MYT - I can't believe it!!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viscount
I think there is a fair way to do things and there is an expedient way to do things. A lot depends on what situation the airline is in, financially, and what agreements it has in force for its pilots.
An airline in financial difficulty, which is probably the only reason it would make redundancies in the first place, could be excused for making the minimum statutory payments and taking the least-cost option for shedding crews (indeed, it has a responsibility to do so). That is not unreasonable, because it is also in the best interests of those pilots it retains that it makes the best financial decsions.
Ability has nothing to do with any of this; if a captain is deemed suitable to be such, then it is a no cost factor. If he wasn't suitable, then he shouldn't be there anyway.
Training personnel are different, because they have been chosen (hopefully) because of their ability and attributes to be so. They should have their own seniority list.
So, what is fair?
I think most agree that LIFO is a fair principle, in so far as anyone will loose their jobs.
The airline should probably ask for voluntary redundancies first, so as to limit the number of compulsory redundancies. It may not do this if it is not obliged to do so under employment law.
Demotion is most fairly dealt with on the seniority basis of the promotion. Perceived ability should not be an issue here either. Hopefully you were promoted when you reached the required standard and experience, so that has its own seniority list based only on the date of upgrade.
BALPA will not, and never have, added any real value to this process. How can they? Besides, they are too busy trying to gain recognition in their 'high profile' campaigns to worry about those whose contributions will be ceasing soon.
Call me cynical? Yes, you'd be 'right on'.
Sorry, but true.
Jack
I think there is a fair way to do things and there is an expedient way to do things. A lot depends on what situation the airline is in, financially, and what agreements it has in force for its pilots.
An airline in financial difficulty, which is probably the only reason it would make redundancies in the first place, could be excused for making the minimum statutory payments and taking the least-cost option for shedding crews (indeed, it has a responsibility to do so). That is not unreasonable, because it is also in the best interests of those pilots it retains that it makes the best financial decsions.
Ability has nothing to do with any of this; if a captain is deemed suitable to be such, then it is a no cost factor. If he wasn't suitable, then he shouldn't be there anyway.
Training personnel are different, because they have been chosen (hopefully) because of their ability and attributes to be so. They should have their own seniority list.
So, what is fair?
I think most agree that LIFO is a fair principle, in so far as anyone will loose their jobs.
The airline should probably ask for voluntary redundancies first, so as to limit the number of compulsory redundancies. It may not do this if it is not obliged to do so under employment law.
Demotion is most fairly dealt with on the seniority basis of the promotion. Perceived ability should not be an issue here either. Hopefully you were promoted when you reached the required standard and experience, so that has its own seniority list based only on the date of upgrade.
BALPA will not, and never have, added any real value to this process. How can they? Besides, they are too busy trying to gain recognition in their 'high profile' campaigns to worry about those whose contributions will be ceasing soon.
Call me cynical? Yes, you'd be 'right on'.
Sorry, but true.
Jack
Last edited by Jack The Lad; 18th Sep 2004 at 20:12.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack The Lad
I think I am very much on side with what you say in many aspects.
Unfortunately it's not the way things are going here with the company or BALPA for that matter.
All is not lost in my eyes.
I think justice should prevail and I for one will do my best to that end.
I think I am very much on side with what you say in many aspects.
Unfortunately it's not the way things are going here with the company or BALPA for that matter.
All is not lost in my eyes.
I think justice should prevail and I for one will do my best to that end.
<< BALPA will not, and never have, added any real value to this process. How can they? Besides, they are too busy trying to gain recognition in their 'high profile' campaigns to worry about those whose contributions will be ceasing soon. >>
What garbage. The MYT reps are doing their best to sort out this mess, not those in charge of counting pennies.
What garbage. The MYT reps are doing their best to sort out this mess, not those in charge of counting pennies.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaman
RTFQ!
I refer to BALPA, the organisation, not the MYT reps or any other airline reps. I have the greatest respect for the voluntary, unpaid and often thankless work most of the reps do, under difficult circumstances. Trouble is they are often misled or let down by the Organisation that has a different agenda all too often.
You might wish to retract your 'Garbage' comment!
RTFQ!
