View Full Version : Pilots jobs could go at British European

27th Jul 2001, 23:24
Heard rumour today that BE is on a severe cut back to cut losses and that this will involve a base closure and staff reductions, including pilots and cabin crew??
Seemingly a northern base to close and the CRJ decision finally confirmed (as on PPrune several weeks ago) all 4 to be traded back to Bombardier. Rumour among crew is that anything from 50-80 pilots will have to go. The big question is how it is decided as the seniority in BE has never mounted to much and there are alot of contractors on the 146??
Anyone know more? Hopefully it will be settled quickly with the least amount of pain for BE and their crews.

27th Jul 2001, 23:38
Things like this bound to happen now the big boss has gone to the great big ramp in the sky, family based business has no one of merit to follow recently passed away father, accountant now in charge, so when they rule things go to pot!( not the sort Tony and his cronies mean). :(

28th Jul 2001, 01:44
All true I'm affraid. LBA is to close as a base by OCT. CRJ's to be traded for D8-400's. As for job losses I doubt there will be any with the current rate of loss which is bound to increase with this announcement. But rumors are that approx 32 Pilots and 60 Cabin crew to go! Most pilots will be covered with 2 year contract guys and over 60's of which I hear there are quite a few. :( A sad day for a once good airline lead astray by management that didn't..........

Raw Data
28th Jul 2001, 02:32
As usual, most of the rumour is wide of the mark.

Yes, one base is to close. The single route it supports will be crewed from the other end.

Some pilots will go, less than 50 and it is expected that most will be contract or over-60's. No pilot on the main seniority list will be lost. All crewing decisions will be done STRICTLY on seniority.

With regard to the CRJs, it has been decided to rationalise our fleets, the CRJs will eventually be replaced by more Q400s.

No cabin crew are to be shed.

barcode, you really are full of it. Please give examples.

28th Jul 2001, 02:40
Very sad news be142736, i know alot of great guys at BE and they deserve alot better than they have got. As you say, the management have made some huge clangers in the past 24 months. Maybe enough will leave for better pastures and redundancies will not happen. What about bonds etc, if they need people to go will they cancel bonds in some circumstances??
It is such a pity but at least there are jobs there for the taking. Easyjet were rumoured to be seeking people for BFS, EDI and GLA?? maybe some of the BE crews at those bases can look there.
Having participated in an earlier thread last month on the rumour of this very situation, it was one which both I and others hoped we were wrong about but unfortunately our fears have been proved justified.
Good luck to any BE crews, get everything you can b4 there is nothing left and hopefully the result will be a better job in an Airline that knows how to treat staff.

BTW, hasn't LBA been a long established base with Senior crew based there??

Rgds BB

[ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: BavarianBoy ]

carlos vandango
28th Jul 2001, 03:35
Raw Data , can't see how any of this is wide of the mark. Cabin Crew who started six months ago were not given permenant contracts and so can be shed at any time. 11% reduction in workforce was quoted by a senior bod in EXT. It isn't rumour..it's happening..just like the CRJ's going too. Nobody likes it and it's not good for the industry but there's no point in denying it.

28th Jul 2001, 13:40
Just as carlos vandango has said above, '[n]obody likes it' when an airline runs into problems other than the circling vultures who seek to profit from such scenarios.

However, it is probably untrue to say that 'it's not good for the industry' for our industry is a widely diverse one in which there are those that are successful, those that are not, and many who hold a position somewhere in between. Some describe these 'in-betweeners' as 'fringe operators' and among such airlines there are certainly those who do not deserve success. In many instances, it is decidedly 'good for the industry' that they should fail. In a way, they do so via a process of natural selection and I, for one, am always pleased to hear of the demise of the ruthless, the unscrupulous, and the undeserving.

Having said that, I am not certain where BE sits in the scale among fringe operators. I knew it many long years ago, at which time it was certainly low on the scale with regard to its overall standards of operation. But it has been a survivor, and I recently flew as a pax on one of its 146s to find that it has in all respects vastly improved from its early days. It had all the hallmarks of a slick operation likely to succeed, and I hope that in the long term it will. But this does not mean that it will do so without the necessary growing pains.

From time to time, all successful airlines must take stock and review. Inevitably, this will lead to fleet rationalisation programmes and the loss of some personnel. Where this occurs in the long-term best interests of the airline, it usually turns out to be in the long-term best interests of all who work within that airline. Strangely, I know of few cases where it has not eventually been in the best interests of those who find themselves without employment for a period of time. It is interesting to read here that many BE pilots are contracted for just two years, perhaps itself an indication of an intelligent and forward-thinking management.

Whether or not BE is a deservedly successful operator, there is no point in denying what is currently happening. But, by the same token, I can see little worth in any who seek to gloat or to take advantage from it. Raw Data has said that 'less than 50' pilots will go, most of whom 'will be contract or over-60s'. Whether or not this is true, in the present environment this is unlikely to be disastrous for the vast majority of them.

It is interesting to read from Raw Data that '[n]o pilot on the main seniority list will be lost' and '[a]ll crewing decisions will be done STRICTLY on seniority'. Some weeks ago he made it known that he sits very loftily on the seniority list, so he is clearly not directly affected. His bold defence of this action might be merely a whisper were he in a more lowly position.

To Raw Data I would say: you have accused barcode, BavarianBoy, and others of spreading false rumour. You are now shown to have been wrong to do so. Why not now have the good grace to admit that and offer an apology to them?

To barcode, Bavarian Boy, and others I would say: fine, you were right, but let us not overstep the mark lest we be seen as HAPPY to be right ... without regard for the pain and detriment caused to our colleagues.

To all at BE I would say: my sincere best wishes for your future ... wherever you may be sitting during this sad, but inevitable, period of rationalisation. Good luck. :)

[ 28 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

Raw Data
28th Jul 2001, 15:25
Carlos Vandango:

As we are currently well under establishment with cabin crew members, with the current attrition rate we will have to hire more, not lose them, as the fleet size changes. That rumour is therefore completely untrue. The 11% reduction ( a figure not mentioned by any senior manager, BTW) will be mainly on the admin side (if it happens, it is by no means certain).


let's do this bit by bit:

>>For example, there are no "resignations rumour to follow very very soon".<<

There have been NO resignations since that time!

>>There is no "severe fleet rationalisation", the fleet size will be bigger in two years than it is now. <<

We are shedding four CRJs, but it is also planned to eventually replace them with 4 Q400s. The fleet size will therefore remain the same over time (it takes time to deliver all the Q400). So, yes, it may not be bigger, but there is still no "severe fleet rationalisation" either (you will note we agreed to differ on that later in the thread that you so selectively quote).

