Norwegian submits formal complaint about differential treatment to the EU and ESA Norwegian - 2014-12-15 07:49 GMT Norwegian wants equal conditions of competition in the Scandinavian aviation market and has therefore submitted a formal complaint regarding unlawful differential treatment in favour of SAS to the European Commission and ESA (EFTA Surveillance Authority). Discriminatory conditions and liscencing practises prevent Norwegian from obtaining access to traffic rights on the same terms as SAS; in addition the differential treatment generates significant additional costs for SAS' competitors in Scandinavia. The authorities argue that the differential treatment is justified by "grandfathered rights" due to historic explanations mainly because of the fact that its majority owners are the governments of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Norwegian has for the past five years on numerous occasions applied for and requested equal treatment and conditions to no avail. Every time, the rejections by the Scandinavian national aviation authorities have been justified by SAS’ historically defined conditions and that its majority owners are the governments of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The issue at hand revolves around a joint Air Operator Certificate (AOC) that SAS benefits from and that Norwegian is denied access to on equal terms. Norwegian has not until now filed a formal complaint to European authorities, hoping and trusting that Scandinavian aviation authorities would create an equal set of rules for all the companies operating in the same market. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has also criticized the special treatment and concluded that the preferential treatment is in breach of European law. Still it has prevailed. Limited access to traffic rights A major competitive disadvantage for Norwegian compared to SAS is its limited access to traffic rights - or the ability to open new routes. The joint Scandinavian AOC, which only SAS benefits from, gives access to traffic rights both within the EU and EFTA (Norway), an advantage not available to Norwegian as Norway is not a part of the EU. If Norwegian had the same traffic rights, it would be able to operate, for instance, flights between Helsinki and Dubai, London and Tel Aviv and Barcelona and Tel Aviv. Norwegian recently applied to the authorities to get access to these routes, but was denied because the airline does not hold an EU AOC. Higher aircraft and crew cost Norwegian’s competitor is without restriction permitted to utilize its crews across the Scandinavian countries. SAS is also permitted to utilize aircraft registered in Norway, Sweden and Denmark seamlessly without approvals notwithstanding place of registry. The competitor must apply for wet-lease when aircraft from another AOC is used. Fees apply when the approval of such applications are requested. Norwegian and other airlines may only operate aircraft registered in another EU country for six plus six months. Although Norwegian’s competitor has to pay administrative fees to three authorities to obtain the joint AOC, it is not required to have three AOC organizations - one in Norway, one in Sweden and one in Denmark. Paradoxically, the latter is a compulsory EU requirement to obtain an AOC. The fees associated with obtaining the unique AOC is minor compared to the ones associated with obtaining three full administrative organizations. Consistent long time criticism from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) The rules and regulations of European aviation safety are administered by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). It has on numerous occasions over the past years stated that SAS’ special treatment and “multi-country”-AOC is not in accordance with the requirement of a «principal place of business» under current EU-regulations. Based on an approved AOC, an airline is granted an operating license in the country where it has its «principal place of business» and it is the civil aviation authorities in that country that shall conduct and be responsible for performing the safety supervision. Norwegian and all other airlines in Europe have to abide by these rules. However, the Scandinavian aviation authorities have established and continued a special treatment in favour of SAS that is not in accordance with EASA rules and regulations.
