Looks like AA is hiring flight attendants for LIM and EZE!

When was the last time they hired for these bases?

Are the terms and conditions as well as salary the same as those based in the US?

And finally... who thinks UA will open up hiring again for their overseas bases?

https://jobs.aa.com/job/Lima-Trainee-Fl ... 463788600/

Looks like class 15-11 was the last foreign national class we had. They graduated in October of 2015.

Terms and salary are not the same. They get paid to local standards, have their own union, and have different perks that US based flight attendants.

UA overseas bases are on same seniority list as US bases, so there is not separate hiring for them.

AA321T wrote:

Looks like class 15-11 was the last foreign national class we had. They graduated in October of 2015.

Terms and salary are not the same. They get paid to local standards, have their own union, and have different perks that US based flight attendants.

Interesting. It seems AA needs more internationally based crew than United needs/wants it may seem. Also, I know that United overseas based crew have the same terms and conditions as their US counterparts.

Is there a high turnover rate for these overseas AA based crew? Do you think their salary, terms and conditions are better than their national carriers?

Also, what is the starting and top pay for these crew as well as their per diem rate? I know for US based crew starting is around $27 then tops out to around $68.

chepos wrote:

And they only work to and from MIA to international destinations, no domestic flying. Both MIA LIM flights are crewed by the LIM base but DFW is worked by DFW crews.

Ah, cool

flydude380 wrote:

AA321T wrote:

Looks like class 15-11 was the last foreign national class we had. They graduated in October of 2015.

Terms and salary are not the same. They get paid to local standards, have their own union, and have different perks that US based flight attendants.

Interesting. It seems AA needs more internationally based crew than United needs/wants it may seem. Also, I know that United overseas based crew have the same terms and conditions as their US counterparts.

Is there a high turnover rate for these overseas AA based crew? Do you think their salary, terms and conditions are better than their national carriers?

Also, what is the starting and top pay for these crew as well as their per diem rate? I know for US based crew starting is around $27 then tops out to around $68.

I was gonna ask that. USD 27.00 per hour is a lot for Argentina. How much would an American based FA would make in a year? A more than decent starting pay for anyone working in Argentina could be around USD 2000 monthly. Which sounds an awful lot less than a USD based one.

How big is the EZE crew base for American Airlines? I flew JFK-EZE in January and half our crew on the 777-300ER were JFK based, the other half, EZE. I can see why they would have a base there, given 3 x MIA, 1 x DFW and 1 x JFK, but just curious as to the size and the history of that base?

AtomicGarden wrote:

flydude380 wrote:

AA321T wrote:

Looks like class 15-11 was the last foreign national class we had. They graduated in October of 2015.

Terms and salary are not the same. They get paid to local standards, have their own union, and have different perks that US based flight attendants.

Interesting. It seems AA needs more internationally based crew than United needs/wants it may seem. Also, I know that United overseas based crew have the same terms and conditions as their US counterparts.

Is there a high turnover rate for these overseas AA based crew? Do you think their salary, terms and conditions are better than their national carriers?

Also, what is the starting and top pay for these crew as well as their per diem rate? I know for US based crew starting is around $27 then tops out to around $68.

I was gonna ask that. USD 27.00 per hour is a lot for Argentina. How much would an American based FA would make in a year? A more than decent starting pay for anyone working in Argentina could be around USD 2000 monthly. Which sounds an awful lot less than a USD based one.

Oh no... US F/As, freshly hired, especially those in commuter airlines, would be only too happy to make 2 grand a month. Argentina's salaries are the highest in Latin America. And so is the cost of living...

Cointrin330 wrote:

How big is the EZE crew base for American Airlines? I flew JFK-EZE in January and half our crew on the 777-300ER were JFK based, the other half, EZE. I can see why they would have a base there, given 3 x MIA, 1 x DFW and 1 x JFK, but just curious as to the size and the history of that base?

EZE is the largest AA foreign nationals base outside the US. It has been around since the 60s, a legacy from the Braniff days. Eastern and AA continued with the tradition. AA can only hire for the overseas bases when it is hiring in the US, as per agreement with the US union.