I refer to BALPA, the organisation, not the MYT reps or any other airline reps. I have the greatest respect for the voluntary, unpaid and often thankless work most of the reps do, under difficult circumstances. Trouble is they are often misled or let down by the Organisation that has a different agenda all too often.
You might wish to retract your 'Garbage' comment!
V1, ROTATE
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day i think it has to be LIFO. Surely it doesn't matter if pilots are just passing checks by the skin of their teeth or not, if they pass then they are good enough. Same with promotion to the LHS (and demotions, redundancies etc.), it shouldn't be picked from a list of the best,it should be seniority, if they pass the command course then they ARE good enough, end of story.
LIFO is the way to go regardless of age, sex, creed or colour (fleet, type etc.).
Wingman
LIFO is the way to go regardless of age, sex, creed or colour (fleet, type etc.).
Wingman
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think I made it clear enough.
I will say it again. I am totally in agreement with LIFO for redundancies, but I would like to see seniority from the Captains Seniority List to be used for demotion. The Captains Seniority List is not a "best pilots list", it's just a seniority list that has always been there and people get onto it as soon as they get their commands regardless of how good or how marginal they are. People come off this list as they retire or leave the company's employment. When somebody leaves the company, everybody on that list moves up one position regardless of ability or how well they get on with the company managers or trainers, etc.
A pilot becomes eligible for command in MYT according to the lay down requirements of the Pilot Policies and Procedures and length of service is not one of them. Therefore why should it then become for demotion. People should be demoted in the reverse order in which they were promoted.
I’ll spell it out again.
LIFO is OK for redundancy but not for demotion in my opinion.
An existing (old and established) seniority list is being binned and replaced by a new seniority list just created and nobody has been consulted. It has not been put to a ballot.
The reason…maybe pennies, maybe depends on who negotiated the whole deal, I don’t know, but it is not right.
The repercussions could be huge. Change of base for commanders, ratings onto other types, further demotions, future promotions and future vacancies.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. As I said before, I believe that since promotion is not just a direct result of length of service it should not be the determining factor for demotion.
For example, you could have two individuals joining a company. Lets say pilot #1 has 5000 hours and joins the company in March. Pilot #2 has 3000 and joins in February the same year. When a vacancy occurs, pilot#1 has the minimum number of hours required and is suitable for command. Pilot#2 doesn't have the minimum hours required. Pilot #1 gets promoted. Three or four years later, pilot #2 has the hours required and subsequently gets his command.
A couple of months later, the company needs to lay-off pilots.
Those pilots that joined the company last, are laid-off. The majority of those pilots laid-off are first officers/co-pilots. Now, you have the right number of pilots, but you need to balance the number of captains and first officers. So, who would you demote first, pilot #1 or pilot #2?
For example, you could have two individuals joining a company. Lets say pilot #1 has 5000 hours and joins the company in March. Pilot #2 has 3000 and joins in February the same year. When a vacancy occurs, pilot#1 has the minimum number of hours required and is suitable for command. Pilot#2 doesn't have the minimum hours required. Pilot #1 gets promoted. Three or four years later, pilot #2 has the hours required and subsequently gets his command.
A couple of months later, the company needs to lay-off pilots.
Those pilots that joined the company last, are laid-off. The majority of those pilots laid-off are first officers/co-pilots. Now, you have the right number of pilots, but you need to balance the number of captains and first officers. So, who would you demote first, pilot #1 or pilot #2?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I speak as one who is still in the "at risk" of compulsary redundancy category despite the new numbers (77) needed to go. In a more favourable climate, I could reasonably have expected a "look-in" at command given my sim/line assessments of late. However, in the game of snakes and ladders that is our industry I am facing redundancy on the LIFO principle which is the norm. I have accepted this piece of misfortune. Since I have accepted possibly losing my job under these rules, I feel that Capts losing their commands under LIFO should accept it also. It's bad luck for some, beneficial for others, but removes any subjectivity of possibly assessing potential demotees using any other process.
In a similar vein I have had to accept some who are above me on the list who have far fewer hours than me and may therefore be judged "less useful" at the moment, due to the fact that they were cadets and therefore entering the ladder whilst still learning their trade. I accept this situation with good grace - good luck to them I say. Maybe it will be easier for me to get a position elsewhere because of my greater experience, and therefore there is fairness at play in that these lower experience people but with great potential, are being protected somewhat by the system.
