Virgin restarts recruitment

[Bluebaron]

Well news hot off the press is that Virgin will restart cabin-crew recruitment in June. Two courses a week.

Also rumours that the 747-200 fleet will be around longer than previously planned. Apparently Richard is keen to re-launch the Toronto service for summer.

This sounds promising for all those looking for work? Could BA follow???

bb <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[wallywombat]

What a pathetic way to run an airline! So, all the 162 Classic pilots that were to be or have been laid off thanks to the Knee-jerk reaction by Virgin management may be taken on again only months later!According to a friend of mine, Virgin are paying big bucks to get their Classic Captains to work on days off, even though many of them are holding redundancy notices in one hand and the phone in the other with Crewing begging them to work in the other. I appreciate that no-one could have anticipated the speedy recovery after the events of Sept. 11th, but many of those pilots have had a lousy Christmas thanks to the inept VS management.And as always, who gets sc@wed? The pilots and their families, thats who!!!

[FL310]

Wambat, ok, let's face it. This is not alone on the pilots, it is on all employes in this business. Understand that you cannot run the show alone.

What we see here is the logical result which appears now slightly earlier as most of us hoped for. Once the balance sheets for last year are finalised and the plans for 2002 are ready to be published, all management will find out that a workforce is required to do the job. For my part, I told and keep on telling everyone that March is the month. But it is still a very long way to go...

[Noddy Staltern]

Guys, a few facts here are a bit wide of the mark (although the inept management remarks seem pretty accurate)! Of the 140-odd pilots to be made redundant only 14 were from the classic fleet. All are F/Os (although some elderly captains on short-term contracts were 'retired'). The vast majority of guys 'below the cut' were on the 340 or 400 fleets and have not yet left the company. Some captains (approx 90) are deing demoted but none are being made redundant. That said, the whole process is a complete fiasco which was poorly thought-out, badly executed and totally mis-managed.

[wallywombat]

Noddy, that's exactly what I was trying to point out!The reason that not many pilots from the Classic fleet have left yet is that it is operated by relatively senior crews, and Virgin are using the "last in-first out" process to reduce their numbers, so most of the pilots leaving will be from the -400/A340 fleets, thus entailing a huge expense to retrain their pilots. That said, my main point was that no matter the sclae of the management stuff-up, it is always the pilots that come out of it worse off, never the mananegment who make the mistakes in the first place.

[Denzil]

"It is always the pilots that come out of it worse off" try explaining that to the undermanned and overworked engineers <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[schit.furbraen]

well said denzil
last xmas and new year I worked all night, 14hrs,
2nd of jan finished a 36 hour engine cx in the open freezing conditions, never complained or went on strike. This year been out of work since oct. xmas/newyear was still s*** as I couldn't afford any thing.
They are lucky to have a job and income.

[ 03 January 2002: Message edited by: schit.furbraen ]</p>

[iwish]

WHAT A WOMBAT! Pilots had it hard? 100% of Virgins flight engineers were made redundant. The ground crew are undermanned and working all hours in awfull weather and due to a shortage of crews the pilots worked a few days extra over xmas, for which they were well payed. Many of us had a xmas at home but would rather have been away and at least had a job! <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[ 03 January 2002: Message edited by: iwish ]</p>

[Denzil]

My comments are not to start a pi$$ing competition but more to remind you that other people are affected by the current situation <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[wallywombat]

Yes, Denzil, in order to smooth a few ruffled feathers, I should have pointed out that all ground and flight crews are affected by poor management decisions and planning, not just pilots. I am well aware that the Flight Engineers ahve been made redundant, one of my best mates is holding such a letter now. Hopefully traffic is picking up so quickly now and the Classics won't be retired, but that won't help the many already laid off due to the rush by management to ease the balance sheet without a thought of the consequences. My sources tell me that the feeling is so high in VS about the way the management have treated flight and Cabin crew, that VS will find it very hard replacing vrews that will never work for them again when things finally improve.

