Trouble Brewing at CitiExpress
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RMC
Since you clearly have never been a captain, and very probably aren't even a pilot, shall we take your 'opinions' with just a pinch of salt?
From your posting history, you can't even have worked for BACX for much more than 12 months, if that!
If you work for BACX at all!
Perhaps you just have friends involved, in which case, your loyalty is admirable.
Since you clearly have never been a captain, and very probably aren't even a pilot, shall we take your 'opinions' with just a pinch of salt?
From your posting history, you can't even have worked for BACX for much more than 12 months, if that!
If you work for BACX at all!
Perhaps you just have friends involved, in which case, your loyalty is admirable.
Last edited by 4468; 10th Nov 2004 at 09:35.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Plateau of Leng
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a patronising S.O.B. you are!!!
Posting history necessarily bears no resemblance to time 'in Company', as anyone should know! When I joined this organisation, a Spectrum ZX was the height of technology, so Pprune didn't even exist! Captain or Effoh makes no difference to views, or indeed the ability to 'work to rule'. If the Effoh, or the Number three says they are too fatigued, the Captain will have to exercise his discretion unless a replacement can be found.
Let me be absolutely clear, specifically for the info and clarification of 4468. I am a senior Captain on one of the Jet Fleets at Manchester, with over ten years in this outfit.
RMC said:
"The work to rule (at least) is coming but not while the case is sub judice.The pilot workforce is getting to hear the facts about this case - most of those who thought "there was no smoke without fire" now know otherwise. We have to wait for the company to make its decision; if that is anything other than total exoneration then there will be indeed trouble brewing at Citi Express during December."
He/she is absolutely correct, at least as far as all my colleagues and friends are concerned at Manchester. I cannot speak for Brum, but understand the feelings are equally strong. It is seen on two fronts:
1. As mentioned, the smoke/fire thing is now being correctly dispersed, few are in any doubt about the facts. (as mentioned earlier on this thread)
2. If the Fossil wins this one, it will impact us all, on a huge amount of rosters.
Wait and see 4468, wait and see.
Posting history necessarily bears no resemblance to time 'in Company', as anyone should know! When I joined this organisation, a Spectrum ZX was the height of technology, so Pprune didn't even exist! Captain or Effoh makes no difference to views, or indeed the ability to 'work to rule'. If the Effoh, or the Number three says they are too fatigued, the Captain will have to exercise his discretion unless a replacement can be found.Let me be absolutely clear, specifically for the info and clarification of 4468. I am a senior Captain on one of the Jet Fleets at Manchester, with over ten years in this outfit.
RMC said:
"The work to rule (at least) is coming but not while the case is sub judice.The pilot workforce is getting to hear the facts about this case - most of those who thought "there was no smoke without fire" now know otherwise. We have to wait for the company to make its decision; if that is anything other than total exoneration then there will be indeed trouble brewing at Citi Express during December."
He/she is absolutely correct, at least as far as all my colleagues and friends are concerned at Manchester. I cannot speak for Brum, but understand the feelings are equally strong. It is seen on two fronts:
1. As mentioned, the smoke/fire thing is now being correctly dispersed, few are in any doubt about the facts. (as mentioned earlier on this thread)
2. If the Fossil wins this one, it will impact us all, on a huge amount of rosters.
Wait and see 4468, wait and see.
Guest
Posts: n/a
MOST OF THE TIME DISCRETION WOULD NOT BE NEEDED IF A SMALL MONORITY SPENT LESS TIME FAFFING AROUND AND MOANING TO FLEET MANAGERS/CREW CONTROL/OPS/HANDLING/CLEANERS/REFUELLERS/ENGINEERS/UNIONS AND ANYONE ELSE THAT CARED TO LISTEN AND NOT TAKING 1HR 10MINS TO TURN AN AIRCRAFT AROUND THAT ONLY REQUIRED 30.....
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe if Ops spent less time sending MAN based crew to BHX, BHX based crews to EDI, and EDI based crews to SOU, whilst SOU based crews are sent to MAN, all at the same time, all in one taxi per person, or a hire care per person; while nightstopping MAN based crews on the IOM (which is where they live!!) then, and only then might we get some coherence to this operation.