Those Capts facing demotion will be repromoted using the LIFO principle in the future.
As one who is in a vulnerable position due to LIFO, I suggest that it is a fair system and Capts who will be demoted because of it should take some comfort in the fact that they could be in a much worse situation. One old Capt once said to me that he based his finances on being an FO, and anything extra was a bonus.
In a similar vein I have had to accept some who are above me on the list who have far fewer hours than me and may therefore be judged "less useful" at the moment, due to the fact that they were cadets and therefore entering the ladder whilst still learning their trade. I accept this situation with good grace - good luck to them I say. Maybe it will be easier for me to get a position elsewhere because of my greater experience, and therefore there is fairness at play in that these lower experience people but with great potential, are being protected somewhat by the system.
Those Capts facing demotion will be repromoted using the LIFO principle in the future.
As one who is in a vulnerable position due to LIFO, I suggest that it is a fair system and Capts who will be demoted because of it should take some comfort in the fact that they could be in a much worse situation. One old Capt once said to me that he based his finances on being an FO, and anything extra was a bonus.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viscount
Thanks for the clarification. In my mind, the answer is simple; Pilot 2 would face demotion first due to the fact that he should be lower on the Captain's seniority list.
If however both Pilot 1 & 2 were demoted and one of them had to be made redundant (an unlikely scenario) then Pilot 1 would be the one to face redundancy as he joined last.
In the same way, imagine that you had a First Officer that had been with the airline for 15 years and had never been upgraded (it happens). Then the airline faced some savage cuts and lots of Captains were demoted and one of those Captains had only been with the airline for 7 years, it would be proper for him to face redundancy before the 15 year man.
As I say, it s simple to me, but others will undoubtably see it in a different light.
Thanks for the clarification. In my mind, the answer is simple; Pilot 2 would face demotion first due to the fact that he should be lower on the Captain's seniority list.
If however both Pilot 1 & 2 were demoted and one of them had to be made redundant (an unlikely scenario) then Pilot 1 would be the one to face redundancy as he joined last.
In the same way, imagine that you had a First Officer that had been with the airline for 15 years and had never been upgraded (it happens). Then the airline faced some savage cuts and lots of Captains were demoted and one of those Captains had only been with the airline for 7 years, it would be proper for him to face redundancy before the 15 year man.
As I say, it s simple to me, but others will undoubtably see it in a different light.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets face it the company would simply like to lay off all the boeing and MCd D pilots as those fleets are going, most of those pilots are more senior and thus paid more and it saves on retraining. Thats the cheapest option and without BALPA thats exactly what would happen.
To counter that LIFO is the simplest and fairest way of dealing with redundancies and demotions.
At least they are offering VR so that will thin some ranks at the top.
To counter that LIFO is the simplest and fairest way of dealing with redundancies and demotions.
At least they are offering VR so that will thin some ranks at the top.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTL couldn't agree more but life is never that simple and I'm sure if you read your own company redundancy clause in your contract you will see how easy it is to take a different view.
Normally cost of retraining senior pilots, retention of pilots regarded as essential and fleet redundancy are covered in such a way as to make the whole process a nightmare for all involved.
Good luck to MYT one hopes when the debt for equity deal is finally thrashed out the company will emerge stronger to face the future.
Normally cost of retraining senior pilots, retention of pilots regarded as essential and fleet redundancy are covered in such a way as to make the whole process a nightmare for all involved.
Good luck to MYT one hopes when the debt for equity deal is finally thrashed out the company will emerge stronger to face the future.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack The Lad
I agree with you completely, but that’s not the way the company is doing it.
BALPA was the one that insisted in using LIFO on everything including, Captains demotions, basing, etc., and disregarded the existing seniority lists.
It’s mad. The company is looking at it and thinking “great, BALPA have done the dirty job for as.” They don’t have to do anything. BALPA takes the blame and the company get what they want. A lot of people don’t agree, but are frightened or shocked and they are going along with it. They are not looking ahead at the consequences and potential implications of getting rid of the seniority lists. If and when people get re-trained onto the Airbus 330’s, guess who is first on them? Not even the most senior trainers, but the most junior captains on the fleet. When it comes to re-locating people, you have the same scenario. I know of a captain that is going to be “bumped”. I think that’s what they are calling it. He will have to accept another base or accept redundancy. So he has told the company he rather be demoted than change base. Another captain that knew that he would be “bumped”, elected for the severance package, for that very reason. However if you have a mortgage insurance and elect voluntary redundancy, the insurance company will not pay. Mind you, that’s another issue.