[tired]

wally, your source, like you, appears to be full of hot air.

Good name you chose there, mate - the first part of it, anyway.

[wallywombat]

Actually, tired, my source is a very good one within training and management. On what do you base yours on?

[xsimba]

Tired, you seem to be attacking wombat for stating the truth. His comments were directed at pilots but did not imply any disrespect to Flight Engineers or indeed Ground Engineers. He is merely pointing out the ineptitude of Virgin management - something we all know to be right at the heart of current problems.

His comments about future recruitment problems are also spot on. I will shortly be leaving and I doubt anything but a wholesale change in the management of VS and a substantial increase in salary could persuade me to come back. Let's face it the only reason many of us stayed after the last pay round was because of the expected short time to command which has now vanished into thin air.

VS management is storing up a great deal of resentment among its workforce and when the good times return people will vote with their feet.

[wallywombat]

Thanks, Xsimba! I base my opinions on the fact that no less than two of my immediate friends are joining easyJet, although they themselves were not issued with redundancy notices, but the time to command for senior F/O's is now so long as to be prohibitive. easyJet is also mopping up several senior Captains from the Classic fleet, again whose jobs were not threatened but they wanted out like so many others and eJ were pleased to get them.
tired, before you attack me or my sources, I suggest you get some of your own!

[Dan Winterland]

Xsimba and wally, your comments are spot on.

[Denzil]

My point was that airlines consist of more than just the "poor" pilots and it was (initially) written as though they are the only people to suffer <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

I must agree with xsimba that recruitment in the future might not be so easy, a lot of people not made redundant are looking to move on when the industry picks up (hope it's soon <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> )

Interesting that we have saved so much money and turned the airline around in such a dramatic way since the tragic events of 11/9, why if the guys at the top are so good was this not being addressed already <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

BTW through lack of support for us (VERY) poor engineers the first rounds on you next friday Dan <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[tired]

Wally, unlike you I actually work for the company..... Management is most certainly inept, but those of my colleagues who think that management at other companies are any less inept are, I'm afraid, in for a severe disappointment. Call me cynical, but after 20 years in this business I've found competent managers to be in extremely short supply.

Did VS lay off too many people at the outset? Well, maybe they did, but it's far too early to tell yet. Our loads over the last few weeks have been excellent, to be sure, but at what price to our yields? I have no idea what our yield is at the moment, but I do know that we've been discounting heavily to get bums on seats, as has everyone else I'm sure. Whether those yields are high enough to sustain the company at it's present size is still very much an open question. MY sources tell me that there are still a couple of routes on the endangered list - a review will be carried out in a week or 2, after which we may well lose another route, rather than gain one. I hope like hell we don't, because that will put my job at risk, but that's the way it goes....

There are certainly those of my colleagues who claim they will never work for VS again etc etc - I've just spent 4 days downroute with one of them. There are just as many who feel as I do - better the devil you know. See my remarks above about the depth of quality management in aviation. In any case, how exactly do you downsize a company by 20% without antagonising a lot of people, no matter how good a manager you are?

Xsimba - I'm sorry to hear you're leaving mate, and I wish you all the best. (Are you below the line or going of your own accord?)Let's hope this recovery does turn out to be as strong wally seems to think it is and that the managers at your new company turn out to be excellent.

[Loc-out]

What start date for pilots at VS is the "line"?

[BUMPFF]

Schit.furbraen, what sort of engine took 36 hours to change? Was it a Merlin? In 1976 a military VC-10 on Royal duty coughed and an inboard Spey was changed in 6 hours 50 minutes by two resident ground engineers. In cold wintry conditions.

[tired]

Loc-out - not sure exactly, but I think somewhere in the early part of 1999. I don't have a list of start dates to tie up with the seniority list, so can't be more helpful.

