PDA

View Full Version : FlyBe - Shaft the CRJ fleet pilots again!


ALTSEL
26th Apr 2003, 15:12
Finally after over 2 years of constant uncertainty the 4 CRJ200 aircraft purchased in 1999 in the strange deal with Bombardier will leave the FlyBe fleet for good.

The small team of dedicated pilots,trainers and technicians who put this aeroplane into service, achieved the first UK CAT111 HUD operations and maintained a first class safety record will be rewarded in the way only Exeter know how.

Those who have not allready fled to other opertors and do not hold a type rating for either Dash8 or Bae146 are to be re- trained, however they will be FORCED to sign yet another bonding arrangement and take out a huge personall loan with Barclays Bank simply to stay in employment.

Not for the first time BALPA seem unwilling or unable to help when some good legal advice for these guys is needed.
Question - is it right, is it legal that pilots should be re-bonded when foceably moved to another type/Fleet? Some sensible answers from UK proffessionals would be appreciated.

it's not as if FlyBe pay the going rate - they don't, 46k for new Capt and around 29 for the FO is rock bottom and Uncle Jim should start looking closer at what is going on in the Scotsmans office or the new competitive FlyBe will founder on the Jersey rocks!

springbok449
26th Apr 2003, 16:23
I don't think that FlyBe can just re-bond you in order to accomadate their chop and changes within their fleet, I would definately seek some legal advise if I was you.
Good luck.

Airbrake
26th Apr 2003, 16:36
Rebonding after a forced type change within a company is a thorny issue BALPA will have to grasp firmly in the coming months. There is already a lot of chat amongst the pilots at Easyjet on the same topic. MYT is hanging on and as a result Easyjets pool of type rated Bus drivers is very small.

carlos vandango
26th Apr 2003, 19:50
is this true for all of them? I heard of a few covert deals being struck with a 'chosen few' regards 146 ratings.
Airbrake, I really hope EZY aren't daft enough to be relying on the demise of MYT to crew their A319's.

snooze_ya_lose
26th Apr 2003, 21:11
Nobody in their right minds would want to go from a CRJ to either a 146 or a Q400- the type ratings are virtually worthless in the UK in any case. The thought of having to pay for the privilege is horrifying.

The company needs to realise that it is their indecision, and their appalling planning in the first place, that led to this situation. If they want to retrain pilots, they should do so without bonds.

The only good (?!) part in this is, that should a pilot leave, the company they went to would almost certainly pay considerably more than flybe, making the bond easier to pay... small consolation I guess.

I agree with others, it is about time BALPA justified the large amounts of money we pay them, got of their chuffs and sorted this out!

RAFAT
27th Apr 2003, 11:43
Is it not the case that the only pilots who will be re-bonded are those that still have an outstanding bond from the CRJ, which will simply be transferred across?

Aerial Anarchist
27th Apr 2003, 14:47
RAFAT - No this not the case, if it were that would maybe be OK.
A good example is a CRJ Captain of nearly 6 years service at JY,who incidently was not bonded on the CRJ originally, has been given but days to decide if he wants to stay with the airline.

By being committed to this evil bond he condems himself to another 3 years with this airline when he and many in a similar situation would be looking to move on to better things
Another strange fact is that French nationals working for FlyBe based in France are not bonded because French law forbids bonding.

It is high time BALPA did something for non BA pilots for a change and challanged this unscrupulous band of crooks in Exeter.

Hap Hazard
27th Apr 2003, 16:34
AA I agree, but unfotunately flybe are not the only company who slump to these tactics.
Relatively poor industry standard wages and conditions not only means that these type of employers have some sort of mechanism in place to recoup even a few pounds and is one of the few ways they can hold onto staff for more than a year.
Its not legal(?) and its not right when you are being forced onto a new type and effectively do not have a choice, other than loose your job.
Unfortunately we pilots are our own worst enemies, as its all about supply and demand and what those morlalistic employers can get away with.
A company I worked for insisited we pay a new 3 year bond when the phased out their old fleet, regardless of time with company, as a result I had a continuos 51/2 yrs bond period from joining them.
In the end I simply got fed up with their disregard for their employees and the constant moving around the country at MY expense, paid up my remaining bond after 3 1/2 yrs service and 4 moves, got out and havent looked back.
Treat them like they treat you, and yes BALPA, or someone needs to address these situations as under European law they appear to be making you sign an illegal document.
This whole industry is a law unto itself and works on trust from its employees, why then cant the employers show the same levels of trust?
Rant over......... :sad:

RAFAT
27th Apr 2003, 22:49
AA - Thanks for detailing the situation, which is surprising. When the Company phased out the F27 and moved everyone across to the DHC8, there was no re-bonding.

