BEFORE THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC

______________________________________

)

Application of )

) Docket No. OST‐2013‐0204

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) )

______________________________________ )

ANSWER OF ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION

TO SUMMARY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE EUROPEAN DELEGATION 

REGARDING APPLICATION OF NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

FOR AN EXEMPTION AND FOREIGN AIR CARRIER PERMIT

Having examined closely the Summary of Information provided by the European 

Delegation concerning the application of Norwegian Air International Limited (“NAI”) for an 

exemption and a foreign air carrier permit, the Allied Pilots Association (“APA”) urges the 

Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to engage in further fact-finding to determine whether 

the requested permit would, in fact, be “in the public interest” as required under 49 U.S.C. § 

41302. 

The information contained in the Summary of Information – which consists solely of 

unsupported, hearsay statements – is not sufficient to enable DOT to make an informed

determination about whether NAI’s proposed service offerings fall within the letter or the spirit 

of the U.S.‐European/Norway/Iceland Air Transport Agreement (the “US-EU ATA”). Moreover, 

what little information the Summary of Information does contain suggests that NAI’s proposed 

offerings neither encourage “fair wages and working conditions,” 49 U.S.C. § 40101(a)(5), nor 
2

“strengthen the competitive position of [U.S.] air carriers to at least insure equality with foreign 

air carriers.” 49 U.S.C. § 40101(a)(15) and (e)(1). 

APA understands that multiple parties are filing answers to the Summary of Information 

provided by the European Delegation. Thus, to avoid redundancy, APA will not here engage in a 

detailed legal analysis of the arguments advanced by the European Delegation. 

Rather, APA has compiled a list of questions raised by parties in previous filings that 

were not answered or not adequately addressed by the Summary of Information. The APA has 

also identified a number of questions newly raised by the European Delegation’s statement.

These questions can be broadly grouped into five categories: (A) questions related to NAI’s 

corporate relationship to Norwegian Air Shuttle (“NAS”); (B) questions related to NAI’s 

corporate and operational relationship to Norwegian Long Haul AS (“NLH”); (C) questions 

related to the NAI’s intended labor and staffing model (including NAI’s position regarding the 

applicability of various labor protections and social laws); (D) questions related to the Irish and 

Norwegian government positions on the labor laws and terms and conditions of employment that 

govern NAI’s flight crew; and (E) questions related to NAI’s purported rationale for registering 

aircraft in Ireland and establishing NAI as an Irish airline.

A complete list of outstanding questions identified by APA is set forth below, with 

accompanying context and commentary. These questions should be answered by NAI in full 

before DOT makes any determination on NAI’s exemption and permit applications. 

A. NAI’s Relationship to NAS

The Summary of Information indicates that NAI is an NAS subsidiary, but does not 

provide additional detail as to the corporate relationship. See Summary of Information at 1. 
3

This leaves unanswered the following questions:

1. What is the corporate relationship between NAI and NAS? How is that corporate 

relationship structured?

2. Does NAS or an entity that it controls hold any stock in NAI? If so, how much of each 

class of NAI stock does NAS own and what percentage of each class does NAS own? 

How much NAI stock is owned by an entity that NAS controls and what percentage of 

each class of NAI stock is owned by an entity that NAS controls?

3. What is the relationship between NAS and any other stockholder of NAI?

4. Does any current or past employee, officer, or director of NAS or its corporate affiliates 

sit on the board of directors of NAI? If so, who? 

5. Does any current or past employee, officer, or director of NAS or its corporate affiliates 

hold a management position at NAI? If so, who? 

B. NAI’s Relationship to NLH

The Summary of Information indicates that NLH is also an NAS subsidiary, but does not 

provide additional detail as to the corporate relationship with NAS or NAI. See Summary of 

Information at 1. The exemption and foreign air carrier permit applications have been submitted 

in the name of NAI. However, the European Delegation’s statement discusses NHL’s current 

Norwegian Civil Authority Air (“NCAA”) Operator’s Certification (“AOC”) as well as current 

NCAA operating licenses with respect to two Irish-registered aircraft that are set to expire in 

February 2014 and April 2014, respectively. Id. The European Delegation also states that, if the 

Irish regulatory process for NAI is still pending after February 2014, NHL would request an 

extension of its Norwegian-issued licenses. See id. In addition, the Summary of Information 

describes the “NLH/NAI business model” as a unitary model that utilizing operating bases in the 

United States and Asia to serve several European Destinations. Id. at 1-2. 

This leaves unanswered the following questions:
4

6. What is the corporate relationship between NAI and NHL? How is that corporate 

relationship structured?

7. Does NLH, any entity that NLH controls, or any NLH stockholder hold any stock in 

NAI? If so, how much of each class of NAI stock do these NLH affiliates own and what 

percentage of each class do these NLH affiliates own? 