[Lurkio Linepilutt]

&gt;&gt;In 1976 a military VC-10 on Royal duty coughed and an inboard Spey was changed in 6 hours 50 minutes by two resident ground engineers.&lt;&lt;


Hopefully turned into a Conway I trust?? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Young Paul]

It's one of the laws of business in the Murphy group, isn't it? "People rise to their level of incompetence." Or put another way, if you have somebody who is technically good, and somebody who is a good manager, you promote the technically good person because otherwise they will go somewhere else.

[Dan Winterland]

Denzil, many apologies. My sympathies do also lie with you engineer type chaps, it's just that I find it hard to see past my own predicament! I will get the first round in on friday, but only if I get a good 'see off' tomorrow <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

On the serious note, it has been noticed by the flight deck how the engineers have been cut back too much. All my recent trips have had good dispatch reliability (good old -400), but I don't think we will be making our gate times if we need any more than a minimal ammount of rectification.

PS: remember, I'm the one being made 'redundant', so it's your second round!

PPS: Clive should be coming out to play on Friday as well.

[ 07 January 2002: Message edited by: Dan Winterland ]</p>

[scroggs]

Like tired, I'm not convinced either that the Classic will be retained after April, or that we are likely to see new (or restored) routes this summer. Loads on most routes are very good now, and yields are improving, but not to the point where an increase in costs and risk is likely to be entertained - yet. The likely need to recruit cabin crew this spring is, I'm sure, more to do with the very large cabin crew turnover the airline has experienced (as far as I am aware, there have been very few redundancies necessary in cabin crew - so many leave in the normal course of things), than any envisaged expansion - or admission of undermanning.
As for the problems now stored up for the future by the speed and brutality of the redundancy, I suspect that, unless the overall market improves substantially, not many of those who talk about it will actually leave, and few of those asked back could afford to refuse. In the prosperous years hopefully to come thereafter, however, who knows....

[LRRP]

I am fascinated by this thread because I have not seen anyone include what they think would be a reasonable way of dealing with the situation.
I am only a PPL but I do own a business that does about £1m per week of business.
I have seen businesses in the city (London) cut back their I.T. departments to the bone (and beyond) and I wonder what I could do if it looked as if my business was about to be hit.
I process the paperwork, raise invoices, pay the payroll for temporary workers.
In September one of my agencies that provided aircraft technicians to one company had the whole contract stopped (about £100k per week).
Those workers just found themselves out of work and I guess the effects have hit many different industries.
I have been lucky (working around the clock) because I managed to find so many new customers that I did not have to make any cut backs but how could I have dealt with the situation if I had to consider letting some staff go ?

What I want to know is what do you think the airlines should/could have done ?

The facts of life are that the priorities for any business owner or managing director will always be:
1. The survival of the business.
(without that everyone is out of a job)
2. The profitability of the business.
(without that priority 1 will be a real problem soon)
3. All of the other things that you can only do with the money. like customer satisfaction. staff well being etc...

If you were running an airline how would you have dealt with the situation ?

[SnapOff]

Dan W/ Denzil what is happening Friday? (must be out of a loop). I'm in Tues onwards or put reply on Virgin BB
Ta SnapOff

[Dan Winterland]

Aviator at 8.00pm, just a few bods getting together to celebrate (if that's the right word?) one pilot's last trip.

Scroggs - Quite a few people have found other jobs already, and many may not be tempted back. One of the reasons why I joined Virgin was the prospect of a of a reasonably quick command -by long haul standards anyway. A command is now so far over the horizon, it makes staying with Virgins' lower than industry standard pay attractive no longer .