Og på dansk: Norwegian klager over forskelsbehandling til EU og ESA Norwegian - 2014-12-15 10:01 CET Norwegian ønsker lige konkurrencevilkår i skandinavisk luftfart og har nu klaget over ulovlig forskelsbehandling af Norwegian til EU-kommissionen og ESA. Diskriminering i reglerne for skandinaviske flyselskaber medfører, at Norwegian mister adgang til trafikrettigheder og får langt større omkostninger end konkurrenten SAS. Myndighederne begrunder forskelsbehandlingen med ”historiske særordninger” og det statslige ejerskab i SAS. Norwegian har i fem år gentagne gange søgt og anmodet skandinaviske myndigheder om at få ligebehandling, men er blevet afvist. Afslagene er begrundet med, at SAS har ”historiske særordninger”, fordi de tre skandinaviske stater er ejere i SAS, og at ligebehandling derfor ikke er muligt. Har forventet regelændring længe Sagen drejer sig om en såkaldt fællesskandinavisk driftstilladelse (AOC), som SAS nyder godt af, men som Norwegian ikke får adgang til. Klagen til europæiske myndigheder har længe været ”på hold” i håb om, at de skandinaviske luftfartsmyndigheder ville udarbejde et ens regelsæt for konkurrerende selskaber i samme marked. Det europæiske flysikkerhedsorgan EASA er også kritisk over for særordningen. Alligevel er den bevaret. I et af afslagene fra norske, danske og svenske myndigheder i fællesskab lyder det blandt andet, at ”SAS-samarbetet är historiskt betingat och är en följd av det skandinaviska luftfartssamarbetet som regeringarna och parlamenten i Danmark, Norge och Sverige har beslutat om. Det förefaller enligt myndigheternas bedömning vara vare sig ändamålsenligt eller eftersträvansvärt att understödja en ny särlösning i likhet med den SAS har eftersom det är högst tveksamt huruvida omvärlden kommer att acceptera ett nytt skandinaviskt flygföretag.” Manglende trafiktilladelser En stor konkurrencemæssig ulempe for Norwegian er den manglende adgang til trafikrettigheder. Den fællesskandinaviske driftstilladelse giver trafikrettigheder både i EU og EØS (Norge), hvilket Norwegian er afskåret fra per i dag, eftersom Norge ikke er med i EU. Nowegian kunne eksempelvis have opereret ruten Helsinki-Dubai og flyvninger til Tel Aviv fra London og Barcelona. Dette er flyvninger, som Norwegian for nylig har fået afslag på, fordi selskabet ikke har en AOC i EU. Højere udgifter til fly og mandskab Norwegians konkurrent får lov til at benytte flypersonale uden at tage hensyn til, at de opererer i tre lande samtidigt, hvilket ingen andre flyselskaber kan gøre. SAS kan også problemfrit benytte fly registreret i Norge, Danmark og Sverige uden særskilt at søge om godkendelse, mens andre selskaber må søge om indleje (wetlease), når de skal benytte fly fra en anden driftstilladelse (AOC). Der skal desuden indbetales gebyrer for godkendelser af sådanne indlejeaftaler. Norwegian og andre kan kun operere fly registreret i et andet EU-land i seks + seks måneder, før de skal registreres i nationalt register. Selvom Norwegians konkurrent betaler administrative gebyrer for tre driftstilladelser, så slipper de for at have fulde AOC/driftsorganistioner både i Danmark, Norge og Sverige – hvilket foreskrifterne ellers kræver for udstedelse af en driftstilladelse. Gebyrindbetalingen er et meget lille beløb sammenlignet med de store administrative omkostninger som følge af at måtte have tre administrationer. De administrative omkostninger knytter sig blandt andet til infrastruktur og lederfunktioner i hver AOC, opfølgning i forhold til tilsynsmyndigheder (audits), manualer og planer. Norwegians etablering af et datterselskab i EU-landet Irland med selvstændig AOC har eksempelvis resulteret i opbygning af en driftsorganisation på omkring 40 medarbejdere. Det europæiske flysikkerhedsorgan kritisk De europæiske flysikkerhedsbestemmelser er forvaltet af det europæiske flysikkehedsbureau European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). EASA har gentagende gange påpeget, at statsejede SAS’ særordning ikke er i overensstemmelse med regelsættet, som kræver, at et flyselskab er registreret i det land, hvor de har sit hovedkontor – en ”principal place of business”. På baggrund af en godkendt AOC kan flyselskabet få tildelt en operativ licens (OL) i samme medlemsland under tilsyn af vedkommende lands myndigheder. Norwegian og alle andre europæiske flyselskaber er omfattet af dette fælles regelsæt. Alligevel har skandinaviske luftfartsmyndigheder etableret og videreført en særordning for SAS, som ikke er i overenstemmelse med flysikkerhedsorganets bestemmelser.