When the CRJ was introduced, I myself was twice offered the opportunity to move onto it, but various factors, mainly the fact that I suspected it would not last very long in the fleet, led me to turn it down. I was concerned that it was too risky a move to make, and although I've sacrificed a couple of years jet salary, I'm happy that I did not take that risk. It would appear that the guys & gals that did are obviously paying for it now.

Atropos
28th Apr 2003, 00:49
Guys and Gals,
I sympathise. I was at JEA when they introduced the Escrow bond, first on the shed and then on the 146. I think that you could challenge this decision but who is going to court with all the necessary expenditure to fight it? The CRJ bonds will be cleared and a bright new shiny bond will be introduced in its place. You mention that when the F'r went the crews transferred to the D8 with no bond. Well to my mind that creates a precedent that it would be worth going to BALPA over.

I don't know what the current job situation is, if the option is there can you get out or is that what Uncle Jim is after you doing?

Robert Vesco
28th Apr 2003, 01:15
Sorry to butt in, but I find this thread is totally amazing !

If an airline decides to alter the composition of its fleet then its their bl**dy problem ! :mad: This continuous bonding is like a loan shark Mob tactic of keeping everybody indebted knee deep, so that nobody breaks ranks. Truely amazing that BALPA does not step in.

BTW, another thing that amazes me is that this thread has not yet been moved to Terms and Endearment or Airlines, Airports & Routes.
Ah, of course, were talking about a UK airline here ! That explains a lot... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

alterego
28th Apr 2003, 01:35
Have any of you CRJ guys thought of Maersk?

They seem to be getting over their problems but have lost or are about to lose a number of guys.

Thay are a good company and have better terms than Flybe.

MaxProp
28th Apr 2003, 01:44
Everyone agrees that the whole subject of bound is a vexed issue. However, Is the company concerned really supposed to fork out 10000+ and valuable (irreplaceable) simulator/TRI time to keep ex-CRJ pilots gently employed whilst they look for another job at their leisure ?

Robert Vesco
28th Apr 2003, 02:40
However, Is the company concerned really supposed to fork out 10000+ and valuable (irreplaceable) simulator/TRI time to keep ex-CRJ pilots gently employed whilst they look for another job at their leisure ?

Of course !! If they can fork out $ 700 million (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=87622) for brand new Dash 8-400s then they should also be able to pay 10K for the training for their employees ! Duh ! :rolleyes:

Aviation must be the only industry where the employee is held liable for the required on the job training !

Atropos
28th Apr 2003, 02:54
When I left JEA in 1997 I resigned but needed more than the three months as my job offers improved as I neared my leaving date. From being in a situation in 1994 where I was gagging for a job and took the first thing on offer, SD360 at Blackpool, I ended up being in a situation where they offered me a rolling monthly contract as they couldn't get pilots on line to replace us as we were leaving too fast! My bond ended the month before I left as well, but I was just lucky!

Good luck to all concerned and may the boot soon be on the other foot!;)

Aerial Anarchist
28th Apr 2003, 03:32
Atention Jim French

WHY DO PEOPLE LEAVE YOUR AIRLINE???

Because to quote the operations director a few years ago to me-

" we would rather people leave after the bonding period than pay yearly increments and pension contributions"

what a great safety policy!

best wishes

ALTSEL
28th Apr 2003, 05:17
And another thing!

Think on all you cosy 146 drivers, maybe soon Uncle Jim may buy some 737's or even EMB170's and the Scotsman will be handing you lot the pen to sign on the dotted line!

Support your local CRJ fraternity or suffer later!!!!

RAFAT
28th Apr 2003, 09:22
ALTSEL - You're right of course, plus I missed out on the salary increase that would have accompanied such a move, I just considered it a risk not worth taking. However, despite my decision to stick with the DHC8 fleet, apparently I too will suffer from the demise of the CRJ. This is because there are CRJ pilots far far far less senior to me who are about to move into positions that I've bid 1 & 2 for on the last 2 submissions, at a base where there has been no CRJ for almost 12 months now.

