BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

________________________________________ ) Application of ) ) NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ) ) Docket No. OST

-- 2013

- 0204 for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 401 09 and ) a foreign air carrier permit pursuant to ) 49 U.S.C. § 41301 (US

- EU Open Skies) )

_________________________________________ )

COMMENTS OF NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED TO THE DEPARTMENT’S JANUARY 30 NOTICE WITH IRISH AIR OPERATOR CE R TIFICATE (AOC) AND OPERATING LICENSE

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

Josh Romanow Peter Nelson PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Tel: (202) 663

- 8000 Fax: (202) 663

- 80 07 E

- mail: romanow@pillsburylaw.com E

- mail: peter.nelson@pillsburylaw.com
February 1 3 , 2014 Counsel for NORW EGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED1 BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

________________________________________ ) Application of ) ) NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ) ) Docket No. 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 (US

- EU Open Skies) )

________________ _________________________ )

COMMENTS OF NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED TO THE DEPARTMENT’S JANUARY 30 NOTICE WITH IRISH AIR OPERATOR CERTIFICATE (AOC) AND OPERATING LICENS E

Norwegian Air International Limited (“Norwegian International”) hereby submits
the following comments in response to the Department’s N otice of January 30, 2014 ( the
“Notice”) , and is pleased to include its Air Operator Certificate, issued by the Irish
Aviation Authority on February 12 , 2014 and attached hereto as Exhibit A (th e “AOC”) , as well as its Operating License issued by the Irish Commission for A viation Regulation
on February 12, 2014 and attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “ Operating License ”)

. 1

The issuance of the AOC and the Operating License reflects the Irish

governm ent’s confidence in and formal confirmation of Norwegian International’s
operational and safety profile , and the Department should act in accordance with its well

established procedures to grant Norwegian International’s application without delay

.

1 To the extent deemed necessary by the Department, Norwegian International seeks leave to file the AOC and Operating License pursuant to Rule 6 of the Departme nt’s Rules of Prac tic e.2 The public benefits that Norwegian International will produce for American
tourism, American consumers, and the American economy are confirmed by the many
parties who have publicly supported Norwegian International, including the Irish and
Norwegian ministries o f transport, 2 U.S. airport s in Fort Lauderdale, Orlando and

Oakland , 3 travel industry trade groups like U.S. Travel, 4 the Travel Technology
Association, 5 and the European Low Fare s Airline Association , 6 as well as FedEx, 7 the
Mayor of the City of Orlando , 8 the Mayor of Orange County, Florida, 9 and Visit
Orlando, 10 among others. The comments of these organizations underscore the
importance of giving Norwegian International the opportunity to be a competitive new
entrant in an otherwise highly

- concentrated tra nsatlantic marketplace, offering low fares

and award

- winning service aboard the brand new, eco
- friendly Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
Likewise, the information provided by the EU delegation that is summarized in

the Notice supports the conclusion that N orwegian International is fully qualified and

entitled to provide the new service proposed in its application. As directed by the

2 Letter from the Irish Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to Secretary of Transportation Antho ny R. Foxx (February 1 3, 20 14); Letter from the Royal Norwegian Minister of Transport and Communications to Secretary of Transpor tation Antho ny R. Foxx (February 3, 2014)

. 3 Answer of Broward County Aviation Department (December 1 6 , 2013); Answer of the Port of Oakland ( December 20, 2013 ); Letter from Greater Orlando Aviation Authority to Secretary of Transportation Anthony R. Foxx (January 13, 2014)

