Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Long-Haul Expansion by a Norwegian Carrier Upsets U.S. Airlines
Flying doesn’t come cheaply these days, particularly on long-haul flights across the Atlantic. But Norwegian Air Shuttle, which specializes in low-cost flights within Europe, plans to bring its pared-down model to the United States and Asia. Its strategy, however, comes with a few twists: Norwegian is moving its long-haul operations from Norway to Ireland, basing some of its pilots and crew in Bangkok, hiring flight attendants in the United States, and flying the most advanced jetliner in… (www.nytimes.com) Mais...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I'm go out on a limb and suggest that most of the pilots, A&P's, Flight Attendants, Gate Agents et al, working for American airline corp's shop at WalMart.
Boo frikkin hoo, it's called competition!!!
Yes, it's called competition when I start a company that doesn't have to follow the same rules you do and I put you out of business
It's called reality...
As long as there are minimum safety rules that all airlines must meet, let each airline set up whatever stupid rules or not, and live with the results.
'Yeah, but they aren't willing to adopt our stupid rules that make us much less competitive.' is not a compelling argument.
'Yeah, but they aren't willing to adopt our stupid rules that make us much less competitive.' is not a compelling argument.
You mean our stupid rules regarding who's qualified to fly and maintain airplanes? Or are you referring to those that do things like prohibit child labor and indentured servitude? You're right. We are at a competitive disadvantage to countries that don't have those same rules, so let's abandon them and join the great race to the bottom just to stay profitable.
There's no child labor or indentured servitude at any competing airlines. Just mentioning them in the same breath is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Airlines basically need qualified pilots and qualified mechanics, as you seem to agree would be necessary.
As you layer other superfluous rules, be mindful that not all airlines or employees will agree with you.
Airlines basically need qualified pilots and qualified mechanics, as you seem to agree would be necessary.
As you layer other superfluous rules, be mindful that not all airlines or employees will agree with you.
We can argue all day about which rules you regard as superfluous, but that's not the point. The point is there cannot be true competition as long as two entities operate by different rules. So if you think NAI, operating as a Norwegian Airline, with aircraft registered in Ireland, crews based in Thailand and hired under contract from Singapore is good for competition then you're going to love this. It will bring down fares, but at what cost? Is cheaper always better?
As long as every pilot is properly qualified to fly the plane and every mechanic properly qualified to fix them. I don't care if those crews ard based in Norway, Ireland, Thailand or Singapore. I just care that they can do their job well.
Note how RyanAir has never had a fatal crash in its' entire history. At the same time, other mainline airlines like Air France and KLM have had many.
Some often make strawman arguments against other airlines because they are different. Often time employees at airlines like Southwest and JetBlue report being happier. They frequently will go decades like RyanAir without a fatal accident.
So those arguments can be tossed out.
All airlines should not be made to look and operate like those airlines that have failed their passengers and employees in myriad ways. That they approach the problems in novel ways, is what innovation and competition are all about.
Note how RyanAir has never had a fatal crash in its' entire history. At the same time, other mainline airlines like Air France and KLM have had many.
Some often make strawman arguments against other airlines because they are different. Often time employees at airlines like Southwest and JetBlue report being happier. They frequently will go decades like RyanAir without a fatal accident.
So those arguments can be tossed out.
All airlines should not be made to look and operate like those airlines that have failed their passengers and employees in myriad ways. That they approach the problems in novel ways, is what innovation and competition are all about.
While we're tossing out arguments, let's toss out that old fallacy that lack of an accident equals safety. But that's beside the point. Let's stick to the original topic. Competition. Is it competition if you run a business that has to comply with certain rules while your supposed competitor doesn't?
So you're happy if everyone is properly qualified and adheres to minimum rules. Who gets to set those rules? You think ours are too strict and our standards too high and the answer to our competitive disadvantage is to dumb us down to the lowest common denominator?
So you're happy if everyone is properly qualified and adheres to minimum rules. Who gets to set those rules? You think ours are too strict and our standards too high and the answer to our competitive disadvantage is to dumb us down to the lowest common denominator?