>> Whilst you may not know anybody who is "happy at BE", I know plenty who fit that description- especially those who have worked for the competition. <<

Still true.


NOBODY on the main seniority list will be affected, not just me. See above for the "false rumour" (as it has shown to have been).

28th Jul 2001, 15:30
I doubt that any Cabin Crew will be made redunant as we are so short of them in BHX (especially No.1's) that the reduction in fleet numbers will mean that we'll still be understrength
:cool: :cool: :cool:

carlos vandango
28th Jul 2001, 16:03
I didn't say they were paying off cabin crew, I said they were not isuing permenant contracts to them..something which is most unusual for BE in recent times. And the 11% figure did come from Management in EXT.

28th Jul 2001, 16:29
Again: to Raw Data I would say: you have accused barcode, BavarianBoy, and others of spreading false rumour. You are now shown to have been wrong to do so. Why not now have the good grace to admit that and offer an apology to them? :confused: :rolleyes:

28th Jul 2001, 18:34

I apologise if it seems that I am pleased to have been right on the above issue many weeks ago, it is certainly not intended. I have quite a few great friends at BE and do not wish any jobs to go. However, as previously stated, it is happening and RD is foolish to try and deny it and I will not get drawn into a personal slagging match with him. I guess PPruners can read and decide as Barcode says.

Carlos, I also heard that 11% figure from an EXT bod and seemingly the casualties will know next week at Admin level. The Crew are due to receive a letter from "EuroDisney" in the next few days. CC are not safe from the axe though with 60 resignations since Christmas anyway I think they will all leave anyway.
Also heard that Dash crews will be furious if CRJ and 146 guys are put onto the Dash on Jet money... even heard that the Dash trainers are ready to refuse to train them if it comes to that. It seems a real hot potato and with the Ops Directors record no-one trusts letters or personal assurances.
At LBA, long serving CC and Pilots who have sold their souls for BE may well have bouts of sudden sickness till they find alternative employment. Not great I know but they say you reap what you sow and BE managemnet had alot more reaping to do before it gets better.
As Tilli says, good luck to you all. It was heard yesterday that a senior Capt at BE described the atmosphere at work as that of a wake... well done EXT!!

Rgds BB :(

28th Jul 2001, 23:51
Just heard it confirmed, fleet reduction of 4 a/c when all is said and done, pilot reduction from 307 to 238. Not sure if there are 49 contractors but i guess it will be sorted out by DOJ etc. The notion that seniority pilots will not be affected is not true, huge fleet changes at various bases mean alot of Jet guys are being given the choice of CRJ and 146 to D-8, with NEW BOND or you make yourself redundant?? Me thinks this is outrageous, any BE pilots want to comment. Am told that a very high number will have to move down. If you refuse and leave then you will still be liable for your jet bond as well. Hmmmmm... make up your own minds but I think that is pretty bad. How can you expect loyalty in the future if you continually shaft crew.. If BE need pilots to go why not let them, say if in the last 6 months of a 3 year bond, let the bond drop, bet 49 would go, therefore no redundancies. Also, to expext to re bond pilots on another "lesser" type which you force them onto is rediculous!!
This mess is due to mismanagement not crew mistakes so give them a break. Maybe the Trustees should chop all the board and bring in people who are more useful.
Once again, good luckto all you BE crews, better off somewhere else it seems.

Regards... a very sad BB

Raw Data
29th Jul 2001, 04:20
Small correction- no-one said that mainline pilots wouldn't be affected, simply that they wouldn't be made redundant. Important point.

29th Jul 2001, 15:40
Raw Data

In my opinion, the tone of your post above alluding to a so-called ‘small correction’, together with your overall attitude to current happenings within BE, suggests a callous disregard within you with respect to the careers and well-being of your colleagues.

Until now, I have resisted the temptation to criticise BE, indeed some may think I have defended its actions. The information posted by BavarianBoy above with respect to the issue of bonding of these pilots is, in my view, a far more ‘important point’ than any you make with respect to whether or not the seniority list pilots will lose their jobs.

Given the terms of the BE bonds, it is now quite clear why BE have elected NOT to make these pilots redundant. If they were to do so, it would make it incumbent upon BE to clear their bonds, would it not? Far better, then, to simply give them the option of becoming type-rated on a ‘lesser’ type and be bonded for two types simultaneously or to leave of their own volition. This way, the airline is not held responsible for their election to depart and the poor unfortunate, now unemployed, pilot must repay any existing bond whilst without the income to do so. :mad:

This practice is, as BavarianBoy quite rightly asserts, utterly scandalous and BE is to be roundly condemned. I would hope that BALPA intends to step into the fray. Failing that, I would strongly advise the affected crews to take legal advice and commence a joint action against the airline. I am of the view that, in these circumstances, they would most certainly succeed and give the airline the caning it deserves. And if that results in the airline’s demise, and your own loss of employment, then all well and good. The industry would be so much the better for it.

Heavy Landing
29th Jul 2001, 18:03
:rolleyes: ......phew!!!

And to think that as recently as April, BE were loudly proclaiming their 'greatness' to new pilots being interviewed at the ATP Academy with all sorts of impressive pie charts, statistics, newspaper cuttings, etc.

In retrospect, it was clearly obvious even then that no one within the organisation (that was at the interview anyway) really knew where they were headed or how they were going to get there. Shame really, cos they appeared to be a potentially very good outfit, but if this is the callous, despicable way in which they attempt to go about re-structuring........ :eek:

Best wishes in these troubled times to those very new pilots at BE, if they are affected by all this.....thank God I went somewhere else.

:eek: :eek:

29th Jul 2001, 20:02
Reported today that a large number of BE crew phoned in sick Sat and Sun.... maybe making a point?? Who knows, but I believe that some bases are furious, especially BHD and at the end of all this BE could lose alot more than 49. Capts at BHD with 5 years seniority are not secure on type and will be forced to bid for other bases. Also LCY who don't know if they still have a base or not and fear they will follow LBA.
Seems like a right cock up to me. If the EXT bods wanted a fight i believe they might just have got one, it seems a mass exodus is on the way as well as as little cooperation from crew as possible until they get another job!!
How can the airline I once knew and was proud to have worked for get into such a bad state??
Good luck guys, for info, i believe Cityjet and BACE are looking for 146 pilots and as previously mentioned, Easyjet at BFS and GLA.
Rgds BB

30th Jul 2001, 00:00
Didn't really want to get involved in this one, but as tilii has entered the fray with his customary mix of ignorance and arrogance, I think I will.

