Working under contract - Gladiator's untold story.

[Kaptin M]

As [some] airlines around the world continue to grow at a rate that outstrips local pilot supply, contracting of ex-patriate pilots is becoming commonplace, to fill the manpower [that includes you gals, as well] voids, and thus allow the companies expansion - hence also, the increase in the number of recruitment agencies.

Because of the airline companies' commitments - in terms of capital outlay in establishing, and ongoing servicing of destinations, and, often, political "back-scratching", to achieve projected targets - they require a certain degree of stability in their workforce.

How can this be achieved, without being continually forced to "up the ante", as other airlines strive to recruit, and offer increasingly lucrative conditions, and remuneration? Commonplace today, are legally binding [often in favour of the employer] contracts, that require a commitment to a tenure of employment - generally in the form of a financial penalty, for an unfulfilled obligation ie., breach of contract.

As our acquaintance, Gladiator, has been more than happy to share with the rest of us, ALL companies - be they airlines, financial institutions, education facilities, or internet providers - will take legal action against those who enter into a contract with the company, utilise their services, but fail to fulfil their end of the agreed deal.

In other words, Singapore Airlines made an OFFER to Glad, to train him on the 747 200/300, and then employ him for a further 7 years, at the stated rate of remuneration. In return, Glad - a not so young, but nonetheless [relatively] inexperienced pilot - would need to show HIS conviction, by signing a contract that would be financially punitive, should he fail to "deliver".

Not having lived up to his end of the bargain, Glad is now crying "foul", but steadfstly refuses to answer the following questions:

1) Did you FULLY understand the contract, when you signed it;

2) If you did NOT fully understand it, did you seek clarification from Singapore Airlines, and/or independent legal advice;

3) How long did you have the contract in your possession, before returning it, accepted and signed, to SQ;

4) Do you consider yourself responsible for your own actions?

[titan]

BORING

[Slasher]

K.M. if the airline in question was other than SQ Id agree with you completley. But it is SQ that Glad is talking about.

I (like you?) joined SQ as a FO for 5 years. I read the contract and signed it after fully noting the Terms & Conditions. I understood SQs rationale for the Bond and Bank Guarantee even though I didnt like it.

A Contract is an agreement between employer and employee and is ratified legaly.
1. It is intended to be adhered to by the employee
2. It is intended to be adhered to by the employer
3. It is the basic right of the Contractee to use legal means for any Breach Of Contract by the Contracting Party.
4. The Courts are to be impartial in deciding any Breach Of Contract case

SQ ignores points [2] and [3]. LKY ignores point [4] which SQ rightly knows and uses to its full advantage (just ask SQs joke union ALPA-S). The Inducement pay shafting of expats (mentioned on another post) is just one example of the well known infamy of SQ.

Wether you deem the Contract was fair on not K.M., where Glad and I and everyone else went wrong was unfortunately not knowing beforehand what a complete bunch of utterley miserable standover thugs, conmen, racists and bullies we were going to work for. If we did we'd have given the 4th Reich a big steer.

[Damsel]

Thank you Kaptin M, I have been saying that for years now!!!!

[Goldwing2000]

Kaptin M,Damsel and fellow puppetiers,
Your frequent and repetitive rhetoric is somewhat predictable and boring! You see what you want to see and no gesturing from any other quarters will sway you.Sq has without doubt got you dancing like puppets.Enjoy it while it lasts cos strings have a habit of snapping.

-------------
Eagles may soar but weasils don't get sucked into jet engines.

[Gladiator]

Kaptin M if you ask me a question in a rational manner I will always answer them.

Your question:

1) Did you FULLY understand the contract, when you signed it;

Answer:

Yes I fully understood the contract when I sighen it.

Your question:

2) If you did NOT fully understand it, did you seek clarification from Singapore Airlines, and/or independent legal advice;

Answer:

Even though I understood the contract I still seeked legal advice.

Your question:

3) How long did you have the contract in your possession, before returning it, accepted and signed, to SQ;

Answer:

Approximately 10 days or so.

Your question:

4) Do you consider yourself responsible for your own actions?

Answer:

I am fully responsible for all my actions.

I do not agree with your following statement:

"but nonetheless [relatively] inexperienced pilot"

The trainees in my class had 250 hrs, I brought SIA 2800 hrs (with a Jet type rating)of experience, mostly airline experience.