PA also used to actively hire in Argentina in the 60s and early 70s, but instead of opening local bases, PA sponsored these ladies for green cards, which were relatively easy to obtain back then. Some of these Argentinean ladies continue to fly today on UA and DL, and one can still find them on the EZE flights.

There are a few threads on here with background and history of these bases (EZE, SCL, LIM & BOG).

flydude380 wrote:

AA321T wrote:

Looks like class 15-11 was the last foreign national class we had. They graduated in October of 2015.

Terms and salary are not the same. They get paid to local standards, have their own union, and have different perks that US based flight attendants.

Interesting. It seems AA needs more internationally based crew than United needs/wants it may seem. Also, I know that United overseas based crew have the same terms and conditions as their US counterparts.

Is there a high turnover rate for these overseas AA based crew? Do you think their salary, terms and conditions are better than their national carriers?

Also, what is the starting and top pay for these crew as well as their per diem rate? I know for US based crew starting is around $27 then tops out to around $68.

Every time I’ve worked flights with them (as a reserve call out to a trip, we don’t get scheduled together ever) they have been very pleasant. They get paid quite a bit less than us in USD but a fair wage for their respective countries. They get extra perks such as car service from their home to work and free dry cleaning. I’ve been told that American is required to employ a certain number of crew members in order to fly into these countries but I don’t know the validity of that.

They will work out of their respective countries to Miami and either layover and turn back or work other spokes out of Miami such as (this month) Brasília, Managua, Cartagena, Panama City, and Manaus.

We aren’t fond of them as a Work group in Miami as they fly a lot of our international premium destinations. The company often tells us that they want to phase out the bases as they retire but their hiring actions speak otherwise.

chepos wrote:

I have interacted with SCL based FA’s, extremely professional and pleasant. They are great representatives of AA. I understand why there might be some resentment in MIA but they are top notch flight attendants for the most part at these foreign bases.

I should have added that as flight attendants and people they are fantastic and hard working! We just don’t like that they fly many of our Deep South routes, especially since we have lost so much South American flying in recent years.

rrapynot wrote:

Funny how the US3 complain about Norwegian hiring foreign crews.

Isn't the issue that Norwegian was hiring crews under Thai (maybe Singaporean) contracts with a newly registered Irish AOC (just for this purpose) so they could fly the LH flights and pay them way less? The AA foreign based crew usually only fly the flights from that base and back. I know a SCL based AA f/a and she just flies SCL-MIA. These were also bases that were grandfathered in from long ago.

AA321T wrote:

I’ve been told that American is required to employ a certain number of crew members in order to fly into these countries but I don’t know the validity of that.

Water cooler/galley myth. This is a legacy situation from the BN days that EA and then AA grandfathered. Back in the 60s, very few Americans were foreign language-qualified. In addition, BN did a tremendous amount of fifth freedom flights between cities in South America (e.g. EZE-LIM, ASU-LPB, SCL-GYE) where Spanish language skills were a must. So hiring locals made sense. Obviously, AA has got to have made the math and it stills pays for them to have these bases open. Otherwise, they would close them in two shakes of a lamb's tail.

I don't know the specifics of AA, but pay for airline crew members in the US is usually based on flight pay, not 40/week. $27/hour is just over $2000 a month, depending on hours flown (and work rules/trip rigs).

dcajet wrote:

AA321T wrote:

I’ve been told that American is required to employ a certain number of crew members in order to fly into these countries but I don’t know the validity of that.

Water cooler/galley myth. This is a legacy situation from the BN days that EA and then AA grandfathered. Back in the 60s, very few Americans were foreign language-qualified. In addition, BN did a tremendous amount of fifth freedom flights between cities in South America (e.g. EZE-LIM, ASU-LPB, SCL-GYE) where Spanish language skills were a must. So hiring locals made sense. Obviously, AA has got to have made the math and it stills pays for them to have these bases open. Otherwise, they would close them in two shakes of a lamb's tail.

