PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Airlines, Airports & Routes (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes-85/)
-   -   Flybe-V1 (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/637085-flybe-v1.html)

SWBKCB 7th Dec 2021 12:20

The bmi regional/Loganair case was brought by Balpa

Saabdriver1 7th Dec 2021 12:41

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.


RogueOne 7th Dec 2021 18:04

RE BALPA;

I would venture a guess that as Flybe v2 is a new company (is it really?!) :E - 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.

Airbanda 7th Dec 2021 20:12


Originally Posted by cavokblues (Post 11152622)
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.

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.

SWBKCB 7th Dec 2021 20:16

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

ATNotts 8th Dec 2021 07:55


Originally Posted by SWBKCB (Post 11152801)
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.

Jamie2009 8th Dec 2021 08:08

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.


ATNotts 8th Dec 2021 08:17


Originally Posted by Jamie2009 (Post 11152957)
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.

cavokblues 8th Dec 2021 08:26

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.

Airbanda 8th Dec 2021 11:33


Originally Posted by cavokblues (Post 11152967)
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?

southamptonavgeek 8th Dec 2021 17:20

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?

Fletch 9th Dec 2021 22:40

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...

Buster the Bear 10th Dec 2021 20:46

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?

Wallsendmag 11th Dec 2021 08:04


Originally Posted by Buster the Bear (Post 11154216)
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.

SWBKCB 11th Dec 2021 09:29

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!)

BusterHot 11th Dec 2021 10:39

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.

bean 11th Dec 2021 13:00

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

cavokblues 11th Dec 2021 14:23

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.


biddedout 12th Dec 2021 11:01

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?

bean 12th Dec 2021 12:16

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:02.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.