Norwegian - Report by cabin crew

• Safety Report
  • Flight DY 7006
  • JFK – ARN
  • January 26, 2015
  • Aircraft LNF
  I arrived at the airport at 18:45; pilots arrived at 18:55. Pilots introduced themselves. Pilot in Command and doing his line check would be Captain Nicholas John Cunningham, First Officer also doing line check would be Erik Totaro, the Captain conducting the line check would be John Didier Tschopp. Prior to the briefing even starting which was next to the check-in counter, near passengers Mr. Cunningham stated “I am not from here, and I will not be stuck here.” The briefing then started which was very quick and rushed. All crewmembers were not even present, but the Flight Deck did not want to wait because they stated the weather was getting worse.
  Flight Deck proceeded to gate without Cabin Crew. Cabin Crew stayed behind waiting for final Crew Member to arrive then proceeded to gate. Once arrived at the gate the plane pulled onto ramp at 19:30 and sat until 19:50 until a qualified person could attach the Jetbridge to the aircraft. During this time we spoke with agents asking what time we had to work with to board the plane and get the aircraft off of the stand before it would be too late, they stated it would be 21:00. They also stated the airport would be closing at approximately 23:00.
  Flight Deck proceeded to enter the aircraft at 20:20 saying that four cabin crew needed to get on and do the safety checks so that we could hurry and board the aircraft. The cleaners were still on the aircraft at this time. All cabin crew remained as a group in the waiting area. While waiting the entire crew began talking about not being able to get the aircraft boarded and all safety requirements done in time since the flight deck was in a major hurry for not wanting to be stuck.
  We walked down to the aircraft as a group, the cleaners were still on the aircraft and cleaning was not near being finished. Once we were allowed to get on the aircraft all phones got emergency notice that no vehicles other than emergency vehicles would be allowed on the roads after 23:00 because of the hazardous weather outside. During this time some of the crew members looked outside to see the conditions that were Blizzard conditions, there was approximately 4-5 inches of snow just on the aircrafts wings with Visibility at 0% and there was no ceiling.
  The cabin crew all became very nervous and started questioning if this was the correct thing to do to operate the aircraft in such weather. There had to be a reason that all airlines had cancelled, and it was becoming more apparent that the reason that we did not cancel was because the pilots “Did not live here and did not want to be stuck here.” Crew members addressed their concern with the pilots; the pilots were very rude, aggressive, and rushing acting as if our opinion did not matter. They did not seem to even try to put us at ease, it was clear their only concern was getting the plane boarding and getting home. We could only think that if they were rushing us so quickly, how they were completing their own safety checks. A few moments later Mr. Cunningham, called the entire crew into the premium cabin and begin yelling and asking who had called OCC. The crew stated that we were in contact with our base manager that we did not call OCC. He then asked that if our base manager called again that we were to give the phone to him and that he would tell that person how it was going to be that he was in charge not the base manager.
  At this point the Cabin Crew stated if this is how he is handling himself on the ground that this was not going to be a safe flight. Mr. Cunningham and his other members of the flight deck sat and asked “would someone please tell me what our issues were” to which no one responded. Melania Kosinovich spoke up and said I will try and explain to the best of my ability. She explained that the problem now was that we were not worried about him flying the plane in the weather, but that being rushed to do everything was a primary condition for making mistakes. Mr. Cunningham then cut her off, at which Jose Chu stated please let her finish. As she began talking again, he once again cut her off, then she herself said can I please finish what you asked me to explain to you. Mr. Cunningham placed his hands on his hips and began acting as if he no longer cared what anyone had to say. Melania then stated that he has ruined CRM aboard the aircraft and it was not right that we should be rushed to do everything that we normally do, especially because of it being safety. At this time Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Tschopp, and Mr. Totaro began laughing in our faces. Some of us spoke up and said how can you laugh in our faces. The crew began grabbing our things and we were heading towards the JetBridge, when Mr. Tschopp stated, “Do not get off this aircraft, That is a order!” I replied we are not in the Military. I stepped off the aircraft and was on the JetBridge and was speaking to the agents. Shingo Odan and Jose Chu also stood on the jetbridge with me. Melania Kosinovich and Jocelyn Smith stood right at the 2L door on the aircraft. Melania stated she didn’t feel safe on the aircraft and wanted to come off but needed to keep her job. She said with him yelling and slapping the tops of the seats, does not make any of us feel safe. Melania stepped of the aircraft only when the phone was handed to her to speak to the Base Manager. Melania entered back onto the aircraft after speaking to the base manager and asked what was going to happen next, Mr. Totaro the first Officers, began to speak to her and then Mr. Cunningham yelled, “ Do not talk to her, No one talk to her.” He then stated that she left his plane and no one leaves his plane and get spoken to. Melania replied I never left your plane.
  It was becoming very clear that this man could not control his anger, emotions, and if an emergency were to have happened, he would not be a reliable source. He began yelling that he didn’t want the 4 of us to fly, that we are all very dangerous crew members. At this time all of us were still waiting on the JetBridge we never left the jetbridge but we were not going to be screamed at by someone. He pointed out at us and said we were a dangerous group.
  While waiting on the Jetbridge we waited additional instructions. A man claiming he was the gate manager at JFK, all we got out of his name was Kazi, he wouldn’t tell us his last name or show us any identification, but demanded that we showed him our crew badges. He wrote down all of our names. He then said that the General Manager of Norwegian was on his cell phone and wanted to speak to one of us. Melania picked up the phone and spoke with this alleged person. After about 10 minutes, this Kazi man came back and kept repeating over and over, “give me my phone, give me my phone, give me my phone” until Melania handed it back to him. This man should never be in the eye of customers, stomping his feet, being very rude, such a disgrace for him to be working even around the Norwegian counters.
  We stood there waiting, then Jose Chu spoke to Billie Jean, and she said to leave before the roads got to bad. We all left as a group. Passengers were coming up to us, they were all very scared and didn’t want to fly, but we kept reassuring them that there was nothing wrong with the plane. They kept trying to say please just tell us that you are leaving because of the weather so we can leave to. We still reassured them that there is nothing wrong and that everything would be okay. We left the airport at approximately 22:10 and didn’t arrive back home until approximately 24:00.
  The aircraft left JFK at around 23:30 with only 5 crew members onboard, which is illegal. We all offered to fly the flight but Mr. Cunningham refused and stated we were night flying aboard his aircraft and that he had already called other crew.
  THIS HAPPENED DURING THE BLIZZARD HERE IN NYC. ALL 4 CABIN CREW WERE FIRED IN RESULT. 

