EasyJet Offices Raided by French Police

[ORAC]

The Times: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2505505,00.html) EasyJet's offices raided by French police

A 40-strong team of gendarmes and inspectors raided easyJet's base at Orly Airport outside Paris yesterday as part of an inquiry into allegations that the low-cost airline is infringing French employment legislation.

The raid came amid claims that its 130 pilots, stewards and air hostesses based at Orly should have French and not British work contracts. French prosecutors said they were gathering evidence before deciding whether to open a full-scale investigation for “illegal employment practices”.

EasyJet, which flies from Orly to Italy, Spain, Switzerland and Germany, as well as to the French provinces, said that it is respecting European law. It added that because its aircraft are registered in the UK, British labour legislation applies to staff.

A judicial source said tax and social security inspectors had taken part in the surprise raid alongside gendarmes and work inspectors. EasyJet’s pilots and flight personnel were questioned as witnesses. The operation was ordered by the State Prosecution office. “If we consider that the airline is based permanently in France, then French law should apply to its staff,” said Bernard Thouvenot, vice-prosecutor. He criticised easyJet’s British management for failing to meet inspectors.

A preliminary inquiry was launched in January amid complaints from French airlines that low-cost competitors enjoyed an unfair advantage by using UK labour laws. According to the French General Directorate of Civil Aviation (DGAC), airlines such as easyJet and Ryanair would face a 4 per cent increase in the cost of their operations in France if they moved their staff on to French contracts. Ryanair employs about 60 personnel in Marseilles.

The directorate said the airlines could offset the cost by raising ticket prices by an average of €2 (£1.34).

French employment legislation provides a high level of protection against dismissal and access to France’s generous welfare system.

A spokesman for easyJet said: “We are convinced that we are fully in accordance with European law, which supersedes French law.”

[taffman]

A spokesman for easyJet said: “We are convinced that we are fully in accordance with European law, which supersedes French law.”

Since when has the frogs bothered with EC law. They do it their own way and to hell with the rules.

[PENKO]

How convenient!
Just when Air France is launching its own low cost sub.

[QCM]

Yeah but Air France was chartering CityJet with Irish contracts for years,without being so touchy about the rules...as said above,they are preparing the field for their incoming low cost,Transavia.com (60% Air France-40% KLM),with B737 to start with,and by 2009 with A320...little by little,this fundamentally anti-democratic company will have get rid of all concurrence on their territory,sh@tt@ng on all established rules...more than 5000 french airmen/women have lost theirs jobs due to that,and I guess, now it will be much more difficult for them to find one on their homeland,they will be too expensive...This is unfair...:ugh: :=

[Phileas Fogg]

Just how much of an unfair advantage is 2 euro's per ticket!!!

[dusk2dawn]

Ryanair lost in Charleroi:

Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome 1980)

[Permafrost_ATPL]

Not much to do with the police raid itself, but I thought I'd share my conversation with the refueller at CDG yesterday. I was impressed he had been trained in switch flicking, so he went on to explain that switch-flicking-training was only part of the story. They were not happy having to stand on the ladder whilst their feet got cold, so they went on strike to get warmer shoes (honest). He then looked at my coat and commented that it did not look warm enough and that EZY pilots should go on strike unless they got better ones. When I told him I had to pay for the coat myself, he nearly fainted :) Got to love 'em...

P

[haughtney1]

Perma....I guess he probably has less debt to contend with than you? and probably didnt have to go via the TRSS or buy a type rating insert hose rating :) etc...(not a dig at anyone..merely an observation)

[JW411]

My goodness, you are an observant soul. Why don't you check out the thread on easyJet offices in Paris being raided!

[A4]

Why raid the offices? What did they think they were going to find? Wouldn't it have been a little more "mature" to contact the airline and outline their, probably groundless, concerns?

This smacks of the typical attitude of $od everyone else - we're going to do just as we please. As Taffman said, since when have the French listened to or obeyed anyone.

If you have a grievance, fine - take the appropriate action, not action that totally screws everyone else. Ports, ATC, sheep, beef - the list goes on. I'd love to know how much Europe Plc has lost over the years due to unilateral French action.

Air France is a dinosaur - protected by the Government. Level playing field - my ar$e. Perhaps one day the EC will actually apply the rules instead of just turning a blind eye, otherwise what the hell are we all paying for?

Rant over :mad:

A4 :yuk:

[Clarence Oveur]

Right A4. I suppose you have ample evidence to support your accusations, and are willing and able to produce such. Or is it just an impression you got?

[SWBKCB]

Well said that man - I get many such complaints in an EU but non-aviation related arena, and when you ask for evidence it tends to be of the 'Well I read it in the Daily **** so it must be true!' variety...

[captplaystation]

If you for one minute expect the French to respect any rules not instigated by "Le France", dream on ( or for clarification ask Greenpeace ). The motto ere eez, if you can't beat em screw zem. This does not surprise me one little bit, and to quote Leo Hairy Camel I suspect, is why the French consumer has been denied access to low cost air travel for so long. Think of the Ryanair debacle over Strasbourg, where they were taken to court after court until Air Frog got what they wanted, and you will see that any low cost venture that gets in Air France's way is doomed. This has nothing to do with worker protection and everything to do with protecting the state - prefered dinosaur.To suggest otherwise is a great insult to anyone who has even the loosest understanding of the French way of doing things.The next stage I imagine will be daily visits on the ramp from the DGAC or some other likewise unimaginative attempt to put a spanner in the works.Vive le Republic.

[zed3]

zed3 ..... Brit ..... having lived 'in Europe' for 37 years ..... had enough impressions , we are all what we are and to mix into one pot does NOT work . It's all going to end in tears and quite probably , basically , due to a French attitude , amongst others , anyway . Nothing against you lot but we are what we are and the politicians (are) and want to be the winners and take all . It's a game , expensive one at that , without consequenses for those who are playing - the politicians . It's not the players lose but the payers lose !

[ezpz]

The easyJet French General Manager was detained overnight and interviewed at length. This guy is not responsible for hiring staff or setting employment conditions and contracts. Looks like intimidation to me.

New starters employed at the Madrid base are on Spanish contracts. Interesting that this is the only EZY base not on an UK contract. Anything to do with Spanish employment law being less strict than the UK or France?