For the most part both the FAA and European regulator seem to set a decent minimum standard for commercial airlines as far as safety is concerned. Any Europe or US based airline will likely meet any minimum safety standard worth enforcing.
I wouldn't be anywhere near as comfortable with airlines regulation from some other parts of the world, including parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, where accident rates are high.
For the record, ZERO fatso accidents is the only long-term measure of safety worth measuring.
I don't need anh convoluted mental gymnastics to somehow portray a safe airline (no fatal accidents) as not safe.
At the end, all I want in terms of safety is fir an airline to get me to my destination safely (that is alive and unbroken). Any attempt to minimize the value of repeatedly tranporting passengers safely over decades is abhorrent. Please don't do it. Please don't ask me to pretend that there is any serious validity to the minimization of safely transporting millions of passengers for decades.
No way is that less safe than other 'normal' airlines that kill a plane load of passengers every few years. I won't be convinced by your logic. (or more precisely by your lack of logic).
I wouldn't be anywhere near as comfortable with airlines regulation from some other parts of the world, including parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, where accident rates are high.
For the record, ZERO fatso accidents is the only long-term measure of safety worth measuring.
I don't need anh convoluted mental gymnastics to somehow portray a safe airline (no fatal accidents) as not safe.
At the end, all I want in terms of safety is fir an airline to get me to my destination safely (that is alive and unbroken). Any attempt to minimize the value of repeatedly tranporting passengers safely over decades is abhorrent. Please don't do it. Please don't ask me to pretend that there is any serious validity to the minimization of safely transporting millions of passengers for decades.
No way is that less safe than other 'normal' airlines that kill a plane load of passengers every few years. I won't be convinced by your logic. (or more precisely by your lack of logic).
Insults to my logic, statistical methods, and ignorance aside, you still have not answered the central question. Is it true competition when two entities operate by different rules?
If company A gets a taxpayer funded loan to buy that shiny new 787 and company B does not, is it a surprise when they offer cheaper fares? If company A does not have to comply with FAA part 117 when company B does, is it illogical to assume their costs will be lower and thus offer cheaper fares? To compare both of them, whether on service or safety is like comparing apples to oranges. They operate in completely different regulatory worlds.
The argument about what those rules should be is separate from the argument over the fact there's no level playing field, and despite my failing logic I suspect we probably agree more than we disagree when it comes to the fact we both want a certain minimum. Neither one of us is willing to live with the minimums we observe in places like the third world.
Yet where we disagree most is just how to achieve that level field. You want to eliminate or erase those burdensome regulations that make us less competitive. I think there's a reason a country that pioneered aviation more than a century ago has the rules we have. Many of them were written in blood.
I think it's a mistake to take a step backwards just for the sake of competition. I'd rather see everyone held to the highest possible standards, not the lowest.
I'm sure you got to work every day trying to do the best job possible, as most of us do. And I'm sure you get just as annoyed with the people who only try to do the minimum.
What NAI is doing here is just that.
Yes, there's a price to pay. It means fares won't be as cheap as possible. And when people complain about the level of service they get on a domestic airline these days just remember. Prior to 1978 it was much more expensive to fly. Now you get what you pay for.
If company A gets a taxpayer funded loan to buy that shiny new 787 and company B does not, is it a surprise when they offer cheaper fares? If company A does not have to comply with FAA part 117 when company B does, is it illogical to assume their costs will be lower and thus offer cheaper fares? To compare both of them, whether on service or safety is like comparing apples to oranges. They operate in completely different regulatory worlds.
The argument about what those rules should be is separate from the argument over the fact there's no level playing field, and despite my failing logic I suspect we probably agree more than we disagree when it comes to the fact we both want a certain minimum. Neither one of us is willing to live with the minimums we observe in places like the third world.
Yet where we disagree most is just how to achieve that level field. You want to eliminate or erase those burdensome regulations that make us less competitive. I think there's a reason a country that pioneered aviation more than a century ago has the rules we have. Many of them were written in blood.
I think it's a mistake to take a step backwards just for the sake of competition. I'd rather see everyone held to the highest possible standards, not the lowest.
