MOR
It is perhaps most revealing to read that, by your own admission, you watched the meeting you claim to have attended "from a distance".
You assert that RD denounced "the way bonds are being dealt with" and was "the most vocal in opposition".
That RD is held by you to be most vocal comes as no surprise, though I am a little puzzled to hear that he opposed a bonding issue within his company after reading his vigorous justification for same on these pages.
I was certainly not present at this meeting, so I accept your version of these events and there is therefore no need for your call for independent verification.
However, there is nothing in your post above that would lead me to make any form of apology to RD. On the contrary, for no matter how vigorously RD is purported to be fighting this bonding issue, his attempts will be no greater than my own have been in this regard over many long years.
As for my supposedly getting facts wrong, I would be more than happy to read your proper explanation as to how this is so, since your post above is unclear.
The most likely redundancies are amongst those with the shortest service in the company. They therefore have the largest bonds to pay. Any that the company make redundant will therefore cost the company the most money, in clearing their bonds. Only the over-60's will not fit that picture.
Quite agree, dear chap. So, what is your point? This is in line with what I have said above and is clearly the motivating factor in the airline electing NOT to make its pilots redundant and to, instead, offer the 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' choice as detailed above by
BavarianBoy. Or is it that you now aver that what was posted by
BavarianBoy with regard to the choices offered is untrue?
There is no provision for being bonded on two types simultaneously, it is either one type or another. All of this is well within the scope of their contracts. However, it is early days yet and the picture will almost certainly change within the next few days.
What nonsense is this? Kindly explain how a pilot bonded on a jet type in the sum of many thousands of pounds (which bond takes the form of a bank-financed loan in the pilot's name), when offered conversion onto a more lowly type on the basis of again being similarly bonded is deemed to have cleared up the original bond UNLESS THE EMPLOYER HAS PAID IT OUT IN THE PILOT'S NAME? And just how do you say that such a matter is within the scope of the employment contracts. Please post the precise term/s of the contract that are said to cover this eventuality, for this I would dearly love to read. I think your last comment in the quote above is closer to the truth. You believe the picture will almost certainly change over the next few days because you now realise that the rumoured action by BE is in fact unlawful, thus inevitably forcing such change.
Your penultimate and ultimate paragraphs above are unworthy of further comment.
I close by asking why it is that you watched the said meeting from afar? Could it be that you did so because you are not a pilot employee but a management employee? If not, then you really ought to be at the front supporting your friend RD. If so, then you really must hang your head in eternal shame.
[ 29 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]