[sarah737]

The easyJet French General Manager was detained overnight and interviewed at length. This guy is not responsible for hiring staff or setting employment conditions and contracts. Looks like intimidation to me.

And a captain threatened to be jailed for not speaking french...

[Avman]

and it's personnel for future reference :)

[captplaystation]

If I was RYR MRS based , and not a little further South, I would be watching my back very carefully. Always said, for a long long time ,that a French base would end in tears. Forget EEC , or any other law, in France there is ONLY French law, all the rest is just window dressing.

[Clarence Oveur]

Instead of debating the merits of the French actions based on factual information, such as EU regulations or directives or French national law, it has turned into a cacophony of Francophobia. There is nothing unusual about that, I might add.

The post by dusk2dawn seems to have been overlooked by all. Not unintentionally perhaps? Could he possibly have an inconvenient point? Have you tried to find out, or is just naturally assumed that Easyjet are right and the French wrong?

Do you even know the difference between an EU regulation and directive or how they apply to national law? Do you know what percentage of EU regulations and directives have been transposed into national law in France - thus becoming de facto French law - compared to other EU nations?
I should think the answer would be no, you don't know. (Are you busy Googling now;) )

[SWBKCB]

Do you even know the difference between an EU regulation and directive or how they apply to national law? Do you know what percentage of EU regulations and directives have been transposed into national law in France - thus becoming de facto French law - compared to other EU nations? I should think the answer would be no, you don't know. (Are you busy Googling now;) )

Can't remember off hand the difference between a Directive or a Regulation, but my understanding is that both supercede any national law.

[Hudson Bay]

When flybe had bases in France the staff were initially working on UK contracts until the French courts found out. Flybe were fined 1 million euro's for contravening French law and subsequently had to set up a French company and employed all France based staff on French contracts.

When Flybe pulled out of France it cost the company a fortune in redundancy payments. Its not easy to lay off French workers. Easyjet BEWARE. Your treading on dodgy ground.

[FougaMagister]

Do you know what percentage of EU regulations and directives have been transposed into national law in France - thus becoming de facto French law - compared to other EU nations?


What I do know is that last year (like several times before), the European Commission itself has ranked France among the top three offending member States when it comes to non-implementation of EU law.

Then again, it's typical French attitude: if the rules suit us, then fine; otherwise, we'll just ignore them :*

What did the Public Prosecutor really expect to achieve by organising an Untouchables-style raid at easyjet ORY (apart from the sick satisfaction of having his 15 minutes of fame)? Since when do you need Gendarmes to enforce labour law? I can't imagine that a more civilised request wouldn't have yielded the same result. I can't imagine either such an unnecessary show of force by the UK CAA. Welcome to the EU's only banana republic.

Cheers

P.S.: I am French - and ashamed of such arrogant behaviour, which only serves to reinforce all the usual cliches about the French.

[Hussar 54]

My comments are Page 4....

www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1797413#post1797413

Talking about Flybe at the time, but this is all fairly predictable....

[caulfield]

Good on the French.Anything that tries to rid the world of easyjet and ryanair has to be good.I'm a Brit mais Vive La France...

[Right Way Up]

Welcome back Caulfield. It must be at least 20 months since your last tantrum at Easyjet. Did they let you out for good behaviour? :hmm: :hmm:

[5 RINGS]

I fully agree with FougaMagister,

I'm French too, and when I had to convert my ICAO licence in the EU, the natural choice wasn't France...and it was pure fortune that I found a pilot job there, but I'll soon have a chance to make the right choice...

I have nothing more to say about the French authorities investigating @ EZY offices but they all are a bunch of muppets making a shame of themselves...

[Five Green]

Help me out here. Does French Labour law not require that the company contributes to a retirement scheme. Would this not benefit Easy Jet employees in the long run ?

Waiting in the dark.

FG

[thedude]

What irritates the h**l out of me is that the french attitude is to protect there own countrymen (and women of course) first. You only have to watch Paris ATC departures in action to realise that. If that means ignoring the EU then so be it. Can we really blame them for it?
Where as in the UK, obsessed with fairness as we generally are, we politely say; " come on in we'll give you a job " or " no, you were here first, off you go ".
Why not adopt the same attitude, " we'll give you a job only after no more uk national's have applied".

OK, so mabey I'm a bit of a Francophobe.!! :cool:

[Lemper]

A spokesman for easyJet said: “We are convinced that we are fully in accordance with European law, which supersedes French law.”
Since when has the frogs bothered with EC law. They do it their own way and to hell with the rules.


Gentlemen, there are NO such thing as a European LAW; The EU commission promulgates DIRECTIVES, a bit like ICAO does with RECOMMENDATIONS. EU countries implement those directives in their own laws.......or not!
All EU countries have kept their autonomy, unlike the CIS republics or the US of A States.
EZ will have one way to get out of the mess they put themselves in, and that is to find evidences that the French law is discriminating them in relation to French airlines. This might take.......your guess years, and in the mean time it will have to abide by the french Law, IF the french judge so decides, which is not yet certain he will.

[Scottie]

Help me out here. Does French Labour law not require that the company contributes to a retirement scheme. Would this not benefit Easy Jet employees in the long run ?

Waiting in the dark.

FG

easyjet currently contibutes 7-9% of your salary (your choice) into the company pension scheme on your behalf.

[BitMoreRightRudder]

Well I heard they found Mike Szucs hiding in a cupboard in the crewroom.

[foghorn]

Thanks Clarence for a voice of reason.

Can't remember off hand the difference between a Directive or a Regulation, but my understanding is that both supercede any national law.

In a nutshell, Regulations have direct effect in the EC Member states. Directives need enacting into national law to be effective. If a directive has not (yet) been enacted into local law then it still has effect against "emanations of the state" (which has a relatively wide definition in EC case law - see Foster v British Gas). The State could be liable if a person suffers loss due to directives not being enacted into national law.

[harpic]

The French are alway difficult; they have a chip on their shoulder. I think this is because or despite being cleverer than everyone else they have never attained their true position in the world. They see the EU as a means of correcting this as it enables them to inflict their wisdom on other countries (who should know better).

