Very poor pay offer for jmc pilots [Archive]

Doctor Cruces

20th Jun 2001, 07:12

OzDude and BAlite

Egomaniacs both and both entirely missed the point I was trying to make. What it has to do with the price of eggs in China, OZ Dude, is that like footballers, there is a marketplace and JMC has assessed that marketplace as being worth a 3.5% pay rise this year

I also happen to get paid a lot more than most people and also more than a lot of pilots. (So not jealous of your pay, OK?)

Why do you assume that because I am not a pilot I must be jealous of those who are. I happen to respect most pilots I know for the immense technical knowledge they posess and the skills they have, so DON'T come that old hoary one. The ones I DON'T respect are the ones like you who naturally assume that everyone wants to be a pilot and if we don't there must be something wrong with us. I'm also not a footballer and neither do I wish to be.

The fact that you (and I) get paid oodles of loot to do something we enjoy doing is a bonus, so lets not forget that three percent of what we get is still quite a lot of money, and probably a sizeable percentage of what the cabin crew down the back get as an annual salary. Lets keep it in perspective, eh?

Trouble is, when delicate little boy egos like yours get pricked, the only answer you have is to insult the brain power of the ego pricker. Hardly grown up, is it? You give pilots a bad name.

Doc C.

(Edited for the odd shot that was a bit too far below the belt)

------------------
The more people I meet, the more I like my dog!

[This message has been edited by Doctor Cruces (edited 20 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Doctor Cruces (edited 20 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Doctor Cruces (edited 20 June 2001).]

411A

20th Jun 2001, 07:44

DoctorCruces--
Unfortunately, many in the airline pilot community today have the same attitudes as OzDude & BAlite, they think the sun rises and sets on their backsides, premadonnas in the extreme.
I watched dozens of these types arrive at SV in the 80's and 90's, all dumped by their old airlines (Braniff, Eastern, for example) when the companies went out of business. You would have thought that their attitudes would change, slightly more humble perhaps. To the contrary, they were just as hard-nosed as ever. The Eastern guys even tried to start a union, in Jeddah of all places.
Most of these malcontents just never learn.

Scooby Doo

20th Jun 2001, 09:10

It's really very simple....

Do you know how much money people make from writing books on diets and health regimes. When we all know it's calories in vs. calories burned that make you fat or thin?

It's the same here in as much as we all know what the problem and the solution are.

You whinge, but stay = no pay deal. You leave, they listen = everyone else that stayed gets a pay rise.

The fact is that you won't leave because you are in 'the system' that says that if you stay with us you will benefit from having a high seniority. This industry differs from many in that seniority, rather than suitability, pays off when it comes to promotions etc.

So you stay in your chosen company hoping that they will reward your loyalty.

In England we call it being caught by the short and curlies.

standby1

20th Jun 2001, 12:48

Tili

The union has not let us down "YET", but we are all very disappointed that they actualy recomend we accept this offer.

But this is only the end of round One!

Ding, ding, round Two.

next in line

20th Jun 2001, 13:43

Standby 1.

Scoobey doo is absolutely right. JMC pilots should get exactly what they deserve.

Tell your reps that you want them to reject the deal and that you are willing to go on strike to improve it. Tell your reps that you want a ballot on the pay offer - that way you have only yourselves to blame if the offer is accepted.

If there are some non members in your airline, ask them what they think of the deal and what they are going to do to improve it - unless they think it is ok of course!

If you and your colleagues are not willing to go on strike, then you will get exactly what you deserve - not very much!

flybyvelcro

20th Jun 2001, 14:03

I love it when all you charter sorts start crying about your pay package. I work in the low cost, bloody hard work sector, but I regularly take home £4500.00 per month.

Yeh, I dont get fed, I am on a diet anyway, and I have to pay for my own shirts- but at the end of the day it is what goes in the bank that counts.