737 - :(

EMB 170/190 - :ok:

snooze_ya_lose
28th Apr 2003, 09:25
maxprop

If a company decides to replace a fleet, it is their problem- the cost of retraining the crews is simply part of the considerable financial outlay involved in that decision. It is, in fact, the cost of doing business and should never be passed on to crews. Even worse is the fact that when the a company acquires new aircraft, it invariably receives free conversions for the first set of crews- and yet the crews still get bonded for training that was essentially free to the company. I would be extremely surprised if the Q400 deal did not include training in this manner, as I am sure it did for the CRJ. And yet you want to re-bond the crews. Talk about morally bankrupt.

Most of the crews who will transfer to other types, and require retraining, do not want to do so. In most cases they have no choice, as the alternative is to leave and that is clearly not an option for all but the independently wealthy. So, naturally they will look around for something else- after all, you are handing them something they didn't sign up for. Your response is to chain them to the company with a bond.

This whole practice is despicable, and it is about time BALPA got into it.

It is also unsafe, as it causes enormous amounts of stress to the pilots who are affected by it.

For everbody else, the reason companies like flybe do this sort of thing, is because they can. Nobody challenges it, and the union is too weak-kneed to take a stand. Legal or not under Euro law, it will continue until action is taken.

BTW ALTSEL, exactly how can the 146 drivers support you? Plenty of us have been shafted by the company in a similar way to what is happening to you....

keepitlit
28th Apr 2003, 16:10
The best thing to do is talk using your feet.
Every pilot that leaves has an opportunity to give views or reasons on why they are leaving during the exit day in Exeter.
Consider this, They expect to loose about 10% of flight deck every year,so at present thats in around 30.
In December02/January03 this figure was greater,therefore thats plenty of information on what the crews think.
So what do they do! **** all and still they leave.
Then a poor offer of a low% payrise(The first in at least 4 years).

Well I think you can decide how this token was accepted.:yuk:

Lets see you carve your way out of this Woody Wood Pecker!

rdgs K.I.L.
:ok:

puddle-jumper2
28th Apr 2003, 17:51
Altsel,

You are of course right concerning the 146 replacement / future bonds etc.

Lets face it, those high seniority 146 pilots (mainly Capt.s) are not so much 'cosy' but stuck on a redundant type where they know the only way out is to leave and take a drop in salary whilst sitting in the right hand seat. Not a problem for some but for those that can't/won't, what do you think they will do once they have some 737 or similar type experience under there belt ??? They have been with this company long enough to know that they will never get a fair wage or be treated fairly. :mad:

Bond or no bond, there will be a mass exodus of experienced people.

It's probably one of the reasons why they are looking at the EMB 190, - not many company's operating them YET ! ;)

Anthony Carn
28th Apr 2003, 18:45
Bonding makes me ANGRY !

Some suggestions here - you'll need to check their viability.

Refuse to sign the bond. Presumably all they can do is sack you. Then you can claim for unfair dismissal/constructive dismissal ?

All depends upon whether this is valid, and whether you're willing to stick together. Sticking together is supposed to be what BAAAALPA is all about, is'nt it, or am I wrong there too ? I think BALPA work on the principle that a member has to formally raise a claim/complaint, or something.

The potential of an Industrial Tribunal awarding multiple compensation for unfair/constructive dismissal for all of you should make an employer think again.

Sounds like they, arguably, are'nt worth working for anyway, but I realise that there are bills to pay (1% to BALPA for a start !).

I'll re-emphasise that these are just suggestions which you need to check - I'm no expert.

Hope it all goes well.

newswatcher
28th Apr 2003, 19:21
Forgive my limited knowledge, but isn't this the means by which a company seek to "protect" their investment in a pilot's training? Without a bond, what mechanism is in place to prevent a newly qualified pilot leaving and taking his "new" skills to another company? If I am missing the point, could someone kindly summarise this "bond" for me?:confused:

snooze_ya_lose
28th Apr 2003, 19:46
Newswatcher

Yes it is, and for the reasons you have correctly surmised.

