TUPE generally applies where a going concern moves from one owner to another, for example a contract passes from one office cleaning outfit to another. Those managing the decline of Fly BMI temporarily lost sight of the TUPE ball; effectively they cocked up.

The transfer of aircraft and crews between BMI and Loganair, while not exactly seamless, too place over a short period of time. The fact that TUPE was engaged was down to the particular set of facts prevailing in that case. I suspect that the Tribunal Judge, who sat alone, found it a fairly marginal decision. One might wonder how the cookie would have crumbled if the Judge had sat with wingmen from (a) employer and (b) union/workforce backgrounds.

By the time FlyBe 2 starts it will be pretty much two years since FlyBe 1 ceased operations. There's not a snowball's chance of that being seen as a TUPE transfer.

So Flybe is the same airline when it comes to slots, but not when it comes to TUPE?

I think at the very least there is a question worth asking

You can bang the drum as often as you like, and though I stand four square behind your sentiments, there is not a snowballs chance in hell of getting TUPE terms in this situation are Airbanda and Bean have also pointed out. Believe me, I have seen the same thing happen in many different industrial and commercial sectors over the last few years. Commercial aviation is not in some way different.

Not a TUPE in my view given the length of the break in employment but I’m not a lawyer. I won’t be asking the question.

I’m guessing the carriers flying at the moment planned for a pretty crap winter with few passengers but it could be terrible.
Families not flying to be together over Xmas due to fear of the new variant and possible working from home being introduced.

It’s great for Flybe to still be safe in the harbour out of the storm as Chris Hope put it.

Either by happy accident, or design, services aren't said to be starting until March or thereabouts. Had they kicked off in November then I think the venture could have turned out to be very short-lived.

I don't think there is a time limit on a TUPE claim - a quick google suggests the period of protection byTUPE is indefinite.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion which will probably never be tested in a court.

Let's see if a claim is made. If so will it be brought via Balpa or one of the cabin crew unions?

The name on AOC 2470 was changed from Thyme Opco Ltd to Flybe Ltd on December 1st. Would they have had to wait a certain period of time (in this case just under six months) from the revocation of the 'original' one?

No idea why BALPA would choose to fund a case with a questionable chance of winning a case for a few who have willingly choosen to work under these T&C's. I'm a plus 1 on TUPE being a non starter in law in this case. .. it would be hard to argue any sort of relevant employment after a 2 year gap...

TUPE applies to a take over. I work for company Y, company Z takes over my company or the contract that I am employed for. Having negotiated a TUPE transfer in the past, I just do not see how this law can apply?

I'm not sure that's correct. I work in the Rail industry and have been TUPE'd several times. But one time when the company was bought rather than a new company take over the Franchise TUPE didn't apply. It's more like Company A loses the contract and company B takes over using the staff from Company A.

Loganair didn't take over bmi Regional, but the ruling was that TUPE applied. There are a number of similarities between the two cases (and of course a number of differences!)

TUPE
 

Can someone explain how TUPE applies in this case? On the 5 Mar 20, Flybe (Mk1), went into administration and I, and many others, lost our jobs, were left financially out of pocket and have either found other jobs or retired. A few lucky ones were kept on by the Administrators to help wind the thing up and some of them have transferred over to the “new” Flybe.

Now Flybe Mk2 are starting up, people are being “recruited”, on reduced salaries and different Terms and Conditions. Although highly improbable, it is entirely possible that Dash 8 qualified people from elsewhere could be among them. I say improbable because they have all the training records and will recruit exactly who they want; can you blame them?

So how can you say that this is a case of an old failing company being taken over, when we know that the whole thing is a bit of a “smoke and mirrors” exercise to get what they want, who they want and on the terms they’re prepared to offer?

It all seems like a new startup to me with the management in possession of a few “titbits” from the past.

Busterhot. You are completely correct. This TUPE business has been going around in relentless circles since early summer 2020

I've no idea if TUPE does apply in this case but the judgement posted above from the Loganair / BMI case does have a few similarities about transfers of business.

If i was a betting man I would say it doesn't apply in this situation as I think a major difference between this set up and Loganair / BMI is there appears to have been a transfer of some parts of BMI's business pre administration.

I am sure the new board and owner would have been very careful to ensure that there was a solid legal firewall between the two companies. The administrators will have been aware of this in their attempts to sell assets and the pension scheme lawyers (with the pension regulator looking over their shoulder) will also have been looking closely at the legal frameworks. The fact that BE2.0 seem to be comfortable with taking on former employees is also a sign that they have the TUPE issue well and truly tied down. I am sure BALPA will have drawn similar conclusions and at the end of the day with resources stretched, would the membership be happy in blowing a huge amount of union cash at a possibly very weak case?

Well done biddedout. The whole thing has become boring, monotnous and stupi

I’m not taking a position either way but all these posts that of course management have thought of everything are a bit presumptuous.

If managers and businesses were always able to think of everything they wouldn’t encounter problems or collapse.

Legal issues are often open to interpretation also. One set of lawyers may say you have no case while another will fight it and win.

BA are one of the biggest carriers around and have still made massive cock ups which have resulted in legal rulings against them or large settlements.

The only way we’ll know is if a case is brought. Until then we might as well move on.

Completely disagree.

Silly
If a case is brought they'll just fold the company. How simple is that?