[sarah737]

Help me out here. Does French Labour law not require that the company contributes to a retirement scheme. Would this not benefit Easy Jet employees in the long run?


It is a system where todays contribution is used to pay yesterdays pension.The system needs money NOW to pay the already retired guys. What will be left of the system when the EZY guys will retire, in 10-20 or 30 years from now, is a big question mark!

[Fat Clemenza]

What seems a bit surprising is that Easy has been operating out of Orly for years now. And all of a sudden, right when AF's transavia.com start operations, they get raided:hmm:... this shows again what kind of dictatorship is ruling french skies.

No wonder why there's only one french airline...yeah I know there's also those charters and the likes...look at the rest of europe! How come the first leisure destination in the world got only one sigle airline:ugh:? Not even an independent low cost or some alternative to the former national airline...

As long as the french goverment has interests in the airline, then yes Air France wil be the fat lady sitting on everyone else's head...:yuk:

[FougaMagister]

Let's say easyjet ends up having to transfer their ORY-based crew to French contracts. The one big difference would be that the staff and airline would then contribute to the Caisse de Retraite du Personnel Navigant (CRPN - Flight Crew [National] Pension Scheme) - which is now mainly used to fund the baby-boomer retirement bulge at AF. Since some ORY-based easyjet crew are not French, do you think they would get their contributions to the CRPN back when transfering to another EZ base? Somehow, methinks not. Highway robbery is the analogy that comes to my mind... :*

Cheers :cool:

[PPRuNeUser0215]

What irritates the h**l out of me is that the french attitude is to protect there own countrymen (and women of course) first.

Dude, I think you will find that many French pilots are/could be/will be affected in a negative way by such move. They are the ones who do not work for Air France in particular and for a French outfit in general.
This not a rare occurence since the Pilot employment market in France is pretty much dead therefore it means that a lot of us have lived as expats for years now(no probs here by the way).
In this case, there is no protectionism here when it comes to the "own countrymen" you are referring to.

[calypso]

Oh dear, such rightfull indignation. That will never happen in the Uk. There is no way the UK goverment will intervene to defend a UK company. Not even to get a corruption investigation that was getting a bit out of hand closed down. :}

[Boy]

I would like to politely suggest that most of you have got the wrong end of the stick on this. Even the French contributors seem to feel that the French government is behaving inappropriately. We also have the idea floating around that it is all about defending various companies. Has it crossed anybodies mind that it might be about protecting the pilots and taxpayers??

As more and more airlines establish bases in different countries, this opens up the way to "practices" which have been termed "social dumping" and creative "tax avoidance". The French action is designed to ensure that certain companies that, for example, arrange to pay either NO or very low rate of social insurance in country A cannot work in country B and use, for example, the free medical services in country B.

All that is happening is that the various little tricks which have grown over the past couple of years are being identified. Some countries, such as France, have worked out what is going on and are doing something about it. Others are getting ready to do something and some don't care.

If you think this is a theoretical exercise consider the pilot's family in Germany that found itself entrapped in a nightmare when it was discovered that they were using expensive, but free, high quality medical care on the basis of minimal social payments in Ireland. It turned out the German taxpayer is not much interested in subsidising such persons.

Whose "fault" was this? ... well the airline was not in the slightest interested (but it set the arrangement up). Nothing quite like large medical bills to concentrate the mind.

We still have a goodly number of pilots from, say, European country A, but working in European country B, and paying no (or virtually no) tax in any country. And why should the little "arrangement" between employer and employee be protected from intervention on the part of authorities in country B, on the basis of the convenient fact that their contract was issued in country A?

Let us wait and see what happens as a result of these visits before reaching a conclusion about what is going on. I think we can expect more of this kind of intervention. I, for one, applaud it.

(P.S. do you think the airlines that do this kind of thing - and I am not identifying any airline - are doing it for the sake of their pilots? If so - come into the real world!).

[ZBMAN]

Boy,

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The intervention from the french authorities has nothing to do with protecting the french social security from tax evasion. It has all to do with killing the competition to make room for the new Air France low cost subsidiary.
Also did you know that a certain AF subsidiary, Cityjet, also employs crew under foreign contracts, but strangely the french authorities don't seem to be interested to the point of raiding the AF offices in CDG.
The french contributors (myself included) know all too well how things work in France, I think you should take their view a bit more seriously. One thing is for sure : the french authorities have been trying for a while to get rid of eJ, and what we have just seen is merely the escalation of the effort they are putting into it.

[sarah737]

The French action is designed to ensure that certain companies that, for example, arrange to pay either NO or very low rate of social insurance in country A cannot work in country B and use, for example, the free medical services in country B

Sorry BOY u are WRONG! When a french EZY pilot goes to the doctor in france the french social security claims every euro they spent on him back from the UK NHS because the pilot pays NI in the UK. The guy may be lucky to have french health care for UK price but it is the UK paying for the difference and not the french, nor the french taxpayers.

[flyzen]

Gentlemen, there are NO such thing as a European LAW; The EU commission promulgates DIRECTIVES, a bit like ICAO does with RECOMMENDATIONS. EU countries implement those directives in their own laws.......or not!
All EU countries have kept their autonomy... I'm not with you
The UE directives must be introduced in each country law, otherwise countries have to pay penalities It's not a choice or a recommendation but an obligation.

[Lemper]

Hi Flyzen,

In a way, you are right.....and wrong.

Directives must be implemented in member states laws depending on the agreement these states reach in the or a treaty. Rome, Maastricht, Nice, etc...Britain has a discount on its membership fees, if I dare say, France some special deal on agriculture and Malta on foreign workers from EU, for non exhaustive example. Anyway, it takes a looooooooooooong time for a law to be drafted, debated in the parliament and then the senate, then voted, then checked by the supreme court, or equivalent. As long as this hasn't happened there is NOTHING (nor nobody...supposedly!) above the law, but the constitution of that country. My point was: it is not necessarily because some eurosuckers have produced a directive to justify their positions that it automatically supersedes a country's law.
I do not want to argue the propriety of the French police action, nor siding with one or another country's position in a debate. Just keep head cool and wait for the conclusion without judging.
After all, do we, pilots, jump to conclusion to seal the fate of a colleague who pranks a machine or get caught with booze in his blood?