The point here is that OK, when you first join an airline, you could reasonably expect to be bonded to protect the investment made in you. A pilot knows this when he or she joins, and, if you don't like it, look elsewhere.

However, in this case a change of type is being forced on existing crews (some with substantial sevice, a.k.a. "loyalty"), and they generally don't wish to change. Most would probably prefer to leave (particularly if a change of base is involved), but as most were initially given only 48 hours to decide (a clear strategy to remove their options and retain them), that is problematical to say the least. Anyone who could not find alternative employment in that short time has little choice but to sign a bond.

This means you end up with very unhappy pilots who want to be elsewhere but can't be, as they are financially chained to the company. Ask yourself if this is a good idea.

Interesting to note here that BA don't bond their pilots. I once asked a BA HR person why this was, she simply said that "We give them a job and a company that they will never want to leave". Flybe (and others) know only too well that they don't offer that, instead they offer what is amongst lowest pay in the industry, little in the way of a career path, and, once the initial warm glow has passed, a desire to move on.

It could be very different, but not while the company takes its present approach to interacting with its staff.

BTW what really needs looking at, as I mentioned above, is the practice of bonding pilots for training received gratis...

cargo boy
28th Apr 2003, 19:52
Are those of you calling for BALPA to get involved actually in BALPA? It certainly doesn't sound like it. Usual pathetic response from individuals who love to whinge about BALPA but don't have the balls to actually join the union.

There is a page on PPrune that has a working paper on bonding produced by BALPAs lawyers a few years ago. It is at http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=/pub/gen/Bonding_Important_Info.html

I wonder how many of the shock horror merchants posting here have actually done anything apart from post here. Do you even have any representation in FlyBe? If you haven't organised yourselves yet then you only have yourselves to blame. :hmm:

carlos vandango
28th Apr 2003, 20:01
I'm sure it's not exactly a barrel of laughs either for the guys in the 146 RHS having to watch junior CRJ crew taking what little commands are available.:rolleyes:

newswatcher
28th Apr 2003, 20:08
Thanks for that snooze.

I think I understand a little more now!

bluff
28th Apr 2003, 21:21
If you want the actual figures the normal jet bond is 18000 over three years. The companies intention is to re-bond all pilots going onto the 146 for 18000 over two years regardless of any current bond.

BALPA are aware of this, and I hope they are trying to reach a compromise. Some of the CRJ guys think that 9000 over 18 months might be fairer, others are a little more militant!

The company contract by the way only mentions three year bonds for turboprops or jets, so where does this two year bond come from?

Fullback
29th Apr 2003, 00:07
Carlos.... believe me, we're gonna make sure that doesn't happen!

Watching that one very closely....

:eek: :yuk: :eek:

TDK mk2
29th Apr 2003, 01:05
Fullback, why shouldn't a CRJ Captain go into the left seat of a 146 ahead of an F.O. on that fleet regardless of seniority? Could understand if it was a turboprop Captain going into the left seat but surely someone who has already captained a jet couldn't fairly be expected to go back to the right hand seat. It almost sounds like you seek to punish your colleagues for having the misfortune of being the last to come off an orphan fleet or have I misunderstood?

bigbird
29th Apr 2003, 04:15
My sympathy goes out to all you guys. The management are out of order. I worked for JEA before the bonding was introduced. Nothing has changed at all. I see them as a company to get some experiance with then get the hell out of there as soon as you can.
If you think BALPA will fight your case dream on, they are just not interested. They take your subs and listen to your gripes but will not help.
Come on BALPA there's a chalange for you,

prove me wrong !

crowndove
29th Apr 2003, 04:20
A dark rainy monday morning in Exeter:

Today the problem is solved halfway as the company recieved 8 resignations of crj pilots. Only a handfull more to go.

A shame to see those pilots leaving because almost every one of them was experienced enaugh for a Dash or even Jet captainy.
Complicated Q400, low hours and experience, London city here we come.

Good luck

faq
29th Apr 2003, 11:53
Don't rely on BALPA.

I am a training captain with BA Citiexpress. Now my aircraft type has been sold I am to be:

1) Removed to another base and bonded for the removal expenses.

2) Demoted to FO, trained on new jet type and bonded for the type rating.

3) Have a 10k pa pay cut in the first year and at the company's discretion a further 6k pa pay cut after that.

