Norwegian - Helgelektyre for den oppegående - Særdeles skremmende

Det som fremkommer under har vært vanskelig å redigere for bloggen. Det er konvertert fra .pdf, og jeg har det signerte brevet. Det er ikke rart amerikanske flygere, ag andre som er utsatt for tilsvarende fremstøt, er særdeles bekymret. Saken er enda ikke avgjort i Department of Transportation vs. EU, og jeg er særdeles bekymret på vegne av de som kjemper mot Kjos` fremstøt. Jeg håper og tror at DoT skjønner at dette kan få implikasjoner for andre foretak i USA som har internasjonale forgreninger, og på annen måte kan sammenliknes med NAI. 

Evidence to the US Department of Transport in the application of the

Norwegian Airline Group (Norwegian) for a Foreign Air Carrier Permit

August 18, 2014

Dear Secretary Foxx,

I write as someone on the blunt ‘receiving end’ of the Norwegian business model as it relates

to Article 17 of the current EU-US Air Transport Agreement.

Please review items 1-26 of my attached declaration detailing the facts of my tenure as a

contract Captain with the Norwegian regime.

Much has been proclaimed by Norwegian in regard to its alleged compliance and promotion

of the human worth values within Article 17 - “The opportunities created by the Agreement

are not intended to undermine labor standards or the labor related rights and principles

contained in the parties respective laws”.

Unlike Norwegian, Article 17 makes no distinction between employee and contract worker.

I received two agency contracts with Norwegian. Each contract contained the stipulation I

could not hold the lessee airline, Norwegian, responsible as the employer (ref item 4).

Several legal jurisdictions were applicable to the working relationship (ref item 5).

In reference to safety, discrepancy or whistle-blowing reports, European and local Member

State labor laws, including aviation regulations, refer specifically to an employer/employee

relationship. Therefore, any transgression by Norwegian against a contract crew member has

effective impunity due to the complexity of applying employment law to the non-employer

relationship Norwegian demands of its contract crew, notwithstanding, the legal issues of

jurisdiction and forum (ref item 18).

EU Directive 2003/42/EC, Article 8.4 states: “Member States shall ensure that employees

who report incidents of which they may have knowledge are not subjected to any prejudice

by their employer”.

A contract crew member has neither protection nor redress from any punitive/discriminatory

action by Norwegian. Consequently, contract crew members may not submit safety or other

reports management may perceive as critical of the airline. It is implausible to suggest that

such a work environment is conducive to a safety culture. It is conducive to a fear culture.

The earlier safety information is submitted, the earlier any threat to safety can be resolved.

Any business model that would obstruct and deter such information is unprincipled.

Norwegian’s company Code of Ethics states: “We place great importance on ensuring

compliance with employees basic human rights as outlined in the International Labor

Organization’s core conventions”.

My declaration details a personal experience of Norwegian’s absolute disregard for labor

standards, rights and principles, including the International Labor Organization core

convention number 158 – “A worker may not have his employment terminated unless there is

a valid reason connected with the workers aptitude or behavior or based on the operational

needs of the enterprise, establishment or service” – (ref items 12, 13 and 14).

Every contract crew member currently working for Norwegian is exposed to, potentially, the

same unethical treatment detailed in my declaration. It is inconceivable that the Norwegian

business model could comply with the spirit and intention of Article 17.

I respectfully request that you not only deny Norwegian’s application for a Foreign Air Carrier Permit, but also necessitate a review of their operations within the US for any possible noncompliance

with FAR Part 129 – (ref item 10).

Yours truly,

Captain S. Colman

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) 

Declaration of Captain Stephen Colman

1. My name is Stephen Colman. I am a former contract pilot for Norwegian Air Shuttle, and

Norwegian Long Haul. My declaration identifies the significant problems and regulatory

failures I faced when attempting to seek redress from multiple European countries’

regulators for adverse employment actions taken against me because of my safety

reporting. I cannot conceive how the business model to which I was subjected could be

consistent with the spirit and intent of Article 17 bis of the U.S-EU Air Transport

Agreement.

2. I have been flying long-haul widebody and narrowbody airline transport category aircraft

for 29 years. I hold several Airline Transport Pilot Licenses (ATPL) issued by various

authorities, including by the United Kingdom.

3. I responded to a Norwegian Air Shuttle (“Norwegian” or “NAS”) advertisement to join

the airline. Norwegian arranged tickets to attend their interview. Norwegian informed me

I had been successful and gave me a choice of three agencies with which to sign a

contract for a three-year term.