Furthermore SIA gave me credit for those experience towards command. Therefore in my view your statement is invalid since SIA accepted every sector and hour obtained in commercial flying previous to employment with SIA.

Now Kaptin M it is your turn to answer two questions.

1- Do you think I should have stayed with SIA and finished my contract when in my view SIA is not a safe operation?

2- Do you think I should have stayed with SIA and finished my contract when SIA breached the contract?

Please note the following paragraph:

Singapore Employment Law CAP 122, Page 36, Part II, Contract of Service.

11. (2) Either party to a contract of service may terminate such contract of service without notice in the event of any wilful breach by the other party of a condition of the contract of service.

That is exactly what I did Kaptin M. Within the limits of Singapore Law I terminated my contract with SIA without notice. As to why and the details, please read the legal document.

Questions and discussions welcome only in a rational manner.

[Kaptin M]

Thank you for the long awaited responses, Gladiator.

You are the one who has decided to set up this kangaroo court, re your encounter with SQ. I have aired my views sufficiently, for you to ascertain my feelings on the matter, and I can see no point in answering the two questions you've raised.....after all, 'A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still'!

Perhaps, it's not so much 'what' you did then, but more, the way you're presenting the story, now, and responding to some of the critics.

Your objective [obviously to try to harm SQ as severely as possible] is obvious to all of us. By all means, go for it....but also be prepared for the consequences, if SIA decide to retaliate. As you have stated, and are fully aware, SQ is the Singapore government-owned entity.

It might also pay you to do some research, and find out what Singapore's greatest export, income earner is, and which country is the major customer. Having learned that, you will understand why you will eventually hit a brick wall, when trying to manoeuvre the FAA, and NTSB on to your side. Politics, my boy, dirty politics!

[titan]

KaptinM:
you poor, poor, misguided child. How little you understand about:

The real world
Democracy
Professionalism
Crown law
The US justice system
The check and balance system of the NTSB
The separation of powers as a basis of government
SIA's survival depending on good publicity
SIA's survival depending on illusion
SIA's survival depending on a compliant goverment and civil aviation authority

SIA was lucky with Silkair; the accident happened in a corrupt, sycophantic country. You may not be so lucky with the next one. Dont know what I mean? Korean Airlines does.


"Politics, my boy, dirty politics!"
You have been reading too much James Bond - or living in Singapore too long.

[Gladiator]

Kaptin M I did not set up a Kangaroo court. SIA drew the first blood and now has to suffer the consequences. The consequences are the public will know what went on without the LKY candy coating.

Why am I doing this? I am not doing anything. All I am doing is leting all the pilots know the facts as they happened in the United States Federal Court.

In the Singapore Airlines vs. DeMarco, Singapore Airlines lied to the pilots and public regarding the outcome of the case.

Please do not try the Singaporean scare tactic on me. Retaliation. I will eat SIA and LKY for breakfast. I have taken on greater than SIA and LKY combined in the past. Just ask Maurice, it is his favotite story.

And one thing Kaptin M, how come you and your gang never engage in actual technical discussions. You were man enough to ask me 3 questions, but are acting like a little spoiled school kid when I asked you to answer 2 questions.

You act like Kenny Naboo (probably one of the same but it does not matter).

People reading the events are not stupid.

[Seaman Staines]

Leave our fwend Kenny outta this. Heh heh. :)

[Farside]

For christ sake gladiator get a life!! Get in the sun! I am going to spent some of my $62345 bonus I will get on the 7th!

[Gladiator]

Enjoy your time in the sun. (Minor detail, it is Photo as appose to Foto).

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 01 July 2000).]

[VelvetStrokes]

Gladys, glass houses, stones and throwing comes to mind constantly with you and your knitting fraternity.

Until you have at least a basic grasp of English. it would be better not to expose yourselves to ridicule. On second thoughts, I'm afraid it's too late. You and Titan et al ought really to get better script writers, you are paying the ones you have far too much for their skills or lack thereof.

Quote
(Minor detail, it is photo as appose to foto).

I see you edited it as well, and still couldn't get it right.

Now do you mean apposite or opposed.

[VelvetStrokes]

Gladys, glass houses, stones and throwing comes to mind constantly with you and your knitting fraternity.

Until you have at least a basic grasp of English. it would be better not to expose yourselves to ridicule. On second thoughts, I'm afraid it's too late. You and Titan et al ought really to get better script writers, you are paying the ones you have far too much for their skills or lack thereof.