I am a member of BALPA, we have full industrial recognition at BACX and all this is done with the approval of BALPA, with exeption of the pay cut.

Unless you are mainline BA save your money and spend your 1% on loss of licence insurance or legal protection insurance etc.

alterego
29th Apr 2003, 22:18
I don't think you guys should even think of relying on help from BALPA. They did nothing to help the demise of the 146 at BMI Regional, except to tell us that they would only deal with individual cases not as a group. This was because they also represented other groups ( ie Embraer Guys).

You'll probably get the same response.

The Job market isn't great but experience does count and I know other airlines like guys who have flown CRJs. It worked for me!

Anthony Carn
30th Apr 2003, 00:55
Yep ! I'm in BALPA, despite what cargo boy thinks.

But he'll be correct very shortly - I'm resigning. Waste of money. :mad:

My sympathy to those who felt compelled to resign from FlyBe. Hoping better jobs are found quickly.

Very sad. :(

slik willy
30th Apr 2003, 01:12
Sorry to hear this practice is going on in Europe. It all sounds like Bonded slavery to me. We want a commitment from you but we guarantee you nothing in return. After you sign a committment is there any guarantee of you working conditions, salary, benefits? ETC.

skidcanuck
30th Apr 2003, 05:47
Doesn't the purchase of these aircraft include training for a half-dozen or so pilots per aircraft?

Gary_Haliday
3rd May 2003, 18:33
Time will tell whether the FlyBe $800 m order is brave or foolhardy.
Yes, the D8-400 can to some extent offer jet type performance at turboprop costs. Perhaps, as FlyBe claim, it does have a lower seat cost/mile than a 737-700.
But at the end of the day, it is still a propellor driven aircraft and I doubt whether the public is now so blinkered by price that they care not what engines are on their aircraft.
I hear rumours that they are going to operate the 400 into regional airports where few jets can go. As an ex JEA employee I have a bit of a soft-spot for FlyBe and I hope for the sake of my old mates still working there that the Exeter crowd get it right !

excrab
4th May 2003, 04:02
TDK Mk2

The reason that a CRJ captain shouldn't get a 146 command ahead of a 146 F/O (or a Dash8 Capt or F/O for that matter) who is senior is exactly that - the seniority system. If you join an airline which operates a seniority list, and which recognises BALPA, you should expect to be bound by it, not take advantage of it when it suits you and complain when it doesn't.

Interestingly, in the last four months both the flight ops director and the jet fleet manager promised that when the CRJs finally went (and remember it has been an ongoing situation for at least 18 months) places on other fleets would be offered purely on a seniority basis and would not disadvantage turbo-prop captains or jet F/Os who had bid for commands on the 146 and were senior to CRJ pilots.

Despite this, rumour has it that one CRJ captain who demonstrated his loyalty to Flybe by leaving to work for a 727 operator and then returned less than 15 months ago has been promised a 146 command ahead of several Dash 8 pilots who had bid for that a/c and base and are considerably senior to him.

Regarding Captains flying RHS it would not be the first time it has happened, or the first company it has happened in. it also happens every day on the Flybe Q400 fleet where line trainers, TRIs and TREs spend their lives filling seats left vacant by the compay's total inability to employ enough F/Os - but that is a bit of the topic.

Smokie
5th May 2003, 00:19
The initial bond on type is legal, all subsequent bonds are not.
This is because essentially it becomes descrimination against promotion when moving; normally on to a larger/jet aircraft type.

The same applies to being re-bonded when you get either, a command on the same aircraft or a different type.

That descrimination is ILLEGAL.

As for industrial tribunals, if you are a member of BALPA they pay the (what little ) cost there is.

If you go to the High Court, then that is a different story.
Hopefully BALPA would have done there job well at the IT stage and the High Court won't be necessary.

It would certainly rattle the employers cage though, multiple IT's.

mvand003
5th May 2003, 01:21
to all the fine people the CRJ fleet, don't get shafted! stay on a fair deal or leave while you can!
good luck to all the effo's who left for Maersk, well done mate's!
really sad to see the fine hard working flight and cabin crews shafted by EXT....:yuk: :D

Ghurka
5th May 2003, 02:21
Question for the guys jumping ship to duo (maersk), are you all effo's or are there any craptains with you?

snodgrass
5th May 2003, 06:22
All effo's I think.
BTW, just heard that 8 Easy guys have applied to rejoin the Company !!