I was at the meeting on Thursday, and watched (from a distance) as RD and another BE Base Captain had a fairly heated debate with their Flight Ops Director over the bonding issue. Both of them denounced the way bonds are being dealt with as unfair and discriminatory, RD being the most vocal in opposition. For that alone, you owe him an apology; many people were there, I'm sure someone else can confirm what I say.

Your facts are wrong, too. The most likely redundancies are amongst those with the shortest service in the company. They therefore have the largest bonds to pay. Any that the company make redundant will therefore cost the company the most money, in clearing their bonds. Only the over-60's will not fit that picture.

There is no provision for being bonded on two types simultaneously, it is either one type or another. All of this is well within the scope of their contracts. However, it is early days yet and the picture will almost certainly change within the next few days.

Finally, I know RD is hopping mad about the bond situation, and is doing all he can to get it changed. He might possibly be successful if the right people can be convinced to listen. I know he won't publically respond to your usual misinformed baiting, he needs to keep his position clear and strong with those who can help.

Your pathetic attempts to get back at him for showing you up last time you clashed, are doing more harm than good. Desist.

30th Jul 2001, 00:41
please can we keep this thread to the topic in the title and not a personality grudge match. Yes bonding is part of it but I can hardly think of any pilot who agrees with it, I am sure RD nor Tilli do.
Seemingly, though not sure, that BALPA will shortly advise most BE pilots not to sign anymore bonds with the company as they are investigating the legality into how they are set up between the pilot and a third party.
I stress that this is only a rumour but i guess as MOR says things will be ever changing over the next few weeks.
The reason I posted the thread was to find out if it was true as I was a bit surprised at the severity of the cuts. Once again crews that have worked very hard to help the company expand are having their jobs changed and cut off for something that was bad management,. This being the case I find it hard to believe that the company will then try and treat the pilots so badly in the "clean up"??? To RE BOND on the D-8 a 146 or CRJ pilot is mad considering that it is not their choice. To have Capts in both the left and right seat daily is a matter of opinion but quite a few would say unwise. To have people on the D-8 on grossly different salaries is also mad.
What a mess?????
I really feel for those affected and can only hope that they get a satisfactory result from the company.

Good Luck Rgds BB

30th Jul 2001, 00:52

It is perhaps most revealing to read that, by your own admission, you watched the meeting you claim to have attended "from a distance".

You assert that RD denounced "the way bonds are being dealt with" and was "the most vocal in opposition".

That RD is held by you to be most vocal comes as no surprise, though I am a little puzzled to hear that he opposed a bonding issue within his company after reading his vigorous justification for same on these pages.

I was certainly not present at this meeting, so I accept your version of these events and there is therefore no need for your call for independent verification.

However, there is nothing in your post above that would lead me to make any form of apology to RD. On the contrary, for no matter how vigorously RD is purported to be fighting this bonding issue, his attempts will be no greater than my own have been in this regard over many long years.

As for my supposedly getting facts wrong, I would be more than happy to read your proper explanation as to how this is so, since your post above is unclear. The most likely redundancies are amongst those with the shortest service in the company. They therefore have the largest bonds to pay. Any that the company make redundant will therefore cost the company the most money, in clearing their bonds. Only the over-60's will not fit that picture.
Quite agree, dear chap. So, what is your point? This is in line with what I have said above and is clearly the motivating factor in the airline electing NOT to make its pilots redundant and to, instead, offer the 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' choice as detailed above by BavarianBoy. Or is it that you now aver that what was posted by BavarianBoy with regard to the choices offered is untrue? :confused: There is no provision for being bonded on two types simultaneously, it is either one type or another. All of this is well within the scope of their contracts. However, it is early days yet and the picture will almost certainly change within the next few days.

What nonsense is this? Kindly explain how a pilot bonded on a jet type in the sum of many thousands of pounds (which bond takes the form of a bank-financed loan in the pilot's name), when offered conversion onto a more lowly type on the basis of again being similarly bonded is deemed to have cleared up the original bond UNLESS THE EMPLOYER HAS PAID IT OUT IN THE PILOT'S NAME? And just how do you say that such a matter is within the scope of the employment contracts. Please post the precise term/s of the contract that are said to cover this eventuality, for this I would dearly love to read. I think your last comment in the quote above is closer to the truth. You believe the picture will almost certainly change over the next few days because you now realise that the rumoured action by BE is in fact unlawful, thus inevitably forcing such change.

Your penultimate and ultimate paragraphs above are unworthy of further comment.

I close by asking why it is that you watched the said meeting from afar? Could it be that you did so because you are not a pilot employee but a management employee? If not, then you really ought to be at the front supporting your friend RD. If so, then you really must hang your head in eternal shame. :mad:

[ 29 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

30th Jul 2001, 03:05

You seem to have misunderstood BavarianBoy. The company has stated that there will be redundancies, unless 40-odd pilots resign. Assuming they don't, redundancies will be made, starting with external contract pilots, then freelance pilots, then over-60's, then nearly-60's, then two-year contract pilots, then five-year contract pilots.

As there should be sufficient of the above groups to satisfy the need for redundancies, no pilot on the main seniority list should be affected by (forced) redundancy. However, as all of the two-year contract pilots are F/O's, and the eventual fleet will initially be seven less jets and three more turboprops, there will need to be some moving of types and seats. This problem is mainly extant in one base.

All pilots who have received 146 type ratings are bonded for 18K over either 2 or 3 years. I doubt that any of the over- or near- 60's are bonded, so their going will result in no penalty to them or the company. None of the external contract pilots, or the freelance pilots, will be bonded either. The only group that will be is the 2 or 5 year contract guys. Now, given that situation, your comment-

>> Given the terms of the BE bonds, it is now quite clear why BE have elected NOT to make these pilots redundant. If they were to do so, it would make it incumbent upon BE to clear their bonds, would it not? <<

-erroneous. Furthermore, as the two year contract pilots are only on a two-year bond, the company can recover less money from them via the bond than it could from a standard, three-year-bonded pilot.

Further, your statement-

>> Far better, then, to simply give them the option of becoming type-rated on a ‘lesser’ type and be bonded for two types simultaneously or to leave of their own volition. <<

-is incorrect, as any pilot changing types will only have a bond on the new type, which, if he has recently been "promoted" to the jet fleet, will result in his bond being less than the one he had on the jet. In this case, the pilot wins, as he has both type ratings but only the turboprop bond to think about. The company has clearly stated that if a pilot changes type, the bond on the previous type is cancelled.