[ctrevisan]

Gentlemen, there are NO such thing as a European LAW; The EU commission promulgates DIRECTIVES, a bit like ICAO does with RECOMMENDATIONS. EU countries implement those directives in their own laws.......or not!
All EU countries have kept their autonomy, unlike the CIS republics or the US of A States.
EZ will have one way to get out of the mess they put themselves in, and that is to find evidences that the French law is discriminating them in relation to French airlines. This might take.......your guess years, and in the mean time it will have to abide by the french Law, IF the french judge so decides, which is not yet certain he will.

Sorry... maybe we're missing EU Regulations? They apply directly in Member States, may not be transposed into national law, and supersede any national law in contrast with them...

Regards,
CT

[Maverick Laddie]

Little confused :* Easy's statement that " As there aircraft are UK registered UK labour legislation applies " can any legal eagle out there shed some light on the foundation of this statement.

[RAT 5]

Check out the number if EI registered a/c operating in EU. The FTL's are those of the host airline and the employment law of the country where the host airline is registered. Certainly the case in Italy; no doubt others too.

[Boy]

I'm not a legal eagle but I can say with some confidence that the country of registry has nothing to do with the relevant Labour Law which applies.

Labour Law: In principle (note the caution) the Labour Law is that of the country where the contract of employment is vested.

However, this is a really confused area - for how do you define where a pilot works ... consider:

1. A full-time employee for an airline based in country A, who has been based in country B for, say, 5 years on what the airline will say is a "semi-permanent" temporary basing. (The argument about what Labour Law would apply on this one will keep the lawyers in fees for quite a while. Nominally it is country A, but the authorities - and judiciary - in country B might wish to see things differently).

2. Even better, a contractor working for the airline in country A, who has a contract based in country C, but is working in country B. This one gets really complicated if you throw in the fact that the employee is exclusively responsible for his/her tax and is paid "offshore" notwithstanding that countries A, B & C are all in Europe.

Both types of employment will see court cases in due course. Both types of employment may provide airlines with opportunities to lower costs at the expense of their pilot employees - opportunities which some exploit to the hilt, and others do not.

FTLs: The relevant FTLs are those of the country where the aircraft are registered/the company has its AOC.

[Comanche]

The ORY base is one of the more profitable bases for EZY, hence the company will do everything they can to keep it. They may come to some financial settlement in the end. They have a lot of money behind them and UK government support, don't forget. Anyone know if the French would have authority to ground the aircraft?

[BBT]

steve you seem especially outraged. You even ask how the authorities got permission to act. Maybe that is a bit like asking who allows the police to arrest people?

You might take a different view if you had a contract drawn up via an employer for the purposes of ensuring you had minimal employement rights in the country where you were employed and little chance of protecting yourself legally.

And as for:What is the difference between a french and british contract anyway? This is europe! nobody gives a c**p! I can only say, "such innocence"!

[AbeamPoints]

I think it worthy of at least a highly raised eyebrow. Can you imagine the British police arriving at the crack of dawn with 20 or so officers, armed, accompanied by various lawyers and civil servants, bursting through a crew room door to impound documents, question crew and take the base manager away for questioning overnight involving a cell?

All because of employee contract laws?

Every staff member in Orly applied for the job and signed an employment contract and is happily being paid via the UK tax office paying normal income tax and national insurance.

So why the heavy mob?

Oh - HANG ON - Air France are starting up a low cost sub-division using Transavia. Just making it awkward for easyJet and Ryanair to operate in France hasn't been enough. Now its time to get downright obstructive. Call for the Gendarmes!

Pathetic, snivelling, protectionist, corrupt and doomed. Should have let the Germans keep the bloody place.

AP

[Ancient Observer]

When Easy set up this arrangement, it was part of the "vision" of the then top management team. They knew it was a risk. Anywhere in Europe, if you have an "establishment" there, then they can insist that the entity employ you on contracts which are based in the country of establishment. No Company has the right to over-ride National law in this respect. The European agreements on Social Security only allow cross-country deployment for 5 years, with exceptions only allowed in extreme cases. I suspect that infringements of Social Security laws were the excuse for the raids, and that the timing was inspired by AF.
Hope this helps

[ZBMAN]

Oh - HANG ON - Air France are starting up a low cost sub-division using Transavia. Just making it awkward for easyJet and Ryanair to operate in France hasn't been enough. Now its time to get downright obstructive. Call for the Gendarmes!

Abeampoints, you have guessed it!

Consider this: within weeks the french have:
- passed a new law making eJ's ORY operation de facto illegal
- announced the creation of transavia.com, with the emphasis clearly put on the fact that the crews will have french contacts.
- raided the eJ office and crew room.

coincidence? Somehow I don't think so...

[captplaystation]

AbeamPoints, couldn't agree more. The important point here, the really important point here, is that they chose Easy, and no doubt "coming to an Airport in France soon", Ryanair in MRS.WHAT THEY CONSPICIOUSLY , AND BLATANTLY DID NOT DO, was raid the CDG crewroom of City Jet, which unless I am sadly mistaken does not employ it's crew on French contracts and has been there a lot longer operating crews on permanent detachment in Froggyland. Am I surprised ? Perhaps Easy and Ryanair should volunteer to become Air Chance franchises too, then I guess we would be left alone.

[RAT 5]

What a lot of hot air and puffed up outrangousnees. My God, the Empire collapsed decades ago. Surely you have noticed that in places like LTN and EMA the sub-continent is taking over in retaliation. At least the French have resisted the onslaught of non-Frogs. (Tounge in cheek. Please do not open new thread about French riots)

Moving on: There has been much huffing and jealous puffing over the years about the cushy contracts that Air France pilots and other pilots in France enjoyed. Tax breaks and subsidised this & that. Has anyone thought to consider that, or ask, the employees of ej if they would prefer to be on French contracts and under French labour law? If all rumours I have heard are true, I might be sorely tempted. If it is true that French grass is greener then maybe importing continental style labour law into UK would improve many sweat shop life styles that are currently on offer.

Why is the exodus of residents from UK to FR so constant & increasing? 350.000 a year leaving UK; not all to France, but..... Hm??

[Fropilot]

It is unfortunate that some pilots because they have ****y contracts would like to drag down their well paid counterpats with them. Jealousy, avarice are killing this industry.

