To Skyeuropecapt:
I understand that you may feel unhappy about my previous post. However, I stand very firm behind all of my claims. I have not mentioned a single false piece of information!
1) As you have admitted yourself, the information concerning the salaries is all true.
2) The information posted by me concerning the replacement classics was limited to the statement of several facts. I did not elaborate further than those facts:
the airplanes that are slowly replacing the wet-leased ones (following the repossession of 6 NGs by GECAS) are in most cases 20-year old pieces that were scrambled by the company from the desert storage in the US - pieces that were already discarded from the fleet of United Airlines. The company does not even deal with such issues that they still keep the US setup of the on-board systems - everything is in pounds instead in kilograms, including the FMS masses and FUEL gauges. When pilots are used to operate in kilograms on one airplane and in pounds on another one, it does not add to the overall safety levels of operations. Especially with the crews being under s lot of constant stress during the last 9 months of operations - constantly worrying how much of their salary they will receive this time; if they will be able to pay their mortgage; how long will this situation carry on, etc...
As you can see from my post I have not used the word "junk" or "dangerous" or "unsafe". I have merely said that some of them have been pulled out of the desert storage - is this a false statement in your opinion? The fact if I have flown these airplanes or not is completely irrelevant of the facts that I have stated.
As far as the pound system - did I say that the crews are lost and can not cope with it? Did I say anything false? Again, I do not think so. Since you have been flying commercially for a long time, you must be fully aware of the "swiss cheese" concept when it comes to the causes of aircraft accidents. You can not argue your case with anyone, that the pound system used on some Sky Europe airplanes DOES create another POTENTIAL hole in the concept of the safety of the operations. Of course the crews are intelligent people and will be able to cope with it on everyday basis, but in the overall view it does reduce the safety and it is an issue that can be eliminated should there be sufficient will of the management and sufficient finances. It all simply comes down to the fact that statistically there IS an increased potential for error, leading to a potential more serious issue.
The same goes for my claim that the increased stress on board does not help the safety of operations. Again - I am not saying that an airplane is going to crash tomorrow because of this, but it simply and inarguably creates another hole in the swiss-cheese model, which, if lined up with another hole, brings the flight closer to an incident or accident if other factors are involved.
I do not understand your sentence:
YOU have decided to be UNFIT, if you decide to leave i wont blame you either but PLEASE dont send unfounded info.
I have not decided to be UNFIT - I have decided to leave the company at the end of April. I did my share of flying for free, I did participate on the Sept/Oct concessions. I have simply decided that I do not trust the management that they can lead the company out of the crisis. I have realized that I do not like the way the management behaves towards its own employees when they are the ones who basically allowed the company to survive the winter. I have decided that I have had enough of the management's arrogance and lack of communication, etc etc... I could go on.
With all of the above said it does not mean that I have any hard feelings against the people who have stayed. I have spent several wonderful years with the company and have many nice memories. I wish every Sky employee the best - I wish them that their decision to believe in the competence of the management turned out to be a good one in the long run. I do not want to get involved with the company's internal issues - if the employees are receiving salaries or not is none of my business any more.
But at the same time I can not simply allow the management carry on treating the FORMER employees, including myself, in the same way as they are doing now. It is unacceptable, that the company completely stops paying-out even the small installments of owed salaries to its former employees once they leave the company. Former employees do not care what the company needs to pay first and why. Former employees want to be treated in the same way as the current employees - we have given Sky Europe our share of effort and sacrifice as anybody else. Are we bad because we have decided that enough is enough and we left? Do we not deserve to keep on receiving the small salary installments until the company's moral and legal obligations are repaid to us? I do not know how it is in your base (Bratislava I assume?), but there are simply too many former employees to whom the company stopped re-paying their back-log of salaries on the day they have submitted their resignation. Is this fair?
Are you calling my actions unfair even in spite of the fact that I have personally spoken to Jason and kindly asked him to resume repaying the owed salaries to the former employees - I have even discussed an acceptable re-payment plan over a period of time. But how did Jason respond to such requests and proposals? In his own natural way - he simply put his head into the sand just like an ostrich does and never even responded. When the management shows absolutely no effort to try to come to an agreement concerning its legal obligations and completely ignores us, what do you suggest would be a "fair" treatment then? And do not mention filing a law-suit when everyone is aware of the fact, that without an investor the company is not going to be here within 3 months.
The media attention that Sky Europe is now starting to get is not a result of someone going crazy, but merely a logical consequence of the management's behavior and its absolute lack of interest in dealing with its obligations.
Best Regards,