As I said, it seems very unfair the way it has been handled and although the BALPA company council (the majority of them) have lost in seniority, they are not immediately affected by it. One Captain in the cc has actually benefited by it. But the BALPA cc has worked very hard on this one. I for one am very grateful for the work they have done, but totally disagree with creating a new seniority list and getting rid of the old ones, particularly at this moment in time.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: cheshire
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are still two seniority lists. They will continue to be used to decide, for example, 330 ratings, basing etc. The pilot’s date of joining has been added to each list for ‘transparency’.
Date of joining is being used for redundancy only, as per the contract/ppp, i.e. nothing has changed.
Apparently when a company uses LIFO for redundancies, provided date of joining is strictly adhered to, a Captain may be made redundant and offered a new position as a F/O, despite other F/Os being made redundant. If LIFO were not to be used this could not happen. In other words a Captain would be made redundant, no job.
Also, other than for disciplinary reasons, there is no provision for demotion in our contract/ppp. Any pilot demoted would have a case for constructive dismissal.
The BALPA CC are doing an excellent job, don’t be surprised if there are only a handful of compulsory redundancies at the end of this thanks to their hard work.
Date of joining is being used for redundancy only, as per the contract/ppp, i.e. nothing has changed.
Apparently when a company uses LIFO for redundancies, provided date of joining is strictly adhered to, a Captain may be made redundant and offered a new position as a F/O, despite other F/Os being made redundant. If LIFO were not to be used this could not happen. In other words a Captain would be made redundant, no job.
Also, other than for disciplinary reasons, there is no provision for demotion in our contract/ppp. Any pilot demoted would have a case for constructive dismissal.
The BALPA CC are doing an excellent job, don’t be surprised if there are only a handful of compulsory redundancies at the end of this thanks to their hard work.
Similar Experience
In reply to the original question, yes myself. It was for ATC training, as an ATSA. I was redeployed, on last in company, first out, others who had longer service from other departments before joing ATC, after me, (and not having commenced OJT as an ATCO), stayed in! Both a potential loss for the company!, as well obviously, and very personally, for me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
squeakyunclean
I don’t really know what you mean by ‘transparency’.
I don’t know if I am in total agreement with your reasoning.
Date of joining is not being used just for redundancies as you say.
Captains are being made redundant against first officers that are being kept on, although these first officers joined the company later. So that’s the first inconsistency and disregard for LIFO.
I am ‘at risk’ and I know first officers not ‘at risk’ (of redundancy) that are junior to me.
Captains, as long as they accept redundancy, are being taken back by the company with the original date of joining and other first officers are being laid-off. That’s the second inconsistency of LIFO being applied.
So in effect LIFO is being used for demotion and not for redundancy.
So the other question is:
What are they making redundant? Is it pilots or captains and first officers, or just captains?
As I said earlier on this thread:
400 pilots – 100 pilots = 300 pilots. (LIFO).
300 pilots / 2 = 150 captains + 150 first officers. (Captains Seniority List).
I say it again is not right and therefore not fair.
Next question: Is it legal?
That I think I better ask a lawyer in employment law that specializes in aviation related matters.
I think they are better informed that most pilots.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: cheshire
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VS
‘transparency’ was just a quote from the Chief Pilots memo, I’ll not try and explain what he meant.
It’s not my reasoning either, it’s just what is happening in accordance with our contract.
If a pilot who joined the company after you is ‘not at risk of redundancy’ and you are ‘at risk of redundancy’, there has been a simple mistake.
The only inconsistency I can see is a Captain with a date of joining before a F/O could find himself redundant. The difference between a Captain at risk and a F/O at risk is that the Captain will be offered another job as a pilot, albeit as a F/O, the F/O will not.
‘transparency’ was just a quote from the Chief Pilots memo, I’ll not try and explain what he meant.
It’s not my reasoning either, it’s just what is happening in accordance with our contract.
If a pilot who joined the company after you is ‘not at risk of redundancy’ and you are ‘at risk of redundancy’, there has been a simple mistake.