[jongar]

I flew with VS on new years day to JNB, and came back with SQ via SIN in F. I was impressed and like a few of the VS elements that have found its way into SQ service. However it appears that another element has crept in. SFO-LHR was 10.05 flight time, now 09.45. That 20 minutes is critical to a lot of companies, who have 10 + policies for J class travel. As I see it VS have changed thier flight time to match BA, and as a result I have to sit in the nosebleed seats - or fly with UA in a 777 that takes 10.40

I am just a pax, so my opinion counts for nothing

[scroggs]

Dan - I know pretty much how many have already found other jobs, and I don't doubt that there will be more (see the last para in my previous post), but I think that as a proportion of those who talk about leaving, it's a fairly small number. As for those who will or won't come back, surely that rather depends on what their economic circumstances are at the time? Unless you have a 737 rating, there ain't many long-term posts in prospect in UK just now (747 ACMI operators just don't cut it as secure long-term employers), so I suspect that many of our now-redundant colleagues would have little choice but to accept an invite back, if it came in the next 18 months or so. That, of course, does not imply that they would again commit to VS for the long term!

V50 The flight time change SFO-LHR is most likely to to an equipment change from Airbus to B744. The A340 is 2-3% or so slower than the 744, which may go some way to explaining any recent schedule variations. At the moment, there is much juggling of aircraft going on as the route and equipment changes annouced post-9/11 take their final shape.

[ 07 January 2002: Message edited by: Scroggs ]</p>

[The_Banking_Scot]

Hi
Scroggs:
I think V50 was referring to the Virgin flight time from San Francisco to London (SFO-LHR) being reduced from 10:05 to 9:45.

[Budgie69]

V50- It could well be that the winter eastbound scheduled block time is shorter than the summer block time due prevailing winds.

[jongar]

V50 being the cunning bastard that he is just pointed out that he lives in MAN. Sadly that means flying with British Arseholes and Ugly Americans but does allow me to fly with Verynice Stewardesses on the way home in Upper Class.

Company policy says 10+ so 9.45 + LHR-MAN = 10.28.

Happy Happy Joy Joy

V50

[crewrest]

It does seem that if you want to join Virgin at the moment, you just join EAAC, I'm sure that the 160pilots and engineers dropped by Virgin are not too pleased by that.

[Fly747]

Yes, or you could join Air Altanta and fly Virgin!

[seymore butts]

I'm really not too surprised to hear Virgin are soon to recruit as it has been a lash up from the start, offers of voluntary redundancies were quickly taken up by Cabin crew as they all appeared to realise they could take the money, have a few months off then be recruited in the new year. Thanks Dick.

Not that great a way to save money though. Also strange how crew worked this out and overpaid, overstaffed management (or company council) failed to notice.

Talking of company council, did anyone actually get asked by cc for an opinion or maybe a vote?
How did the comms go during negotiation?
Does this system work, as in my experience, this has generally been a bone of contention and used by the cc guys for there own means, in the guise of the greater good. Maybe something like accepting lots of redundancies and taking a poor pay deal / freeze, worse conditions, crew food cutbacks etc, but some keeping fairly comfy.

Ring any bells?

[moan_on]

Everybody associated with the CC have been doing an excellent job looking after their mates. They have done s0d all for the guys NOT NECESSARILY at the bottom of the seniority list who are being made redundant.

In my opinion, ANY money you give to BALPA is a complete waste (unless you're a training captain, senior captain, etc when you'll get looked after.)

The whole process has been a complete b@lls up.
Thanks for nothing.

[seymore butts]

Thought as much

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

LRRP

Apologies that no one has answered your excellent post. Also apologies to engineers and cabin crew - you are every bit as important as us but this being the PPRUNE I will talk about pilots!

I am a pilot which is a job I love doing. I am not a 'manager', and have no desire to be one, but have considerable sympathies with management. The bottom line is that money-in must exceed money-out. Without that there is no viable business. Pilots are sometimes guilty of not recognising that. The answer to your question is that if the money is not there to support the business, then managers must act quickly to reduce numbers or there will be no future for anyone. I do not know the specifics of VS's management failures, but I cannot think what else they could have done given the financial disaster that was looming. There has been much criticism of companies using Sep 11 as an opportunity to 'weed the garden', but my own view is that it just caused companies to wake up and get real over the state of their finances. VS were about to make cuts before Sep 11, as were bmi, Gill, British Airways, Maersk, British European, ScotAirways, British World etc etc. Sep 11 may have forced their hand but all was not well before then. This has lead to massive cuts in the pilot workforce in the UK as we all know (and loads of others as well- but this is about pilots please remember). Any manager worth his salt had to make hard decisions and many have done.