. 4 Letter from U.S. Travel Association to Secretary of Transportation Anthony R. Foxx (February 6, 2014).
5 Motion for Permission to File and Comments of the Travel Technology Association in Support of Norwegian Air International Limite d (January 22, 2014).
6 Submission by European Low Fares Airline Association (January 24, 2014).
7 Answer of Federal Express Corporation (February 12, 2014).
8 Letter from Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer to Secretary of Transportation Anthony R. Foxx (January 27, 2014).
9 Letter from Orange Country Mayor Teresa Jacobs to Secretary of Transportation Anthony R. Fox (February 5, 2014).
10 Letter from Visit Orlando to Secretary of Transportation Anthony R. Foxx (January 24, 2014).3 Department, Norwegian International focuses its comments below solely on the

information contained in the Notice

.
I. SOUND BUSINESS REASO N S SUPPORT NORWEGIAN INTERNATIONAL’S CHOICE OF HEADQUARTE RS LOCATION IN IRELAND
Since the beginning of this proceeding, the parties who have filed in objection to
Norwegian International’s application (referred to herein as the “ Objecting Parties ”) have

i ncluded in their filings a myriad of conjectures about the supposed intentions of
Norwegian International's management in seeking an AOC from Ireland

. Contrary to the

assertions of the Objecting Parties that Norwegian I nternational’s express or en tire

pur pose in seeking an Irish AOC was “to avoid having Norway's social laws apply to its
long

- haul operations,” 11 the EU delegation conveyed explicitly and correctly that
Norwegian International “chose Ireland because as an Irish carrier it would have 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

rebate s because Ireland is a Cape Town Convention Signatory.” 12 In other words,
Norwegian chose to obtain an Irish AOC for sound business reasons, as it is entitled to do

under the “Community airline ” concept that is at the core of the U.S.

- EU

- Iceland

- Norway
open skies Air Transport Agreement of 2011 (the “Open Skies Agreement”).

Con sistent with established precedent, t he Department should not second

- guess an applicant’s business decisions for how best to create a competitive commercial

11 Motion for Permission to File and J oint Reply of Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Transportation Trades Department, AFL

- CIO (TTD) and European Cockpit Association (ECA) to Reply of Norwegian Air International Limited (January 7, 2014), at 2 ; Answer of ALPA (December 17, 2013), at 6

. 12 No tice, at 1

.4 operation

. 13 The decision to establish a carrier in Ireland is expressly authorized by the
Open Ski es A greement and, as made clear by the EU delegation, reflects well

- founded
business considerations relating to Norwegian International’s desire to bring its low

- cost , competitive service to more destinations around the globe. Moreover , contrary to the

as sertions of the Opposing Parties, the EU delegation has provided detailed information

on salaries and working conditions that clearly demonstrate that Norwegian will, in fact,
promote

– not undermine

– “high labor standards

. ”

As an Irish carrier , Norwegi an International will be overseen by one of the most
robust aviation safety authorities in the world. In the Notice, the EU delegation
emphasize s that Ireland “has a considerable aviation cluster in Europe and a highly
regarded aviation authority

. ” 14 Unde rscoring the information provided in the Notice, the
Irish Aviation Authority (“IAA”) proactively reminded the world in a formal public

statement, attached hereto as Exhibit C , that I reland was ranked by ICAO as among the

best countries in the world for it s safety oversight of civil aviation, placing in the top ten
countries worldwide, third among the 22 European states that had completed their audit at
that time, and ahead of the U.S., Brazil , and Australia. 15 Likewise, t he EuroControl

Performance Review B ody reached a similar conclusion in its Annual Monitoring Report
on safety , ranking Ireland first among 29 European states in its measure of Effectiveness

13 See, e.g., Arctic Circle Air Serv. Inc./Village Aviation Inc. , DOT Order 2005

- 4

- 3 at 14 (Apr. 6, 2005) (permitting a certificate transfer, with the Department concluding that “in the deregulated environment in which we operate, the Department elects under the circumstances here, not to engage in second

- guessing the underlying reasons that these two private corporate entities have chosen to engage in a particular course of business conduct unless there is a sound public policy interest reason t o do so.” Id

. ).
14 Notice , at 1

. 15 See Final Report on the Safety Oversight Audit of the Civil Aviation System of Ireland , International Civil Aviation Organization (March 23, 2010), available at http://cfapp.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/ Ireland_CSA_Fi nal_Audit_Report.pdf; a chart comparing the oversight performance of global civil aviation authorities can be assembled at http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP

- Results.aspx.5 of Safety Management

— a significant indicator as to the quality of safety oversight

. 16
Ireland has prov ided effective safety regulation for leading air carriers such as RyanAir
(operating in 30 countries , with more than 60 bases spread across Europe and North

Africa 17 ) as well as for the many aircraft on the Irish Register that hail from locations as

diverse as Russia, Italy , Colombia, Mexico, and Spain. Filings by the Objecting Parties
unfairly and inaccurately tarnish the distinguished oversight record of the Irish Aviation
Authority and related agencies

— a record which attracted Norwegian International to

I reland in the first place.

