BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, DC

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, DC ) Application of ) ) Docket No. OST NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL ) LIMITED ) ) for an exemption under 49 U.S.C ) and a foreign air carrier permit pursuant to ) 49 U.S.C (US-EU Open Skies) ) ) I provide additional information to the Department of Transport s notice, and in reply to, practically, identical correspondence from a few contract pilots (all given a B787 type-rating and 3-year renewable contract to fly the B787 by NAI), purporting to represent an entire cadre supporting the NAI application. These pilots attest that NAI Complies with all local laws and safety concerns to be false and groundless. Neither Norwegian nor its partner agency, ARPI Aviation Norway, complies with all local laws. Moreover, there is no obligation for Norwegian to comply with local employment law due to the fact they are not the employer of their contract crew members. Item 4 of my declaration submitted August 18 (OST ): 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). I refer to attachment A Norwegian s Chief Pilot letter stating:.. Engaged as Commander in Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA [also NLH], employed by ARPI Aviation. For further information we refer to ARPI Aviation as Mr. Colman s recent employer The letter not only confirms Norwegian s indemnity of liability as the employer, but also their continued punitive action, in refusing to provide confirmation I passed all exams, tests and checks given by Norwegian and that no disciplinary action or investigation was ever taken against me by Norwegian. I refer to attachment B UK Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate the legislation in Great Britain does not apply as the agency [ARPI] is not based in Great Britain 1

2 Contract crew members operating NAI B787 s from Great Britain s, London Gatwick base are employed via a Singapore contracting agency. Therefore, as implied above, Singapore legislation applies. Norwegian may wish to explain how it intends, if at all, to apply Singapore law to contract crewmembers operating from London Gatwick, on transatlantic flights and on arrival in the USA. The pilots supporting NAI state they would not compromise safety even though Norwegian circumvents their legal protection via the use of employment agencies. However, those pilots do not, and cannot, speak on behalf of all other contracted crew members, nor foresee the reporting, or not, by any other crew member fearful of any retaliatory action by Norwegian. I refer to attachment C. European Directive 2003/42/EC Article 8 Protection of Information 4. In accordance with the procedures defined in their national laws and practices, Member States shall ensure that employees who report incidents of which they may have knowledge are not subject to any prejudice by their employer I refer to attachment D. Irish Aviation Authority IAA Legislation and Regulatory Framework S.I. 285 of 2007 gives effect to EC Directive 2003/42/EC on occurrence reporting in civil aviation. The S.I. appoints the IAA as the competent authority' for Ireland. The S.I. outlines the requirements for voluntary and mandatory reporting. It also details that a reporter shall be protected from any discriminatory action by their employer. Note: the use of the legal definitions employees and employer I refer to items of my declaration submitted August 18 (OST ): 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, 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). As further evidenced above, Norwegian s abhorrent business model provides its indemnity as the employer and proficiently circumvents legislation designed to protect both persons reporting safety concerns and employees who may be wrongfully terminated by their employer. I respectfully request the Department of Transport deny forthwith any exemption and permit to the Norwegian Airline Group (NAI). Respectfully submitted: Captain Stephen Colman

3 noirwegian Date 5th of August 2013 To whom it may concern, We hereby confirm that Mr. S. Colman (address unknown) has been engaged as Commander in Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA, employed by Arpi Aviation, in the period from May 2"' 2012 to 31st December Aircraft flown: B For further information, we refer to Arpi Aviation as Mr. S. Colman's recent employer. ARPI Aviation Norway Radmann Halmrastvei Sandvika, Norway Phone: (+47) Sincerely, Jan H. Christoffersen Chief pilot B737 /Sjefsflyger Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA Oksen0yveien 3 P.0 Box Fornebu Norway Mobile Office jan.christoffersen@norwegian.no norwegia(.~ Chief Pilot Administration

