Morning chaps,
Nice to find a soul who is straightforward enough to say that he is happy with the profligate way the money is spent: good on you Jonny. He is quite happy that the lads should indulge in fine dining and wines
so long as they keep coming up with the goods. Something of an afterthought is that. However, but there lies the rub: they patently are
NOT coming up with goods.
We won't linger on this one too long, we shall all skip merrily past the nasty bits in the accounts and the even nastier reality of the 40 Thieves and focus, a la nightflight, on something else to try to deflect the ball off the cushion and away from the black.
Doesn't work laddie: unable to determine something which is
implicit in a statement I will have to spell it out for him. The 11000 757 hrs, in the dark flying rubber dogsh.........., nah, couldn't have been him, that was Top Gun, and nightflight doesn't so much soar with eagles, as hang around street corners with public service union worker wannabees.
When one visits Messrs Screwem, Fleeceem and Bankit to so seek legal advice as an individual, on say, an injury claim, one sits down with said solicitor, tells him your tale, and he will, having given it due consideration, decide whether you have a prima facie case for damages, the same chance of success in pressing your claim as Shergar has of winning this years Gold Cup or some proportionate chance of winning some damages, say 60 /40. You then, having taken his advice, have to decide whether to fight, or to flee.
Not
his decision you will NB but
your decision: you take legal advice but retain the decision and, should you choose to fight, you still have the opportunity for flight if you subsequently decide it is not looking good. When you win, you trouser the damages and your insurers, if you have insurance, pick up the bill for the legal fees.
However, this bit is important nightflight - anyone who is advised by his legal team that he hasn't got a case is off his trolley if he tries to press on. Fact is, he will likely
NOT find a solicitor who will take the case on because, amongst other issues, the Law Society does not look kindly on solicitors fighting patently unwinnable battles just to generate fee income. The bill for that advice he can pass on to his insurers, who subject to the excess and his adherence to the terms of his policy then pay the solicitor.
In comparison, when you present your case in writing, iaw Rule 26, to the General Secretary as per the 40 Thieves Rule Book, the applicant will then have the opportunity to avail himself of legal advice from BALPA's officers ( let's hope that they have a legal qualification)
OR ( my emphasis as it is not AND) legal adviser. That's straight from Rule 26 nightflight.
At least with Balpa (which is not insurance based), the decisions are being made by people who are actively involved in flying. Indeed their decisions have the added incentive of affecting their own careers potentially. I know which I would prefer to look after my licence and my career.
I refer nightflight to his statement.
Decisions made by people actively involved in flying but
NOT in the legal profession. Good to see that you haven't thought any of this through nightflight: why not go the whole hog and have a dentist do your annual medical?
But back to nightflight's pal who is in trouble and looking for BALPA legal assistance. Once he has had the considered opinion of the BALPA officer OR the legal adviser ( BALPA's choice, not his), the case is passed to the NEC, iaw Rule 26.2, and
AT THEIR ABSOLUTE DISCRETION a decision to suppport, the extent or not of said support will be made.
I would certainly prefer that my livelihood is protected by the mechanism employed by Balpa, rather than some minimally legally qualified individual working for an insurance company.
That would, again, be the tertiary qualification of the member's of the NEC as personal injury / employment litigators.
Who has the decision, nighflight? The NEC,
NOT the applicant.
You don't have to take my word for it, like the facts in the accounts you elect to gloss over and ignore, you can find the Rules
here.
It gets better though nightflight, because tacked on at the end of Rule 26 is this at 26.6.3
The member shall accept the obligation that, if successful in pursing their claim, he shall take all necessary and sufficient steps to recover the legal costs incurred on their behalf and indemnified by BALPA in pursuing the claim wherever, and to the full extent, possible and shall repay any costs so recovered to BALPA forthwith
So having been through all the stress of a court case and probably out of work BALPA will chase you for costs: there is no guarantee that they won't try to recover those costs from your damages.
So let's move on now to u0062: since you try to lay the blame for the degradtion, industry wide, of Ts and Cs at my feet have this from the Slavery thread:
As for T’s & C’s everybody is quick to blame the airline ‘accountants’ and these cheeky Herberts who dare to want to join our ranks at any cost, but I’m afraid your barking up the wrong tree. Unless you are completely myopic or devoid of any contact with reality – you will realise that it is almost impossible for an airline to make money – and it is not because of said Herberts. In fact your time would be better spent writing letters of complaint to members OPEC about the cost of fuel, having a row with ATC over their charges followed by a rant over the P/A to your pax about their unwillingness to pay decent fares
and
more importantly, addressing the issues with policy makers that drive up operational costs and foist policies on the industry which are punitive to economic stability.
You see, 62, your precious BALPA is doing nothing at easyjet to stop the exploitation of the CTC cadets, but it is much easier to lay the blame for that at my door, without any supporting evidence, than face the harsh reality that "the pilots who are BALPA" have failed you yet again.
Your 40 thieves are too busy guzzling good steak and fine wine to deal with the punitive taxes imposed on airline passengers: to handle the shrieks of the Green lobby on emissions or to produce cogent policies, in conjunction with other agencies to improve traffic flow around Europe.
But look on the bright side, they did succeed in getting an alleviation on the liquid rules so that pilots could carry 150ml of contact lens solution through security.