The only inconsistency I can see is a Captain with a date of joining before a F/O could find himself redundant. The difference between a Captain at risk and a F/O at risk is that the Captain will be offered another job as a pilot, albeit as a F/O, the F/O will not.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
squeakyunclean
Please explain what you mean by saying “it’s just what is happening in accordance with our contract.”
What is happening in accordance with our contract?
Where does it say in our contract that our seniority list will be pushed aside? This is the first time it was going to be used for its proper purpose, but it gets ignored and a new one produced.
Looking at the Pilot Policies and Procedures manual, PPP-6-2 under Promotion is clear how people get promoted. It mentions three things ‘seniority, qualification and suitability’. Seniority from the Captains Seniority List determines who the more senior captains are, so in my view it should be reversed for demotion.
Where is it written about demotion based on date of joining?
Who has negotiated the new terms of conditions for all pilots without previous consultation?
Who benefits from the new list? Why change a list that has been there for years? Has anybody involved in the draft of the new list moved up in seniority? Have a look at the Captains list issued by the chief pilot on July 2004 and then compare it with the new list. Have a look at the names that have moved up.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: cheshire
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VS, tried to answer the points in order
1. My contract/ppp says redundancies will be decided by last in first out, what does your contract say?
2. It doesn’t.
3. Who said the seniority lists are to be used to decide redundancy? Does your contract say something like ‘ redundancy will be decided by a pilots position on the Captains/First Officers/Second Officers/Flight Engineers seniority list’ (delete as reqd)?
4. It doesn’t mention that promotions will depend on company requirements, the opinions of the training dept. etc Date of joining is absolute and not open to debate, a pilots suitability for command is, that is what the command board is for. That’s why date of joining is used to decide redundancies. If the company announced demotions I would expect it to be decided in accordance with my contract/ppp. Apart from disciplinary reasons there is no provision. ‘Reversed for demotion’, does that mean you start at the bottom of the list, have a demotions board, a demotion assessment in the sim and finally a demotion comp check? How else would you assess ‘seniority, qualification and suitability’? Are you suggesting the last few on the Captains seniority list are just demoted? If commands were just given to the pilots at the top of the F/Os seniority list I’d have to agree.
5. It isn’t, demotion can only be for disciplinary reasons.
6. Nobody, because there are no new terms and conditions. If there were any changes BALPA did the talking.
7. Nobody benefits from the new list. Redundancies are decided on date of joining, a pilots position on the seniority lists is not relevant. The new list is not a replacement, it has been produced for use with the options pack. Nobody has been moved up in seniority because the new list is not a seniority list, it’s a date of joining list. The current seniority lists will remain and everyone will remain in the order they always were, some may find themselves on a different list.
1. My contract/ppp says redundancies will be decided by last in first out, what does your contract say?
2. It doesn’t.
3. Who said the seniority lists are to be used to decide redundancy? Does your contract say something like ‘ redundancy will be decided by a pilots position on the Captains/First Officers/Second Officers/Flight Engineers seniority list’ (delete as reqd)?
4. It doesn’t mention that promotions will depend on company requirements, the opinions of the training dept. etc Date of joining is absolute and not open to debate, a pilots suitability for command is, that is what the command board is for. That’s why date of joining is used to decide redundancies. If the company announced demotions I would expect it to be decided in accordance with my contract/ppp. Apart from disciplinary reasons there is no provision. ‘Reversed for demotion’, does that mean you start at the bottom of the list, have a demotions board, a demotion assessment in the sim and finally a demotion comp check? How else would you assess ‘seniority, qualification and suitability’? Are you suggesting the last few on the Captains seniority list are just demoted? If commands were just given to the pilots at the top of the F/Os seniority list I’d have to agree.
5. It isn’t, demotion can only be for disciplinary reasons.
6. Nobody, because there are no new terms and conditions. If there were any changes BALPA did the talking.
7. Nobody benefits from the new list. Redundancies are decided on date of joining, a pilots position on the seniority lists is not relevant. The new list is not a replacement, it has been produced for use with the options pack. Nobody has been moved up in seniority because the new list is not a seniority list, it’s a date of joining list. The current seniority lists will remain and everyone will remain in the order they always were, some may find themselves on a different list.