Quote
(Minor detail, it is photo as appose to foto).

I see you edited it as well, and still couldn't get it right.

Now do you mean apposite or opposed.

[Gladiator]

Thank you for correcting my English Velvet Strokes.

[nice_beaver]

It's interesting to see all those supporting SIA over it's right to bond previously qualified pilots for 7 years ( from completion of training - an undetermined time frame) for incredibly over inflated rates.

In '94 those who joined under the same conditions as Glad et al were asked to sign an additional contract to pay back $18000 towards the costs of the "advanced trainer programme" which would be taken from salary over the 7 years on successful completion of training.

After a year or so the powers that be decided that this was too cheap and $24000 sounded better. They re wrote the contracts and invited everyone in to re sign for the new amount. The question then arose as to what happens if i don't sign?

"your future promotion within the company will be adversely affected"

Now try to justify that with all your moral and legal arguments!

[titan]

nice_beaver:
That training scandal was a particularly nasty time at SIA. Must have been the only time that the local cadets sided with the "angmo" enemy. What I did notice during that period though, was that the local pilots complained loudly in protected company, but it was the angmo's, particularly the Big R, that put their balls on the line to do something about fixing it. As this forum shows, it is only the foreigners that have the intestinal fortitude to take on the the giant.
Don't vote for the PAP - "we will destroy your future"
Challenge SIA - "we will destroy you future"

Remember, courage does not come cheap.

[Whiskery]

nice_beaver. I have been a critic of SQ in the past but there are a couple of points here in your latest post that you have overlooked.

First,if your "previous qualifications" preclude you from employment with an airline,then you must accept the conditions that will secure you employment. In this case, the advanced trainer program. Singapore Airlines have never bonded any pilot that has come to them with the required qualifications. The only bonds are training bonds. If you do not accept these conditions,gain employment elsewhere.

Second. $24,000 for a Lear Jet endorsement and training to enter a big international airline is peanuts. Multi-Engined Command Instrument rating with link time and a PA 44(Seminole) endorsement costs AUD10,000 and no guarantee of a job,let alone an airline career. I didn't bother to get a quote for a Lear jet endorsement plus 50 hours training.

Moving the goal posts after half time is typical SQ and,I agree,that is morally wrong and deceitful. The only answer to this is to let "your feet do the talking" after you have fulfilled your contractual committments.

Join the RAAF and you are "bonded" for 8 years. Join Impulse Airlines and it is $8000 up front. To gain entry into the domestics you require Instrument rating or Instructor rating and the important one, "flight time"!
Where there is training there is always cost and whether the employer hides the cost in the form of reduced wages for a "probationary period" or just comes straight out and, up front, gets you to agree to a bond, makes very little difference.

The good thing about working for SQ,after the initial culture shock, is that Singapore is not such a bad place to live and the flying experience puts you in good stead for your next job. I can also tell you (again, through experience after leaving SQ)there are worse Companies to work for in the real world!

[nice_beaver]

Whiskery,

The reason for "overlooking" various points re employment with SIA ( i have got numerous bad things to say and many good things to say about my time with SIA )is it has all been said before and i don't have the time nor the inclination to get into a pi*sing match with the likes of yourself, Kapt M, Titan Gladiator et al.....

"Moving the goal posts after half time is typical SQ and,I agree,that is morally wrong and deceitful. The only answer to this is to let "your feet do the talking" after you have fulfil your contractual committments.".....

Thats all i ask, if they can do that then i should be at liberty to pick up my bat and ball and play somewhere else, THEY are to blame!!!

Nuff said.

[EasyGo-Lucky?]

Makes you wonder then why SIA bond you to the extreme plus stick your bank guarantee in their grubby pockets; to recoup their training costs should you leave, or to grab you by the balls so they can move the goal posts anytime they like.

[addinfurnightem]

Just for the benefit of those that don't know - the required Bank Guarantee does NOT go into the company's, (S.I.A.'s) pockets.
One has to show acceptable evidence that the required amount is in a bank that is on the SQ 'list', (a very long list, including recognised banks outside Singapore but with a Singapore office, my guarantee stayed in London and never earned less than 5%), and that you have signed a letter in which you agree that, should you break your bond, the company may collect the money.
If you complete your bond the company advise your chosen bank that the money is now released. During the five to seven year period that the money is in a bank it naturally earns interest which is collectable when the bond expires.
The guarantee was introduced because of bond-breakers, it only came into force about ten years ago.