I'm sure you got to work every day trying to do the best job possible, as most of us do. And I'm sure you get just as annoyed with the people who only try to do the minimum.
What NAI is doing here is just that.
Yes, there's a price to pay. It means fares won't be as cheap as possible. And when people complain about the level of service they get on a domestic airline these days just remember. Prior to 1978 it was much more expensive to fly. Now you get what you pay for.
You're right. I agree with much if what you write.
The only safety minimum for me is for planes not to be dropping out of the sky. That's it.
I also want the airline to get me where I want to go at the appointed time with pleasant service. But I'll get that by choosing my flights in the marketplace.
The only regulations I want are those those create the minimum safety necessary. My demanded level of safety is a high bar indeed. No dropping planes. Ever. So I don't ask for more from the point of view of level playing field.
The rest. Excessive and ocerreachingcollective bargaining, excessive and overreaching regulatiion that makes some airlines less competitive than others, and cause them to go out of business, or to layoff, furlough or terminate employees, ask for concessions, etc. is just natural rebalancing.
The problem with many long established airlines that have grown large, is that there are often too many extra workers that aren't doing the real work of flying planes. That extra bloat of unproductive workers needs to be punished in the marketplace. Every time employees observe colleagues who aren't carrying their own weight, and don't think anyhtung of it, it is no surprise that they all end up suffering, or at least the lowest seniority workers. The same with old lumbering bureaucracies that are functioning as a regulator. They often have too many employee, not enough with essential regulatory functions relating directly to safety. Many of these extra government workers look for reasons to stay employed, and create busy work for pilots, airlines, and their employees. In as much as this extra busy work doesn't add to safety, it also creates a competitive disadvantagein the marketplace.
I'm not prepared to level the playing field to erase the penalties of excessive and unnecessary regulation, nor the penalties of excessive pay that doesn't match the service levels experienced by pasengers. Any workers that want to demand the highest pay should deserve it from providing the highest and beat regarded service to passengers, who are willing to pay the higher fares to get that higher quality service.
Whenever employees gel entitled to higher pay than thier counterparts at other airlines, but don't provide better and more pleasant service than their counterparts, that is an imbalance that nature wants to rebalance. We should stay out of the way, and let nature take its' course in the marketplace.
The only safety minimum for me is for planes not to be dropping out of the sky. That's it.
I also want the airline to get me where I want to go at the appointed time with pleasant service. But I'll get that by choosing my flights in the marketplace.
The only regulations I want are those those create the minimum safety necessary. My demanded level of safety is a high bar indeed. No dropping planes. Ever. So I don't ask for more from the point of view of level playing field.
The rest. Excessive and ocerreachingcollective bargaining, excessive and overreaching regulatiion that makes some airlines less competitive than others, and cause them to go out of business, or to layoff, furlough or terminate employees, ask for concessions, etc. is just natural rebalancing.
The problem with many long established airlines that have grown large, is that there are often too many extra workers that aren't doing the real work of flying planes. That extra bloat of unproductive workers needs to be punished in the marketplace. Every time employees observe colleagues who aren't carrying their own weight, and don't think anyhtung of it, it is no surprise that they all end up suffering, or at least the lowest seniority workers. The same with old lumbering bureaucracies that are functioning as a regulator. They often have too many employee, not enough with essential regulatory functions relating directly to safety. Many of these extra government workers look for reasons to stay employed, and create busy work for pilots, airlines, and their employees. In as much as this extra busy work doesn't add to safety, it also creates a competitive disadvantagein the marketplace.
I'm not prepared to level the playing field to erase the penalties of excessive and unnecessary regulation, nor the penalties of excessive pay that doesn't match the service levels experienced by pasengers. Any workers that want to demand the highest pay should deserve it from providing the highest and beat regarded service to passengers, who are willing to pay the higher fares to get that higher quality service.
Whenever employees gel entitled to higher pay than thier counterparts at other airlines, but don't provide better and more pleasant service than their counterparts, that is an imbalance that nature wants to rebalance. We should stay out of the way, and let nature take its' course in the marketplace.
And I totally agree with your sentiment about paying people for doing nothing. It bothers me as well.
