Kjos nightmare of having to have one fleet of N registered 787's and one fleet of EI registered 787's just got a step closer...
Who knows whether the Coleman episode played into the hands of the opponents of NAI's application? Arguably, he has cause to be bitter doesn't he?!
Back here in the UK however, employing pilots "permanently" via third party agencies is only emasculating us further.
Back in April the RMT took a case to the ECHR, with one of its submissions being that the UK prohibition on Secondary Strike action was inconsistent with Article 11 of the ECHR.
In short the Court accepted that the right to Secondary Strike action is enshrined in Article 11(1) of the ECHR, but that the the UK's prohibition of this right because of the potential adverse effects on the rights of persons not party to the dispute 11(2) superseded this right.
In doing so, however, the Court noted that the UK's prohibition lies at one end of the spectrum with respect to this right and is regularly criticised by bodies such as the International Labour Organisation. I understand only 3 other European countries prohibit Secondary Strike action?
I understand BALPA is very much on the Norwegian case, but they/we need to bat the FR/NAS employment paradigms into the weeds once and for all.
HMRC tests as to whether typical airline contractors are or are not "employees" easily demonstrate that pilots working for these airlines (and others) should have proper contracts commensurate with their "employee" status.