8. What is the relationship between NLH and any other stockholder of NAI?

9. Does any current or past employee, officer, or director of NLH or its corporate affiliates 

sit on the board of directors of NAI? If so, who? 

10. Does any current or past employee, officer, or director of NLH or its corporate affiliates 

hold a management position at NAI? If so, who? 

11. Within the unitary “NAI/NLH” business model, for what flying is NLH responsible? For 

what flying is NAI responsible? 

12. Within the unitary “NAI/NHL” business model, what operating bases will NLH use? 

What operating bases will NAI use? 

C. Labor and Staffing

The Summary of Information indicates that, given the NLH/NAI business model of 

utilizing US and Asian operating bases, “basing crews outside of Europe makes more sense 

economically.” See Summary of Information at 2. The European Delegation also stated that the 

carriers intend to hire and domicile crews at operating bases outside Europe in order to address 

“the related and complex staffing issues,” in particular domiciling crews “in Thailand generally 

for Bangkok-Europe fights, in the United States for U.S.-Europe flights, etc.” Id. The Summary 

of Information indicates that “the local labor laws of those countries would apply.” Id. The 

statement also asserts that “NAI intends to hire U.S. pilots in the future and would prefer to have 

crew bases in the United States for its U.S. operations.” Id. With respect to the present, the 
5

European Delegation indicated that NAI “is currently training cabin crew members that will be 

based in the United States, under U.S. law,” and currently utilizing long-haul pilots “employed 

by Global Crew Asia (Singapore)” and cabin crew members “employed by Adecco (Thailand).”

Id.

This leaves unanswered the following questions:

13. Who is the NLH air crew employed by? Who will the NAI air crew be employed by? 

a. The Delegation indicated that NLH currently utilizing long-haul pilots “employed 

by Global Crew Asia (Singapore)” and cabin crew members “employed by 

Adecco (Thailand).” This, however, is hearsay evidence and NAS has produced 

no contracts or documents so indicating. 

b. The Delegation’s statement as to current employment practices suggests that the 

hiring agencies that provide employ NLH flight crews will likewise employ air 

crews at NAI. However, the Delegation’s statement does not speak directly to 

this point. 

c. The statement that NAI “intends to hire U.S. pilots in the future” does not indicate 

which entity would employ those pilots.

14. What are the terms and conditions that apply to the employment of non-management air 

crew (pilots and flight attendants) who work for NLH and NAI? 

a. The Delegation indicated that NLH is currently utilizing long-haul pilots 

“employed by Global Crew Asia (Singapore)” and cabin crew members 

“employed by Adecco (Thailand).” NAS has produced no contracts or documents 

indicating the terms and conditions of such employment. 

b. The Delegation further provided average gross salary payment figures for 

Norwegian, Spanish, Thailand, and U.S. pilot and crew positions. The Summary 

of Information did not, however, specify the source of this salary information, 

provide any original documents to support these figures, or indicate that NAI has 

committed to maintain such rates. 

15. Where will NLH and NAI’s non-management air crews be domiciled?
6

a. The EU Delegation’s statement indicates an aspiration to domicile crew bases for 

U.S.-E.U. routes in the U.S. in the future. However, the Summary of Information 

offers no guidance about when such U.S. domiciles might be established and, 

indeed, makes no firm commitment to domicile crews in the U.S. at all. 

Moreover, the statements as to NAI/NLH’s business model indicate that the 

Company has ruled out domiciling crews in Europe. 

b. This suggests that – at least for some indefinite period of time – NAI plans to 

domicile its pilots (and perhaps even crews) in Asia, even with respect to U.S.-

E.U. routes. It is unclear how such an arrangement would “make more sense 

economically,” unless NAI anticipates a large differential in labor costs. 

16. What country’s or countries’ labor laws apply to the employment contract of NLH and 

NAI’s non-management air crew?

a. The European Delegation indicated that NLH/NAI intends to apply the “local 

labor laws” of the countries in which its crews are domiciled. As indicated above, 

it appears that NAI will continue to domicile crews for U.S.-E.U. routes in Asia. 

In addition, even if some US domiciles are used at some undetermined time in the 

future, it appears that NAI will continue to utilize Asian employer intermediaries. 

It is unclear which labor laws would apply in that circumstance. 

b. The European Delegation also indicated that NAS “has no tradition of 

discouraging unionization.” This unsupported statement is, at best, nebulous. It is 

unclear what it would mean to have a “tradition” of discouraging unionization, 

and the Summary of Information offers no reference point or basis for 

comparison. Moreover, this statement offers no commitment of future compliance 

with the labor protections of any particular country.