It is not water cooler/galley myth. The maintenance of Eastern's existing foreign national bases of EZE, LIM, and BOG was a prerequisite for AA to secure landing rights in preparation for the cutover of the routes. SCL was opened by AA after the acquisition. The smooth cutover was predicated on the continued employment of those already flying for Eastern.

How do I know? Because I was involved in the negotiations between the flight attendant union and AA at the time. I will be covering the entire ugly chapter in a future post.

BN acquired its foreign nationals in the Panagra merger. Even though a US carrier with its corporate headquarters in NYC, Panagra, a joint venture between Pan Am and W.R. Grace, did not fly north of Panama, and maintained its main base of operations in Lima. Panagra was formed because Pan Am, which pioneered routes down the East Coast of South America, wanted access to the West Coast. These ladies and men were not employed because "very few Americans were foreign language-qualified" but because Panagra operated wholly within South America. Panagra did operate an interchange service to MIA and IDL. Panagra crews worked the aircraft as far north as Panama where a Pan American crew took the aircraft on to MIA. in MIA, a National Airlines crew took the aircraft to IDL.

While it may make financial sense on some level to maintain their employment, it hasn't quite worked out the way AA envisioned, and they never increased fhe numbers up to the maximums permitted in the contract. In some countries, terminating their employment would mean a costly severance, and the headaches inherent in dealing with four different flight attendant groups in South America...all with different contracts...cannot be underestimated. Each base is on a different payscale with different perks. In the 1990s, EZE had the strongest union, followed by BOG. LIM had a "company union" and SCL had no union.

flydude380 wrote:

AA321T wrote:

Looks like class 15-11 was the last foreign national class we had. They graduated in October of 2015.

Terms and salary are not the same. They get paid to local standards, have their own union, and have different perks that US based flight attendants.

Interesting. It seems AA needs more internationally based crew than United needs/wants it may seem. Also, I know that United overseas based crew have the same terms and conditions as their US counterparts.

Is there a high turnover rate for these overseas AA based crew? Do you think their salary, terms and conditions are better than their national carriers?

Also, what is the starting and top pay for these crew as well as their per diem rate? I know for US based crew starting is around $27 then tops out to around $68.

Holy smokes!!! With the exchange rate, you guys make $18.00 more per hour, or $14.00 without exchange rate more per hour than we do in Canada at top rate. I am at top rate after 36 years of flying. We also do not benefit from longer layovers after working 10 plus hour flights like some European carriers. For example we spend more time in the air to Hong Kong or Delhi from Toronto than we spend on layover. Does that apply to US carriers as well? Kudos to your bargaining committees! I am not complaining.....I love my job....but I would love that pay increase!

AA321T wrote:

flydude380 wrote:

AA321T wrote:

Looks like class 15-11 was the last foreign national class we had. They graduated in October of 2015.

Terms and salary are not the same. They get paid to local standards, have their own union, and have different perks that US based flight attendants.

Interesting. It seems AA needs more internationally based crew than United needs/wants it may seem. Also, I know that United overseas based crew have the same terms and conditions as their US counterparts.

Is there a high turnover rate for these overseas AA based crew? Do you think their salary, terms and conditions are better than their national carriers?

Also, what is the starting and top pay for these crew as well as their per diem rate? I know for US based crew starting is around $27 then tops out to around $68.

Every time I’ve worked flights with them (as a reserve call out to a trip, we don’t get scheduled together ever) they have been very pleasant. They get paid quite a bit less than us in USD but a fair wage for their respective countries. They get extra perks such as car service from their home to work and free dry cleaning. I’ve been told that American is required to employ a certain number of crew members in order to fly into these countries but I don’t know the validity of that.

They will work out of their respective countries to Miami and either layover and turn back or work other spokes out of Miami such as (this month) Brasília, Managua, Cartagena, Panama City, and Manaus.

We aren’t fond of them as a Work group in Miami as they fly a lot of our international premium destinations. The company often tells us that they want to phase out the bases as they retire but their hiring actions speak otherwise.

