Flybe-V1
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DC3 Dave
Why does Esken keep going round and round in my head?
Though while could be possibly Cityjet could be interested in flybe if their backers falko and fortress would be willing put in Money to buy it
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DC3 Dave
Why does Esken keep going round and round in my head?
Probably the wrong forum for this, but I was recently told that FlyBe 2.0 were paying their line Captains £50k pa. If so, that's a significant deterioration in terms and conditions from FlyBe 1.0 for long suffering unemployed pilots. Anyone able to confirm or deny this?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by L1011effoh
Probably the wrong forum for this, but I was recently told that FlyBe 2.0 were paying their line Captains £50k pa. If so, that's a significant deterioration in terms and conditions from FlyBe 1.0 for long suffering unemployed pilots. Anyone able to confirm or deny this?
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: 41000ft
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely understand why people have accepted new positions with the new airline but I'm fairly sure the FlyBMI / Loganair TUPE ruling would give them a fair chance of success should they wish to go down that route. I think it's quite clear there has been a transfer of business from the old airline to the new.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cavokblues
I completely understand why people have accepted new positions with the new airline but I'm fairly sure the FlyBMI / Loganair TUPE ruling would give them a fair chance of success should they wish to go down that route. I think it's quite clear there has been a transfer of business from the old airline to the new.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: britain
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATNotts
I doubt it. The original business entered administration, and was bought back out of administration, which is quite different from a managed takeover of a going concern by another, or a contract, e.g. seamless transfer of a car manufacturers trackside logistics from operator to another. One of the ways that a previously unprofitable business is bought out of administration and turned around is, of course, cutting overheads, one of which is inevitably staff, another is renegotiating equipment leasing agreements, and another premises leases.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: 41000ft
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll be honest, I don't really see much of a difference. FlyBMI was placed into administration, Loganair took the bits they wanted and the rest of the company was left in administration.
I'm not an legal expert so I don't know the ins and outs of a TUPE claim but there does seem to be a reasonable amount of evidence that there is a transfer of business and it's not simply a new airline hiring pilots out of work.
However, from reading the notes on the LHR slots appeal what sticks in one's craw is Thyme OpCo (laughably) arguing they only shut down the old airline to rid it of it's business liabilities because they thought that was what the CAA wanted and preferred. They even suggested if they had realised that would mean they would lose the slots they would have looked into other restructuring methods - presumably pumping enough working capital into the airline to keep it afloat.
I'm not an legal expert so I don't know the ins and outs of a TUPE claim but there does seem to be a reasonable amount of evidence that there is a transfer of business and it's not simply a new airline hiring pilots out of work.
However, from reading the notes on the LHR slots appeal what sticks in one's craw is Thyme OpCo (laughably) arguing they only shut down the old airline to rid it of it's business liabilities because they thought that was what the CAA wanted and preferred. They even suggested if they had realised that would mean they would lose the slots they would have looked into other restructuring methods - presumably pumping enough working capital into the airline to keep it afloat.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
But bmir also went into administration.
Case is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...r_Judgment.pdf
Case is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...r_Judgment.pdf
BMIR and Loganair were subsidiaries of Airline Investments Limited (“AIL”).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: britain
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATNotts
One very big difference;
That had all the hallmarks of a "creative failure" facilitated by the holding company of both businesses. Flybe Mk.1 simply went belly up and was sold on by the administrators.
That had all the hallmarks of a "creative failure" facilitated by the holding company of both businesses. Flybe Mk.1 simply went belly up and was sold on by the administrators.
People just don't seem able to get this
Originally Posted by ATNotts
One very big difference;
That had all the hallmarks of a "creative failure" facilitated by the holding company of both businesses. Flybe Mk.1 simply went belly up and was sold on by the administrators.
That had all the hallmarks of a "creative failure" facilitated by the holding company of both businesses. Flybe Mk.1 simply went belly up and was sold on by the administrators.
This is the first para of the judges conclusion - sound familiar?