4. I was provided with two contracts. Each contract contained the specific clause that the

crew member has no claim he is or was an employee of the lessee airline (the Norwegian

Airline Group).

5. The employment agency I selected was “ARPI Aviation Norway.” Despite its name, the

contract identified ARPI Aviation Norway’s office address as being in Poland. In the

contract, ARPI Aviation Norway chose Swedish law to govern the contract. My

operational base with Norwegian was Helsinki, Finland. At the same time, my ATPL and

medical are issued in the United Kingdom, while Norwegian has its corporate

headquarters/principal place of business in Norway. As can be seen, several legal

jurisdictions potentially affected my working relationship with Norwegian.

6. Starting in May 2012, Norwegian provided all my training. I passed all exams and

probationary period, including Norwegian’s CAA-Norway-approved, mandatory Crew

Resource Management (CRM) course. I also passed all subsequent exams, tests and

checks.

7. Norwegian provided me with an official crew member identification badge with the

abbreviation ‘Empl’ (employee) with number, and ‘Empl’ (employee) with date,

appearing on the badge. However, the name of my employment agency, ARPI Aviation

Norway, did not appear on the badge.

8. In October 2012, Norwegian notified me that in addition to flying for NAS, I would also

be “hired out” to fly for another airline with its own Air Operators Certificate (AOC),

called Norwegian Long Haul (NLH). NLH would operate from my Helsinki base. I was

not given a choice, and was neither consulted nor advised as to the terms and conditions

with NLH prior to being notified, but was promised “great benefits” which did not

materialize.

9. Norwegian company policy, as stated in both the NAS and NLH Operations Manual, Part

A (OMA) 1.4.1, requires that the aircraft commander shall ensure all standard

procedures, instructions and regulations as laid down by the Company and various civil

aviation administrations, are adhered to by all members of his or her crew, in the air and

on the ground, and “on his [sic] own initiative make suggestions for improvements.”

Norwegian, including its CEO, continually solicits safety information from its crew: “It is

of great importance to the company that you have confidence to share your experiences

with us.”

10. Encouraged by these company policies that purported to solicit safety information, during

my tenure I submitted six safety/operational discrepancy reports to both NAS and NLH

management. All reports were supported with relevant company and/or EU OPS

regulations. One report was classified under EU Directive 2003/42/EC, Annex 1 B (ii)

(a) and (f), as a Mandatory Occurrence Report. The NAS Chief Pilot, the NLH Training

Manager, and the Norwegian Airline Group Safety Manager all failed to reply to any of

my reports. A reply from the Deputy Director of Flight Operations (DFO), demanded to

know if I had contacted CAA Norway.

11. Following my safety/operational discrepancy reports, the attitude of Norwegian’s

management toward me became hostile. I cataloged the punitive and discriminatory

actions taken against me and reported them to the Chief Pilot on November 30, 2012.

The Chief Pilot did not reply. On December 20, 2012, I did hear from the Director of

Flight Operations (DFO), who replied, “I am sorry to hear that you have experienced

punitive actions against you.”

12. On December 31, 2012, Norwegian terminated my contract without giving any reason.

(ARPI Aviation Norway’s notice to me stated: “Based on the decision of our client” -

Norwegian).

13. At the time Norwegian terminated my contract, no other Captain was terminated and

Norwegian was placing advertisements for, and actively recruiting pilots, most of who

were considerably less experienced than me.

14. Only days before my termination, on December 20, 2012, in fact, I received an above

average grade for ‘winter operations’ on my last simulator check. The examiner made

the annotation; “nice handling of aircraft”. Norwegian assigned and authorized me to

command its B737 aircraft full of its passengers on a daily basis, including up to one day

before termination. No disciplinary action or investigation was ever taken against me by

Norwegian or ARPI Aviation Norway.

15. In January 2013, I submitted a comprehensive report to CAA Norway regarding safety

and operational discrepancies at Norwegian, including the punitive action and my

termination by Norwegian. CAA Norway responded that NAS/NLH management had

addressed the issues of my reports. However, the Director General of CAA Norway was

categorically unwilling to consider any reason, connection or coincidence for my

treatment and termination by Norwegian, stating; “Such issues were between employee

and employer” and “Norwegian is free to hire the crew they would like to hire.”