Very interesting

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond.
And yes, as someone who works in this industry, I understand about the outsourcing of jobs/work. Unless, of course, they’re on the same contracts and we can work alongside those individuals.

tofur wrote:

flydude380 wrote:

AA321T wrote:

Looks like class 15-11 was the last foreign national class we had. They graduated in October of 2015.

Terms and salary are not the same. They get paid to local standards, have their own union, and have different perks that US based flight attendants.

Interesting. It seems AA needs more internationally based crew than United needs/wants it may seem. Also, I know that United overseas based crew have the same terms and conditions as their US counterparts.

Is there a high turnover rate for these overseas AA based crew? Do you think their salary, terms and conditions are better than their national carriers?

Also, what is the starting and top pay for these crew as well as their per diem rate? I know for US based crew starting is around $27 then tops out to around $68.

Holy smokes!!! With the exchange rate, you guys make $18.00 more per hour, or $14.00 without exchange rate more per hour than we do in Canada at top rate. I am at top rate after 36 years of flying. We also do not benefit from longer layovers after working 10 plus hour flights like some European carriers. For example we spend more time in the air to Hong Kong or Delhi from Toronto than we spend on layover. Does that apply to US carriers as well? Kudos to your bargaining committees! I am not complaining.....I love my job....but I would love that pay increase!

I assume you work for AC?

The pay seems be getting better at AC (especially for pursers!) - but, I can see what you mean by the exchange rate. I would say, allowances at AC seem more generous though.

As for layovers. I know AC operates almost 24 hour stopovers everywhere. Including SYD! It could be said the same for US crew. However, it seems most North-American crews appreciate this. Whereas, in Europe, crews seem to like their long trips.

millionsofmiles wrote:

It is not water cooler/galley myth. The maintenance of Eastern's existing foreign national bases of EZE, LIM, and BOG was a prerequisite for AA to secure landing rights in preparation for the cutover of the routes. SCL was opened by AA after the acquisition. The smooth cutover was predicated on the continued employment of those already flying for Eastern.

How do I know? Because I was involved in the negotiations between the flight attendant union and AA at the time. I will be covering the entire ugly chapter in a future post.

BN acquired its foreign nationals in the Panagra merger. Even though a US carrier with its corporate headquarters in NYC, Panagra, a joint venture between Pan Am and W.R. Grace, did not fly north of Panama, and maintained its main base of operations in Lima. Panagra was formed because Pan Am, which pioneered routes down the East Coast of South America, wanted access to the West Coast. These ladies and men were not employed because "very few Americans were foreign language-qualified" but because Panagra operated wholly within South America. Panagra did operate an interchange service to MIA and IDL. Panagra crews worked the aircraft as far north as Panama where a Pan American crew took the aircraft on to MIA. in MIA, a National Airlines crew took the aircraft to IDL.

While it may make financial sense on some level to maintain their employment, it hasn't quite worked out the way AA envisioned, and they never increased fhe numbers up to the maximums permitted in the contract. In some countries, terminating their employment would mean a costly severance, and the headaches inherent in dealing with four different flight attendant groups in South America...all with different contracts...cannot be underestimated. Each base is on a different payscale with different perks. In the 1990s, EZE had the strongest union, followed by BOG. LIM had a "company union" and SCL had no union.

Thank you for a detailed, interesting and very informative post.

Question: for how long is AA required to maintain Eastern’s former foreign bases? Was there a timeline linked to it, or is the operation if the bases perpetually linked to the landing rights?

Hopefully this is a good opportunity for my wonderful colleages turfed out when BA shut the EZE base
last year. (Along with Sao Paulo and Singapore)

JumboMaiden wrote:

Hopefully this is a good opportunity for my wonderful colleages turfed out when BA shut the EZE base
last year. (Along with Sao Paulo and Singapore)

Exactly what I was thinking! Are you MF or legacy?