I know you all love the cudos of flying big aeroplanes, but when it comes to retiring it is the size of the bank balance that counts, not how many twats you have been flying around! Also, look out for the staff share options which are about to be offered by a recently sold low cost airline. These are rumoured to be the equivalent of one years salary!! Big bucks brother......

flap_actuator

20th Jun 2001, 14:28

From what i understand the jmc deal didn't offer much apart from a possibly insulting 3.5%. Even though the Britannia boys and girls received 3.2% they were given day off insurances and day off premiums worth up to £425. In jmc I belive only £50 is available for a day off.

The pension is set up for office staff as if you join with an ATPL (earliest age for attainment is 21) after full service to retirement at 60 you would still have to pay additional contributions to have you max 2/3 pensionable salary.

Even though jmc is part of the Thomas Cook group it is still possible to get cheaper TC holidays at you local high street.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are more gripes!

Up & Away

20th Jun 2001, 14:29

Ozdude and BAlite..why do you have this attitude?
Who's the prima donna here?
Well said all the others.

xthepond

20th Jun 2001, 15:04

You know pilots are a funny bunch sometimes. We are in the market place when it comes to pay and conditions and we will only achieve an increase in both when the management believe they need to do so in order to protect the core business. Good salaries don't come along as a right.
Its also a fact of life that seniority is everything,( well nearly), and you will only achieve a top salary if you stick around for twenty years. That makes the job frustrating at times.
Don't bicker amongst each other and look out for each other. A good pay deal will work for others as well as a poor one does.

Lets be careful out there,

DPIT

20th Jun 2001, 15:27

Trying to play devils advocate here....

Exactly what would you call a good pay increase? And what were you looking for?

I do work in management (strategy) and I got a 3.2% pay increase this year, which I was quite happy with.

I read all the comments about "we made a huge profit this year...where did it all go?" Well for one thing, not the lower management thats for sure!!! The people who say this phrase seem to think that management screw the pilots so that they can keep the profit...wrong!!! and very short sighted. Remember, we are all in this together!! High management salaries are as bad as high pilot salaries. At the end of the day, it all ads up to higher costs!!

I could earn a LOT more if I worked in a different industry, but I choose to work in this one, because the benefits (travel etc) are so good. I do not winge about it. If you don't like your current job, go and work somewhere else. With the JAA regs, and the EU working rules, why not go and work for AF or LH or someone else.

I am all for performance related pay (in terms of profitability) but how many people would honestly take a pay cut when the business is doing babdly...not many I would imagine...but most use it as an excuse to seek a payrise when the business is doing well.

Sorry, if this offends...just a little annoyed by the content of this topic!!!

[This message has been edited by DPIT (edited 20 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by DPIT (edited 20 June 2001).]

OzDude

20th Jun 2001, 16:13

Unfortunately DocC has missed the point again. As for 411A, well the less said the better as he is a middle tier manager who thinks he knows it all but can only jump in when he sees his values being attacked but serves no other purpose than to relate everything to his American experience and then tries to apply it over here.

My point DocC, and you reitierate it again in your feeble reply, that we should compare our salaries to everyone elses, especially the poor cabin crew down the back. I am not saying that the 3.5% that JMC have offered is good or bad, only that your comment about how many others make much less than us is irrelevant and such comments smack of a management type who has no real argument (or managerial skill) to counter a claim for any pay rise because you think all pilots are overpaid anyway.

If the cabin crew can organise themselves with their union and fight for a realistic and worthwhile pay package then good luck to them. unfortunately, I know for a fact that the vast majority of them in the UK IT operators are not unionised and are so totally unorganised that they take home a pittance for the hours worked and the responsibilities they carry. But for me or any other pilot to even consider that we shouldn't ask for too much just because the cabin crew don't earn anything as much we do is about as pathetic as you can get.

Every salary survey ever completed on pilots pay shows that those companies where there is a solid backing of the union and the union is recognised by the company, the pilots on average earn more than those companies where they are not recognised and/or the pilots are not particularly active in their union. So if there is a shortage of qualified and experienced pilots and the company has made good profits then the pilots should fight for their share and if they think 3.5% isn't good enough then they should tell their reps and carry on negotiating and if that fails then they should consider some form of industrial action. To hell with what the cabin crew or the honey cart team earn. Do not even consider comparing to them. If they are organised they will fight for what they are worth through their own unions.