Doing research on behalf of my union a few years ago what we found found contradicts conventional wisdom about pilot's pay in Europe. Do a bit a research before mouthing off about AF. The pilots who have the best - Majors- jobs in Europe do not work for AF.

You may hear about it, maybe because their selection processes are better than others and employ down to earth mature and real pro pilots. This may be interpreted as discrimination or OBN for those who fail to get a toe hold in these carriers. Failure to meet requirements = LCC career (buy your own uniform etc etc etc - You wanna be a pilot, I will allow you to wear my uniform while you starve).

[ZBMAN]

Failure to meet requirements = LCC career (buy your own uniform etc etc etc - You wanna be a pilot, I will allow you to wear my uniform while you starve).

I sincerely hope you are jocking, pal.

It is unfortunate that some pilots because they have ****y contracts would like to drag down their well paid counterpats with them. Jealousy, avarice are killing this industry.

You'd be surprised how ****ty the average pilot contract is in France compared to the uk. ORY based eJ pilots enjoy significantly better pay and conditions than they would if they worked for one of the last few french airlines, except perhaps AF. Although the AF pay and conditions are pretty average compared to a BA or LH contract, and only marginaly better than the eJ contract.

If it is true that French grass is greener then maybe importing continental style labour law into UK would improve many sweat shop life styles that are currently on offer.

French grass isn't greener believe me. The french aviation industry is in tatters, and unless you work for AF you will be paid peanuts to fly comercial aircraft, and will be constantly scared of losing your job.
Oh, and it's very difficult to join AF, as they recruit mostly cadets and ex military. The tax burden is litteraly outrageous too. Still thinking of crossing the channel?:}

[BBT]

Even for PPRuNe this thread seems to be heavily weighed towards strong opinions, xenophobia and minimal facts. I can't say that I have too many facts myself, but the level of "we all know" or "its obvious" is quite telling. It is more telling when we even have, apparently, got a few French nationals attacking their own country but also giving little evidence beyond "believe me, this is the way it is".

An attempt at impartiality might suggest the follow question - and it is only a question. Could it be that as a subsidiary of AF that City Jet was actually in compliance with the law, or at least had not been identified as failing to comply? (The issue is not the pilots' contracts as such.... but then getting that point would require attempting to understand what is actually going on here).

I suppose I am likely to be told that the answer is obvious and that I am a complete nitwit because I don't see the "realities"?

But my realities go along the same line as Fropilot. They suggest to me that there is a lot of guff talked about salaries and conditions in companies like AF.

[ZBMAN]

An attempt at impartiality might suggest the follow question - and it is only a question. Could it be that as a subsidiary of AF that City Jet was actually in compliance with the law

All the Cityjet crew contracts are Irish.The french authorities know about it but are not interested.

Maybe you should take the comments of the french nationals here a bit more seriously. They have lived in that country for many years and have first hand experience of the kind of nonsense which is going on.

[caulfield]

Look,I dont want to see anybody lose their jobs or anything but couldnt easyjet relocate to beauvais.Keep the riff-raff out of the peripherique and let AF and the real airlines fly the non-anorakies.The French do everything with great style and naturally they dont want anything crass messing up their beloved Paris.Those mademosielles in their little hostess hats and short skirts serving you champagne and hors d'oeuvres thats what flying is all about.It might be orange in a dump like Luton but lets keep the untouchables out of ORY and CDG.

[homebuilt]

What I do know is that last year (like several times before), the European Commission itself has ranked France among the top three offending member States when it comes to non-implementation of EU law.
Then again, it's typical French attitude: if the rules suit us, then fine; otherwise, we'll just ignore them :*
Welcome to the EU's only banana republic.
Cheers
P.S.: I am French - and ashamed of such arrogant behaviour, which only serves to reinforce all the usual cliches about the French.

Myself also beeing a stinkin' cheese eater, I totally agree with my colleague Fouga CM 170 (my former trainer airplane 22 years ago). Sorry for beeing out of subject, but that's exactly the behaviour about the expected 65-year old flying limitation. A few time ago French government denied this EEC law project (of course still in order to satisfy Air Frog expectations) saying something like "in this case we'll haul the french exception":mad: .

But when the EEC regulations satisfy them, "our" politician say "it's not our fault, it's what EEC wants".....

So myself, in this particular EZ vs French laws event, I'm also totally ashamed by this behaviour looking like Gestapo or NKVD......

Dominique

[homebuilt]

EZ will have one way to get out of the mess they put themselves in, and that is to find evidences that the French law is discriminating them in relation to French airlines.
Basically you're right, but further than the problem of following or not french regulation, what I blame here as a french is the typically arrogant attitude of french administration. Why putting under arrest the poor EZ regionnal manager like a chicken stealer?
I want to believe it should have been far easier to find an agreement should the french authorities had not behaved in a Gestapo style....:*
Dominique

[captplaystation]

CAULFIELD, Love it, banish them to the country and make them do VOR/DME approaches on 1 end , and No PAPI landings on the other. That'll teach them not to take their feelthy orange rosbif merde of avion eento our Paris Airports. Baneesh them to the Banlieu , non non to poxee leetle provincial airports that ees eeven bettah.Ah yes , liberte egalite fraternite, you ahr johkin right.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

The French are, captplaystation, and always have been, an affront to the dignity of the European Union. From the CAP to the ridiculous number of JAR-FCL "deviations", or non compliances as they are in truth. Nothing new, of course. Since the unpleasantness of 1789, our garlic munching cousins across the channel have always possessed a rather unique world view. Preciousness doesn’t even begin to describe it. Cast your minds back to the frustrations of General Eisenhower when he wore only three stars, poor man, not to mention the Vichy (http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/occupied/final.htm) collaboration in the final solution, lest we forget. The disgrace that should have every Frog hang his head in shame for a hundred generations.

Poor old EZY. Beguiled into buying all those little Airbuses in return for a handful of Orly slots a few years ago, only to have the finger of French duplicity (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/12/20/211124/air-france-to-launch-low-cost-carrier.html) smearing the caca all over the jewel in their European crown...or should that be Tiara? For shame.

