Originally Posted by
04jharrison
I think part of the problem is that people keep looking at each regulator in isolation. Aviation authorities aren’t supposed to operate in a vaccum — they’re meant to work in tandem with employment and labour regulators to make sure the whole operation stays lawful.
An AOC isn’t just about flight ops, it’s a licence to operate within the legal framework of the state. If an airline’s crewing or employment structure breaches those laws, it stops being an “industrial” issue and becomes an operator running unlawfully under a state-issued certficate
Take France for example — pay-to-fly is considered illegal under French social and employment law. The DGAC still issues and oversees AOCs under the EASA framework. So if an airline was running that kind of scheme in France, who steps in? The labour inspectorate, the DGAC, or EASA? If none of them act, it’s a pretty clear regulatory gap.
And this isn’t a problem you see in most other industries, because they don’t cross borders or hide behind another regulator’s remit. Aviation sits in that grey area where everyone assumes someone else is responsible — and that’s exactly how these practices survive.
Which is what I think Prometheus is getting at — yet people keep framing it as “choice” or a union issue, when in reality we’re talking about airlines that are clearly breaking the law. I do agree though the unions cowardice and lack of understanding themselves is a primary reason this has been able to continue.
Aviation regulators have no requirement to work with labour/employment regulators. They are required to regulate in accordance with ICAO SARPs and national regs, taking into account any ICAO variations filed by the nation.
The AOC is primarily centred around Flight Ops, with some elements of engineering & Ground Ops included. The Airline which holds the AOC will then have other business related functions too. In addition, there may be some maintenance functions requiring a separate approval but not forming part of the AOC. HR functions are part of the business, not the AOC.
Separately, there may be may be an Operating Licence which covers off the financial viability of the entity.
Airlines are not breaking the law by choosing to pay pilots poorly, have them on local contracts, or implement P2F. What law do you think they are breaking.
Again, it is a choice by the pilot. No one forces them to sign a rubbish contract, and they should not. It’s supply & demand, and this is legal. Note, I am not saying that legal,is sensible in this case, but it’s still legal.
Imwouldnt agree that the unions are cowards - they will do what their members ask of them. So if pilots are not a member of a union, then nothing will happen. Remember, the unions are the members. If the members are content, then why would the union rock the boat.
The bottom line is, as I see it, if pilots want the better Ts & Cs they deserve, do not enter into rubbish contracts, and then cry foul! History shows us that the supply/demand equation aligned with good union representation for the members, works.