17. Is NLH’s non-management crew able to select a bargaining representative to negotiate 

terms and conditions of employment with NLH? If so what, what are the laws that 

govern the selection of a bargaining representative for the NLH air crew and the

negotiation of their terms and conditions of employment? What will be the policy for 

NAI? 

a. The Delegation indicates that “company employees are organized in labor 

unions,” but does not specify whether this statement refers to NAS employees, 

NLH employees or both. In addition, the Delegation did not specify which labor 

laws apply so such collective bargaining arrangements.
7

b. The European Delegation indicated that NLH/NAI intends to apply the “local 

labor laws” of the countries in which its crews are domiciled. As indicated above, 

it appears that NAI will continue domicile crews for U.S.-E.U. routes in Asia. In 

addition, even if some U.S. domiciles are used at some undetermined time in the 

future, it appears that NAI will continue to utilize Asian employer intermediaries. 

It is unclear which labor laws would apply in that circumstance. 

c. The European Delegation also indicated that NAS “has no tradition of 

discouraging unionization.” As stated above, this statement is unsupported and 

nebulous at best given the absence of any benchmarks or basis for comparison.

Moreover, again, it offers no commitment of future compliance with the labor 

protections of any particular country.

18. Do the terms of employment for NLH’s flight crew differ from those of NAS’s flight 

crew in Norway? Will the terms of employment for NAI’s flight crew differ from those 

of NAS’s flight crew in Norway? If so, how?

a. The European Delegation provided average gross salary payment figures for 

Norwegian, Spanish, Thailand, and U.S. pilot and crew positions. The tables 

provided did not specify the employing entities for these positions. Nor did the

Summary of Information specify the source of this salary information, give any 

detail as to the range of salaries for the cited countries, provide any documents to 

support these figures, or indicate that NAI has committed to maintain the cited

rates going forward. 

b. Summary of Information provided no information as to terms and conditions of 

employment other than the above-cited average gross salary figure. 

D. Positions of Norwegian and Irish Governments

The European Delegation made clear its support for NAI’s exemption and permit

applications, and appeared to implicitly endorse Norwegian’s contention that NAI and NHL 

crews would be subject to the local labor laws of the countries in which they were domiciled. 

See Summary of Information at 2-3. It did not, however, discuss the position of the governments 

of Norway and Ireland with respect to the terms and conditions of NLH and NAI’s flight crew, 
8

or those governments’ positions with respect to the labor laws that govern the operations of NLH 

and NAI. 

This leaves unanswered the following questions:

19. What is the position of the government of Norway with respect to the terms and 

conditions of NLH and NAI’s flight crew?

20. What is the position of the government of Ireland with respect to the terms and conditions 

of NLH and NAI’s flight crew?

21. What is the position of the government of Norway with respect to the labor laws that 

govern the operations of NLH and NAI?

22. What is the position of the government of Ireland with respect to the labor laws that 

govern the operations of NLH and NAI?

E. Purported Explanation for Pursuing Non-Norwegian AOC

The Summary of Information indicates that NAI’s goal in registering aircraft in Ireland 

and establishing NAI as an Irish airline was not to avoid Norwegian social laws but, rather, to 

“have access to significant additional traffic rights not available to it as a Norwegian carrier, 

access to additional financing under OECD rules, and access to insurance and financing rebates 

because Ireland is a Cape Town Convention signatory.” Summary of Information at 1. In 

addition, the Summary cites Ireland’s “considerable aviation cluster” as a reason for licensing 

NAI as an Irish Carrier. Id.

This response newly raises the following questions:

23. What additional traffic rights would be available to NAI as an E.U. carrier that are not 

available to it as a Norwegian carrier? Given that NAI is not planning operations out of 

Ireland, how does NAI intend to make use of these traffic rights? Does NAI have 

documentation indicating that it will take advantage of these E.U.-only traffic rights?
24. What additional financing is available to carriers in countries that are signatories to the 

Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Does 

NAI have concrete plans to take advantage ofthe OECD financing options? Is there 

documentation supporting such intent? 

25. What insurance and financing rebates would be available to an Irish carrier under the 

Cape Town Convention? Does NAI have concrete plans to take advantage of the Cape 

Town Convention financing or insurance provisions? Is there documentation supporting 

such intent? 

26. What is it specifically about Ireland's "considerable aviation cluster" that is preferable to 

Norway's? 

CONCLUSION 

If DOT does not immediately reject NAI' s application for an exemption and foreign air 

carrier permit, DOT should - at minimum - require NAI to answer the above questions in full. 

Unless and until NAI provides the information described above, DOT will not be able to make 

an informed determination about whether the foreign air transportation NAI seeks to provide 

under the requested permit would be "in the public interest." 49 U.S.C. § 41302. 

February 14,2014 

9 

:~it:d' 

David P. Dean 

JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C. 