La politique agricole commune a pour objectif de permettre aux agriculteurs de bénéficier d'un niveau de vie raisonnable, de fournir aux consommateurs des denrées alimentaires de qualité à des prix équitables et de préserver notre patrimoine rural. La politique s'est adaptée à l'évolution des besoins de la société. C'est ainsi que la sûreté alimentaire, la préservation de l'environnement rural, l'utilisation rationnelle des deniers publics et l'agriculture comme source de cultures destinées à la production de carburants ont acquis une importance sans cesse croissante.

Yeah, right! Can't wait to read their version of what's really behind the reason for Orly EZYbashing, as if we didn't know. Living with the French has always been like learning to live with Herpes, an ugly, embarrassing inconvenience that is, regrettably, with us for life.

[homebuilt]

The French are, captplaystation, and always have been, an affront to the dignity of the European Union.....
Could you be kind enough not to say "THE French"? In this present case, I believe we are a good number of froggies totally unapproving what happened here about EZ. And furthermore, myself as pilot working in a french airline I sent a subscription form to EZ one month ago....And, needless to say, this Starsky and Hush style action was the latest thing I wanted to see occuring....
So, in the future, thank you very much for not putting us all in the same basket, OK?.:ok:
Dom

[dartagnan]

and what about the subsidies to Alitalia which kill the free EU competition.
I think EU should solve these problems first.

[bleeds off]

Totally back you up on this Homebuilt !!!

Leo Hairy Camel,
I sincerely hope your post is not a glimpse of how we froggy pilots may be regarded from now on within the industry in the UK.
Let me point out that french wannabes pilots appear amongst the victims of AF dictatorship over France's commercial aviation in that sens that they are left with few, not to say zero credible airlines to be hired in, as a result of AF systematic unfair (I remain polite) ways of killing competion...
I just hope that we ain't gonna be the victims of some kind of unconscious discrimination in our attempt to get hired by eJ, for those, like me, who would be willing to fly orange.
That said, I regretfully agree with you in substance, hence my wish (maybe that of some others) to find some melting pot cockpits as part of my quest of different cultures knowledge.

cheers
bleeds

[fred_bgt]

Could you be kind enough not to say "THE French"? In this present case, I believe we are a good number of froggies totally unapproving what happened here about EZ. And furthermore, myself as pilot working in a french airline I sent a subscription form to EZ one month ago....And, needless to say, this Starsky and Hush style action was the latest thing I wanted to see occuring....
So, in the future, thank you very much for not putting us all in the same basket, OK?.:ok:
Dom

TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU... I am French and I really don't agree with these manners. It is never very clever to have such sortcut ideas !!! However, I understand your critics about some French people...

[ICING AOA]

Could you be kind enough not to say "THE French"?


Maybe he just meant "Air France people", in which case, he is quite right :hmm:

[Fat Clemenza]

To be honnest with you guys, what happened to EZ at ORY is a disgrace but this wion't be the last time it happens. As long as the french govt has interests in the National airline, that kind of things will keep happening and there will be no competition in French skies.

Even small airlines operating on routes served by AF towrads Africa are obliged to follow AF's rules, i.e. size of aircraft, frequency and so on...ask Air Méditérranée or Eagle aviation!

AF complained about EK being helped by the UAE govt...:hmm: let's not even talk about the"indirect" subsidies it is receiving... I guess we just have to sit back and watch the show until it is over:suspect:

[RoyHudd]

The English word "chauvinistic" stems from the French word above. They could have invented it for themselves, especially in this particular case.

C'est pas juste!:=

[rsutt1]

Well EZY could still piss the french right off!!

Airbus A319 orders may slow down a bit!!

[arc-en-ciel]

Airbus 319 are made in Germany !!!

[Hussar 54]

Speaking about this with a lawyer friend over the New Year Holiday....

Seems that one way out of this, although perhaps not ideal operationally for ej and others, would be to have no French ' base ' as such and have all sectors starting in France operated by aircraft and crew not based in France - ie, first sector of the day in from UK, Germany, Italy, or wherever, followed by a second sector starting France to a non-French destination or then a third sector from France to a non-French destination if the second sector is an internal / domestic sector.

Provided all crews operating these sectors are not on French employment contracts, or the aircraft do not overnight and crew do not HOTAC at company expense in France before or after start and finish of duty, the Gestapo Tax authorities here would have some difficulty to explain any repeat of their tactics...

I think you'll find that this is the case with the majority of CityJet's ops at CDG, although that might be more for operational reasons than legal reasons...

[cameldung]

Another way around this would be for those companies based in France to meet the requirements of French law. The principle that companies based in each country should obey the employment laws of that country is one that works to the advantage of those who are employed. It is depressing to see pilots arguing against this principle. The impact of this seems to have been missed by those who seem to want everybody else's terms and conditions dragged down to the level of those with the lowest crew costs. Which is what I believe this is all about. In the end, after a lot of reduction in T&Cs, we will eventually see Europe wide rules with exactly the same effect. In the (10 year?) interim, T&Cs will drop. We truly deserve what we get.

[sarah737]

Ryanair challenges the new french labour decree
http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=07&month=jan&story=gen-en-030107

[homebuilt]

Speaking about this with a lawyer friend over the New Year Holiday....
Seems that one way out of this, although perhaps not ideal operationally for ej and others, would be to have no French ' base ' as such and have all sectors starting in France operated by aircraft and crew not based in France - ie, first sector of the day in from UK, Germany, Italy, or wherever, followed by a second sector starting France to a non-French destination or then a third sector from France to a non-French destination if the second sector is an internal / domestic sector.
Provided all crews operating these sectors are not on French employment contracts, or the aircraft do not overnight and crew do not HOTAC at company expense in France before or after start and finish of duty, the Gestapo Tax authorities here would have some difficulty to explain any repeat of their tactics...
I think you'll find that this is the case with the majority of CityJet's ops at CDG, although that might be more for operational reasons than legal reasons...
And finally, all that these motherfuc..... technocrats will have been able to do, is to obtain the french crews operating for EZ or RY are given the choice between furlough or moving abroad, when 20% of the flightcrews are looking for a job....

Nice mix of banana republic and popular democratic republic.....

It's a french who writes this....
Dom

[Aloue]

Sarah737's link above tells the real story, notwithstanding the apparent desire of many French citizens to use this as an opportunity to attack .... whomever.