II. NORWEGIAN INTERNATIONAL ’ S COMPENSATION AND L ABOR PRACTICES ARE FAIR A ND GLOBALLY

- COMPETITIVE
In their filings in this docket and in comments to the press and on Capitol Hill, the
Objecting Parties have made s weeping allegations about the “labor standards” applicable
to Norwegian International’s workforce

. In the Notice, the EU delegation provided
information about Norwegian International’s labor practices. A s stated in its
Consolidated Reply, t he Open Skies Agreement does not “e mpower a Party, on the basis
of allegations related to the ‘social dimension’ such as those asserted by the Objecting

Parties , to take unilateral action to deny operating authority to an airline that satisfies the
requirements of Article 4” 18 for the grant of appropriate authorizations and
permissions. The Objecting Parties have offered nothing to rebut this position

. However, t o the extent the Department decide s that the Objecting Parties ’
allegations regarding the “social dimension” merit further examinat ion , the information

16 See PRB Annual Monitoring Report 2012 , volume 4, Performance Review Body desig nated by the European Commission ( December 7 , 201 3 ), available at https://www.iaa.ie/media/ PRBMonitoringReport2012

- Volume4

- Safety1.pdf

. 17 RyanAir

– Facts and Figures, available at http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/facts

- and

- figures

. 18 Consolidated Reply of Norwegian Air International Limited (December 31, 2013), at 8

.6 provided by the E U completely rebuts them. The EU delegation ’s comments offer a n insightful appreciation of Norwegian International’s business model , which should be
give n a chance to prove itself in the competitive marketplace created by the Open Skies
Agreement.

The Notice accurately describes Norwegian International’s goal to develop a safe , compliant, and logisti cally efficient operation to deliver low fares and attractive new route options to its customers. To achieve this , Norwe gian International recruits highly
qualified , European

- licensed pilots and cabin crew in the local markets where they will

be based to reduce the need to ferry crew members to the points at which they will take
up their duties, allowing aircraft seats to b e sold to additional passengers and reducing the
costs of hotel and per diem costs and flight

- duty time restrictions that other airlines incur
for crews based far away

. Norwegian International’s approach to reducing ancillary crew

costs and inefficiencies

— while at the same time compensating pilots and flight

attendants at levels commensurate with what others in the industry are paid

— distinguishes the business model of Norwegian International from that of traditional

network carriers and Opposing Parties, wh o continue to operate according to business
models in place for decades

. The market is ripe for change

. In an open, competitive
transatlantic market, it is consumers who should decide whether Norwegian

International’s model and the business decisions tha t underpin it meet their needs and
expectations.

As stated in the Notice , Norwegian International’s decision to use employment
firms for the initial hiring of long

- haul personnel is part of a strategy to control overall

start

- up costs by relying on prove n outside expertise rather than, for example,7 immediately expanding the company’s internal human relations and regulatory
departments. The use of employment firms does not entail any reduction in the training , qualification , oversight, or compliance of Nor wegian International’s crew members. For
example, as recognized in the Notice , all of Norwegian International’s pilots will hold

EASA licenses in accordance with applicable EU regulations. EASA regulations
prescribe the working conditions on all Norwegian International flights, including crew licensing, work and rest times, facilities, and amenities. The location of Norwegian

International’s crew s does not impact these requirements , and any suggestion to the
contrary would i mply that EASA’s oversight of pi lot licensing is insufficient to ensure
safety or sufficient regulatory oversight . Such claims are unsubstantiated