Horsepowerrr
5th May 2003, 18:44
NO GUTS NO GLORY!!

And for the Flybe 146 boys and girls, I would say you better support the CRJ people, cause it seems that in short or long term your fleet is next. (as it seems from FI; more Q400 and possible E170/190, or 73's)

CRJ folks, fight and decline the bond and stick together!! This will give you a lot more power. DON'T GIVE IN!!

Good luck!!

cwatters
5th May 2003, 19:12
> A good example is a CRJ Captain of nearly 6 years service at
> JY,who incidently was not bonded on the CRJ originally, has
> been given but days to decide if he wants to stay with the
> airline.

I read somewhere that in the UK....

If an employer offers you a new position as an alternative to redundancy then you are entitled to accept the position AND then have 4 weeks in the new position to make up your mind. If you don't like the new position you can then opt to accept the original redundancy package.

Check I'm right with a CAB office before relying on this.

Push to talk
5th May 2003, 19:24
Yes, can be cwatters, but as a former JEA pilot, I know that when the SD360 and F27 were disposed off, the pilots went totally bond free on the Dash 8. So why would it be different for the CRJ pilots now?? End of SD360 is only about 1,5 year ago. It seems quite obvious that, after 2 years of uncertainties, the CRJ boys and girls get shafted indeed.

Good luck to all.

Ptt

snooze_ya_lose
5th May 2003, 19:47
The only reason all this is happening is because the flybe Ops Director is trying to protect his budget. It has nothing to do with "policy" or anything like that. It is simply the boss being petrified that he might end up splashing out hundreds of thousands of pounds, and then having the trainees leaving whilst on the course or shortly thereafter (as has happened in the past). When a company like flybe is coming back from the brink, there simply isn't the spare money to waste.

Much as I hate and oppose bonds, I have to point out that the reason we have this problem now is that so many pilots (particularly on the turboprop) have reneged on what were basically "gentlemens agreements", and left the company at the first sniff of a jet job elsewhere.

I would be the last to hinder anyones career progression, but if you agree to do a thing, you should stick to your word. What we see now is the result of the behaviour of a small number of dishonourable people.

Still opposed to bonds in all their forms, though. Airlines should either make their employment attractive enough that people don't want to leave, or accept that people moving on is the cost of doing business (as occurs in many other industries.)

Push to talk
5th May 2003, 20:03
s_y_l, JEA, or Flybe has never been (and probably never will be) a company with spare money since all the real money goes to Walker Aviation (via the tax-free islands). With financial constructions like this it appears that a company is not making much money or even a loss, which is very favourable regarding taxes and towards employees (no pay rise, etc.).
It is clever 'tax-free Channel Islands' thinking.;)

Ptt

excrab
6th May 2003, 01:57
SYL

I think that your post regarding turbo prop pilots is a little biased. They may well have left at the first sniff of a jet job, but that would hardly be neccessary if there was not such an enormous and unwarranted gulf between the pay of a jet pilot and a turboprop pilot at JEA/BE/Flybe.com.

Everyone on this thread has conveniently omitted to mention that whilst Flybe are trying to bond CRJ pilots on the dash, they have agreed to continue to pay the jet salary. Therefore the only reason for objecting to the bond would be if you have in mind to let Flybe train you and then jump ship - as you put it - at the first sniff of a jet job elsewhere. Otherwise there is no financial penalty involved , just no more jet hours in the log book.

As a final note - And this is quite separate to any moral arguments about bonding (for the record I, like most pilots am totally against them) - I joined the company 4 1/2 years ago and, like others, signed a contract which quite clearly states, and I quote :

"9.3 If the pilot is required by the company to undertake any training, the pilot must at the request of the company execute a training bond agreement ("a training agreement") with the company, a specimen copy of which is attached in appendix (K) to this agreement"

Possibly those who joined before I did don't have that in their agreement, but if they do I really don't see that there is any legal case for BALPA to fight against a company which is merely enforcing a clause in a contract which someone freely signed on commencing employment.

Smokie
6th May 2003, 02:08
CRJ Boys & Girls, check your contracts, mine says, bonded for intial type rating only and that if you are re-type rated at the companys behest, then there will be no further bond.