There are only three reasons for an airline to fail:
1. Bad management.
2. Bad management.
3. Bad management.
Sorry, there's a fourth. It's Tim de la Fosse!
There are only three reasons for an airline to fail:
1. Bad management.
2. Bad management.
3. Bad management.
Sorry, there's a fourth. It's Tim de la Fosse!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yog
The Spectrum ZX (I started my flying sometime before them!) was the height of technology 20+ years ago, not 10!
Unless you are stuck in a time warp!
Remember:
"It's just a jump to the left"
"And then a step to the right!"
The Spectrum ZX (I started my flying sometime before them!) was the height of technology 20+ years ago, not 10!
Unless you are stuck in a time warp!
Remember:
"It's just a jump to the left"
"And then a step to the right!"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pontious pilot........
Those poor guys in crew control can only work with the blunt tools they've been given so don't shoot the messenger......and I said SMALL minority not everyone. The majority work bloody hard and without people working days off the whole thing would have ground to a halt a long time ago.....and when inefficient rosters get issued with up to 30 sectors a day uncovered then think of the pressure they're under to keep the programme flying!!
Those poor guys in crew control can only work with the blunt tools they've been given so don't shoot the messenger......and I said SMALL minority not everyone. The majority work bloody hard and without people working days off the whole thing would have ground to a halt a long time ago.....and when inefficient rosters get issued with up to 30 sectors a day uncovered then think of the pressure they're under to keep the programme flying!!
Last edited by Dash-7 lover; 10th Nov 2004 at 22:17.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4468 – Your ability to make dogmatic statements without checking facts suggests you have a key attribute of senior management. Try applying for the next vacancy.
“Clearly never been a Captain / never worked for BACX/ probably aren’t even a pilot” – WRONG X 3 had a command with BACX for over three years.
When you talk about my “Opinions” you are relating to my factual post a couple of weeks ago.
Tell you what, pick one of those FACTS…tell me why you disagree with it …and I’ll blow you out of the water.
The Skipper concerned is not a friend of mine but she IS a respected colleague. For the record I have never been inclined to post on PPRUNE. I have used my partners ID (who normally posts on the Cabin Crew forum) as I don’t intend posting after this has been resolved (unless the company pulls another ill informed stunt).
DASH 7 LOVER - Your ability to make dogmatic statements without checking facts suggests you have a key attribute of senior management. Try applying for the next vacancy.
Just so people outside MAN are kept in the picture. Your “small minority moaning / delay” post is clearly an attempt to put confusion into this thread (and discredit this Captain) it relates to the MAN – BLQ turn around (sector 2 – 3).
There were three reasons why this flight took 1:10 to get off to BLQ
(1) The No. 1 Cabin Crew which OPERATIONS took off the BLQ flight did not arrive until 15 mins after STD (good idea not to try single crew operations without a no 1).
(2) They were given a slot over an hour after STD (you must get it into your head that the 09:55 to 10:10 slot requested by the skipper was never granted.
(3) There was a queue at the hold (hence airborne a few mins after earliest possible time).
If either of you took an hour of your time to read through the FACTS of this case you would appreciate why this is about to become very messy.
Smoke and mirrors can often work for management but in this kind of situation,if a person has the facts on her side, ultimately, she is flame proof.
Unfortunately for our top man you cannot defend the indefensible. As the learned Yog Sothoth says… “wait and see”
“Clearly never been a Captain / never worked for BACX/ probably aren’t even a pilot” – WRONG X 3 had a command with BACX for over three years.
When you talk about my “Opinions” you are relating to my factual post a couple of weeks ago.
Tell you what, pick one of those FACTS…tell me why you disagree with it …and I’ll blow you out of the water.
The Skipper concerned is not a friend of mine but she IS a respected colleague. For the record I have never been inclined to post on PPRUNE. I have used my partners ID (who normally posts on the Cabin Crew forum) as I don’t intend posting after this has been resolved (unless the company pulls another ill informed stunt).