Long way around. WW > EK > MF

JumboMaiden wrote:

Long way around. WW > EK > MF

Ah.... what made you leave WW?!

rrapynot wrote:

Funny how the US3 complain about Norwegian hiring foreign crews.

My exact first thought... where is the outrage?

NYCVIE wrote:

rrapynot wrote:

Funny how the US3 complain about Norwegian hiring foreign crews.

Isn't the issue that Norwegian was hiring crews under Thai (maybe Singaporean) contracts with a newly registered Irish AOC (just for this purpose) so they could fly the LH flights and pay them way less? The AA foreign based crew usually only fly the flights from that base and back. I know a SCL based AA f/a and she just flies SCL-MIA. These were also bases that were grandfathered in from long ago.

Once again, if you're going to post, then use the correct information. That "newly registered" Irish AOC operation does not employee Thai crew, nor did it ever, all NAI crew are American or European under American or European work rules, rights and laws. They certainly aren't paid less, the avg US crew at NAI makes between 35k-45k starting which for a first year flight attendant - isn't too shabby. This is what happens when you just spout off what you have been told without actually doing any reseach and fact checking, I believe the American's refer to this as "alternative facts."

Norwegian Irish AOC is NAI, that has the 737 MAX operation on it's certificate, with US and EU crews operating routes from Ireland and Europe to the US coasts and within Europe, US crew can not operate intra Europe per EASA rules.

The 787 long haul operation is with NAS (Europe, LN- Reg) NUK (G- Reg) and NAR (which I assume would be LV). The US and European crews currently are scheduled with a contract starting them at about 40k+ first year, which isn't a low wage for any airline for first year crew. The Thai crew are paid an equivalent in their local currency, it's a heavily coveted job in BKK that requires a high-end degree and an excellent use of the English language. The BKK crew operate BKK-CPH/ARN/OSL and sometimes will work a Europe-US flight and back. The BKK base is currently less than 100 people. The JFK base is over 350 people, the FLL base is 200+ and the newly opened LAX base is planning for over 200+ which when all is said and done will employee close to 1000 US crew, more than any other foregin airline and all under US WORK RULES and LAWS.

That being said, I have a hard time with AA firing off at Norwegian about their hiring of overseas crew when they have bases in BOG/EZE/LIM/SCL. It's been brought up before, would you require AeroMexico to be paid US wages because they flight to the US? I personally, would love to see the pay schedule for the AA flight crew based in BOG/EZE/LIM/SCL as I'm sure those wages are the same as US crew and not paying "them way less..." at least by US standards of course (sarcasm). It's sad and incredibly hypocritical for AA/DL/UA to attack Norwegian for something they are doing themselves each having foreign based crews paid in local wages. Norwegian went the "right way" as far as I can see and created a whole new airline, going through the regulatory process and being approved by a local government for flying rights rather than using 5th freedom rights etc to operate new routes.

/rant over

millionsofmiles wrote:

dcajet wrote:

AA321T wrote:

I’ve been told that American is required to employ a certain number of crew members in order to fly into these countries but I don’t know the validity of that.

Water cooler/galley myth. This is a legacy situation from the BN days that EA and then AA grandfathered. Back in the 60s, very few Americans were foreign language-qualified. In addition, BN did a tremendous amount of fifth freedom flights between cities in South America (e.g. EZE-LIM, ASU-LPB, SCL-GYE) where Spanish language skills were a must. So hiring locals made sense. Obviously, AA has got to have made the math and it stills pays for them to have these bases open. Otherwise, they would close them in two shakes of a lamb's tail.

It is not water cooler/galley myth. The maintenance of Eastern's existing foreign national bases of EZE, LIM, and BOG was a prerequisite for AA to secure landing rights in preparation for the cutover of the routes. SCL was opened by AA after the acquisition. The smooth cutover was predicated on the continued employment of those already flying for Eastern.

How do I know? Because I was involved in the negotiations between the flight attendant union and AA at the time. I will be covering the entire ugly chapter in a future post.