>> Kindly explain how a pilot bonded on a jet type in the sum of many thousands of pounds (which bond takes the form of a bank-financed loan in the pilot's name), when offered conversion onto a more lowly type on the basis of again being similarly bonded is deemed to have cleared up the original bond UNLESS THE EMPLOYER HAS PAID IT OUT IN THE PILOT'S NAME? <<

Yes, that is exactly what the company has proposed. I quote from their letter to pilots:

 Where a pilot is offered another aircraft type rating the existing bond will be paid off and a new bond commenced for the new aircraft type provided the individual accepts the change of type.

I won't be posting the whole terms and conditions, suffice it to say that the company has the right to require a change in type, rank or base (as virtually all pilot contracts allow), and exactly how the bond works into all that is a matter of some interpretation.

Your penultimate and ultimate paragraphs above are unworthy of further comment (but are typically petty and nasty).

[ 29 July 2001: Message edited by: MOR ]

Best Western
30th Jul 2001, 12:20
So, what happens to the CRJ routes now?

I can see STN - BHD dropped due competition, but BHX routes should be profitable... Perhaps BRS - BHD gone?

BHX - TLS... 146?
BHX - BHD... Dash?

30th Jul 2001, 12:43
Sorry to hear about the happenings at BE. Are they still going ahead with their RJX orders, or have the illustrious bean counters made a mess of that as well?

30th Jul 2001, 14:37

My dear chap, thank you for that enlightening post. So much better than its predecessor, though a little evasive, particularly at its conclusion.

So, you say that I have 'misunderstood' BavarianBoy. Certainly some of what you have said is in direct contradiction of what he and many others have said. That does not necessarily mean, though, that I have misunderstood anything.

Having become quite dizzy with the facts and figures being stated here, I now take the time (some considerable time, in fact) to sort out what has been posted here. I compare multitudinous conflicting statements by quotation below:
First, BavarianBoy said: [A]ll 4 [CRJs] to be traded back ... anything from 50-80 pilots will have to go.Then RD, defensively stating that this was “wide of the mark”, alleged: Some pilots will go, less than 50 and it is expected that most will be contract or over-60’s ... the CRJs will eventually be replaced by more Q400s.carlos vandango said: 11% reduction in workforce was quoted by a senior bod in EXT.And barcode was then kind enough to quote RD from some “six weeks ago” as follows: [T]here are no “resignations rumour[ed] to follow very very soon”. There is no “severe fleet rationalisation”, the fleet size will be bigger in two years than it is now.RD himself then stated: The 11% reduction ... will be mainly on the admin side (if it happens, it is by no means certain). ... We are shedding four CRJs. But ... [will] eventually replace them with 4 Q400s. The fleet size will therefore remain the same over time.BavarianBoy then posted this somewhat definitive information: Just heard it confirmed ... pilot reduction from 307 to 238. ... a lot of Jet guys are being given the choice of CRJ and 146 to D-8, with NEW BOND or you make yourself redundant ... .If you refuse and leave then you will still be liable for your jet bond as well.It was this last post that inflamed me with regard to the bonding implications.

I do not think I have ‘misunderstood’ what BavarianBoy has said here. It is clear, and it is definitive. The assertion is that 69 pilots will go, among which there will be many current jet pilots given a choice between taking a down-grade onto the Dash 8 with a new bond to sign OR resignation with the penalty of then being forced to repay existing jet bonds at a moment in time when they are likely to be unable to do so. Given that this airline is known to bond through a bank loan to the pilot concerned, it seems clear that, under the legal principle of ‘privity of contract’ a new bond does NOT replace a current one unless the airline pays out the outstanding bond amount to the pilot to permit him/her to clear indebtedness to the bank in question. Thus, those who choose to accept the down-grade to Dash 8 (a bitter enough pill to swallow) will, unless the company elects to pay out the outstanding jet bond, have two concurrent bonds. If the company pays out the jet bond, the pilots will in any event be taking on a new bond on the lesser aircraft type and starting all over again in their bonded servitude. And all to suit the ‘rationalisation plans’ of their employer.

Those who reject this bizarre choice by resignation are forced to accept unemployment concurrent with the requirement that they pick up repayments on the jet bond loan. And these unfortunates are effectively cut off from entering into a legal battle with their former employer over bond repayment. Because the bond takes the form of a bank loan in the pilot’s name, their dispute with respect to repayment of the bond can only be with the bank. Will the bank care about the reasons for resignation? You decide.

Of course, were these pilots declared redundant by the airline, it is probable that the airline would be forced to pay out the outstanding sums in jet bond loans to those pilots. Though unemployed, they would not be faced with massive repayments to the bank in question.

At 1140 hours on 29 July, RD posted a small, but very revealing statement in the following terms: [N]o-one said that mainline pilots wouldn’t be affected, simply that they wouldn’t be made redundant. Important point. Given that RD claims to be knowledgeable with regard to all that occurs within BE, and that you, MOR, have now made it abundantly clear that RD is at the coal-face of negotiations on this matter, this was indeed a VERY important point. Readers on this site must be forgiven, then, for taking this to quite clearly assert that the airline has elected to reject offering redundancy to its primary workforce thus forcing its employees to face the two awful choices as detailed above. No matter how RD would wish to make this sound like an honourable concession on the part of his company, it is inescapably true that it is no such thing. It is the opposite. In my view, this is a declaration unequalled in the annals of UK airline employment history.

Now, I could go on with quoting from conflicting statements, but it is not necessary to do so. It matters little whether the airline’s fleet plans will result in fewer or greater numbers of aircraft in the future. Likewise it matters little whether the precise numbers of affected pilots is 10, 20, or 100. Nor does it really matter whether these poor unfortunates are under-60s, over-60s, contract pilots, freelance pilots or RD’s ‘mainline pilots’, whatever that is said to mean in this penny-ante little airline. What matters here is the principle involved. If this was being forced upon just one pilot, then it is too much. If forced upon a greater number then it is, to put it bluntly, an extreme outrage which MUST be addressed.

[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

The Guvnor
30th Jul 2001, 15:22
tilii - do you always have to be so hostile and attack individuals rather than the issues when you argue something? It's really rather tedious.