Neppe helt korrekt det at de fire ble sparket. De ble satt på bakken med lønn i påvente av granskingen såvidt jeg forstår (Per Gram) 

DOT should reject Norwegian Air's foreign air carrier application

By John A. Logan, contributor

The Department of Transportation (DOT) will soon decide whether or not to grant controversial low-cost airline Norwegian Air International (NAI) a foreign air carrier permit to fly to the U.S. NAI is seeking to establish a "flag of convenience" model in transatlantic aviation, just as has been done in merchant shipping since the 1950s. If the DOT were to approve NAI's application, it would likely spell disaster for American aviation workers, carriers and consumers.

Several points stand out about the NAI case.

First, there are the peculiarities of the airline's business model. U.S. airlines that fly to the EU use American-based flight crews, and EU airlines that fly to the U.S. use EU-based flight crews. NAI is a Norwegian-owned company that holds an air carrier certification from Ireland, but does not fly to or from Ireland. Nor does it use Norwegian or even Irish flight crews, but rather Bangkok-based crews are hired through a Singapore employment agency and who work under Singapore labor law. This "nation-shopping" model has enabled NAI to artificially lower operating costs by suppressing collective bargaining rights and substantially lowering the wages, benefits and conditions offered to these rented workers as compared to their Norwegian-based counterparts.

This flag of convenience business model does not simply raise questions about fair labor practices. It clearly violates the terms of the U.S.-EU Open Skies trade agreement. Enacted in 2007 and amended in 2010, the agreement governs the operation and oversight of transatlantic flights between the U.S. and Europe. The agreement requires international carriers to uphold labor standards applicable in their home countries. Article 17 bis of the agreement — the "social clause" that was widely praised on both sides of the Atlantic when it was adopted — explicitly prohibits nation-shopping for low wages and lax standards. The article states: "The Parties recognize ... the benefits that arise when open markets are accompanied by high labor standards. 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." The U.S.-EU aviation trade pact's explicit prohibition of NAI's flag of convenience model, which was concocted in order to to dodge labor and tax laws in Norway, could hardly be much clearer.

Second, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers oppose NAI's application for access to more Europe-U.S. routes. In November 2014, 188 House members wrote to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx urging him to reject the NAI bid for a foreign air carrier permit. Dozens of other letters from lawmakers, including one from 33 House Republicans earlier in the year, have been sent to Foxx, urging him to rebuff the application. Furthermore, Congress included in its year-end spending bill — the so-called "Cromnibus" — an amendment prohibiting the DOT from using funds to approve a foreign air carrier permit that would violate the Open Skies agreement. That provision is now law. At a time when Democratic and Republican lawmakers cannot agree on much else, they agree that the NAI business model would be bad for U.S. airlines, workers and consumers.

The bipartisanship is less surprising when one considers that all major U.S. air carriers and unions that represent U.S. aviation workers also oppose the application. Democrats and Republicans, business and labor: They all understand that the Norwegian model threatens to undermine the viability and future of the U.S. aviation industry.

Finally, because it both protects labor standards and opens new markets, the Open Skies deal as negotiated by the U.S. and EU is a rare example of a multilateral trade agreement that can work for the benefit of American workers, not only for the benefit of wealthy investors and powerful transnational corporations. Article 17 bis was crafted to ensure that opening markets and liberalizing air service in the transatlantic market were not accomplished at the expense of good jobs. In order to protect those well-paying jobs, however, the DOT must enforce the agreement in a way that prohibits the low-road labor practices that NAI would introduce to a highly profitable market segment that has been a driver of middle-class job creation on both sides of the Atlantic.

This is a critical moment for U.S. aviation. The experiences of other industries have demonstrated that this flag of convenience model is not going away. But if Foxx rejects Norwegian's application, he will prevent this perverse business model from seeping into U.S. aviation. If he were to approve NAI's bid, it would establish a standard for other unscrupulous carriers here and in Europe. The result would be a "race to the bottom" in aviation labor standards, just as we have seen in industries such as merchant shipping, cruise liners and port trucking, where tough but decent jobs have been transformed into low-wage, dangerous and precarious work.

This NAI application is about more than a low-cost air carrier that wants to distort the marketplace with air service that violates both the spirit and the intent of America's aviation trade relationship with the EU. It is about upholding labor standards in the agreements negotiated by our government, protecting decent jobs and ensuring a level playing field that doesn't put American carriers and workers at a competitive disadvantage.

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx must tell NAI that its operating scheme will not fly.

Logan is professor and director of Labor and Employment Studies at San Francisco State University.

2737819

 

 36