The first thing any management group will do when trying to undermine any pay negotiation is disinform everyone else and try to make them feel outraged that the highly paid, rich pilots are going to endanger their jobs because of their outrageous pay claim. It's all bullcr@p and a typical management strategy to undemine the pilot group. The press will love it and any union that doesn't have its act together and have a powerful media lobby and PR department will have a problem with the public and co-workers support and it is exactly the kind of lilly livered response by DocC that hurts any negotiation.

As for 411A, well his reactions are precisely what I'm talking about here. Middle tier manager toeing the company dictat and brown noseing his way up the chain without any real regard for the pilots. As long as he can shave money off his budget and earn his bonus he doesn't care. The pilots never brought down any airline, especially the ones he mentions, just poor management by inept managers brings airlines down.

[This message has been edited by OzDude (edited 20 June 2001).]

Pete Otube

20th Jun 2001, 16:45

OzDude

If you ran an airline, what would your philosophy be on pilots'pay? How would your (CEO's)salary compare with a line captain's?

Let's here it from someone as well informed as yourself - perhaps we can learn something from you.

DPIT

20th Jun 2001, 16:59

Ozdude,

Your entire post refered to how the management's raison d'etre is to screw the pilots. That is extremely immature. Haven't you thought that possibly the reason why management react in the way you suggest, is because they encounter people like you? Maybe it isn't, but there is blame on both sides. It seems like your soul intention is to organise (for oraganise read unionise) all pilots so that they can get a better pay deal...irrelevant if they deserve it or not!!!

Do you really believe that the pilots at UA deserve to be paid the very high salaries that they have just won? I do not believe so. I also do not believe that people like the CEO of Marks & Spencer deserves a bonus for increasing the loss of profits, and decreasing the share price!

However, before I get attacked for being a typical managment type (yes...I am in management...not directly anything to do with flight crew, but business strategy), I believe that senior management should have a very low base salary, but have large, performance related salaries. I do not mind people being paid a lot, but only if their performance justifies it!

You are also wrong in suggesting that pilots never brought down an airline and that its ALL managements fault. Well, one group on its own has NOT brought down an airline...a mixture on both sides does that.

411A

20th Jun 2001, 17:13

OzDude--
Wrong again, old chap. Middle tier manager, you say? Try Chief Operating Officer with 35% ownership of the company. And this after 35 years line flying, and still line flying. We are a very small company and will stay that way by choice rather than by chance. The profit picture at airlines can be very deceiving in good years, pilots look at the bottom line and say....."where's my cut?". Ever hear of "retained earnings" to cover unexpected business downturns?
I wonder if in the very lean years these pilots would also like to "contribute" to the bottom line so as to enable the company to keep trading. Aircraft lease payments (to name just one item) suddenly do NOT stop simply because they sit idle on the tarmac.
Delta pilots a few years ago agreed to accept less during the recession of '91-92 and today find that that are rewarded with the best contract in the industry. Co-operate and graduate or, find yourselves out in the street like the Atlas guys, or for that matter, the OZ guys in '89.

beamer

20th Jun 2001, 20:35

To Flybyvelcro

As one of the 'whinging charter pilots' - just returned from a long night trip - a bit
knackered - may I ask one or two questions.

This 4.5k take home you are on about. Is this
your gross pay or your net pay - does it
include flight/sector pay, pension contribution, medical insurance, loss of
licence cover, holiday concessions etc etc.
Do you really have to buy your own uniform
and sandwiches. Does the company pay for medicals and licence renewal ?

I'm not entering any arguements about the
why's and wherefores about Charter versus
Low-cost or BA versus the rest - just a little interested in the make-up of your
quoted figures.