[This message has been edited by addinfurnightem (edited 04 July 2000).]

[Kaptin M]

nice_beaver, I'm on your side with this one. Sorry Whiskery, but if SQ offered those guys a contract, with a firm $18k for their Lear training, nothing gives them the moral right to reneg on the deal. The only possible excuse would be IF the number of previously indicated hours were increased...I'm sure that that's not unreasonable, beaver, is it?

Was that the case, or did the hours remain fixed at what they had initially indicated?

[Whiskery]

Kaptin M, I acknowledged that SQ was morally wrong in raising the bond. No different to what they did to us with the increment pay.
However, I still believe that $24,000 is still cheap for a Lear endorsement,50 hours training and entry into the (OK..... one of the...) best airline in the world.

[storyman]

The $18,000 BILL was given to the guys who had ALREADY signed the $320,000 bond and had completed the Lear training!!!!! That was then increased to $24,000. It was RETROSPECTIVE.
So much for honouring contracts.
The reason seemed to be that McCully's nice little rort with the Lear Training scheme was leaving him out of pocket when the foreigners jumped the SIA ship before their 9 years. SIA wouldn't pay him, or wanted the money back. You see, they even f*ck their own kind.
I can't help wondering if Maurice and Freddy got backed billed for my 2 CRM courses after I left. Maybe they were higher up the food chain than Len and could snake out of it. No wonder SIA Ops bought in a NON-WESTERNER cadet pilot requirement around '96. At the time I thought it was just an issue of them not liking the color of our skin; that they believed 20% of the world's population as being UNFIT to join SIA. I was wrong, it was just a plain case of the management pilots, who were screwing SIA from the inside with their own little money making schemes, getting their pockets burned. (don't forget the A310 simulator here either).

So, enough of the "HONOURING of contracts with SIA" from now on. We simply played them at their own game.




[This message has been edited by storyman (edited 05 July 2000).]

[Check_6]

Hi guys,

Just trying to be objective here. A quote from Storyman: "No wonder SIA Ops bought in a NON-WESTERNER cadet pilot requirement around '96. At the time I thought it was just an issue of them not liking the color of our skin; that they believed 20% of the world's population as being UNFIT to join SIA."

Well, I'd like to know how many western airlines in the world take in foreigners/non-westerner into their own CADET PILOT (ab initio) programs? I believe the answer is NIL. You would have to be a national of the country....

[titan]

It seems to me Check_6 that what the guy was driving at is not that they take foreigners, but that the reason they stopped the intake of Westerners was because they picked the wrong type. SIA wanted pilots that wouldn't speak up, the type that just sit in silence, the type they spend so much money on CRM trying to change. A very strange situation. No doubt the westerners were of the the wrong character type, wouldnt take the authoritarian nature of SIA, and subsequently left. In leaving they unknowingly also kicked Lenny in the goolies. So maybe it is Lenny that is driving the crusade to crush the pilots that left? It certainly doesnt seem rational when you add up the money they expend i.e. Gladiator 10 / SIA 1
But if you would like to start a list of airlines that intake non-nationals, I think you might get quite a surprise.
At the end of the day, why would you give a human being control of a S$400 million machine filled with a 3rd party liability in excess of $1.5 billion, and then treat them like dirt? It all comes down to Cause and Effect....and there you have the sorry tale of Silkair as your answer.

[ironbutt57]

Dear Kaptin M it all boils down to one simple fact...Gladiator withdrew his services because in his case he felt and apparently had documented fact, tht S.Q did not comply with the contract that both parties signed...maybe this is not the case with you or other S.Q. pilots..so why shoot the guy down for doing something he was well in his right to do....it can happen to everybody..maybe you're next!!

[nice_beaver]

Just to keep things on the subject matter, and to thank Kap M for his support:

The deal was for "the advanced trainer programme".(full stop) Type rating or number of flying hours not specified.

As for trying to compare it with a Lear rating else-where ONCE AGAIN this is not the point. SIA couldn't give a rat's ass about the rating, the programme was to build experience, the rating was a legal requirement.

The original contract said $X they then forced you to sign a second for $X + Y
under the threat of stagnating your career.

Only in a morally corrupt regime!