The Guvnor
You say of me that:
According to him it's a God-given right under seniority rules that existing crews should be converted onto new types - regardless of expense.
Once again you are being a very naughty chap in trying to put words in my mouth that you know I have never uttered. I have never argued that it is a ‘God-given’ right, only a right by way of seniority list agreements. You would do well to remember that such ‘rights’ were hard won over many years of argument and negotiation. They have served our industry, and public safety, well. Most of us will not see such rights eroded, especially by a Johnny-Come-Lately wannabe airline entrepreneur.
Unwell_Raptor
Yes, the scenario you describe is indeed legal. However, it is not relevant with respect to the scenario posted here as to BAC-111 pilots being made redundant and B747 pilots then being hired. You see, a brickie is not a carpenter, but a pilot remains a pilot irrespective of the type he/she flies. You know as well as I do that bricklayers and carpenters serve an apprenticeship over several years, thus their trades are not interchangeable. To train a qualified (and ‘apprenticeship’ served) pilot to fly an alternative aircraft type is a trifling thing by comparison. It takes a matter of weeks. It may cost to do so, but there can be a greater cost in not doing so in some circumstances. I would argue that to retrain the BAC-111 crews on the B747 would be a wise investment if the intention is to operate the B747 for any length of time. And that may be the problem here in that there may be no long-term intention to operate the type. In such circumstances, it would be a sound commercial decision to make the BAC-111 crews redundant and hire in type-rated B747 crews for the short period of operation intended. I will go one step further and say that it would also be in the best long-term interests of those BAC-111 crews to take up employment elsewhere rather than retrain just to again be made redundant some short time in the future.