Raw Data is right. Basic maths shows that four aircraft out and four aircraft in equals nil change in the number of aircraft. There is therefore not, as Bavarian Boy continues to claim, a "fleet reduction of 4 a/c when all is said and done". Nor can I see why you're making such a fuss about the (perfectly logical) reassignment of crews onto the Q400s when they arrive. What do you expect JE to do, keep the CRJ guys at home twiddling their thumbs just because they no longer operate the type? Come on, that's plain ludicrous!

You also - as usual when it comes to bonding issues - seem to be twisting facts to suit your own bias. I can't see how you could describe the Q400 as being a "lesser type" than the CRJ. Both are regional aircraft - and in numerical terms there are more Dash 8/Q200/300/400 etc around than their are CRJs which would tend to make the ratings more marketable elsewhere. Unless of course you're one of those 'jet jockey' types for whom anything with a prop is a "lesser type"? :eek: :rolleyes:

Rebonding is a whole different matter and on this I think you, Raw Data and I are agreed - it's immoral.

30th Jul 2001, 15:40
Not being one to regularly contribute,but as this issue is close to my heart,I feel I can legitimately add to this. Bavarian Boy stated that a large number of our crews phoned in sick on Sat and Sun..and that we would see 'as little cooperation from crew as possible'. For the record, the sickness rate at the weekend was slightly up on a normal weekend, but not overly considering the weather with sunburn and bbq food. As for the little cooperation, a full programme was flown with no cancellations, dispite the sickness, thanks to the excellent cooperation of the crews..quite the opposite of what has been suggested. I know that the superb attitude of many was well appreciated by the company.

With regards to the bonding issue, I believe that the BE pilot promotion committee are actively considering all the points raised by our CRJ pilots and that each will be written to individually once the way forward is clear.

Shakespeare,the company is going ahead with the RJX order, the first will arrive next april.

Now that is all clear,I will return to lurking!

Raw Data
30th Jul 2001, 15:53
Well, having digested that somewhat verbose and rambling post from tilii, let me clarify.

First of all, the pilot staff losses and the quoted (but not substantiated at any of the meetings I have been at) figure of 11% reduction in work force are different animals. The latter is amongst admin and management.

The assertion by BavarianBoy that 69 pilots will go is incorrect, more like 40.

Nobody will have two bonds going a the same time; if a pilot accepts a new bond, the old one is paid off by the company. The quote by MOR is direct from the letter sent to pilots on Friday and I can confirm its veracity.

The distinction I made, and that tilii takes exception to:

>> quote:
[N]o-one said that mainline pilots wouldn’t be affected, simply that they wouldn’t be made redundant. Important point.

-is simply information, not an opinion.

MORs' summation of my reaction to this is an understatement. To use a colloquialism that the prim and pompous tilii will surely object to, it sucks. Bigtime.

carlos vandango
30th Jul 2001, 16:02
Guv, 7 146's and a shed being replaced by 4 dash 8's is a reduction of 4 aircraft. Have to agree with BB on that one.

30th Jul 2001, 16:08
Am afraid Tilli is correct in his summation. There are Pilots at one of the larger bases that are normal, in some cases senior pilots who have finished or nearly completed 3 year jet bonds who are being forced to the D-8 and a new bond. How can anyone justify that??
Guvnor, am afraid there is a fleet reduction, 7 146's to go and 4 CRJ's=11. $ new RJX next year and some 4 Q400's. Result by company admission is 4 a/c less.
Exmouth, point taken on sickness, it was a rumpur from an excollegue at BE but I see you admit it was higher than usual.
Overall, no matter how you try to dress it up, there are now 300 odd pilots bidding for their livlihoods with only 240 odd positions. Effectively, once those who are made redundant go, the rest are all at the wrong bases and on the wrong fleets. This is a horrendous situation for most crew, ok, one base as Exmouth says is the most affected but having everyone rebid makes those mostly senior crew at that base bid for other bases to maintain rank and fleet. Consequently even RD may find himself disposed from his base as more senior crew bid there??

The worst peart is that EXT cocked up big style and the people at the coalface pay the price!!!!

Good Luck BB

[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: BavarianBoy ]

30th Jul 2001, 17:20
The Guvnor
[D]o you always have to be so hostile and attack individuals rather than the issues when you argue something? Can’t see that I have done either, but sorry to have bored you.

Time for you to go back to school for some “basic maths”. As carlos vandango says, seven 146's and one shed being replaced by four dash 8's is a reduction of four aircraft, that is +4-(7+1)=-4 or at least it was when I did basic maths.

No, I have not suggested the CRJ guys remain “at home twiddling their thumbs just because they no longer operate the type”. I would suggest that, if their employer chooses to now sell their present type, they should be offered training on the new type without the imposition of a new bond. Simple, isn’t it, and far from “ludicrous”?

As to your taking issue with my phrase ‘lesser type’, I suggest you take this up with the CAA and all other licensing authorities. When I began flying pure jet types, it was deemed to be a whole different ballpark to flying the turboprops which preceded it. Perhaps this was based on such elements as the fact that the pure jet was considerably faster, engine/power management was vastly different, the cruise environment was considerably more hostile, and so on. Forgive me, then, if I perceive that the turboprop is a ‘lesser type’ than a pure jet, in much the same way that a pure jet is a 'lesser type' than the Space Shuttle. Forgive, also, the CAA and other authorities that have had it wrong for so long. We collectively bow to your patently superior knowledge.

I am so relieved to read that you agree with my view as to the bonding issue, even if you do limit that concession to what you so quaintly call “rebonding”. Yawn. :rolleyes:

Raw Data

So nice to hear from you again. I was under the impression from MOR that you were far too busy and in need of protecting your position in this matter to lower yourself in responding to anything I might wish to post on this subject. As usual, you begin with a personal derogation as to the content of my post and then seek to “clarify” in the way in which you are uniquely gifted; for ‘clarify’ here read ‘obfuscate’. You then offer absolutely nothing new and suggest that I took exception to your little post about redundancy. Quite wrong, dear chap, no exception taken for it was clearly ‘information’ not ‘opinion’, as you quite rightly say. It was, then, taken as information as to your employers’ awful intent.

Again I say that neither the number of pilots who “will go” nor the mooted reduction of the workforce is of any real significance here. But what you now say with respect to bonding is.