OzDude

20th Jun 2001, 20:36

Well, my cynicism stems from my experiences of my company where during a lean period, we the pilots agreed to a pay cut, and quite a sharp one at that but over the last seven years not once has the company offered to restore our pay and conditions to what it would have. What we have seen is the company record record profits year on year yet offer pay increases in-line with the cost of living index or below.

Now the company has expanded and the management are still wondering how come the majority of pilots voted to be represented by their union in pay negotiations. Most of the management are alright but unfortunately a few of the higher up ones have adopted methods which are underhand and devious and the middle management tier are all on bonus schemes which undercut everything to the lowest common denominator and udermine everything those of us working at the front end try to keep at a high level of safety and quality.

Those middle tier managers will get their bonuses, move on up the corporate ladder or to a different company and those of us left at the 'coal face' will have to try and manage to keep everything running and the customers satidfied whilst we have second rate services provided by contractors. The low salary, high bonus, method appears to engender greed and not better quality. Add to this the inevitable empire building and corporate backstabbing that appears to be a part and parcel of this new corporate structure and philosophy of farming out every concievable service and all you are left with is a management that is temporary, greedy and more interested in their bonuses than the overall health of the company.

So those of you who want to support the likes of people who think we should just sit back, be grateful that we have a job that we enjoy and earn more than most people, you are obviously management material for the new corporate thinking of the 21st century.

As has been shown by the replies, those that think that way are all in management. Need I say more?

Big Buddha

20th Jun 2001, 22:48

Surely take home is just that....money you take home after all deductions.

CP32

20th Jun 2001, 22:49

A friend of mine runs his own dental practice. He came out with a truism. It is the duty of management to get as much work from its employees for as little money as possible. It is also incumbent on the workforce to get as much money as they can for as little work as is acceptable.
In my 25 years flying, I have been with two airlines that have gone bust. In neither case was pilots salaries anything to do with their demise.
Pilots should aim to earn as much as they can, using a strong union as their negotiating tool.

Bourbon-on-the-rocks

20th Jun 2001, 23:09

Ozdude

You, very notably, haven't answered Pete Otube's question. We are wondering why?

OzDude

20th Jun 2001, 23:44

Bourbon, don't wonder too hard, we wouldn't want you to strain yourself now would we?

I'll try to answer the question as you obviously are impatient for my thoughts but as I am about to go off on a trip and as far as I am concerned the question is not a particularly well thought out one or relative but here goes:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">If you ran an airline, what would your philosophy be on pilots'pay? How would your (CEO's)salary compare with a line captain's?</font>

WTF has a comparison between the CEO's salary and the pilots got to do with anything? :rolleyes: If I ran an airline I'd make sure I employed competent managers who were worth their salaries and I'd pay the pilots whatever it took to keep them happy and loyal. I wouldn't try to lower everything to basic costs. To get quality you have to pay for it but in the long run quality lasts a lot longer.

A pilot workforce that believed they were getting paid their worth would be much more productive than a workforce that felt deceived and alienated when they saw a sham management who didn't fully understand the consequences of their cheapskate decisions.

I fully inderstand that profits for shareholders is important but as a shareholder I also understand how a poor management who increase the short term profits without an understanding of how the future will pan out is more than likely to end in failure. Just look at the Cathay situation. Pay cuts followed by record profits and now more pay cuts in prospect. Share price still down in the doldrums and a strike looming.

The final part of my answer though is that I would not become a manager because I don't have the skills but I do see the effects of poor management every day. I see our ground handling being farmed out to the lowest bidder and now all I get is poor turnaround times and disgruntled pax. Yes the company probably saved a couple of thousand dollars a year but we probably lose 50 times that in pax that won't book with us again because of the crap handling and delays caused by it. I have no doubt though that the bright spark that made the decision to go for the cheapest option received their bonus for ending their financial year with a bit to spare in their budget.