But then there are so many different contracts flying around nowdays, its a miracle that the "damagement" know who has what contracts at all.

With the "Weazel" still sticking his slimey oar in down at EXT, you can be certain that fairness/seniority lists will not play a part in any of his shenanigans; whilst he secures
plum jobs/postions/and basings for himself and the rest of his cronies. :yuk:

Fullback
6th May 2003, 04:57
TDK...
Sorry, didn't notice your post at the bottom of the page.

Excrab has dealt with it already but just to re-iterate...
This whole business is unique in that Seniority is everything. Your position on the list entitles you to fleet changes, seat changes,preferance on requested days off/leave and even the last few seats on the aircraft with your standby ticket to go on holiday!!!

Why should my command, which I've all the necessary experience and successful command assessments for be put back by the accomodation of people that have been with the company only a year or two?

Another argument is that I'm more suitable for command because I have the experience on type....

If we bend over backwards to accomodate them all, which I assume will not happen (Balpa would have a field day), we will have the breakdown of the very system that has been in place since year dot. And people being punished for showing loyalty to the company in the first place.

snooze_ya_lose
6th May 2003, 08:56
excrab

It isn't so much a question of money, as of the fact- as others have stated- that many will quite ruthlessly use companies like flybe as stepping stone to other things. Very few people who join flybe have any intention of spenidng their careers there- although many end up staying longer than they had maybe anticipated.

Also, people in this current situation do not "have in mind to let Flybe train you and then jump ship", they probably would prefer to leave but very few can find an alternative job in the 48 hours they were given to find alternative employment. Most have no choice but to sign the bond- unless they can afford to choose unemployment.

Push to talk

The stories about financial chicanery involving Walker Aviation and the Channel Islands are legion. However, I don't really agree with them as (a) nobody has ever produced any evidence to back up the allegations and (b) it makes no logical sense to starve a company of money- unless of course your only purpose is to kill it stone dead. It was only recently that the company intended to float, the money raised would have financed considerable fleet and route expansion that could conceivably have generated a large income for all concerned. I think the intent is there, both from the Walker board and company management, to become profitable and expand- even if only to allow the sale of the company (as a going concern).

Of course, if you can explain why it would be beneficial to present a financial profile as you describe, I'd be really interested to hear it!

Aerial Anarchist
9th May 2003, 12:39
Well the day's go by since this bonding scandal came to light and can anybody tell me if the BALPA chaps have done anything for the CRJ pilots yet?

Despite many CRJ First Officers jumping ship to Easy and a large group to Mearsk last week my spies tell me the Devon avis of evil has sent some poor souls to the Woodford centre of correction,
-Where indoctrination in things 146 will occur!

This weekend see's an illigal assembly of disgruntled & ex CRJ pilots at a secret location in darkest N.W.leicestershire where effigy's of BE managment will feature on the BBQ and a good time will be had by all.

Salut!

Push to talk
10th May 2003, 07:10
S_y_l,

If flybe would pay their flight crew more and give them a life the turnover of staff would probably be a lot less and people would not use it as a stepping stone.

At the end; Loyalty has to come from BOTH sides.

Unfortunately for the employees it seems a bit like; what will the management come up with next. So you can not really blame the pilots for the whole thing.


About the finances; possibly. But it is a discussion I'd rather not like to start, since it most likely will only end in 'Is! Is not!'.

Give respect and earn respect!

Cheers,;)

Ptt

snooze_ya_lose
10th May 2003, 21:11
I agree it is not the pilots fault per se , but it is also true that most pilots (particularly on the turboprop) wouldn't stay for more money, as a) the 146 isn't much of a step up, and b) anyone with any sense will be looking to put a 737 (or larger) on their licence as quickly as they can.

I also agree that loyalty is a two-way street, and we are currently being shown precious little of it by management.

Having a life- yes, the current philosophy seems to be that we are paid to be b*ggered from pillar to post, whether it be re-location, type changes or just excessive night-stopping. I disagree; we are paid our (low) salaries to safely get our pax from A to B. Any of us screw up badly, goodbye company. That level of responsibility is why pilots get paid more than baggage handlers.

Regarding the finance thing, I'd be more than happy to believe this stuff if there was any evidence of it- until then I have an open mind (either way).

And yes- respect is vital, both ways.