.
T he Objecting Parties assert that Norwegian International intends to “undermine

labor standards” 19 or erode the “labor

- related rights and pr inciples ” 20 contained in U.S.

and EU law. Like many multinational businesses and in conformity with the Rome

Convention and EU Re gulation 593/2008 , 21 Norwegian International applies the law of

19 Answer of Air Line Pilots Association (Dec. 17, 2013), at 2.
20 Id. 21 During the negotiation of the 2007 U.S.

- EU Air Transport Agreement and in the two subsequent “labor forums” sponsored by t he European Commission (referenced in detail in the Answer of the Air Line Pilots Association), the E U noted that, although no comprehensive labor/employment law applies in the EU, the choice of applicable law in the EU is governed by the Rome Convention ( Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980). The EU explained that Article 6 of the Rome Convention provides that an employment contract is normally to be governed by the law of the country in which an employee habitually carries ou t his or her work or, if there is no such place, where the business through which he or she was engaged is situated. Although ALPA would prefer that Europe adopt a different approach for airline crews so as to apply the law of the home country of an airli ne to all crew, the following core fact s remain: the United States did not negotiate any changes to the Rome Convention (or its effective successor, EU Regulation 593/2008) as part of either the first

- or second

- stage negotiations; in particular, Article 17 bis effects no changes in the existing employment and labor laws of either the United States or the EU but instead refers expressly to “labor standards or the labor

- related rights and principles contained in the Parties’ respective [i.e., existing] laws ”; and, finally, that the business model of Norwegian International is fully consistent with the Rome Convention (and Regulation 59 3 /2008) in that it applies the law of the country in which an employee is hired and based to the employment relationship. AL PA and others may not like EU law on this score, but it is indisputably the law that is confirmed and referenced in the Open Skies Agreement , including Article 17 bis

.8 the country where an employee is hired and based to that person’ s employment
relationship with the company. Furthermore , the majority of employees employed by
Norwegian International’s affiliated companies are unionized and, as the EU delegation
recognized before the Joint Committee, the Norwegian group has “ no traditi on of
discouraging unionization.” 22
Ultimately, the Objecting Parties attempt to rest their arguments on Article 17 bis
of the Open Skies Agreement. As Norwegian Internat ional’s Consolidated Reply
explains, however, the language, intent, and negotiating his tory of Article 17 bis make
clear that it does not create new labor standards or override the existing laws, regulations,
and practices of either the E U and its Member States or the United States that address

airlin e employment and labor issues. Significa ntly, the E U , joined by the Irish and
Norwegian ministries of transport , 23 has endorsed the view that Norwegian International
qualifies to operate air transportation under the Open Skies Agreement and should be
afforded the opportunity to do so. Although t he Opposing Parties may disagree with the
positions taken by the EU delegation and promote instead the superiority of their own

construction of Article 17 bis , the only authoritative interpretation of an international
agreement is that of the Parties: the U .S. , the E U and its Member States, Norway, and

Iceland.

22 Notice , at 2

. 23 Letter from the Irish Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to Se cretary of Transportation Antho ny R. Foxx (February 1 3, 20 14); Letter from the Royal Norwegian Minister of Transport and Communications to Secretary of Transportation Antho ny R. Foxx (February 3, 2014)

.9 III. WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE AOC AND THE OPER ATING LICENSE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOUL D APPROVE NORWEGIAN INTERNATIONAL’S APPL ICATION WITHOUT DELA Y Supplemented with the AOC and the Operating Lice nse , Norwegian
International’s application for an exemption and a foreign air carrier permit is complete

and satisfies all of the applicable requirements set forth in the Department’s notice of
February 19, 2009 relating to Application Procedures for Forei gn Air Carriers of the
European Union and Part 211 of the Department’s regulations

. Given the substantial
benefits to the public interest that Norwegian International’s service will deliver and the
norm of reciprocity in aviation relations between the U.S. and the EU, the Department
should now promptly grant Norwegian International the requested authority to provide
foreign scheduled and charter air transportation to the full extent permitted under the
Open Skies Agreement

