Airlines that have its pilots pay to fly

[Newhairdo]

Originally Posted by 04jharrison

Damn man, you guys got me digging through regs and statute last night 😅This was not a healthy use of free time lol. Sorry this is long but it needs laying out — I’ve linked the docs below.

There’s this common misconception that if something’s written in a contract it’s automatically legal — it isn’t. You can’t contract out of statutory law. Employment law sets minimum standards that can’t be signed away. An employer also can’t have you sign a contract that takes your pay below minimum wage — that’s a statutory floor, not a choice. Pay-to-fly breaches that through illegal deductions, even when disguised under shell companies or “training” fees.

By law, mandatory training must be an employer cost, not a worker’s debt. A type rating might arguably be private training, but OCC, LIFUS and any operator-mandated safety training are part of doing the job — legally they’re the company’s cost of doing business. The line between genuine private training and “operator-required” compliance is being blurred on purpose, shifting those costs onto the people who make the business run.

And yes, it is the regulator’s job to ensure legal compliance. Under ORO.GEN.105, operators must comply with all applicable requirements of the State. Under ARO.GEN.300, the CAA can only issue or maintain certificates when it’s satisfied that the operator complies with those requirements. That means the CAA has a duty to make sure operators follow all UK law, not just aviation rules.

The Department for Transport’s own CAA Framework Document (2023) says the same thing:
“1.2 The DfT and the CAA share the common objective of delivering safe, secure, accessible, competitive and sustainable aviation and aerospace activities and supporting consumers. To achieve this the CAA and the DfT will work together in recognition of each other's roles and areas of expertise, providing an effective environment for the CAA to achieve its duties and objectives through the promotion of partnership and trust and ensuring that the CAA also supports the strategic aims and objectives of the DfT and wider government.”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67d2edd84702aacd2251cbd7/dft-caa-public-corporation-framework.pdf

The CAA’s own Regulatory Enforcement Policy goes even further:
“Where we identify that non-compliance falls under the enforcement remit of another organisation we will seek a commitment from that organisation that appropriate action will be taken.”
https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/15394

That’s a clear acknowledgment that regulation overlaps — and that they recognise a duty to act when non-compliance falls within another regulator’s remit.

UK Labour and Employment Enforcement Authorities:
• Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS) – regulates agencies under the Employment Agencies Act 1973.
• HMRC (NMW team) – enforces the National Minimum Wage Act 1998; investigates underpayment and unlawful deductions.
• Gangmasters & Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) – tackles exploitation and debt bondage under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004.
• Health & Safety Executive (HSE) – enforces the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; has a formal MoU with the CAA.
• Employment Tribunals – enforce statutory rights under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

Under the Regulators’ Code (2014), § 4.1–4.2, regulators must “share information about compliance and risk… to help target resources and minimise duplication.” That’s binding guidance under s. 23 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 — requiring UK regulators, including the CAA, to cooperate with others.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ce=chatgpt.com

Clearly, that cooperation hasn’t worked. The government’s now creating the Fair Work Agency, a new body to take over from EAS, HMRC (NMW) and the GLAA because the current system isn’t joined up as it should be.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...ork-agency.pdf

So even the government and regulators basically admit this is a regulatory failure, not just an industrial one — they’re literally building a new regulator to fix what the others haven’t been doing.

There is no doubt that it’s a dogs @r5e.
There is no quick fix, and there appears to be no will to find one!
But both parties need to step up if there is to be a solution. The airlines will do what they can, that’s the nature of capitalism. Most will do the right thing, but a few will ‘try it on’. The reality is that the CAA/CASA/EASA/FAA do not look beyond that required to grant a certificate.
Of course, OCC/LFUS should be paid at the appropriate rate by the airline, but it’s quite likely that even a so called training wage will be above minimum wage levels in most countries. Therefore, compliance is assured.
Pay 2 Fly is a different subject, and is not the big thing it once was. Educate me - where is this a thing these days.

The CAA framework document is, in my view, a cop out in general, and still does not talk to industrial issues. And nor should it.
You talk about illegal contracts, and that’s a fair point. Do you have an example of one, or what makes it illegal? Most sharp operators have equally sharp lawyers, who ensure that they comply with the letter of the law.

I do maintain that pilots should be careful what they sign up to. If they are a member of a union, seek advice. If not, go see the friendly local lawyer, or citizens advice (or equivalent).

I also maintain that most airlines do the right thing contractually. They have to. The Ts & Cs might be ordinary, but they are likely legal.

But given that most aviation regulators don’t accept each others certificates, there’s little chance of them seeking to work better with other non aviation regulators