I do not know how many pilots have lost their jobs in the UK (hundreds) in the last few months, but maybe pilots should be considering how many foreign pilots are working here under 'flag of convenience' passports. At a time when no British Frozen ATPL can get a job, our UK-based airlines continue to recruit experienced pilots from overseas because it is more 'cost-effective'. That is the 'management issue' that I would deal with.

[xsimba]

Norman, we are all aware that drastic action was needed. Some companies handled it better than others and that is where the management deficiencies show up.

VS has had appaling man management from the start. There has been virtually no flow of information from our management. Every request for more information is met with a stony silence. They are unwilling to re-evaluate any decisions and seem pre-occupied with not losing face.

No opportunity is missed to deal another blow to our overall package (poor as it was before!). And I suspect that there is some motivation to try and teach the pilots a lesson after we all voted for union recognition last year.

I will be leaving in 2 months time and believe me I will not be sad to go.

And as for BALPA.....!

[The Big Easy]

I understand that Virgin will now operate MAN- MCO this summer with a Classic. Will they recall any of the redundant Flightdeck to crew it, or have they got their crewing levels right ?

[747flyboy]

With regards to The Big Easy's comments, I believe this is true.
However, I have been also been informed that the a/c will be operating on Air Atlanta's aoc with VS flight deck and VS cabin crew (C/C IFS though!)

[Tosh McCaber]

Norman Stanley,

As a matter of interest, have you , or any other Ppruneres got any numbers for the amount of foreign pilots working here, under flags of convenience/ grandmother/ grandfather born in the UK? It seems crazy that UK pilots are on the dole, when pilots here from overseas are working.

Are we talking large numbers?

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

Apologies to others who are discussing specifically VS management. I realise I am diverging from the thread, but am doing so to answer a question raised.

Tosh

I simply do not know exact numbers but we are talking of a lot (possibly hundreds). By way of example, I went to an easyJet interview last year(a company I really like and wish well) and of 8 the pilots being assessed, 6 were not British. (Not sour grapes by the way - they offered me the job). That scene is repeated week-in, week-out.

To an extent we are victims of our history. One of the difficulties is that virtually the whole English-speaking world can trace a distant relative to the UK. In addition, as 'proud' members of the EU, we must take all European citizens on an equal basis to UK citizens, and by definition their distant relatives as well. A significant proportion of the world's aviators are therefore eligible to work in Britain, and not surprisingly are attempting to do so! I should say that I in no way blame these folk for taking advantage of our lax system, and I would never be anything other than courteous to them at a personal level. They are only looking after their own welfare and that of their families, which they cannot be blamed for. We, however, can be blamed for letting it happen. The problem lies with BALPA and the government not being willing to take this issue on. I am sure the ironies of this situation are not lost on the countless unemployed UK pilots who cannot get jobs when loads of foreign pilots are working here. If we do not look after our own pilots then you can be certain no one else will.

The UK has among the most boyant economies in the world, and that reflects in the relatively high numbers of pilots required compared to our population. We are therefore very attractive to foreign pilots. As we are all aware, many people from less fortunate economic circumstances are attempting to come here by whatever method is open to them, and that is happening at every level of society. Pilots are only one facet of that.

For me, the solution is very simple. No airline who benefits from having bases in the UK and a significant part of its business emanating from here, should be permitted to employ foreign pilots until all unemployed British pilots have jobs. Clearly not every pilot is suitable for every job, but as long as we have keen, highly-motivated frozen-ATPLs and indeed more experienced pilots out of work, we should not contemplate taking on foreign nationals.

Sorry again to the VS thread followers for this slight deviation.