16. A prospective employer submitted a U.S. Pilot Record Improvement Act (PRIA) request

to Norwegian’s Director of Flight Operations and Norwegian’s Chief Pilot. Only the

respective airline is responsible to generate and retain training records. Neither officer

responded to the PRIA request.

17. I notified CAA Norway of Norwegian’s refusal to comply with US Federal Law. CAA

Norway stated: “The CAA cannot comment on the US Federal Government Pilot Record

Improvement Act and whether Norwegian has acted in accordance with the Act”.

18. In addition to CAA Norway (item 15), I submitted details of my safety/operational

discrepancy reports, treatment and termination by Norwegian, to the following bodies:

(i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) – February 25, 2013 - with reply:

“The Norwegian CAA is the body responsible for collecting of safety related information,

safety oversight and law enforcement in the filed of flight operations and safety

management”

(ii) Finland Transport Safety Agency (TraFi) - March 14, 2013 – with reply:

“CAA Norway is the competent authority……..”

(iii) UK Civil Aviation Authority – May 23, 2013 – with reply:

“The fact that aircraft operate based in Helsinki or Gatwick does not alter the

responsibility of the Norwegian authority for oversight. CAA Norway is the competent

authority”

(iv) European Commission Flight Safety Department - July 4, 2013 – with reply:

"It is not relevant where the aircraft operates or where the commander is based or

employed but which state ensures safety oversight, i.e. where the operator has its

principle place of business"

(v) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) – July 9, 2013 - with reply:

“Whether or not there is non-compliance [with EU Ops] can only be made by the

Norwegian CAA”

“We do not agree that it is up to Finland (the state from which you operated) to assess

such non-compliance”

(vi) EU Ombudsman – 17 October, 2013 – with reply:

“The responsibility to deal with these issue falls under the Norwegian CAA’s remit”

“Norway is not an EU member State, the Commission could not engage in infringement

procedure or take other action against Norway”

(vii) Finland Occupational Safety and Discrimination Administration – June 3, 2014

– with reply:

“The airline involved [Norwegian] is not Finnish and we cannot supervise them”

(Despite Norwegian having aircraft and a large crew base in Helsinki, Finland)

(viii) Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) Director of Safety - June 6, 2014 – NO REPLY.

19. However, as I have described, CAA Norway refused to take any action concerning my

termination that I believe occurred in retaliation for my safety reporting.

20. Recently, I was made aware that the Norwegian Airline Group and ARPI Aviation

Norway disclosed my personal data, including my bank details and account numbers, to

third parties without my express permission. Those third parties then disclosed that

information to other third parties without my consent. Such action is in violation of the

Norway Personal Data Act.

21. The Norway Personal Data Act provides that upon request to entities holding their

personal data, a person shall receive information to whom and for what purpose their data

was disclosed. The Act also provides that upon request, their data is removed and they

are notified of such. Necessary requests were made to both Norwegian and ARPI

Aviation Norway Human Resource managers. To date, neither has replied.

22. The actions of Norwegian and ARPI Aviation Norway have placed me at risk of potential

identity theft, and violate Norway’s law.

23. The Norwegian Airline Group, Code of Ethics states: “We place great importance on

ensuring compliance with employee’s basic human rights as outlined in the International

Labor Organization’s core conventions”. Norwegian has also stated it “Applies the law of

the country to where the employee is hired and based”. Sadly, the facts clearly

demonstrate the reality of Norwegian’s gross hypocrisy.

24. Norwegian’s lawyers in Sweden have implied I may expect legal repercussions for

breach of contract were I to file any claim for discriminatory action with reference to an

“employer/employee” relationship – ref item 4. No other definition within safety related

legislation currently exists - ref EU Directive 2003/42/EC Article 8.4: “Member States

shall ensure that employees who report incidents of which they may have knowledge are

not subjected to any prejudice by their employer”.

25. From the aforementioned documented facts, it is abundantly clear that a crewmember

who is not a direct employee of the Norwegian Airline Group, and therefore is without

union and Norway legal protections, has no redress if managers at Norwegian take

punitive and discriminatory action against them, up to termination and even after. The

quagmire of legislative jurisdictions makes such relief extremely difficult, if not

impossible. It is implausible to suggest that such an abhorrent working environment

is conducive to a culture that promotes safety. It is conducive to a culture of fear.

26. Every contract crew member of Norwegian is exposed to and potentially subject to the

same treatment detailed above. I respectfully request that NAI’s applications be denied.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my belief.

Executed on August 18, 2014

___________________ _______________________________

Stephen Colman  (The letter is signed)