. Norwegian International plans to begin U .S. operations on April
1, 2014 and any delay would deprive U.S. passengers of this new service.
Norwegian International’s Consolidated Reply described the many ways in which
its proposed service will be in the public interest, consistent with 49 U.S.C. §
41302(2)(B). Paramount among these factors is the existence of the Open Skies
Agreement, which creates a “virtually unrebuttable” presumption that the grant is in the
public interest. 24 The Objecting Parties have failed to rebut this presumption

. With the submission of the AOC and the Operating License , Norwegian
International should receive the benefits of the reciprocal recognition procedures

24 H.R. REP. NO. 95

- 1211, at 15 (1978) (“ The requirem ent for hearings on applications by foreign air carriers also poses a problem. In most of these cases, there are no substantial issues since the foreign carrier has been designated by its government pursuant to a bilateral agreement, and there is a virtual ly unrebuttable presumption that grant of the application is in the public interest .”); See also S. REP. NO. 96

- 329, at 4 (1979), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 54, 57 (“[T]he negotiation of a bilateral agreement itself represents a determination by the Go vernment of the United States that the grant of route authority provided for under the bilateral i s in the ‘public interest.’”).10 described in the Open Skies Agreement. The AOC and the Operating License

demonstrate that Norwegian Inte rnational is “qualified to meet the conditions prescribed
under the laws and regulations normally applied to the operation of international air
transportation” in Ireland, as stipulated in Article 4 of the Open Skies Agreement. In
these circumstances, the Department should now fulfill the United States’ international
legal obligation under the Agreement to “grant appropriate authorizations and
permissions with minimum procedural delay.” 25
Furthermore, Article 6 bis of the Open Skies Agreement states that a Party shall
“not enquire further into” airline fitness and citizenship unless that Party has “a specific
reason for concern ... that the conditions prescribed in Article 4 ... have not been met.” 26
As described above, the issuance of the AOC by the Irish Aviati on Authority

– ranked
among the best in the world in the safety oversight of civil aviation

– affirms that
Norwegian International is qualified to provide the proposed service. The Department’s
timely approval of Norwegian International’s application is cr itical to preserving the
rights

- based legal framework for air transportation between the United States and Europe
and promoting competition in the transatlantic marketplace. As the 2007 Memorandum of
Consultations indicates, “the failure to authorize airli nes to exercise the rights granted in
the Agreement or undue delay in granting such authorization could affect an airline’s fair
and equal opportunity to compete.” 27 Of course, if this occur red , Article 19 provides that

25 Open Skies Agreement, at art. 4.
26 Open Skies Agreement, at art. 6 bis.
27 Para. 33, Memorandum of Consultations signed by D. Calleja and J. Byerly (March 2, 2007), available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/114892.pdf.11 the other Party may avail itself of any appropriate and proportional measures (e

. g. , mandatory arbitration). 28
As Norwegian International has previously stated, w ere the arguments of the
Objecting Parties to be accepted, the door would be open for the EU to question labor
practices at the U. S. airlines that operate to Europe or seek to operate in the future. Could
the fact that pilots at some U.S. airlines are not unionized be challenged by the EU or a
Member State as inconsistent with high labor standards and used to deny those airlines

fut ure entry into the transat lantic market? Or might the EU point to the low wages and
difficult working conditions of workers employed by airline subcontractors to limit
flights to Europe by American carriers , notwithstanding the Open Skies Agreement ? 29

The D epartment should prevent any regression to the days before the global liberalization
of aviation relations by upholding the norm of reciprocity under the Open Skies
Agreement in this proceeding.
In conclusion, the information provided by the EU delegation makes clear that the

airlines of the Norwegian group ha ve a history of being open to and cooperating with
labor unions; that Norwegian International will create jobs, not furloughs, in the U.S
economy; that it will respect the labor and employment laws app licable at the bases
where employees are hired and based , including the United States; and that the safety of