You now say that nobody will have two bonds going at the same time; ‘if a pilot accepts a new bond, the old one is paid off by the company’. Are we to take it, then, that you now speak for the company on this issue? The company has authorised you to issue this statement on its behalf? If this is true, I am greatly heartened to hear it said. But it does not detract from the larger issue as to the enforcement of a new bond. Why should pilots who have served their bonding period against a bank-advanced loan of some £18,000 (according to MOR) now be forced to start a new bonding period on a type not of their choosing merely because the company wishes it to be so? Oh yes, I know they have a choice, but that choice does not include retraining on the new type without the imposition of a new bond. It is merely to leave and immediately be liable for any unpaid repayments on the existing bond. What a choice! You are right in what you say about this and right as to what words I personally would use to describe it. At the same time, I would vigorously uphold your own right to express it in any terms you choose. Well said.
;) ;) ;)


On a light-hearted note, I could not suppress a chuckle over your typographical error: would love to serve at one of those “lager bases”, hic! :D :D :D

[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

30th Jul 2001, 17:51
It`s pretty easy to spot the "management pilots" or those who aspire to it from the above comments . But then it is easy to spot them from the day they join the company anyway. I feel sorry for the hard working guys at the BE coalface

[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: RT ]

[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: RT ]

30th Jul 2001, 18:10
So what happens if someone near the end of his jet bond is forced to accept a new bond on another type ( or as the letter makes quite clear -become redundant) .He still has a new bond which may be more or less than the one he/she had before thru no fault of his own. During this "bond extension" period ,the new bond makes it very difficult to seek alternative employment as is his right whenever working conditions are significantly eroded . Very convienient for the company who have delivered this situation despite the financial advantage they have traditionally had over the years by paying their workforce well below the going rate. I wonder how the European courts would view their latest ploys. Several years ago they even bonded several new pilots who had the required type on their licence (FACT).

[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: RT ]

30th Jul 2001, 18:24
For all you at BE, sorry to hear about the troubles.

Guess this is what can happen with expansion without strategy.

Someone mentioned EasyJet hiring at BFS and GLA.

FYI: Go is hiring too, at STN, BRS and EDI/GLA

30th Jul 2001, 18:26
Tilli, I too would love a lager base, know any?? haha! typo now corrected... I think! Thanks.
RT, am afraid the bond situation at BE is about to come to a rather large crunch. As I said earlier, it is believed that BALPA view it as illegal, or at least they are advising ANY CREW from signing one until it is qualified. Also feel sorry for the long under paid BE pilot who has worked days off without renumeration and been pushed to the limit for sake of the company and as a crewmember said over the weekend, they have now been delivered a huge bat up the arse!!
Carlos, Your maths is spot on, 4 to go!!


30th Jul 2001, 18:30
Barcode, heard a "rumour" it was a couple of mill. Funny how the board cock up and get enough to pay off the mortgage and live a great life just for leaving while the crew will have to pay to leave plus all the usual crap. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....... OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Enough said. BB

30th Jul 2001, 18:30
Big ad in the Telegraph today going on about the new aircraft. Sounds like B-European are investing in their future and looking forward.... ;-)

30th Jul 2001, 18:34
NigelS..... HAHAHAHA!!! about the only thing anyone is looking at in BE is a very large tunnelwith nolights at the end!!

The Guvnor
30th Jul 2001, 20:33
Carlos Vandango/Bavarian Boy - I have reread this thread again and I could not see any reference to any aircraft other than the four CRJs going - thanks for clarifying that.

tilii - you really ought to address that problem you have of personal attacks and snide comments. You should be able to make your points without being insulting or sarcastic.

Incidentally, just got off the line with the bloke who will be our flight ops inspector and he says that there's no such CAA classification as a 'lesser type' categorising modern turboprops as being the poor cousins of regional jets. They're treated the same. Now, if you were talking heavy jets then that's a completely different story and I'd agree with you wholeheartedly - but we're not. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

30th Jul 2001, 21:22
Ladies and Gentlemen

Again, I give you The Guvnor, soothsayer extraordinaire and master of the inane, not to say insane, comment. Please excuse me if I resile from responding to his last post above. Not much point in debating with one so ill-equipped to respond. Yawn. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Raw Data
30th Jul 2001, 21:48
Ah, tilii.

It is almost a pleasure to lower myself to responding to you. I always find it a challenge to find a level at which I can communicate with someone as deeply in love with themselves (and their somewhat pretentious prose), as you so clearly are.

Right, now that we have the ritual abuse out of the way...

I'm afraid the one in need of some maths advice is yourself. You see, the figures quoted in the letter to flight crews only show the plan until Mar 2003. The intent is to replace the CRJ fleet with extra Q400 aircraft, taking that fleet to eight. However, as the delivery dates for these aircraft would come some time after Mar 2003, they don't appear in the totals from the letter. If you had read my post on the first page of this thread, you could have avoided insulting the Guv- but then, that would deprive you of one of your few pleasures, would it not?

Oh, by the way, I was at the meetings, unlike BavarianBoy or Carlos Vandango.

A turboprop is not a lesser type than a jet, it is a different type. It has unique problems tha the jet doesn't share, such as less power, less redundancy, less tolerance to icing, and the problems peculiar to propellers. Your assertion is somewhat arrogant to say the least.

The CAA do not make the distinction as far as I am aware, and the distinction the airlines make is as much about history and payscales as anything else.

Fortunately, the term "obfuscate" does not apply to any of my posts, perhaps you should revisit a dictionary.

As the company has sent a letter to all pilots clearly stating that no pilot will have two bonds at one time, and that all old bonds will be paid off when a new one is started, you can safely assume that I do in fact speak for the company on this (and was specifically authorised to do so). The quote that MOR made is correct.

OK, tongue-in-cheek insults aside, I am somewhat furious about this bond situation. I feel it is deeply unfair, and I will be doing everything I can to change it. My view is that the very least that should be done is the CRJ crews should be allowed to leave if they wish, and their bonds should be paid by the company. This a simple sign of good faith on the part of the company, and is the least that should be done. Similarly, any pilot required to train on a new type is being penalised enough, without the added potential burden of a new bond. The company should say, "OK, we screwed up. There will have to be some pain, but we will make it as easy for you as we can to continue with your own career paths, rather than attempt to trap you financially".

I fully understand the need to preserve training budjets and cut costs, but somebody needs to take account of the human cost of these "adjustments".

I'll probably regret saying that publically, but what the hell... :D :D :D

31st Jul 2001, 00:16
Well said RD!!! Tilii you are a TW*T!!

31st Jul 2001, 01:59
Oh dear RD, perhaps you had better take your own advice and get out the dictionary.

Having now referred to mine (I must admit you had me worried for a moment or two) I find the word means precisely what I intended in its use with respect to your posts:

obfuscate [ób fuss kayt] (3rd person present singular obfuscates, present participle obfuscating, past obfuscated, past participle obfuscated) verb:
1. intransitive and transitive verb make something obscure: to make something obscure or unclear, especially by making it unnecessarily complicated.