To put it into terms you might be able to comprehend, it is not a case of the pilots trying to screw the company for as much as they can get but to be paid as much as is necessary to feel appreciated for the work we do with the skills we provide and in return we would be as productive as possible. It all comes down to quality in the end.

tilii

21st Jun 2001, 00:11

Agree with your post above Ozdude. Your final sentence just about says it all, I think.

sad spaniel

21st Jun 2001, 00:29

As all our politicians seem to keep reminding us it is vital that we remain at the heart of the European Union. I'm sure that we have seen some benefits from that membership already! But I was just wondering if it would allow us, from a legal perspective, to join a union from another country (which seems to have more success than the present union in the UK). Or for that matter whether any of the more successful European unions might want to encourage membership from different countries if their airlines have interests there?
Any views?

Flanker

21st Jun 2001, 15:50

tilii

The bonding matter has not gone away, would you mind emailing me please?

chihuahua

21st Jun 2001, 17:20

For those of you that feel the need to accept low pay rises, let me explain why it is important to ensure that you make hay whilst the sun shines.

It takes a great deal of time, effort, and money to become a commercial pilot. There is no easy way. Very few obtain sponsorship to achieve their goal, and even if you do, it involves about 18 months hard study with little or no income, usually followed by a period of employment at a reduced salary. There is no easy way to become a commercial pilot.

I progressed through the flying instruction route. For reasons outside my control the economy took a nosedive in the early 1990s (I did not vote for the Conservatives). This was co-incident with my obtaining my first professional licence (a BCPL) and instructor rating. Saddled with several thousands of pounds of debt, I could not get any work flying for several months. I drove round flying schools, wrote to everyone in the universe, yet still no work. On several occasions I was asked "Will you work for nothing?". I never considered this option as I believe that no professional pilot should stoop so low. Eventually I cane across some work on a hourly flying rate, and progressed until I financially had to find a proper job.

When my experience allowed, I upgraded to a CPL/IR with a frozen ATPL. Now I had a proper licence and was in the market for a proper job. So, what were the employers offering at the time? Cityflyer a £9,000 salary as a F/O in Gatwick. You could not afford to live in Toxteth on that kind of salary. Others demanded that you pay for your own type rating.

However, I stuck to my principals and eventually made it. I was 4 years after I had my frozen ATPL that I got my first commercial flying job, and I did not have to sell my sole to get it.

So, what is the relevance? That during the early-mid 1990s, times were hard, pilots two a penny, and companies, from flying schools through to airlines s c r e w e d the pilots for every penny that they could. Salaries went down, yet inflation continued to rise. We were an easy target, and the managers knew it. That some sold their sole is a discredit to the majority that stuck by their principles.

What I am not preaching is revenge. It is merely that when times are good we have to stick together in order to preserve the conditions that we have at present, and perhaps regain some of the ground that was lost in the last downturn, both for ourselves and those that will follow in later years. Failure will result in a gradual errosion of the conditions that we currently enjoy.

pitotheat

21st Jun 2001, 17:46

Coming from a company that is on the verge of BALPA recognition I can not understand why your pay rise will be accepted if the general opinion is that it is inadequate. As I understand it your CC is made up entirely of flight deck members who have the use of a BALPA professional negotiator. At least this is how the system has been explained to me.

Has BALPA justified why it is recommending this deal.

My interests are 2 fold. Firstly, as I say we are just about to get recognition and JMC is a company I would be interested in joining.

tailscrape

22nd Jun 2001, 02:49

Yeah, I guess it could have been better guys, but shouldn't we discuss this matter in our own forum that has been provided for us?

Dirty laundry in public in the middle of pay negotiations......come on guys let's all wise up a bit.

exeng

22nd Jun 2001, 03:54

DPIT,

You asked, <but how many people would honestly take a pay cut when the business is doing babdly...not many I would imagine>

Well, funnily enough, the Flight Crew of the company you work for did during the Gulf War. It was sold to us by BALPA as the 'responsible' course of action to ensure that BA survived the ravages of reduced load factors.

