Airbus (the company) Pilots
I don't *know*, just that when I've chatted to Airbus Test Pilots at conferences over the years, nobody has ever mentioned a union.
Not a union, but they are virtually to a man and woman members of SETP, which does a lot of the wholesome work of safety promotion and best practice representation that, say, IALPA does for airline pilots.
G
Not a union, but they are virtually to a man and woman members of SETP, which does a lot of the wholesome work of safety promotion and best practice representation that, say, IALPA does for airline pilots.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason I ask is, an A350 was delivered from TLS on the 29th Nov utilizing pilots NOT on the airline's seniority list. This has caused an uproar, and if the delivery pilots are unionized, then maybe this can be prevented in the future.
Oh good god. Tell your union to get over themselves - if the pilots were qualified and appointed by the company, they were good enough. If they were company test pilots, they were probably better qualified than the unions own members as well.
G
G
How else ? John Cunningham, longstanding Chief Test Pilot at De Havilland/Hawker Siddeley/BAe, wrote in his book that he personally delivered most of the HS Tridents to China, about one a month for many years.
In the US, union scope clauses firmly dictate that pilots operating company aircraft, regardless of purpose, be on the seniority list. There is, in their opinion, a violation of the working agreement in this delivery. Going full chat in Atlanta.
https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/d...-delivery.html
GF
https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/d...-delivery.html
GF
Talk about distorted writing (link above)
"This morning, Delta flight 9935 departed Toulouse, France bound for Minneapolis—without Delta pilots at the controls."
This makes it sound like a straightforward flight. No mention at all that it was a delivery of a new aircraft type from the factory to the airline.
"This morning, Delta flight 9935 departed Toulouse, France bound for Minneapolis—without Delta pilots at the controls."
This makes it sound like a straightforward flight. No mention at all that it was a delivery of a new aircraft type from the factory to the airline.
WHBM,
What you are NOT getting is the deliveries, under the contract, have to be operated by seniority list pilots. Last I knew AI pilots aren’t on the DL list. I’m not defending or promoting the grievance; just helping understand the situation.
Here’s how the DL MEC chairman put it,
What I find funny is EU/UK pilots are so willing to accept contract pilots, alter ego lines (Joon, Level) without pressing for scope
GF
What you are NOT getting is the deliveries, under the contract, have to be operated by seniority list pilots. Last I knew AI pilots aren’t on the DL list. I’m not defending or promoting the grievance; just helping understand the situation.
Here’s how the DL MEC chairman put it,
This morning, Delta flight 9935 departed Toulouse, France bound for Minneapolis—without Delta pilots at the controls. Earlier this week, senior Flight Operations management notified the Association of its plans to violate the Pilot Working Agreement (PWA) Section 1 C. (SCOPE) by utilizing non-seniority list pilots (Airbus company) to operate new Delta A350 aircraft on the next three delivery flights from Airbus beginning today. Management's willful disregard of our PWA constitutes an unacceptable threat to the foundation of our PWA—and ultimately our jobs. This is not some minor issue that only impacts a handful of our fellow A350 pilots. Work rules and benefits mean little without SCOPE. Violations of our SCOPE language cannot be remedied solely through the Company's willingness to "pay" for it (like some IROP-instigated scheduling violations). This deliberate violation is another example of management's continuing hyper-focus on metrics and financials, pressing the operation towards the "red-line" at the expense of the front-line employees.
GF
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 13th Dec 2017 at 00:58.
Does anybody know when the aircraft actually became Delta property?
Plenty of Boeing aircraft, on delivery, changed ownership mid-flight. The crew included those responsible for signing appropriate documents at a specific geographical position.
Hopefully, a convenient rain shower would strip off the medium with the "N" rego and expose the shiny new rego.
All probably for tax reasons.
No idea if AI does the same.
Plenty of Boeing aircraft, on delivery, changed ownership mid-flight. The crew included those responsible for signing appropriate documents at a specific geographical position.
Hopefully, a convenient rain shower would strip off the medium with the "N" rego and expose the shiny new rego.
All probably for tax reasons.
No idea if AI does the same.
zz, ‘change of property’
This is normally associated with money and lawyers.