BN acquired its foreign nationals in the Panagra merger. Even though a US carrier with its corporate headquarters in NYC, Panagra, a joint venture between Pan Am and W.R. Grace, did not fly north of Panama, and maintained its main base of operations in Lima. Panagra was formed because Pan Am, which pioneered routes down the East Coast of South America, wanted access to the West Coast. These ladies and men were not employed because "very few Americans were foreign language-qualified" but because Panagra operated wholly within South America. Panagra did operate an interchange service to MIA and IDL. Panagra crews worked the aircraft as far north as Panama where a Pan American crew took the aircraft on to MIA. in MIA, a National Airlines crew took the aircraft to IDL.

While it may make financial sense on some level to maintain their employment, it hasn't quite worked out the way AA envisioned, and they never increased fhe numbers up to the maximums permitted in the contract. In some countries, terminating their employment would mean a costly severance, and the headaches inherent in dealing with four different flight attendant groups in South America...all with different contracts...cannot be underestimated. Each base is on a different payscale with different perks. In the 1990s, EZE had the strongest union, followed by BOG. LIM had a "company union" and SCL had no union.

Thanks for the correction. I asked today and the Buenos Aires based was opened in 1946 by Panagra - operating ever since. And I say BUE and not EZE as the latter was not even open yet. So, one learns something new every day!

JumboMaiden wrote:

Hopefully this is a good opportunity for my wonderful colleages turfed out when BA shut the EZE base
last year. (Along with Sao Paulo and Singapore)

Indeed, although those folks should have found opportunities with Norwegian, Aerolineas, Austral, LATAM, Flybondi or Andes! Every airline is in hiring mode right now in Argentina.

Incidentally, heard the other day that the daily BA245/44 is being moved over to the MF group around the June timeframe...

One of the most unusual foreign Flight Attendant bases if JAL's London base for it flights from Tokyo to London. Flew a 77W from Haneda to London Heathrow and it must have had three European FA's. One, Carolina, commutes to London from Spain for her flights to Japan. PA back in the 1970's had a London FA base too. PA also had Tokyo and Hong Kong bases at points in time.

jfk777 wrote:

One of the most unusual foreign Flight Attendant bases if JAL's London base for it flights from Tokyo to London. Flew a 77W from Haneda to London Heathrow and it must have had three European FA's. One, Carolina, commutes to London from Spain for her flights to Japan. PA back in the 1970's had a London FA base too. PA also had Tokyo and Hong Kong bases at points in time.

The Pan Am FA base at LHR was open 1972-1991.

Ionosphere wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

One of the most unusual foreign Flight Attendant bases if JAL's London base for it flights from Tokyo to London. Flew a 77W from Haneda to London Heathrow and it must have had three European FA's. One, Carolina, commutes to London from Spain for her flights to Japan. PA back in the 1970's had a London FA base too. PA also had Tokyo and Hong Kong bases at points in time.

The Pan Am FA base at LHR was open 1972-1991. This is why United has a LHR base.

dcajet wrote:

JumboMaiden wrote:

those folks should have found opportunities with Norwegian, Aerolineas, Austral, LATAM, Flybondi or Andes! Every airline is in hiring mode right now in Argentina.

Incidentally, heard the other day that the daily BA245/44 is being moved over to the MF group around the June timeframe...

One hopes...

Yes those flights will be MF from around then. PHL has been passed back to WW - a gew shuffles happening over the
next months including AMM and BEY which I guess mean that they will go 787/777 because the A321s will all be high density
by then I think I heard.

jfk777 wrote:

One of the most unusual foreign Flight Attendant bases if JAL's London base for it flights from Tokyo to London. Flew a 77W from Haneda to London Heathrow and it must have had three European FA's. One, Carolina, commutes to London from Spain for her flights to Japan. PA back in the 1970's had a London FA base too. PA also had Tokyo and Hong Kong bases at points in time.

What’s the benefit of LHR based Crew for JL? Do they also speak Japanese?

Back to the topic, do these Crew also operate to MAD/BCN or other Spanish speaking ports?

smi0006 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

What’s the benefit of LHR based Crew for JL? Do they also speak Japanese?