Quite apt, then, methinks. While you are looking up 'obfuscate' again, you might flip back to learn how to spell 'budjets', then forward again for the word 'publically'.

OK, finished with my response to your abuse (and nothing 'tongue-in-cheek' intended here).

Now to your paragraph about bonding. Could not agree more, though I wonder how you have come to arrive at this position after your earlier statements with regard to bonding. Never mind, though. Welcome aboard. Oh, sorry, forgot that you will have led the field in this matter. Who am I, then, to welcome you on board? I promise to sit back and be a good boy, stop using words you have difficulty comprehending, and keep my mouth shut on any issue you feel strongly about. OK? :D :eek: :D

roland rat
31st Jul 2001, 03:06
So a turbo prop is not a lesser type??Try saying that to easyJet when you apply for a direct entry command!Jet Hours are jet hours make no mistake.
RD should be quite worried as one or two FOs will be senior to himself and no doubt be bidding for command at EDI.
My position as a CPT in BHD is some what dubious and as I have roughly 4 years seniority to RD how is he going to feel flying a turbo prop from BHX when I and about three others take his job!

I would also like to know when my letter will arrive informing me of my options as the last post man was shoot by the UDA!
I believe from colleagues that we have until Aug 7th to place our bids.For you guys in Ext I have not yet recieved notification of the changes and until I recieve a letter sent by registered post you can get stuffed as I believe until formal notification that I have to bid for my cuurent position, I am still BHD based. :p

Raw Data
31st Jul 2001, 03:24
Oh no, tilii, speak forth! The entertainment value is enormous.

Obfuscate: 1 Obscure or confuse (a mind, topic, etc) 2 Stupefy, bewilder. (Concise Oxford)

Nope, didn't do any of those. What a relief. Of course, nothing I can do if some minds are unable to comprehend the simple facts I stated.

This is such a fun game, what other words would you like to argue over?

"budjets" was a deliberate piece if fun, pity you didn't pick it up. Comes from being so anal, I suppose. Whatever turns you on.

Regarding bonding, if you go back far enough in my various posts, you will find I have always been vehemently opposed to bonding. I just couldn't resist having a bit of fun with you last time, as you are so completely unable to detect when your chain is being pulled. Besides, it is good practice to take a contrary view from time to time, it sharpens the wit nicely.

roland rat: bad news old bean, certain positions are "protected". Hope your is one of them... read the letter when you get it (or read the copy I placed on the BE forum). I have nothing to worry about from BHD captains (or F/O's for that matter). I appreciate your concern though.

Besides, there are lots of other options... :cool:

roland rat
31st Jul 2001, 03:34
Rd what does protected mean? Mere mortals, LTCs TRIs,Base CPts or Tony Clarke. ;) It is not just BHD this effects but all crews in there supposed home base(BHX etc) :confused:

Raw Data
31st Jul 2001, 03:46
Roland, read the letter (it's on the private forum).

What is the definition of "protected"? I'm pretty sure I know, but ask MW for a precise meaning. Who is protected? "Key workers".

Anyway, I'm not moving. The bond is more or less finished now. It pays to have an insurance policy in your back pocket these days... I would have thought most of you BHD guys would have done that... ;)

[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: Raw Data ]

roland rat
31st Jul 2001, 03:47
not saying!! ;)

Raw Data
31st Jul 2001, 04:08
Thought so!!! :D :D ;)

31st Jul 2001, 12:05
Raw Data

You know, old chap, I really think you have gone way over the top in your post to me above. Clearly the moderators don't think so, which is perhaps to their discredit. Words like 'petty', 'arrogant', 'aggressive' and 'abusive', while not pleasant, are at least not in the same ballpark as 'anal'.

Frankly, I think you are an absolute p**ck of a person, an arrogant Kiwi ar*eh*le with your nose stuck so far up your management's collective behinds that you are in danger of having to pick the s*ite from between your toes.

I sincerely hope you get your just desserts at BE in due course.

Moderators, there is no need for you to ban me for the abusive content of this post. While the likes of Raw data and The Guvnor are permitted to constantly debase any reasoned discourse, I do not wish to participate on this site and will now remove it from my computer.

[ 31 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

Raw Data
31st Jul 2001, 13:03
Ho ho ho! Now that's what I call taking the bait!! :D ;)

Tell you what tilii, and I'm being serious now, shall we start again, this time promising not to lower ourselves to insulting each other, but stick to reasoned debate? We could even agree to disagree like adults. It's a brave new world!!!

As I obviously got to you, I apologise unreservedly for my terminology and inference. I'm sure you're a nice chap really. Buy you a beer sometime?

The Guvnor
31st Jul 2001, 13:11
Tilii is such an amusing character, don't you think? I just love the way he comes out with as many polysyllabic words as he can find ... yet seems to misunderstand their correct context; and then throws his toys out of the cot when he's shown to be wrong! You don't think he's really DASH/Natterjack in disguise, do you?

However, his tendency to resort to verbal abuse of individuals (and in particular the rather nasty post above) shows underlying psychotic personality issues he needs to address. Drop me an email, dear boy, and I'll refer you to one of my former colleagues for counselling.

Raw Data http://www.duhspot.com/users/smiley/s/contrib/geno/rofl.gif - I think you've hurt his feelings!

[ 31 July 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

31st Jul 2001, 15:28
Guys, try sticking to the issue and do not let this degenerate into playground name calling. Peoples lives are being turned upside down with this situation.
RD, am glad to see that you agree with most about current bonding practices in BE however am a little stunned by your arrogance toward RR, a fellow BE employee. I would be extremely careful about "protection" it isn't all done and dusted yet. From what i hear , the guys affected at BHD are also "protected " but there are too many for one base and some will have to move. That may well mean they are as "protected" as you but also senior.
Tilli, I agree with your bonding arguement, it is unfair for those guys at the end of a 3 year jet bond being forced to a D-8 re-bonded which may well happen.
Oh, lets be realistic here, a D-8 is a fine aircraft but not a jet(ok, 146) Nonetheless, it is not the same worth on you licence or in your logbook. Guys trying for heavier jets will not get them off the dash while 146 drivers have recently got direct commands on medium 737 like jets or co-pilots on heavies. It is an unfortunate term but the Dash 8 is a lesser type. FACT!