Why is Ryanair challenging this law? (After all, their offices have not been raided) .... it's simply because the law directly attacks the mechanisms used by Ryanair to minimise its crew costs at the expense of (a) their own crew, (b) the market place for pilots and, via (b) to (c) reductions EVERYBODY'S terms and conditions.

France, as I said in an earlier post which was dismissed as being in some way innocent, is merely the first European country to object to "social dumping" by airlines. The sooner all airlines have to work in accord with common social requirements the better. Ryanair will continue to avoid all payments possible until it is forced to do so. And about time as far as I, for one, am concerned.

[ZBMAN]

France is absolutely not innocent as you say and this is not about objecting to social dumping. I think you would be surprised if you knew how bad the terms and conditions are for french pilots in general. I would definitely choose to remain on a UK contract if I were one of the ORY crews concerned by all this. I think you got it the wrong way round here: it is the French who are trying to squeeze the most out of the uk contract crews.
I remember reading somewhere that airline personnel could be employed on a different contract to that of their contry of residence provided they weren't worse of. If this is true then it makes the french decree illegal, and it probably is why both eJ and FR are taking costly legal action. It wouldn't be the first time France tries to justify not complying with EU law by invoking "l'exception française"!

[Aloue]

All I can do is refer to my first post some weeks ago, which suggested that this was more about some European carriers than Air France. I was told that I was innocent and had got it wrong. Unfortunately I was speculating along with everyone else. Now along comes an article from the U.S. I just came across searching the news on google: http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/business/16380614.htm

It looks to me like Ryanair are making the point for me. One quote from the article: Ryanair said it also has petitioned European Union competition authorities in Brussels, Belgium, in hopes of overturning the application of tax and other French labor standards on Ryanair employees based in France.
This is where I started. We pilots have a direct personal interest in how pilot costs and benefits are manipulated to the disadvantage of ALL pilots. I still think this is about "social dumping". (Which implies real or manipulated movement from country to country to disadvantage employees). ZBMAN this does not mean that I am not sympathetic to poorly paid French pilots. But that is a different matter.

[ZBMAN]

ZBMAN this does not mean that I am not sympathetic to poorly paid French pilots. But that is a different matter.

It remains to be proved if pilots on uk contracts who are based in France are really disadvantaged. The "superiority" of the french social system is very much self proclaimed, and yes I have lived in both France and the UK, and the differences are marginal.
It is completely beside the point to be chasing the likes of eJ or FR when at the same time many french pilots, operating JAR25 type aircraft have to live with 2000 euros a month on a temporary contract. But that's ok since it is complying with french labor laws, right?

[Aloue]

ZBMAN I think this has nothing to do with the abuse of pilot employees in France. As I said before, not only do I not approve of that, but I strongly disapprove. I think that there are at least two different arguments taking place here and that it is a mistake to confuse two different problems, since they have different solutions.

In addition, it has nothing to do with the real, or supposed, superiority of the French social system. It has to do with the fact that some airlines are reducing their costs at the expense of their pilots by employing pilots in bases abroad and using a range of different mechanisms to avoid social payments. This gives them a competitive advantage, but it leaves the pilots vulnerable to short term disadvantage (illness) and long term disadvantage (pension entitlements). The mechanisms to do this require a sophisticated and cynical plan by the airlines involved to avoid their social responsibilities.

I think that all European states should act to prevent such activities and that all European states should ensure that both employees and employers meet the requirements of the law. Otherwise every pilot will loose in the end - regardless of where they work. If you read my posts you will see that that is all I have been saying since this thread began.

[ZBMAN]

but it leaves the pilots vulnerable to short term disadvantage (illness) and long term disadvantage (pension entitlements).Don't know about Ryanair pilots, but this is certainly NOT the case as far as eJ crews are concerned. (the pension entitlement works out about the same whether you contribute to the company or french scheme. As for illness the NHS will pay the french social security any expense incured by the employee.)

To conclude, I think that all this rubbish about the french wanting to "protect" or "save" "oppressed" employees is just a shoddy excuse to get their hands on more cash, cash which is much needed to finance the french pilots retirement fund for example.

To be totally honest I don't think easyJet will be able to escape paying french national insurance. However pension will be another matter, since most french eJ pilots will try and avoid at all costs to contribute to the french system, whose future is uncertain to say the least.

[Aloue]

ZBMAN this will be my final comment, as I think we are talking past each other. First, I have not mentioned EasyJet - I have been talking about the principle which I believe the French state is pursuing, which is that social payments should not be avoided by employers. Second, this is not about contributions, it is about social entitlements. When an employer avoids social payments, the impact for the employer is cost savings. The impact for the employee is loss of entitlements.

This is not theoretical. I have a colleague who has discovered that he is not entitled to a full Old Age pension because his social payments were not made. Many pilots working of LoCo carriers have minimal pension arrangements (if any) - the worst situation of all will be to discover years later that they also have either no (or a reduced) Old Age pension from the state. Remember, in the case of some employers this could easily happen in circumstances where the pilot never even realised that how they were paid reduced their Old Age pension.

[captplaystation]

Aloue, you are missing the point entirely here. If you are based in France on an Irish / UK contract and you get sick, sure you will have health care by virtue of presenting periodically to your local health board a E601, (or whatever the hell it is called these days) This means that Monsieur Le Frog will be reimbursed by Johnny English or Paddy the Irishman so apart from a bit of admin (and there is no shortage of functionaires in France to take care of that) the expense goes back to the country issuing your paperwork and is NOT borne by the French. Just to reiterate, this has nothing to do with social dumping , nothing to do with expense to the French social system , and everything to do with the new Transavia vf, shortly to be thrust into the limelight requiring a little help ( Air France style) by nobbling the competition. Otherwise, why no fuss for the last few years over that very Irish Air France franchise City Jet, with all it's pilots on Irish contracts paying nada in France. As I said before if Easy Jet or Ryanair suddenly acquired an Air France franchise do you really think this would be happening? Merde Alors.Our posts crossed there, your pension from the state(which outside France is pretty worthless anyway, is determined by how long you contributed in that country, if you accept the low social charges you accept the low pension, you want more , you make your own arrangements, or pay loadsa bucks in another country? your choice ultimately.

