Interviews, jobs & sponsorshipDo ya feel lucky, Punk? Well do ya? If so, here's the place to swap the hot gen on who's sponsoring or employing, their selection criteria, and where those oh so elusive first jobs can be spotted in the wild. Watch out for the tumbleweeds...
My understanding of employment laws in Europe, although they vary from one country to another, is that there is a minimum wage of around €8 per hour. This is designed to protect the employee to some extent. Any employer also must comply with a miriad of other legal requirements such as having employee liability insurance and is bound to provide a "duty of care" to workers.
How then can anyone paying to occupy the R/H seat in an airliner be legal? He is not getting the legal minimum wage yet he must hold a professional certificate to be there and at the same time denying the position to other, trained and experienced pilots, trying to earn a living from being there. What contract are these guys on? Surely if they are paying the airline then they are the employer employing the services of a crew, an airframe and pax? They have chartered the flight?
The flightdeck is a place of work and he must be a worker! If not what is he? What "duty of care" is there when the employer is charging the employee instead of paying him? If he is NOT an employee then surely this has legal ramifications? The aircraft insurance covers professional crews who are employees of the airline, not "pleasure flyers!"
Note definition of professional:
A professional is a member of a vocation founded upon specialised educational training.
The word professional traditionally means a person who has obtained a degree in a professional field. The term professional is used more generally to denote a white collar working person, or a person who performs commercially in a field typically reserved for hobbyists or amateurs.
In western nations, such as the United States, the term commonly describes highly educated, mostly salaried workers, who enjoy considerable work autonomy, a comfortable salary, and are commonly engaged in creative and intellectually challenging work. Less technically, it may also refer to a person having impressive competence in a particular activity.
Because of the personal and confidential nature of many professional services and thus the necessity to place a great deal of trust in them, most professionals are held up to strict ethical and moral regulations.
So what if our wannabe has an accident in the workplace? Who would be liable? What if he caused an accident? Could he be held personably liable?
I am sure the airlines in question have lawyers who have cleared the practice but I feel it really should be tested in a court of law?
As I found out recently, not all EU countries have minimum wage regulations but free work is not allowed unless it is part of an internship agreement, as a volunteer for a NPO or similar, which is not the case for P2F, simply because they pay to do work. Basically it is illegal.
In most countries, all of these still need to cover the volunteers for "on the job" accidents.
To pay to work has been unheard of until now. Slavery has a "work against one' s will" factor, P2F is a voluntary sacrifice. The idea is that it' s a crime if someone kills you but it' s not if you kill yourself.
If they can clear insurance and liability hurdles through paperwork, they can not clear ethical, moral and labour law issues.
Well the operator sees it as line training, in his eyes you pay for training.... You are not employed by the company so therefor it is not called work. So they don't break any law by this. It's as simple as that. Yeah the situation sucks, but it is legal.... Let's take Windjet for an example, You pay 60k for T/R then get a 1 year contract with a low salary, then most likely your contract will not be renewed after 1 year and abt 600h on A320. They can ask any price they want for the T/R if people are willing to pay.... They actually have a long que waiting for this deal, It wouldn't be surprising if they start asking 80k for the T/R soon... they are not breaking any law by this. It's just simple economics... it's all about supply and demand like anything else in this world. If Windjet was my company I would probably ask for 100k and there will still be more than enough willing to pay.... LOL
Windjet got their thing "right". Not only do you have to pay maffia rates, if you don' t know anyone on the inside I hear that you don' t get in.
An employer may not charge its employees any training fees to work for them. Airlines that receive commissions through TRTO' s to cover it up, are doing the same, indirectly.
SSTR' s are legal as far as the employing airline do not receive any direct or indirect compensation. Paying for line training or hours on type is illegal because you are an active crew on duty, an employee. It would be legal if you' d do it only on non-revenue flights, as a form of aircraft rental, not otherwise.
The problem is that no one can challenge these schemes but the CAA' s and labour courts. The not so mentally gifted cadets will not consider themselves victims and will let go. The unions aren' t doing anything about it.
@fly Antonov Not sure If you're right on this one mate.... Take fly Niki for example a small austrian airline operating a few A320's. They are offering self funded typeratings and line training with their own TTRO. That means you pay them direct.. I really don't think this is illegal as they make no secret out of it and are advertising it on their own website!
Well Fly Antonov... you are entitled to your opinion.
..and for what it's worth, I respect your contempt for certain airline practices.
1 In European legislation, duty of care and minimum legal wage are two distinct (and unconnected) statutes.
2 Safety: What evidence do you have to support the suggestion that P2F crew are less safe?
3 Those who agree to bonding and/or repayment of training costs sign binding contracts. All plain and clear...with eyes wide open. There is no arm-twisting and if they don't like the terms they don't have to accept them.
4 Asking existing employees to recommend appropriate candidates for future employment is a longstanding and well-proven practice.... not just in the airline profession/industry.
Life can be harsh but these are the facts of life. Good luck all the same. bm.
As I understand it the pilots who pay to fly aren't being employed by anyone. There are many pilots (both paid and unpaid) whom are self employed and on contracts, therefore employment law doesn't necessarily apply.
