, specifically in the SAS/Lufthansa Joint Reply 

filed February 21, 2014 and the SAS Answer dated August 18, 2014. In short, NAI's application 

continues to undermine the "labor standards or the labor-related rights and principles" ofNorway 

and the United States, contrary to Article 17 bis of the Open Skies Agreement. 
SAS Answer 

June 10,2015 

Page 2 

Let's be clear: this application is not about the ability ofNAI's parent, Norwegian, to 

serve the United States. It does so successfully today using the full traffic rights accorded its 

Norwegian-licensed affiliates, Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA (NAS) and Norwegian Long Haul 

AS (NLH), under the U.S-EU Open Skies Agreement. NAS offer numerous flights today on 

U.S.-Scandinavian and U.S.-U.K. routes, and has open to it all markets between the U.S. and the 

EU/Norway/Iceland. Rather, NAI's application is about Norwegian's rationale for establishing a 

"flag of convenience" carrier, Ireland-based NAI, in clear violation of the labor protections 

accorded airline employees by Article 17 bis. It violates these guarantees by employing pilots 

and cabin crew either based in Thailand or composed of Thai nationals, that are subject to nonUS/EU and inferior wage rates and employment conditions; and by using an Irish license to 

avoid Norwegian labor laws and social insurance obligations. See SAS/Lufthansa Joint Reply at 

2-3. 

NAI's asserted reasons why it needs to abandon Norway and establish itself in Ireland 

have been shown to be false and make-weights. The alleged need for traffic rights to non-U.S. 

destinations, and access to better financing and insurance under OECD rules and the Cape Town 

Convention, were shown to be untrue. See SAS!Ltifihansa Joint Reply at 3-4. 

NAI's supposed new commitment to use U.S. and European crews on its transatlantic 

routes does not change SAS's position one bit.. 1 This is because NAI's so-called commitment 

raises more questions than answers. For example--

1 The commitment is "to use only European and U.S. pilots and crews on Norwegian International transatlantic 

flights (except if compelled by extraordinary and unforeseen operational reasons)." NAI Motion at 2 and Exhibit 1. 
SAS Answer 

June 10, 2015 

Page 3 

• Is NAI proposing that this commitment should be a binding condition to any DOT 

permit granted NAI so that the condition is more than just "window dressing"? Is 

NAI prepared to file monthly reports identifying its pilots and cabin crew by 

nationality so compliance with the condition can be verified? 

• What is the meaning of the exception for "extraordinary and unforeseen operational 

reasons"? How is this to be defined and enforced? 

• As for the second "commitment" that appears only in the Kjos letter (Exhibit 1) to 

provide for the transfer to employment in a company in the Norwegian Group, does 

this mean transfer to employment with the airlines NAS or NAI? Does the 24 to 36 

months' waiting period begin with the date NAS and/or NLH began flying to the U.S. 

or only if and when NAI is licensed by the Department? 

Only when all these issues raised by NAI's new "commitments" are addressed either 

through a further round of substantive pleadings or an evidentiary hearing can the Department 

determine whether NAI's labor practices can be found to comply with the protections accorded 

by Article 17 bis or whether these Open Skies Agreement obligations remain an insurmountable 

obstacle to the granting by the Depmiment ofNAI's application for a foreign air canier permit. 
SAS Answer 

June 10,2015 

Page 4 

June 10,2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

Michael F. Goldman 

Silverberg Goldman, L.L.P. 

1101 30t11 St., NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20007 

Telephone: (202) 944-3305 

Email: mgoldman@sgbdc.com 

Counsel for SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have on this day served the forgoing Answer of Scandinavian 

Airlines System (SAS) by e-mail on the following persons: 

romanow@.pillsburylaw.com 

peter.nelson@.pillsburylaw.com 

russell.bailey@alpa.com 

steve.morrissey(iounited.com 

dan. weiss@united.com 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

howard.kass@.usairways.com 

robert. wirick@aa. com 

francis.heil@aa.com 

robert.land((V,jetblue.com 

rpommer(iV,atlasair.com 

anita.mosner@.hklaw.com 

je1mifer.nowak(q:~hklaw.com 

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com 

ejames(W,jamhoff.com 

c I ytl e@potialakland.com 

leo({i)washingtonports.com 

paul.gretchrq)dot.gov 

robert.finamore@dot.gov 

jesse.elliot@faa.gov 

douglas.schwab(q),faa.gov 

nicholas.tsokris@faa.gov 

john.allen@faa.gov 

nssparks{{i)fedex.com 

Date: June 10,2015 

gbleopard@fedex.com 

robert.finamore(a),dot.gov 

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov 

brett.kruger(cV.dot.gov 

urskr@state.gov 

info@airlineinfo.com 

pvs((i),eurocock pit. be 

cc@eurocockpit. be 

brian.hedberg@,dot.gov 

engl ets((i),state. gov 

cristinasa@)state.gov 

eugene alford@ita.doc. gov 

info@airlineinfo. com 

dberg@airlines.com 

jcasey(W,airlines.com 

kglatz(a),airlines.org 

cvevvthke(W,airlines.org 

mrichardson@swapa.org 

edw@ttd.org 

sshur(ZiJ.traveltech.org 

rdow@,ustravel.org 

kgeorge@,broward.org 

keith@washingtonairports.com 

J;ntdaJ!~fdw,~ Michael F. Goldman