[ZBMAN]

I have been talking about the principle which I believe the French state is pursuing, which is that social payments should not be avoided by employers.

In the case of eJ social payments are paid in the uk. Thus the employee is entitled to the same benefits as any other employee on a uk contract. Furthermore, the difference in social benefits in France vs those in the uk are pretty much minimal. Therefore you cannot say that an airline like eJ are guilty of social dumping, since their employees receive the same benefits as any other eJ employee and virtually the same benefits as any other FRENCH employee of any other FRENCH airline.

Another issue here is the pension. It is pretty worthless for an eJ employee based in France to pay French pension contribution (CRPN), since this employee may well be based elsewhere once the time for command comes. In this case this employee would have lost x number of years worth of contributions to the company scheme (which could be disastrous in terms of investments), and gained a worthless x number of years to the french scheme. Which makes the whole exercise a bit pointless really. A far cry from the proclaimed "rescue of opprossed employees", won't you agree?
Unfortunately what many people don't understand is that eJ employees based in France have a lot to lose if they are made to pay their NI and pension contributions in France. So lets stop the hypocrisy right here: the french social security needs money? Fine! Let them fight for it! But please let's not make it look like the french authorities were trying to save eJ employees from the evil grasp of their social dumping bosses! This couldn't be further from the truth.

[Aloue]

Well I did say that I was going to drop it, but one last post is merited to repeat that I disagree and explain why. We are all talking past each other, because we have different matters in mind.

My post of Jan 3rd (number 78) above was a result of what Ryanair said. I used it to make the point that there was a different version of events from the one preferred by many of you who want to knock Air France, the French state, French social policy, or whatever. (Because when I first said it, so many people told me I was wrong). But just look at what Ryanair are saying. And then ask the question, why is it so important to them?

I think the clue as to why we are missing of the point is to be found in these words: As I said before if Easy Jet or Ryanair suddenly acquired an Air France franchise do you really think this would be happening? Well, you may be right. In fact all the negative comments clearly come from those who think you are right. But this is not what I am talking about; what I am talking about is relevant and Ryanair seem to agree. I repeat, these are two separate subjects.

As for your comments on pensions, I do not accept that what you say is correct in circumstances where proper payments are NOT made. What happens is that hospitals, etc. assume that they have been made, but that is coming to an end (I gave an example in an earlier post). It certainly will have come to an end when Old Age payments are due. The question that will then be asked is: "how can an individual who has worked his entire life as a pilot within Europe not be qualified for an Old Age pension?". The answer will be, he and his employer failed to make appropriate payments. (How this is done is a matter for another day).

Let's put it another way. Ryanair are going to fight a legal case over this. Anybody any ideas why it is so important to them?

[captplaystation]

It is important to them , because it is cheaper for them (and the employees) to pay social contributions in Ireland than in France, nobody is attempting to hide that fact. At the moment European legislation allows for what they are doing, IT IS LEGAL. The French govt however want to act unilaterally to stop them doing this. Why shouldn't they challenge it you say ? why not indeed, but please please let us not be blind to the timing of this event, and the previous, and current, total lack of interest in investigating a little closer to home ie City Jet. If the French are reimbursed by the Irish maybe it is them who have the real complaint because an Irish company/employee sure doesn't contribute enough to cover that French medical bill. Ireland is the Africa of Europe, look how many foreign carriers use EI- as a flag of convenience, but as long as it is legal I don't think France or any other country has the right to disregard or overide existing legislation. This is only part of a much much bigger question regarding European integration , but let us not ty and attribute worthy motives to what in this case is pure and simple protectionism.

[ZBMAN]

captplaystation , spot on mate!

but let us not ty and attribute worthy motives to what in this case is pure and simple protectionism.

that's what the french would call : "patriotisme economique et social".

[jml]

I agree with Aloue ,some low costs carriers wanted cut off on socials charges .

For Exemple EZ use crews : via Storm Aviation ,they have no pension ,they have do pay by their own so they have a low salary compare to normal EZ crew .

What about if you get ill for 5 weeks ? do you have your salary ?.

In France they does ,if the airline bankrupt they have their salary paid ;also

pension scheme ;and mostly medical care full paid .

[ZBMAN]

For Exemple EZ use crews : via Storm Aviation ,they have no pension ,they have do pay by their own so they have a low salary compare to normal EZ crew .


True, but they are a minority. What you forget to mention is that these crew get their salary tax-free, so they are actually paid MORE not less than other eJ crew. Of course, if they pay no tax off their salary, they are left to make their own arrangements pension and healthcare wise. You must understand that this may suit a few people. Plus they are free to get in easyjet by filling the application form like anyone else...

What about if you get ill for 5 weeks ? do you have your salary ?.

Oh dear I bet you are french, and that you have been thoroughly brainwashed by the french media. Ever heard of sick pay?

In France they does ,if the airline bankrupt they have their salary paid also pension scheme
not true... ask any ex Airlib what they think of that. I say again the differences between french and british social systems are not as huge as the french like to think. However the difference is huge in terms of cost to society/unemployment levels... not to the advantage of the french system unfortunately.

[FougaMagister]

We French expats accross the Channel may soon feel like the Free French Air Force! ;)

Cheers :cool:

[Boy]

What you forget to mention is that these crew get their salary tax-free, so they are actually paid MORE not less than other eJ crew. Of course, if they pay no tax off their salary, they are left to make their own arrangements pension and healthcare wise. You must understand that this may suit a few people. Plus they are free to get in easyjet by filling the application form like anyone else...
I think Aloue's point is well made by this comment. Let's be clear about what this means - it means that an E.U. citizen, resident in one E.U. country is working on a contract in another E.U. country and not paying tax, nor having their social payments made in any country. We know that this is going on. Apart from the very questionable legalities, it illustrates the point that Aloue was making rather well.

By the way, if you don't pay tax it follows as night follows day, that you are "paid more" than colleagues who do. As far as I can see, leaving such people to "make their own arrangements" (which code for NO arrangements in many cases) is part of the motivation to get pilots to help airlines lower their costs. I don't know if this qualifies you for the FFAF, but it certainly qualifies as "social dumping" and as an attack on those pilots who pay their taxes.