A question (not a challenge to your argument, just a question) if I may:
Purely theoretically, and to help me understand European employment law, why isn't half of your point number one (let's leave aside the other half about duty of care as it is a distinct statute) relating to minimum wage legislation a factor likely to overide your point number 3? I am assuming that if a Pay2fly candidate was to take action (as I say a theoretical question) and demand the minimum wage, then the charges an employer makes would be contrary to the statute on minimum remuneration for workers?
At the moment I am inclined to agree with the freelance argument, that is to say, those who pay to fly are not workers (presumably this is the successful argument made by the (non) employer, and therefore the legislation does not apply. However I would be interested to see an (just for the sake of example) Eastern European migrant worker come to the UK and pay to gain experience in a kitchen or harvesting fruit on a farm, before being elligible for proper employment - would the lobbying be more intense? I think it would.
Mike, according to the information I received from employment experts, the crux of the matter relates to contract terms (are you really employed?), permanence (length of agreement) and bonding/training terms.
18 months ago a considerable amount of research was carried out for interested parties and the terms and conditions of 2 UK LC carriers and 1 holiday/charter airline were scrutinised.
I have to say that (according to EU employment-law experts) no breach of the (then) legislation could be identified.
As for taking action against one's airline-employer, IMHO that would be curious way of making one's self persona non grata in the profession!
Hope this helps, I had the great pleasure of being in this game in happier times for almost 25 years and feel greatly for young men and women now joining the party. Good luck to them all. bm
I think that the principle of paying to assume responsibility and liability can not exist. I' m not a lawyer nor a judge but this defies any logic. It is a moral and ethical issue.
Boeing MEL, let me respond to your points.
1. I did not suggest that the 2 are connected. I commented on the thread starter about the minimum wage status, which does not apply everywhere. I added that even anyone working for free under approved status must usually be protected for on the job accidents.
2. I think that a large percentage of P2F represent an imminent danger. There have been numerous reports on this. I question their judgement and decision-making skills unless they can easily afford it and they' re good pilots. Even then, I wouldn' t question their great spirit of selflessness.
I mentionned the CAA' s because they usually cover all aspects related to civil aviation regulations, not only safety (though that is their major activity)
3. Just because you sign a contract doesn' t make it legal. A court can rule the content of the contract illegal if it does not respect laws and rights. Bonding is a legal practice since the company receives no monetary compensation, only guarrantees.
4. If the P2F is a candidate-sponsored selection process, then it should take place on non-revenue flights.
Ronand, I believe that most airlines will not hide it until one of them gets a big fine or loses big on a lawsuit. I believe that they are thinking that it' s legal and until they' re proven wrong, no one will stop them.
I think that we should split the two legal cases of the self-employed P2F and the employee P2F.
I believe that the labour laws we' re discussing here is "rights to pay", one of the basic employment rights. Even in countries where there is no minimum wage regulations, any salary must be paid out. Salary sacrifice schemes must usually be precisely pre-approved programs. Illegal deductions like paying for company training is not allowed.
If you' re self-employed, like Ronan says, it should be legal because all the labour and employment rights don' t apply and I believe that that is how Ryanair are covering their *ss. I would add that there is a condition: your tax office or whoever delivers you the permit to practice self-employment need to allow you to start your practice on an insolvent balance sheet or low/negative net-worth (unless rich enough to pay the P2F cash). In some EU countries, this is not possible.
It would be nice to get some law-people to join the discussion.
Last edited by fly_antonov; 11th Feb 2010 at 10:11.
The inland revenue will also not grant self employed status if there is only one employer. There needs to be multiple employers. Really the whole industry is ducking and diving around laws and getting away with it only because it is spread across multiple jurisdictions. Perhaps the reason P2F doesn't exist (yet) in the USA is because it is all under one jurisdiction??? Like I began, it needs a test case in court.
'Just noticed a big ad at the top of the page advertising pay2fly courses in the UK. Come on you guys at PPRuNe. You are supposed to be supporting the industry, not actively engaging in it's destruction. Or is it ultimately every pilot really is a prostitute?
Last edited by Kelly Hopper; 12th Feb 2010 at 05:47.
All the ANO says about PT and aerial work is that it is when flying for "valuable consideration". It would indeed be a strange world if flying hours themselves were considered "valuable", just think of the ramifications for the PPLers out there
Even if the line training TRTOs were required by law to pay the minimum applicable hourly rate all that would happen is that it would be front loaded onto the course cost anyway. A 30k 500hr training cost on an A320 would just go up to 34k. Actually probably a little bit more than that to cover for the "administration" expenses of putting the trainee onto the companies books.
And you can guess that this added cost will in no way deter the canon fodder.
Thanks, we know which companies are doing it. It's the details we need and perhaps a line to anyone who has been through it and got burned. Again, email@example.com.
PS. I am PIC and CCQ on A320/A330, and so applied for a job advertised. They stated "A320 CCQ A330" just before Christmas. I applied just just to see and was told I was too qualified. They wanted only not type rated pilots. Another form of pay to fly, lock the pilot into a contract scheme. It was to stop pilots leaving after six months. Only one years work was guaranteed though...