Back to the topic, do these Crew also operate to MAD/BCN or other Spanish speaking ports?

LHR/FRA JL bases certainly used to have to attend Japanese lessons in Tokyo as a part of the job, though I hear
their 5 year employment limit was lifted. We have one or two ex JL people where I am now.
NH have a LHR base too as do CX for whom anyone can apply but must speak an Asian language first.

BA opened bases in PEK and PVG about 2 years ago but half of those people up and left to better treatment
at KL/AF as soon as they opened China bases.
Back to EZE topic, news from one of the ex EZE BA people says he's going to Norwegian Argentina.

bluefltspecial wrote:

rrapynot wrote:

Funny how the US3 complain about Norwegian hiring foreign crews.

My exact first thought... where is the outrage?

NYCVIE wrote:

rrapynot wrote:

Funny how the US3 complain about Norwegian hiring foreign crews.

Isn't the issue that Norwegian was hiring crews under Thai (maybe Singaporean) contracts with a newly registered Irish AOC (just for this purpose) so they could fly the LH flights and pay them way less? The AA foreign based crew usually only fly the flights from that base and back. I know a SCL based AA f/a and she just flies SCL-MIA. These were also bases that were grandfathered in from long ago.

Once again, if you're going to post, then use the correct information. That "newly registered" Irish AOC operation does not employee Thai crew, nor did it ever, all NAI crew are American or European under American or European work rules, rights and laws. They certainly aren't paid less, the avg US crew at NAI makes between 35k-45k starting which for a first year flight attendant - isn't too shabby. This is what happens when you just spout off what you have been told without actually doing any reseach and fact checking, I believe the American's refer to this as "alternative facts."

Norwegian Irish AOC is NAI, that has the 737 MAX operation on it's certificate, with US and EU crews operating routes from Ireland and Europe to the US coasts and within Europe, US crew can not operate intra Europe per EASA rules.

The 787 long haul operation is with NAS (Europe, LN- Reg) NUK (G- Reg) and NAR (which I assume would be LV). The US and European crews currently are scheduled with a contract starting them at about 40k+ first year, which isn't a low wage for any airline for first year crew. The Thai crew are paid an equivalent in their local currency, it's a heavily coveted job in BKK that requires a high-end degree and an excellent use of the English language. The BKK crew operate BKK-CPH/ARN/OSL and sometimes will work a Europe-US flight and back. The BKK base is currently less than 100 people. The JFK base is over 350 people, the FLL base is 200+ and the newly opened LAX base is planning for over 200+ which when all is said and done will employee close to 1000 US crew, more than any other foregin airline and all under US WORK RULES and LAWS.

That being said, I have a hard time with AA firing off at Norwegian about their hiring of overseas crew when they have bases in BOG/EZE/LIM/SCL. It's been brought up before, would you require AeroMexico to be paid US wages because they flight to the US? I personally, would love to see the pay schedule for the AA flight crew based in BOG/EZE/LIM/SCL as I'm sure those wages are the same as US crew and not paying "them way less..." at least by US standards of course (sarcasm). It's sad and incredibly hypocritical for AA/DL/UA to attack Norwegian for something they are doing themselves each having foreign based crews paid in local wages. Norwegian went the "right way" as far as I can see and created a whole new airline, going through the regulatory process and being approved by a local government for flying rights rather than using 5th freedom rights etc to operate new routes.

/rant over

"40K + First year"?

A Norwegian flight attendant stated in one of Norwegian's own videos on YouTube that he started at $21/hour. At 100 hours a month...not counting per diem...that comes to $25,200 in the first year. Of course, that is assuming 100 hours a month.

There are other videos on YouTube of Norwegian flight attendants talking about the low pay.

CX also has a F/A base here in SFO, where there is no shortage of Cantonese/other language speakers.

How come AA's FA can have unions and all those benefits, while we (formerly me) werent able to get unions in latin america bases (Colombia) due subcontracts ?