And interestingly enough the newly released FAA part 117 flight and duty time rules tie nicely into this discussion. It's actually going to force airlines to pay pilots for doing less, and to hire more to make up the difference.
Does an airline like NAI have to operate to those same duty regs? The answer is no. They can fly their pilots longer hours and won't have to hire as many in the first place. Does that put domestic airlines at a competitive disadvantage. Yes.
So what to do. Do we abandon part 117 and go back to the days where getting 8 hours of rest in the middle of the day counts the same as getting it at night?
Has an airplane ever fallen out of the sky because the pilots were too fatigued? Not directly. But have there been incidents like MD-80 overrun in little rock and pilots taking off or landing on the wrong runway where fatigue has been a contributing factor. Yes.
This is why just looking at crashes doesn't give you the complete safety picture.
And who's to blame for this competitive disadvantage? The airlines who have to comply with the regs? The FAA? The unions fighting for higher safety standards?
The bottom line is this. We're never going to be able to compete with another airline that doesn't have to live up to the same standards. So, again, do we lower ours or raise theirs?
And interestingly enough the newly released FAA part 117 flight and duty time rules tie nicely into this discussion. It's actually going to force airlines to pay pilots for doing less, and to hire more to make up the difference.
Does an airline like NAI have to operate to those same duty regs? The answer is no. They can fly their pilots longer hours and won't have to hire as many in the first place. Does that put domestic airlines at a competitive disadvantage. Yes.
So what to do. Do we abandon part 117 and go back to the days where getting 8 hours of rest in the middle of the day counts the same as getting it at night?
Has an airplane ever fallen out of the sky because the pilots were too fatigued? Not directly. But have there been incidents like MD-80 overrun in little rock and pilots taking off or landing on the wrong runway where fatigue has been a contributing factor. Yes.
This is why just looking at crashes doesn't give you the complete safety picture.
And who's to blame for this competitive disadvantage? The airlines who have to comply with the regs? The FAA? The unions fighting for higher safety standards?
The bottom line is this. We're never going to be able to compete with another airline that doesn't have to live up to the same standards. So, again, do we lower ours or raise theirs?
Neither. You live with your rules. They live with theirs.
Way too many people paint themselves into a box, and expect others to pay to save them from their self-inflected box.
As long as the airlines are operating safely, let them compete the best they can. If you clean up, then that's because they're doing something right.
Way too many people paint themselves into a box, and expect others to pay to save them from their self-inflected box.
As long as the airlines are operating safely, let them compete the best they can. If you clean up, then that's because they're doing something right.
Whoa, Quite An Accusation About Government Making Up Rules To Keep People Employed. Any Proof?
Actually, I'm fairly certain that I'm saying the opposite.
Government rules increases cost, decreases competitiveness, and costs jobs.
Government rules increases cost, decreases competitiveness, and costs jobs.
I am talking about the government (FAA). AND- actually, since deregulation there are now four major airlines that dominate the market in the US, with quality of life for flight crews at a record low.
Some folks may be feeling burnt out, which colors their perspective.
But the work-rest rules per regulations are the best they've ever been.
At airlines with collective bargaining, this crew numbers with lots of seniority get paid big bucks. But they've thrown thR newer employees under the bus with newer employees on reserve fir years and getting paid lower wages. The conditions are wrist at stagnant airlines that gave been in and out of furloughs for years, and providing fewer opportunities to move up the list with little airline growth.
But anyone with even a small handful of years at a JetBlue or Virgin America have great seniority and great work conditions.
It all depends if you chose a loser to work for, ir a growing up-and-comer airline.
But the work-rest rules per regulations are the best they've ever been.
At airlines with collective bargaining, this crew numbers with lots of seniority get paid big bucks. But they've thrown thR newer employees under the bus with newer employees on reserve fir years and getting paid lower wages. The conditions are wrist at stagnant airlines that gave been in and out of furloughs for years, and providing fewer opportunities to move up the list with little airline growth.
But anyone with even a small handful of years at a JetBlue or Virgin America have great seniority and great work conditions.
It all depends if you chose a loser to work for, ir a growing up-and-comer airline.