A Euro built (not Airbus) aircraft, US owned, could be delivered with a mixed crew - operators and manufacturer under part 91. A particularly useful option with a multiple stop delivery route so to keep the aircraft moving.
Alternatively a Euro built, owned, and crewed aircraft could be delivered to a suitable location for import but not necessarily change of ownership. For GA aircraft this often involved obscure airports / states to gain the relevant tax advantage - 100lbs of fuel please to prove that we were here. After ‘import’ the same crew delivered the aircraft to destination / completion centre.
AFAIK change of ownership mid air would be illegal because all aircraft carry a unique fireproof plate indicating a specific ownership (accident scenario).
For an en route change of ownership, once the money is in place then a plate change is done during a tech stop, and the aircraft continues to destination. The above legality implies that the alternative plate of ownership is not on the aircraft during transit, but then who knows ....
Re ‘unionised’ pilots; from distant memories, Airbus pilots were all but independent company employees, I don’t recall any ideas of unions - they get in the way of doing the job.
Some company pilots, e.g. training Capts (Airbus not known) may have belonged to a generic union, but AFAIR this never became involved with the manufacturer.
This is normally associated with money and lawyers.
A Euro built (not Airbus) aircraft, US owned, could be delivered with a mixed crew - operators and manufacturer under part 91. A particularly useful option with a multiple stop delivery route so to keep the aircraft moving.
Alternatively a Euro built, owned, and crewed aircraft could be delivered to a suitable location for import but not necessarily change of ownership. For GA aircraft this often involved obscure airports / states to gain the relevant tax advantage - 100lbs of fuel please to prove that we were here. After ‘import’ the same crew delivered the aircraft to destination / completion centre.
AFAIK change of ownership mid air would be illegal because all aircraft carry a unique fireproof plate indicating a specific ownership (accident scenario).
For an en route change of ownership, once the money is in place then a plate change is done during a tech stop, and the aircraft continues to destination. The above legality implies that the alternative plate of ownership is not on the aircraft during transit, but then who knows ....
Re ‘unionised’ pilots; from distant memories, Airbus pilots were all but independent company employees, I don’t recall any ideas of unions - they get in the way of doing the job.
Some company pilots, e.g. training Capts (Airbus not known) may have belonged to a generic union, but AFAIR this never became involved with the manufacturer.
I think airborne change of ownership may have been done in past, I know Boeing did it. I worked for a manufacturer and all deliveries were done on the ground with the plane under our control until the money was in the bank. Usually in the US, as safetyper said, providing a fuel slip to prove location.
GF
GF
Safetypee, you are correct, by "responsible" I meant those with the legal and financial authority and responsibility to effect the transfer for all involved parties.
I have no idea if fireproof identification plates include ownership details - sounds a bit messy to me where that information can be a simple change to the involved countries aircraft registers.
I would be surprised if major aircraft manufacturers and regulatory authorities would not have a solution to this dilemma. In our country a "Permit to Fly" would not work as it is only valid within our national boundaries, but regulatory authority legal departments seem to have regulatory escape clauses when necessary.
For example, I am sure that uncertificated airliners, on an experimental certificate, seem to be able to roam the worlds airspace at will, particularly if there is a marketing promotion at a major airshow.
The fine detail, I have no knowledge of, "export CofA" cancelled enroute? Who knows....
I have no idea if fireproof identification plates include ownership details - sounds a bit messy to me where that information can be a simple change to the involved countries aircraft registers.
I would be surprised if major aircraft manufacturers and regulatory authorities would not have a solution to this dilemma. In our country a "Permit to Fly" would not work as it is only valid within our national boundaries, but regulatory authority legal departments seem to have regulatory escape clauses when necessary.
For example, I am sure that uncertificated airliners, on an experimental certificate, seem to be able to roam the worlds airspace at will, particularly if there is a marketing promotion at a major airshow.
The fine detail, I have no knowledge of, "export CofA" cancelled enroute? Who knows....
Last edited by zzuf; 16th Dec 2017 at 11:26.
Mods
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Flight Testing - I suggest that Galaxy Flyer and Managednav take their whinge to one of the Airline forums on Prune.
Last edited by Brian 48nav; 16th Dec 2017 at 14:50. Reason: Add the OP