Have to wonder if the Ops Dctr is bringing bodyguards with him on his tour of bases. Funny that the new MD isn't going along and that the 146 fleet manager decided on a 2 week holiday at this crucialtime for his crews????? EXT???? nough said BB

[ 31 July 2001: Message edited by: BavarianBoy ]

The Guvnor
31st Jul 2001, 16:49
Bavarian Boy - I have to say that as an impartial bystander (and someone completly uninvolved with JY) that I don't think that there was anything wrong or arrogant about RD's response to Roland Rat. I can see both sides of the picture there (perhaps it's my Libran personality! :D :D and I can see on the one hand why RR isn't getting any mail at the moment (and I though Burundi was bad!) - but on the other hand, the full letter has been posted on the British European private forum and therefore he can't say that he's unaware of the provisions in it.

As for the issue of Q400s being lesser aircraft, looking through various ads in Flight etc I see that they are asking for x hours of turbine time. Given that the Q400 is an EFIS aircraft, I'm sure that helps as well.

We're not exactly talking about moving people from 747s to King Airs, are we! :D :D :D

Legally, I don't think JY would have a leg to stand on if someone on the RJ decided to leave instead of moving over to the Q400s. JY would have to take on the bonding inebtedness, as they are apparently doing for people moving over to the Q400.

31st Jul 2001, 18:16
Guvnor, point taken, however BE are trying to leave pilots with bond via a well known bank, even if on the RJ, they are telling them that they can go D-8 with new bond or leave and pay jet bond. That is a bit outrageous don't you think?

31st Jul 2001, 19:15
Tilli you are banned from this thread, we at BE are worried about how we will pay our mortgages and all you can do is fight with Raw Data. Stand in the corner until I decide you can come out!

The Guvnor
31st Jul 2001, 19:23
BavarianBoy - I agree with you and as I said in my last thread I believe that if JY try to enforce that, it will be seen to be illegal.

Furthermore, I would strongly suspect that any new bonding agreement could (and should) only last as long as the original bond - ie if the CRJ bond is due to expire in January 2002 then so should the new one.

It will be interesting to see how things resolve at JY - from what I hear, there's a good bunch of dedicated people working there and I hope that management doesn't alienate them with something as petty as this.

Best Western
31st Jul 2001, 21:00
Well we now have the big date...

As of 3rd Sept BHD-STN is no longer available for sale. Flights still showing, but with no availability...

BHX - TLS same story... but AF still have some capacity on sale. JY have 4 seats available some days it seems.... Do JY sell as JY on this route?

BHX - BHD still on sale.

BHX - SNN drops to a Dash-8 - they have two a/c currently on sale for the same flight.

31st Jul 2001, 23:27
Guvnor, that makes sense, as you say, i really hope the management do not alienate the crew as they may have done with the weekends letter. Funny thing is, having talked to quite a few crew at BE they know the airline has to make changes it is the way they are treating people in the process. On the management side, I believe the OPS Director knew nothing about these cuts till late last week and has been forced to try and deal with the consequences. However, that is his job.
Lets hope BE goes on to prosper but i fear that they have damaged the present crew so much that most will leave to further careers and for peace of mind. A sad outcome, a senior Captain told me yesterday that if they are not careful the company will find itself very short as huge numbers try and move on, especially at the bases severley affected.
As a person proud to have flown with a lot of those crews I wish them the best, unfortunately the management did not see the writing on the wall that the crew were yelling was there for years.

Rgds BB

[ 31 July 2001: Message edited by: BavarianBoy ]

Raw Data
1st Aug 2001, 01:11
BavarianBoy: You know, if I was the sensitive type, I could have taken roland rats post to be quite vicious and nasty- he was clearly delighted at the thought of my suffering during the current troubles. However, I take very little on PPRuNe seriously, and my response to him was pretty tame, really... as you can see, we concluded with no ruffled feathers (at least I think we did... rr?)

By the way, the "protected" positions are training and management positions. At least, they are today! ;)

Now, on to the important stuff... don't have the details yet as I have been flying all day, but I understand that there has been significant movement on bonds today. I also understand that todays' meeting with BALPA was productive and cordial. Let's see what the company can come up with...

1st Aug 2001, 17:17
BHD-STN now confirmed by call centre as being discontinued.

Can BRS-BHD be far behind? :confused:

Raw Data
1st Aug 2001, 18:38
The only route to be dropped from the current re-organisation is BHD-STN. In fact, it had always been planned to drop this route once the BHD-LCY route was established; if you think about it for a minute, having them both is completely pointless.

BHD-BRS will be harder competition-wise, but no plans to drop it.

1st Aug 2001, 22:56
See the tread on BMI and BHD.... will that do the BE LGW and LCY harm. I believe they are the only jet routes left at BHD with BE after shake up??
Also, BMI regional LBA to BHD??
Hope BE maintain a good presence at BHD for sake of crews left there. Think all their other bases BHX etc are pretty safe though.

Think we will just have to wait and see how this shake up at BE falls and hope that they can come to amicable arrangements for their crews whose favours they have survived on for so long.

Finally again, good luck at BE!!

Raw Data
2nd Aug 2001, 02:15
News just in- BE have made some major changes to the way they will enforce bonds. The concessions, which are worth a hefty six-figure sum, will go a long way to satisfying the majority of pilots (well, hopefully, anyway!!)

A letter will be sent to all pilots in the next day or so, it is currently with the lawyers to ensure it is legal. Obviously, I can't tell you what it says, but I will as soon as I see a copy (probably tomorrow evening).

This is a bit of a landmark for BE, there is NO WAY this would have been allowed under the previous administration...

2nd Aug 2001, 03:03
Good to see BE management seemed to have listened to their crews. hope all the details are to your guys and gals satisfaction. Mind you, enforcing bonds which may well turn out to be illegal may be hard..... according to BALPA!!

2nd Aug 2001, 16:50
The only route to be dropped from the current re-organisation is BHD-STN.

BHX TLS is also dropped... But of course that was not flown in JY colors... So RD is correct... but incorrect as well.

2nd Aug 2001, 18:53
not totally correct copenhagen...firstly the bhx-tls is a british european flight....with an AF code share..however it will continue to operate during the winter on a greatly reduced programme...as it did last winter as the demand drops. Currently it is planned to return in full next summer, but who knows!

3rd Aug 2001, 13:32
Maybe things are beginning to settle down after a turbulent week!

Gentlemen less haste more speed!

Q Feel
3rd Aug 2001, 18:13
Heavy Landing, Could you drop me a mail at [email protected] please?

Apologies to everybody else for going off-topic!