[ 13 January 2002: Message edited by: Norman Stanley Fletcher ]</p>

[mutt]

Gentlemen,

This sort of idea sounds great, but are you going to insist that ALL British EXPATRIATES return home to the UK as well?

Mutt <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[tired]

mutt- very good point.

NS Fletcher - I was born in a Commonwealth country of British parents. I grew up in that country, and worked there for many years before coming to the UK. I hold both UK and "the other country" passports. In your opinion am I a "foreigner" or merely a Brit returned home?

To return to Mutt's point, I personally know 11 Britsh pilots working in my country of birth, thereby taking jobs from unemployed locals (and there are just as many per capita there as in UK). Not one of those British pilots has taken out citizenship, they are all permanent residents or on work permits. If you want the "foreigners" out of the UK, then you must be prepared for the Brit expats to return home - I suspect you will find that the one more or less balances out the other and the unemployed frozen-ATPLs will be no better off.

The point I'm trying to make - somewhat longwindedly - is that movement between countries is by no means unusual and occurs in most parts of the world and in both directions. (The one exception, as far as pilots are concerned anyway, is that self-proclaimed champion of the free and land of opportunity, the US!! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> )

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

Mutt - thank you for your post. No, I would not be as rigid as to say all Brit expats must return home immediately. I am not a xenophobic nationalist, fascist etc etc. What I would say, is that foreign pilots, including Brits, must recognise that the first responsibility of their host nation must be to their own citizens. Therefore, they must go in with their eyes open to any expat work. We all know the realities of work in the Middle East, for example, where nationals who are manifestly less suitable are promoted ahead of expats. I do not condone institutionalised injustice not would I wish to see people who we have invited here discriminated against because of their national origin. What I want to see is the end to the current abuse of our system. And that means that we simply do not employ them in the first place. Once they have been employed, natural justice dictates that we honour our agreements to them.

Tired - thank you also for your comments. To an extent you have hit the nail on the head and caused me to really think through what I think. I do not know what Commonwealth country you were brought up and it does not really matter. Say it is Australia for the sake of argument. There are 2 points I would make. The first is that I am opposed to dual nationality. Many nations in the world do not permit it, and nor should we. (The only exception could be for children of kids of mixed-nationality parentage where I could see an argument for dual citizenship.) Are you British or are your Australian? You cannot be both. If someone wants to be British, then in order to enjoy the benefits and priveleges of citizenship, they should accept the full responsibilities of that including taxation, service in the Armed Forces should it arise, have no overriding allegiance to another nation and in their heart of hearts be well-disposed towards the British nation and its people. The second point is to answer your question about having British parents but be born and brought up in another country. I understand that you also worked in this other country until coming here to pursue your flying career. My short answer is that in your case, as I understand it, you should be allowed to retain citizenship - but only if you return to live here. If, however, you had stayed in that or indeed any other country, your children should not be entitled to British citizenship. By the terms I discussed earlier, you and your family have emigrated and changed allegiance to another nation (which is your perogitive). Your children could not reasonably be said to have any real ties to Britain, and nor would Britain have any responsibilities towards them. We would wish them well, but their citizenship and loyalties would clearly lie in that foreign country. That in essence is the issue of 'flag of convenience' passports. If such children suddenly find the going difficult in their current country, they should have no rights whatsoever to come here as their parents and grandparents made a conscious choice to leave to pastures new and therefore forfeited the rights and responsibilities of being British citizens. They have the responsibility for that and must accept the good or the bad that their decision brings. It is perhaps easier to think of this from the other perspective. We offer instant citizenship to anyone born here - ie the first generation. We can reasonably expect that first generation to make a choice as to their loyalties when they are old enough to do so. We certainly would not offer any citizenship rights to their grandchildren regardless of where they are born. We have no moral responsibilities to provide employment, education, benefits etc etc in such cases. I realise this is a tricky subject, and it is difficult to write down clear, succinct arguments, but as you asked the question I have tried to answer the question accurately.