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 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) 663-8007

E-mail: romanow@pillsburylaw.com

E-mail: peter.nelson@pillsburylaw.com

February 13, 2014 Counsel for NORWEGIAN AIR 

INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
1

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 LICENSE

Norwegian Air International Limited (“Norwegian International”) hereby submits 

the following comments in response to the Department’s Notice 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 (the “AOC”), 

as well as its Operating License issued by the Irish Commission for Aviation 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 

government’s confidence in and formal confirmation of Norwegian International’s 

operational and safety profile, and the Department should act in accordance with its wellestablished 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 Department’s Rules of Practice.
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 of transport, 2 U.S. airports 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 Fares 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 transatlantic 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 Norwegian 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 Anthony 

R. Foxx (February 13, 2014); Letter from the Royal Norwegian Minister of Transport and Communications 

to Secretary of Transportation Anthony R. Foxx (February 3, 2014). 3 Answer of Broward County Aviation Department (December 16, 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 Limited (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 REASONS SUPPORT NORWEGIAN 

INTERNATIONAL’S CHOICE OF HEADQUARTERS 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 

included 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 International’s express or entire 

purpose 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 

rebates 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”).

Consistent with established precedent, the 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 Joint 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 Notice, at 1.
4

operation.

13 The decision to establish a carrier in Ireland is expressly authorized by the 

Open Skies Agreement 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 

assertions 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, Norwegian International will be overseen by one of the most 

robust aviation safety authorities in the world. In the Notice, the EU delegation

emphasizes that Ireland “has a considerable aviation cluster in Europe and a highly 

regarded aviation authority.”14 Underscoring 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 Ireland was ranked by ICAO as among the 

best countries in the world for its 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, the EuroControl 

Performance Review Body 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 to 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_Final_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 provided effective safety regulation for leading air carriers such as RyanAir

(operating in 30 countries, with more than 60 bases spread across Europe and North 

Africa17) 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 

Ireland in the first place.

II. NORWEGIAN INTERNATIONAL’S COMPENSATION AND LABOR 

PRACTICES ARE FAIR AND GLOBALLY-COMPETITIVE

In their filings in this docket and in comments to the press and on Capitol Hill, the 

Objecting Parties have made sweeping 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. As stated in its 

Consolidated Reply, the Open Skies Agreement does not “empower 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, to the extent the Department decides that the Objecting Parties’ 

allegations regarding the “social dimension” merit further examination, the information 

 16 See PRB Annual Monitoring Report 2012, volume 4, Performance Review Body designated by the 

European Commission (December 7, 2013), 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 EU completely rebuts them. The EU delegation’s comments offer an

insightful appreciation of Norwegian International’s business model, which should be 

given 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 logistically efficient operation to deliver low fares and attractive new 

route options to its customers. To achieve this, Norwegian 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 be 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, who 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 that 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 proven 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 Norwegian 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 crews does not impact these requirements, and any suggestion to the 

contrary would imply that EASA’s oversight of pilot licensing is insufficient to ensure 

safety or sufficient regulatory oversight. Such claims are unsubstantiated.

The Objecting Parties assert that Norwegian International intends to “undermine 

labor standards”19 or erode the “labor-related rights and principles”20 contained in U.S. 

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

Convention and EU Regulation 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 the European Commission (referenced in detail in the Answer of the Air Line Pilots 

Association), the EU 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 out 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 airline to all crew, the following 

core facts 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 593/2008) in that it applies the 

law of the country in which an employee is hired and based to the employment relationship. ALPA 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 tradition of 

discouraging unionization.”22

Ultimately, the Objecting Parties attempt to rest their arguments on Article 17 bis 

of the Open Skies Agreement. As Norwegian International’s Consolidated Reply 

explains, however, the language, intent, and negotiating history 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 EU and its Member States or the United States that address 

airline employment and labor issues. Significantly, the EU, 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 the 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 EU and its Member States, Norway, and 

Iceland. 

 22 Notice, at 2.

23 Letter from the Irish Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to Secretary of Transportation 

Anthony R. Foxx (February 13, 2014); Letter from the Royal Norwegian Minister of Transport and 

Communications to Secretary of Transportation Anthony R. Foxx (February 3, 2014).
9

III. WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE AOC AND THE OPERATING LICENSE, 

THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD APPROVE NORWEGIAN 

INTERNATIONAL’S APPLICATION WITHOUT DELAY

Supplemented with the AOC and the Operating License, 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 Foreign 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 requirement 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 virtually 

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 Government of the United States that the grant of route authority 

provided for under the bilateral is in the ‘public interest.’”).
10

described in the Open Skies Agreement. The AOC and the Operating License 

demonstrate that Norwegian International 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 Aviation 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 critical 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 airlines 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 occurred, 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, were 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

future entry into the transatlantic 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 Department 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 have 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 applicable 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 proportional 

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. TIMES (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 the 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 13, 2014 Counsel for NORWEGIAN AIR 

INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on February 13, 2014, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing 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 Airlines

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.

rpommer@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@portoakland.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 Tsokris

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.org

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.org

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@eeas.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. Nelson
EXHIBIT A

AIR OPERATOR CERTIFICATE

(ATTACHED)



EXHIBIT B

OPERATING LICENSE

(ATTACHED)

EXHIBIT C

IAA STATEMENT

(ATTACHED)
IAA Statement on Safety Regulatory Performance

5

th February 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 is in relation to the current application by 

Norwegian Long-Haul Airlines to obtain an Air Operator’s Certificate from Ireland. 

The negative statements to which we refer are derogatory and are not factual. Therefore, although this is 

an unusual step, the IAA is happy to take the opportunity now to 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 ranked 

Ireland third in Europe and fourth worldwide, as illustrated in the tables below. For further 

information, please see: https://www.iaa.ie/news.jsp?i=325 which contains a copy of the ICAO Report 

and a summary 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. In 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, please see: https://www.iaa.ie/safetyperformance
3. 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-topoint system from 64 bases across Europe and northern Africa, 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 aircraft on 

the Irish Register from other regions worldwide such as Russia, Italy, Columbia, Mexico, and Spain.

For any further information, we wish to draw attention to the IAA's safety regulatory performance record, 

please 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