Having considered all the factors, I am persuaded that there was a relevant transfer of the business of BMIR. Loganair acquired nearly all the planes and a significant majority of the pilots who previously operated BMIR’s activities. The planes and pilots continued to fly scheduled and some contract routes. The activity is essentially the same. The fact that they are integrated into the business of Loganair does not prevent this being a relevant transfer.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bean
Correct again
People just don't seem able to get this
People just don't seem able to get this
However it what it is, and unless multiple people lobby their MPs it's not going to change, and frankly even if they did it probably won't under the current administration since too many supporters of the government party will have used it to their (financial) advantage. Best hope would be a change of administration, but even then politicians only see "jobs saved" or "jobs created" not the fallout for suppliers and the reduction in salaries and conditions of employment that generally follow.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: 41000ft
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm far from a legal expert but, from my own layman's eyes, I don't see a huge difference between the Loganair and Fly BMI case and this one. If anything, reading that decision posted above has cemented that view.
As I posted earlier we have it from Thyme OpCo's own mouth in the Heathrow slots appeal decisions that they could have saved the old airline. And we know some of the people involved with the old airline are now involved with the new one. In many ways you could equally say this was creative failure to transfer the assets they wanted and rid themselves of the liabilities.
As I posted earlier we have it from Thyme OpCo's own mouth in the Heathrow slots appeal decisions that they could have saved the old airline. And we know some of the people involved with the old airline are now involved with the new one. In many ways you could equally say this was creative failure to transfer the assets they wanted and rid themselves of the liabilities.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cavokblues
I'm far from a legal expert but, from my own layman's eyes, I don't see a huge difference between the Loganair and Fly BMI case and this one. If anything, reading that decision posted above has cemented that view.
As I posted earlier we have it from Thyme OpCo's own mouth in the Heathrow slots appeal decisions that they could have saved the old airline. And we know some of the people involved with the old airline are now involved with the new one. In many ways you could equally say this was creative failure to transfer the assets they wanted and rid themselves of the liabilities.
As I posted earlier we have it from Thyme OpCo's own mouth in the Heathrow slots appeal decisions that they could have saved the old airline. And we know some of the people involved with the old airline are now involved with the new one. In many ways you could equally say this was creative failure to transfer the assets they wanted and rid themselves of the liabilities.
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, the bmir/Loganair case was supported by BALPA - who seem to be conspicuous by their absence in this particular case even despite the rumoured salaries on which Q400 pilots are being offered "new" jobs.
There are very clear similarities between the two cases. bmir and Loganair had a common shareholder. Flybe 1 and Flybe 2 had a common shareholder - the largest shareholder in Flybe 1 is the sole shareholder in Flybe 2. They are proposing to fly the same aircraft type on the same routes. There are obviously those arguing otherwise, presumably to suit their vested interests, but the two situations have so many similarities that it is surprising BALPA is not supporting TUPE action in the case of Flybe 2. And with yesterday's revalation about the intent of that shareholder, you'd think they should be getting involved to protect pilots interests.
There are very clear similarities between the two cases. bmir and Loganair had a common shareholder. Flybe 1 and Flybe 2 had a common shareholder - the largest shareholder in Flybe 1 is the sole shareholder in Flybe 2. They are proposing to fly the same aircraft type on the same routes. There are obviously those arguing otherwise, presumably to suit their vested interests, but the two situations have so many similarities that it is surprising BALPA is not supporting TUPE action in the case of Flybe 2. And with yesterday's revalation about the intent of that shareholder, you'd think they should be getting involved to protect pilots interests.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE BALPA;
I would venture a guess that as Flybe v2 is a new company (is it really?!)
- and because only only a handful of pilots have been hired, paying passengers haven't been carried yet and not a fare producing route has been flown in anger, BALPA have not even spoken a dicky bird to anyone inside the place yet.
I think Flybe v2 would quite like this, as it will have allowed them to shape the company in the favour of the shareholder, and not include any of the collective agreements, employee protections, salary structures etc etc that were there before.
Capt's Salary above sounds low, but is it on a par with other regional operators, what are Logan, Eastern, et al paying? - Whatever pocket money they'll throw at the FOs could be even worse, obviously they will accept, because everyone wants a job.
I would venture a guess that as Flybe v2 is a new company (is it really?!)
- and because only only a handful of pilots have been hired, paying passengers haven't been carried yet and not a fare producing route has been flown in anger, BALPA have not even spoken a dicky bird to anyone inside the place yet. I think Flybe v2 would quite like this, as it will have allowed them to shape the company in the favour of the shareholder, and not include any of the collective agreements, employee protections, salary structures etc etc that were there before.
Capt's Salary above sounds low, but is it on a par with other regional operators, what are Logan, Eastern, et al paying? - Whatever pocket money they'll throw at the FOs could be even worse, obviously they will accept, because everyone wants a job.