4

5 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 167/25 If a Member State designates more than one body or entity, it shall designate one of these as point of contact for the exchange of information mentioned in Article 6(1). 2. The competent authorities shall store the reports collected in their databases. 3. Accidents and serious incidents shall also be stored in these databases. Article 6 Exchange of information 1. Member States shall participate in an exchange of information by making all relevant safety-related information stored in the databases mentioned in Article 5(2) available to the competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission. The databases shall be compatible with the software described in paragraph The competent authority designated in accordance with Article 5(1) receiving an occurrence report shall enter it into the databases and notify, whenever necessary, the competent authority of the Member State where the occurrence took place, where the aircraft is registered, where the aircraft is manufactured and/or where the operator is certificated. 3. The Commission shall develop specific software for the purpose of this Directive. In so doing, it shall take into account the need for compatibility with existing softwares in the Member States. The competent authorities may use this software for running their own databases. 4. The Commission shall take appropriate measures to facilitate the exchange of information mentioned in paragraph 1 in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 10(2). Article 7 Dissemination of information 1. Any entity entrusted with regulating civil aviation safety or with investigating civil aviation accidents and incidents within the Community shall have access to information on occurrences collected and exchanged in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 to enable it to draw the safety lessons from the reported occurrences. 2. Without prejudice to the public's right of access to the Commission's documents as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents ( 1 ), the Commission shall adopt on its own initiative and, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 10(2), measures for the dissemination to interested parties of the information referred to in paragraph 1 and the associated conditions. These measures, which can be general or individual, shall be based on the need: to provide persons and organisations with the information they need to improve civil aviation safety, ( 1 ) OJ L 145, , p. 43. to limit the dissemination of information to what is strictly required for the purpose of its users, in order to ensure appropriate confidentiality of that information. The decision to disseminate information under this paragraph shall be limited to what is strictly required for the purpose of its user, without prejudice to the provisions of Article Member States may publish at least annually a safety review containing information on the types of occurrences collected by their national mandatory occurrence-reporting system to inform the public of the level of safety in civil aviation. Member States may also publish disidentified reports. Article 8 Protection of information 1. Member States shall, according to their national legislation, take necessary measures to ensure appropriate confidentiality of the information received by them pursuant to Articles 6(1) and 7(1). They shall use this information solely for the objective of this Directive. 2. Regardless of the type or classification of occurrence and accident or serious incident, names or addresses of individual persons shall never be recorded on the database mentioned in Article 5(2). 3. Without prejudice to the applicable rules of penal law, Member States shall refrain from instituting proceedings in respect of unpremeditated or inadvertent infringements of the law which come to their attention only because they have been reported under the national mandatory occurrence-reporting scheme, except in cases of gross negligence. 4. In accordance with the procedures defined in their national laws and practices, Member States shall ensure that employees who report incidents of which they may have knowledge are not subjected to any prejudice by their employer. 5. This Article shall apply without prejudice to national rules related to access to information by judicial authorities. Article 9 Voluntary reporting 1. In addition to the system of mandatory reporting established under Articles 4 and 5, Member States may designate one or more bodies or entities to put in place a system of voluntary reporting to collect and analyse information on observed deficiencies in aviation which are not required to be reported under the system of mandatory reporting, but which are perceived by the reporter as an actual or potential hazard. 2. If a Member State chooses to put in place a system of voluntary reporting, it shall establish the conditions for the disidentification, by the one or more bodies or entities that it has designated under paragraph 1, of voluntary reports presented under such system.

6

7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have, on this 27 day of August, 2014, served the foregoing document on the persons identified below by causing a copy to be sent by electronic mail: Reese.Davidson@dot.gov; steve.morrissey@united.com; Thomas.bolling@united.com; dan.weiss@united.com; hershel.kamen@united.com; sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com; chris.walker@delta.com; Andrea.Newman@delta.com; mlbenge@zsrlaw.com; rpommer@atlasair.com; russell.bailey@alpa.org; david.semanchik@alpa.org; jonathan.cohen@alpa.org; robert.wirick@aa.com; francis.heil@aa.com; michael.wascom@aa.com; howard.kass@aa.com; jesse.elliot@faa.gov; douglas.schwab@faa.gov; nicholas.tsokris@faa.gov; john.y.chen@faa.gov; anita.mosner@hklaw.com; jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com; nssparks@fedex.com; gbleopard@fedex.com; pvs@eurocockpit.be cc@eurocockpit.be romanow@pillsburylaw.com; peter.nelson@pillsburylaw.com; jennifer.trock@pillsburylaw.com; Melinda.hernandez@pillsbury.com; dberg@airlines.org; jcasey@airlines.org; kglatz@airlines.org; CBethke@airlines.org; edw@ttd.org; ejames@jamhoff.com; info@airlineinfo.com; clytle@portoakland.com; kgeorge@broward.org; mrichardson@swapa.org; sshur@traveltech.org; michael.whitaker@faa.gov; ottar.ostnes@sd.dep.no; david.batchelor@sesarju.eu; felix.leinemann@eeas.europa.eu; matthew.baldwin@ec.europa.eu; john.hanlon@elfaa.com; dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com; Athar.HusainKhan@aea.be; Captain Steve Colman