And, funnily enough, we were the only group of staff that did agree to wage cuts, the management didn't, the cabin crew didn't, the ground engineers didn't, the loaders didn't, need I say more.

And also, funnily enough, when BA actually posted a profit for that year there were considerable dividends paid to all shareholders but we were not given a 'cent' back.

I protested at the time of the proposed 'cuts' but was ignored.

I have been given access to a 'confidential' (Ho Ho!) paper produced by BALPA (with input from BA) regarding comparative pay scales and the 'efficiency' of BA. I won't go into the pay scales here unless anybody wishes me to, but it is worth making a basic comment regarding efficiency.

BA have twice the number of employees per A/C as BMI,and considerably more than most others; what is going on here? All I see around the Compass centre is 'suits', and if you go to 'Waterworld' the mind boggles!

For God's sake Rod get a grip on this lot.

JMC I wish you all the best in your endeavours and I apologise for slightly hijacking this thread, but I felt that DPIT needed to be sent a message.

We (BA pilots) are really going for it this time, prepare for blood in the streets!

Regards
Exeng

Pete Otube

22nd Jun 2001, 13:47

Exeng,

Make sure the blood isn't yours! By the way, are not most of the pilots shareholders too?

DPIT

22nd Jun 2001, 13:48

exeng,

I have not been in my current company to know about the gulf war pay cuts. If indeed you all did take a pay cut, and were not given any increases after the financial problems, then I would agree with you; That is not on. You should have been properly compensated.

However, I do not agree with you on the grounds of airline efficiency. Is it really advisable to use a measure of employees per aircraft? I think not. A short haul operation, mostly intra Europe, is not going to need as many employees as a long haul-intercontinental carrier. I think it is much more advisable to divide the number of employees by the total passengers, or indeed the total revenue passenger kilometres (RPK's a measure of how many passengers and how far). If you do this, then BA come out in a much better position. Out of interest, how would you rank size of airline. If we take your measure of number of aircraft, then southwest airlines beat BA...is it really bigger than BA? Using the same measure, Continental Express is half the size of BA...is this really the case? Would it be better to use a measure of RPK's. Interestingly enough, this is how airlines are actually measure for size!

You say that there are a lot of 'suits' at Waterworld & Compass. Why are you surpirsed? BA is a very large company (£6 billion turnover), and you would expect that! Also at the compass centre, you have staff that perform operational and planning tasks...are the schedules planners not neccessary then?

I think that Rod is going to be making cuts, and your correct, they will be on the 'suits' side. If you read my other posts, you will notice that I totally agree with that. You obvisouly have some grudge against a part of management, and have therefore deemed all management to be evil! I think this is sad, as if we all worked together, it would be a better place!

The Guvnor

22nd Jun 2001, 16:50

Dunno what you lot are whinging about.

I believe that 3.5% is well above current UK headline inflation rate - so it's an actual payrise, not just a keeping-up-with-inflation one.

Given the undeniable fact that we're in an economic downturn and companies are generally cutting - rather than increasing - costs, I'd say you're all jolly lucky.

What's the average productive flight time (not duty time) of jmc crews at the moment?

Personally, I think that Exeng is spot on - there [i]are[/b] far too many managers at BA. Cutting some of the fat there (and elsewhere) should make Rod look good in the city!!

So far, no one seems to have come up with a better pay solution than that which I proposed some time ago - share out an agreed percentage of a company's profits (say 20%) amongst its staff; and have a compulsory ESOP. That way, everyone in the words of an earlier contributor "makes hay whilst the sun shines" and when it clouds over everyone participates equally in the downturn. Hopefully, as WN does, the company should have built up sufficient cash reserves during the fat years to ensure no layoffs during lean times when everyone's on basic pay - from the CEO down.

tilii

22nd Jun 2001, 17:52

The Guvnor

You recently asked on another thread why it was that I frequently became aggressive in response to your posts.

Frankly, dear heart, it is because every time you post of late you manage to get right up my nose with some provocatively infantile remark. And here you go again ...