28 See para. 20, Memorandum of Consultations signed by D. Calleja and J. Byerly ( March 25, 2010 ), available at http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/ air/international_aviation/country_index/doc/2010_03_25 _us_moc.pdf. (“Both delegations noted that, in the event that a Party would take measures contrary to the Agreement, including Article 21, the other Party may avail itself of any appropriate and propo rtional measures in accordance with international law, including the Agreement.”). In this connection, the Department should reject out of hand

— for both legal and common sense reasons

— the assertion by some Objecting Parties that the Department is free under the “public interest” principle to ignore U.S. obligations under the Open Skies agreement and reject authority that the Agreement requires be granted.
29 See, e.g., Michael Powell, Hauling Bags and Cleaning Planes for Little Pay and No Vacations of Their Own , N.Y. T IMES (Jan. 15, 2014), at A21, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/nyregion/ hauling

- bags

- and

- cleaning

- planes

- for

- little

- pay
- and

- no
- vacations

- of

- their

- own.html?_r=0.12 its operations will be overseen by a country, Ireland, that ICAO has ranked as among the

best in the world. Norwegian International has provided t he same level of information
provided by other EU carriers that the Department has approved since the Open Skies
Agreement was signed. Norwegian International respectfully requests that the
Department act in accordance with its well

- established precedents and grant the
exemption and foreign air carrier permit requested in its application without delay.

Respectfully submitted,

Josh Romanow Peter Nelson

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Tel: (202) 663

- 8000 Fax: (202) 663

- 8007 romanow@pillsburylaw.com peter.nelson@pillsburylaw.com
February 1 3 , 2014 Counsel for NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITEDCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on February 1 3 , 2014 , a true and correct copy of the foreg oing Comments of Norwegian Air International Limited was served by electronic mail on the individuals identified below:

Steve Morrissey Thomas N. Bolling United Airlines steve.morrissey@united.com thomas.bolling@united.com

Dan Weiss Continental Airline s dan.weiss@coair.com

Sascha Vanderbellen Delta Airlines sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

Howard Kass U.S. Airways howard.kass@usairways.com
Malcolm L. Benge Counsel for North American/World Airways mlbenge@zsrlaw.com

Russell E. Pommer Atlas Air Inc. rpo mmer@atlasair.com
Russell Bailey Jonathan A. Cohen Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l russell.bailey@alpa.org jonathan.cohen@alpa.org
Edward Wytkind Transportation Trades Department, AFL

- CIO edw@ttd.org
J. Christopher Lytle Port of Oakland clytle@portoa kland.com
Kent George Broward County Aviation Department kgeorge@broward.org

Mark Richardson Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association mrichardson@swapa.org Robert Wirick Francis Heil American Airlines, Inc. robert.wirick@aa.com francis.heil@aa.com

Nick T sokris Jesse Elliot John Chen FAA New York IFU jesse.elliot@faa.gov nicholas.tsokris@faa.gov john

. chen @faa.gov

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Federal Aviation Administration john.allen@faa.gov

Anita Mosner Jennifer Nowak Counsel for UPS Holland & Knight anita.mosner@hklaw.com jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com
Nancy S. Sparks Bailey Leopard Federal Express Corporation nssparks@fedex.com gbleopard@fedex.com
David Berg James L. Casey Keith A. Glatz Airlines for America dberg@airlines.org jcasey@airlines.o rg kglatz@airlines.org

Celine Canu European Cockpit Association cc@eurocockpit.be
Edgar N. James Allied Pilots Association ejames@jamhoff.com

Krishna Urs Department of State urskr@state.gov Steve Shur Travel Technology Association sshur@traveltech.or g Eugene Alford Department of Commerce eugene.alford@trade.gov

Matthew Baldwin Director of Air Transport European Commission Matthew.Baldwin@ec.europa.eu

Dr. Felix Leinemann First Secretary Delegation of the European Union to the USA Felix.LEINEMANN@eea s.euro pa.eu
David Batchelor SJU Liason Officer SESAR Joint Undertaking Delegation of the European Union to the USA David.Batchelor@sesarju.eu