1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 

Suite 950 

Washington, D.C. 20036-3975 

(telephone) 202-496-0500 

(facsimile) 202-496-0555 

ejames@jamhoff.com 

dpdean@jamhoff.com 

Attorneys for the Allied Pilots Association 
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have, on this 14th day of February, 2014, served the foregoing Answer by 

causing a copy to be sent by electronic mail to the addresses identified below:

Josh Romanow 

Peter Nelson 

Counsel for Norwegian Air International 

Limited

romanow@pillsburylaw.com 

peter.nelson@pillsburylaw.com

Steve Morrissey

Thomas Bolling

United Airlines

steve.morrissey@united.com

thomas.bolling@united.com

Dan Weiss

Hershel Kamen

United Airlines

dan.weiss@united.com

hershel.kamen@united.com

Sascha Van der Bellen

Delta Airlines

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

Howard Kass

U.S. Airways

howard.kass@usairways.com

Robert Wirick

Francis Heil

American Airlines, Inc.

robert.wirick@aa.com

francis.heil@aa.com

Robert Land

Senior Vice President of Government 

Affairs and Association General Counsel

robert.land@jetblue.com

Russell E. Pommer

Associate General Counsel & Sr. Director

Regulatory Affairs

Atlas Air Inc.

rpommer@atlasair.com

Celine Canu

Philip Von Schoppenthau

European Cockpit Association

cc@eurocockpit.be

pvs@eurocockpit.be

Malcom L. Benge

Counsel for North American/World Airways

Zuckert Scoutt & Rasenberger, L.L.P.

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com

John M. Allen

Michael Whitaker

Jesse Elliot

Douglas Schwab

Nicholas Tsokris

Federal Aviation Administration

john.allen@faa.gov

michael.whitaker@faa.gov

jesse.elliot@faa.gov

douglas.schwab@faa.gov

nicholas.tsokris@faa.gov

john.chen@faa.gov

Anita Mosner

Jennifer Nowak

Counsel for UPS

Holland & Knight

anita.mosner@hklaw.com

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com
11

Nancy S. Sparks

Bailey Leopard

Federal Express Corporation

nssparks@fedex.com

gbleopard@fedex.com

Russell Bailey

Jonathan Cohen

Air Line Pilots Association, International

russell.bailey@alpa.org

jonathan.cohen@alpa.org

Edward Wytkind

President, Transportation Trades 

Department, AFL-CIO

edw@ttd.org

Krishna Urs

Kristin Westphal

Department of State

urskr@state.gov

westphalkl@state.gov

cristinasa@state.gov

Paul Gretch

Robert Finamore

Brian Hedberg

Reese Davidson

Esta Rosenberg

Brett Kruger

U.S. Department of Transportation

paul.gretch@dot.gov

robert.finamore@dot.gov

brian.hedberg@dot.gov

reese.davidson@dot.gov

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov

brett.kruger@dot.gov

David Berg

James Casey

Keith Glatz

Cecilia Bethke

Airlines for America

dberg@airlines.org

jcasey@airlines.org

kglatz@airlines.org

ebethke@airlines.org

Vegard Einan

Vice President Parat

vegard.einan@parat.com

Chris Lytle

Executive Director, Port of Oakland

clytle@portoakland.com

Kent G. George

Director of Aviation

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International 

Airport

kgeorge@broward.org

Mark Richardson

President, Southwest Airline Pilots’ 

Association

mrichardson@swapa.org

Eugene Alford

Air Transport Services

eugene.alford@trade.gov

Matthew Baldwin

Director, Aviation and International 

Transport Affairs

European Commission

matthew.baldwin@ec.eurpoa.eu

Felix Leinemann

First Secretary, Transport

felix.leinemann@eeas.europa.eu

David Batchelor

Representative, Single European Sky ATM 

Research Joint Undertaking

david.batchelor@sesarju.eu

Ottar Ostnes
12

Director General, Ministry of Transport and 

Communications

ottar.ostnes@sd.dep.no

Stephen Shur

President, The Travel Technology 

Association

sshur@traveltech.org

John Hanlon

Secretary General, Eruopean Low Fares 

Airline Association

john.hanlon@ELFAA.com

Leo Varadkar

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport

minister@dttas.ie

Leo Schefer

President, Washington Airports Task Force

leo@washingtonairports.com

Buddy Dyer

Mayor, City of Orlando, Florida

buddy.dyer@cityoforlando.net

Teresa Jacobs

Mayor, Orange County, Florida

mayor@ocfl.net

Phillip Brown

Frank Kruppenbacher

Greater Orlando Aviation Authority

pbrown@goaa.org

fkruppenbacher@goaa.org

George Aguel

President and CEO, Visit Orlando

george.aguel@visitorlando.com

Concerned Citizen for a Fair America

ashburnxxx@gmail.com

info@airlineinfo.com