Quote: "What's the average productive flight time (not duty time) of jmc crews at the moment?"

Well, precisely what is the point of this absurd question in the context of your argument as to pilots being 'lucky' to get a 3.5% pay rise?

Do you suggest here that pilots have some definitive control over whether or not every minute of their 'duty time' is what you might describe as 'productive' flight time?

Again, you show gross ignorance with your use of terminology. And just so it is abundantly clear to you, a 'flying duty period' inevitably includes time that might be seen by some management beancounters as less than positively productive. That's the nature of the beast, old bean. I would have thought a self-proclaimed airline entrepreneur like yourself would already have known that. Bear it and wear it! :) :) :)

[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 22 June 2001).]

Pete Otube

22nd Jun 2001, 18:02

tilii
I've no objection to the term "management beancounters" being used to refer to all of us who have to make the columns balance out. Is it OK to always refer to you as "pilot moneygrabbers" - in the interests of fair play, you understand, Dear Heart?

raitfaiter

22nd Jun 2001, 18:27

Is there anyboy out there who actually worked for or with the self styled Guvnor of fantasy airline fame? It would be interesting to find out whether he is as crass and ignorant in real as opposed to virtual life......don't tell me, it would have to be 411a (SOG)

tilii

22nd Jun 2001, 19:34

My dear Pete Otube

No doubt it is a difficult and stressful job you do, dear heart. So, my abject apologies to you if you are offended by the term ‘beancounter’.

Naturally, I have nothing but the greatest admiration and respect for the contribution made to our society, not to mention humanity as a whole, by the sensitive, caring and invariably upright fraternity of company accountants, especially those that tirelessly beaver away within our airlines to “make the columns balance out”.

Let’s face it, some of the airline accountant fraternity’s most noteworthy achievements include, but are not limited to: seat pitches that cause DVT in luckless passengers; routine aircrew rostering to the limits promulgated by CAP 371 where such limits are intended to be ABSOLUTE maximums; and enforced carriage of the barest minimum of fuel reserves in unwise circumstances. And, of course, the crowning glory of said fraternity would have to be the imposition upon the “pilot moneygrabbers” of the pilot bonding agreement for the alleged purpose of ‘protecting training investment’.

My hearty congratulations to you all. Based upon your own job description, then, I retract my ill-chosen term of ‘beancounter’ and will in future employ the term ‘column-balancer’. Happy, now?

Further, if the ‘moneygrabber’ cap fits then I am quietly confident that pilots would be happy to bear that description. However, my acquaintance with many hundreds of professional pilots would lead me to feel that said cap does not fit. Generally speaking, the average airline pilot so loves to do the job that his/her willingness to forego the ‘money’ is tantamount to gross stupidity. It has never been my experience that accountants are prepared to make the financial sacrifices so frequently endured by the aircrew fraternity. You, of course, are the sole exception, I suppose?

In summary, the answer to your question is yes, it is OK, dear heart. I for one will accept the term you use in the interests of fair play and each of us may choose to wear, or not wear, the cap as appropriate. If you count beans (or even make the columns balance out) then you might fairly be described as a beancounter (or column-balancer), and, if we grab money, then we must surely accept your imaginative term, must we not? :) :)

Duuuhhh, one bean, two beans, three beans, four ..... :) :) :)

[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 22 June 2001).]

standby1

22nd Jun 2001, 23:07

Anyone care to forward some views or idea's as to why such a large number of UK pilots are so reluctant to become union members? You only have to look at the levels of union membership and the results they get in the states to come to the fairly reasonable conclusion that it is of serious benifit?

tilii

23rd Jun 2001, 00:13

Standby1

IMHO:

1. Disillusionment – take a look at the thread entitled “Airlines Seek Stay On Pilot Fatigue Rule”, in particular the post by Danny with regard to the words of Captain Woerth of the US ALPA. Can anyone in the UK even imagine a BALPA man having the intestinal fortitude to stand up to airlines in like manner? No, pilots here like to spend their hard-earned money on things that give good value and likely return. BALPA is not one of them. And, contrary to another suggestion elsewhere, 1% of a pilot’s salary is quite a high premium to pay merely for litigation insurance (which is the only return that may be realisable for the vast majority of union members here).