Ottar Ostnes Director General, Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications Ottar.Ostnes@sd.dep.no

John Hanlon European Low Fares Airline Association John.Hanlon@ELFAA.com

Paul Gretch Robert Finamore U.S. Department of Transportation paul.gretch@dot.gov Robert.Finamore@dot.gov

/s/ Peter V. Nelson Peter V. NelsonEXHIBIT A

AIR OPERATOR CERTIFICATE

(ATTACHED)EXHIBI T B

OPERATING LICENSE

(ATTACHED)EXHIBIT C

IAA STATEMENT

(ATTACHED)IAA Statement on Safety Regulatory Performance

5 th Feb ruary 2014: It has come to our attention that a number of misguided statements have been made in the Scandinavian media in recent days with regard to the Irish Aviation Authority concerning its safety regulatory performance and capability . We understand that this i s i n relation to the curren t application by Norweg i an Long

- H aul Airlines to obtain an Air Operator ’s Certificate from Ireland.

The negative statements to which we refer are deroga tory and are not factual. Therefore, although this is an unusual step, the IAA is happy to take the opportunity now t o clarify its excellent performance record in relation to safety oversight of international airlines in order to alleviate all unnecessary concerns and to counter the false information which is currently in the public domain , as follows:

1. In 2011, Ireland was ranked amongst the best in the world for civil aviation safety oversight, following an intensive international audit by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) conducted during 2010 . The safety oversight audit of Ireland was carried out in accordance with the standard auditing procedure defined by ICAO as the “Lack of Effective Implementation” (% LEI), which ranke d Ireland third in Europe and fourth worldwide , as illustrated in the tables below. For further information, p lease see: https://www.iaa.ie/news.jsp?i=325 which contains a copy of the ICAO Report and a summ ary of the Report findings by the IAA.

Top Ten European Countries
Country % LEI

1. France 5.5%

2. UK (Europe) 6.05%

3. Ireland 7.72%

4. Netherlands (Europe) 11.65%

5. Poland 11.68%

6. Denmark 14.33%

7. Bulgaria 15.69%

8. Germany 15.80%

9. Czech Republic 16.18%

10. Sweden 16.79% Comparison with Major States Worldwide
Country % LEI
Canada 4.62%

France 5.50%
UK Europe 6.05%
Ireland 7.72%

USA 8.87% Netherlands Europe 11.65%
Brazil 13.51%
Germany 15.80% Czech Republic 16.18%
Australia 16.62%

2. I n July 2013, the EUROCONTROL Performance Review Body (PRB) published its Annual Monitoring Report on safety which ranked Ireland first out of 29 European states for the measure of Effectiveness of Safety Management (EoSM)

- a key metric for the quality of safety regulatory oversight

– as illustrated in the chart below. For further information, p lease see: https://www.iaa.ie/safety

performance3. The IAA already provides safety regulation of one of the largest international airlines in the world

(Ryanair) to the highest international standards. That airline operates over 300 aircraft, via a point

- to

point system from 64 bases across Europe and northern Afr ica, and carried over 81 million passengers in 2013.

4. The IAA has provided safety regulatory oversight to long

- haul airline operators with services on the North Atlantic for many years (Aer Lingus, as an example), as well as the safety regulation of ai rcraft on the Irish Register from other regions worldwide such as Russia, Italy, Columbia, Mexico, and Spain.

For any further information, w e wish to draw attention to the IAA's safety regulatory performance record , p lease see: https://www.iaa.ie/safety

- performance

ENDS.

About the IAA

The Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) is a commercial semi state company employing approximately 660 people at five main locations in Ireland. The IAA is responsible for the provision of Air Traffic Management (ATM) in Irish controlled airspace (covering some 451,000 square km), aeronautical communications on the North Atlantic, and the safety and security regulation of the civil aviation industry in Ireland.

The IAA receives no OPERATIONAL or CAPEX funding from the State, its revenues are generated through charges and fees, which are amongst the lowest in Europe, raised from its regulatory clients and airline customers in respect of its regulatory and operational activities.

www.iaa.ie