Originally Posted by
OvertHawk
By lack of engagement do you mean nobody is telling you what you want to hear?
No absolutely not, I would love to hear from everyone and debate the issues. As a forum I know that everyone will have different views, experiences and opinions. Since airline insolvency is something that we will probably all experience at some point in our careers, we should discuss it and at least have an opinion. Bankruptcy is a sad fact of life, but aviation has its own unique challenges and there are different ways of dealing with it.
I would love to hear from anyone that has experienced how different countries manage redundancies, whilst working as a pilot or engineer.
Originally Posted by
OvertHawk
An extreme measure perhaps...?
Of course it's extreme. A regulator becoming a shareholder in a company it regulates has so many issues and conflicts of interest. Who do you turn to if you have safety concerns?
ICAO recognises the need for change management within
ICAO Doc 9859 Safety Management Manual, 4th Edition, 2018 Sections 8.5.6 and 9.5.5 which provide frameworks and examples for the sorts of changes that are likely to trigger formal change management requirements such as: introduction of new technology or equipment; changes in the operating environment; changes in key personnel; significant changes in staffing levels; changes in safety regulatory requirements; significant restructuring of the organization; and physical changes (new facility or base, aerodrome layout changes etc).
ICAO goes on to comment that before introducing any change in a system (operational or organisational), a detailed description of the particular change, the potential associated hazards, as well as impacts to other interfacing systems and the effectiveness of existing defences should be reviewed so that the proposed changes can be planned and executed in a structured way. In particular, new hazards and related safety risks may be inadvertently introduced into an operation even when small isolated changes occur, and no operation should take place in a changed system or operational context until all safety risks are considered.
Restructuring which includes the sale of a business, done deliberately without staff engagement, to work from a new office, with unfamiliar tooling, and procedures is not planned and executed in a structured way. I would go so far as to say I believe the implementation of change management that took place when Monarch Aircraft Engineering Ltd went into administration took unnecessary risks.
Would you like to fly an aircraft in which had been maintained by a Maintenance Repair Organisation that was not familiar with your fleet or company procedures? Or had run out of engine oil, rags and were doing maintenance tasks from memory because the company could not afford to buy printer paper? -This is the stark reality of what insolvency means on the shop floor.
Originally Posted by
OvertHawk
But maybe a necessary one?
I do not think that unnecessary risks should be taken when it comes to safety.
Originally Posted by
OvertHawk
What's your alternative suggestion???
Excellent question, If you read the Government's published
Airline Insolvency Review conducted in 2019, on page 62 is a case study of Air Berlin. The restructuring plan and loan allowed Air Berlin to keep the fleet flying while the company was restructured and wound down. This was all done with the cooperation of staff being consulted whist booking still took place with money held in escrow accounts. Passengers remained protected, and counterintuitively this method was not only more safety oriented but also more cost effective for the taxpayer, as it is less expensive to use an existing fleet for reparations than to wet lease aircraft on a huge scale at short notice.
Originally Posted by
OvertHawk
Who should be in charge instead?
I am a believer in free markets, if a regulator steps in and skews the market this can lead to all sorts of problems and conflicts of interest. is the regulator responsible for failures to consult employees?
It is my view that the company directors should remain responsible for the company under the supervision of administrators and the regulator should stay at arms length and continue to regulate independently and stay clear of conflicts of interest.
Originally Posted by
OvertHawk
I'm really sorry you've been screwed but that's the reality of bankruptcy.
You live and learn, but I do not believe that this needs to be the reality of bankruptcy. Some things are safety critical, and should not be allowed to go bankrupt without a Safety Management System in place to ensure that processes and procedures are still safe and compliant.
Originally Posted by
OvertHawk
If, as you earlier suggested, your company had entered into consultancy with its employees earlier then that would simply have resulted in it going bankrupt earlier. If a company is not still fighting to trade then it will fail.
I type this as someone who's been made redundant twice and been stitched with statutory minimum on both those occasions. But i accept the reality of those situations even if i don't like it.
I hope you find something else soon.
The current regulatory framework puts the needs of protecting creditors above that of protecting passengers and consulting employees. For these reason airlines will continue to cease operations suddenly without notice and pay the statutory minimum instead of consulting employees and may take unnecessary risks with safety.
You might accept the reality of those situations even if you don't like it, but I want to be consulted and told the truth about what is happening within a company I work. I would like to make informed decisions about my livelihood and not work
in an industry that puts remuneration of creditors ahead of safety.