2. Thatcherism – we still have not risen above the violent striking down of unionism during the Thatcher years. We were duped into believing that any form of solidarity among workers was tantamount to high treason and we remain so duped.

3. Selfishness – we are not alone in becoming more focussed upon our own lives than with keeping the overall picture in view. Perhaps we will one day realise that only the collective worth is of true value.

That’s my six penneth.

hassel

23rd Jun 2001, 01:25

chihuahua
Your post is almost refreshing in that I had exactly the same ideals in that why should I prostitute myself having gone through the process. I refused rhs safety pilot jobs because I had to pay. I also would not work for a pittance when the boss made money out of me. Colleges and friends did. They are now Captains, Training Captains etc. I am not yet. My stubbiness while feeling right at the time has really cost me. For me there is no moral to this story because there are too many conflicting realities.
hassel.

tilii

23rd Jun 2001, 03:55

F/O RJ 100s

You are a seriously confused little chappie. A peek at your profile reveals that, though both your handle and your email suggest you fly 146s, your occupation is "Wannabe Turpboprop [sic] Pilot" (we'll forgive the presumed typo in the word 'turboprop').

Your closing remark above with regard to flying, or not "actually" flying, the 146 does nothing to dispel this impression of utter confusion.

Sadly, CEP, as you say, you DO "sound a little naive and 'un wised up' to the aviation world". So, before you imply that Ozdude, myself, and others have a "serious chip" on our shoulders, it might be wise for you to put out the reefer, get your mind clear, and tuck some real aviation experience under your belt.

And, for the record, never been a 'Nav' in the RAF, but those I've met who were did not appear to me to have a shoulder chip either.

I can see you're going to do really well CRM-wise on the flight deck, dear chap.

Sincerely hope that the "major airline" in which you are a cadet is not the one for which I fly (guess it can't be if you're on 146s or aspiring to fly 'turpboprops').

[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 23 June 2001).]

exeng

24th Jun 2001, 15:14

DPIT,

You stated, < I think it is much more advisable to divide the number of employees by the total passengers>.

O.K. I agree, these are the figures reproduced from the AEA annual report as of 31/12/99. I am not qualified to verify their accuracy.

Approx passengers per employee:

SA 1780
AL 1260
LH 1150
BMI 1040
SAS 840
AF 780
Iberia 750
KLM 600
Last and very much least BA at 530 !!

I do not have information to hand on RPK's per employee, a more exacting test I'm sure, perhaps you could provide this information DPIT.

DPIT you also said, < You obviously have some grudge against a part of management, and have therefore deemed all management to be evil!>

Yes I do have a grudge against a part of management but no I do not deem all management to be evil. Like you I'm sure, I make a judgment on actions and results.

The passengers, shareholders, and staff are now enjoying the legacy of Bob Ayling. He alone cannot be blamed for the state of this company. I believe it is one of the primary responsibilities of the non-exec directors to monitor the policies and actions of the C.E.O., then take action when necessary. They acted far too late and it will now take years to repair the damage. They largely failed in their responsibilities but most of them are still in place.

I have taken the trouble to read some of your other posts DPIT and you make a lot of sense.

Finally I agree with you entirely when you say if we all worked together it would be a better place. We as flight crew have attempted closer co-operation with management by the adopting of 'Guiding Principles' some years back. These guiding principles are seen by many of us now as having failed. I believe that guiding principles as a means of doing business with management will be dropped in the very near future. Another more effective means of working together will have to be found.

Finally, all flight crew in BA wish to be paid the 'market rate', the phrase that is often quoted in boardrooms the world over. To achieve that market rate blood will probably be spilt, so PETE OTAUBE I am fully prepared to spill a considerable amount of my own in pursuit of that objective.

Regards
Exeng