DASH 7 LOVER - Your ability to make dogmatic statements without checking facts suggests you have a key attribute of senior management. Try applying for the next vacancy.
Just so people outside MAN are kept in the picture. Your “small minority moaning / delay” post is clearly an attempt to put confusion into this thread (and discredit this Captain) it relates to the MAN – BLQ turn around (sector 2 – 3).
There were three reasons why this flight took 1:10 to get off to BLQ
(1) The No. 1 Cabin Crew which OPERATIONS took off the BLQ flight did not arrive until 15 mins after STD (good idea not to try single crew operations without a no 1).
(2) They were given a slot over an hour after STD (you must get it into your head that the 09:55 to 10:10 slot requested by the skipper was never granted.
(3) There was a queue at the hold (hence airborne a few mins after earliest possible time).
If either of you took an hour of your time to read through the FACTS of this case you would appreciate why this is about to become very messy.
Smoke and mirrors can often work for management but in this kind of situation,if a person has the facts on her side, ultimately, she is flame proof.
Unfortunately for our top man you cannot defend the indefensible. As the learned Yog Sothoth says… “wait and see”
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Downunder
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right you lot – or rather those of you from BACX management – get a fcking grip. You have chosen to pick on one of the few ‘voices of reason’ left in your unhappy little company. I don’t work there any more, but did, for years. The Capt that this bedraggled company have decided to try to hang out and dry has spent many hours telling me and others to wind our necks in and get the job done.
The bottom line is, if this Capt was indeed too tired to operate, and lets face it only the Capt concerned knows whether they were or not, then it is their LEGAL duty to stand themselves down. This is what the Capt concerned did, performed their legal duty.
Now Flossie, assuming you get to know what is written here, for once in your life, do the right thing, and bring this matter to a close. Reinstate this Capt immediately and start to try to rebuild your company, that’s your responsibility!
To those of you left at Pizza express I hope the hell you have the balls to back this Capt because you could be next. However already I have heard that the company is winning this battle, with a Manchester Capt recently forcing his crew into discretion, despite all 3 cabin crew telling him they were unfit to operate!
The bottom line is, if this Capt was indeed too tired to operate, and lets face it only the Capt concerned knows whether they were or not, then it is their LEGAL duty to stand themselves down. This is what the Capt concerned did, performed their legal duty.
Now Flossie, assuming you get to know what is written here, for once in your life, do the right thing, and bring this matter to a close. Reinstate this Capt immediately and start to try to rebuild your company, that’s your responsibility!
To those of you left at Pizza express I hope the hell you have the balls to back this Capt because you could be next. However already I have heard that the company is winning this battle, with a Manchester Capt recently forcing his crew into discretion, despite all 3 cabin crew telling him they were unfit to operate!
Last edited by Cpt Chaos; 12th Nov 2004 at 10:22.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone suggested to the lady in question thet she call the CAA. I believe that the FTL section has a pretty good computer model that they can put the duty times into to analyse the fatigue levels. (Heard of this from a colleague who was questioning some sharp rostering at our company).
I would also like to add my support for the captain in question. I used to work for BACX and have never regretted leaving
I would also like to add my support for the captain in question. I used to work for BACX and have never regretted leaving
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cruise Alt
Its called the SAFE programme. Its been developed by Qinetiq (nee Dera). If a remember correctly it gives signs of cumulative fatique, not weekly, and probably cannot take into account disturbed sleep patterns due to having a young family.
In my view also the rules dont help the situ ie; early / late rules.
Its called the SAFE programme. Its been developed by Qinetiq (nee Dera). If a remember correctly it gives signs of cumulative fatique, not weekly, and probably cannot take into account disturbed sleep patterns due to having a young family.
In my view also the rules dont help the situ ie; early / late rules.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update - BALPA full time rep,Victim and Management rep had a meeting last week. Despite written requests to replace the vague accusation (that she deliberately delayed the flight) with any substantiated example, the company refused to provide specific evidence to support their claim.
This was again raised at the meeting and,finally, in a response to a "what have I done wrong" question came the reply-
"You did not bring the aircraft back from BLQ is what you have done wrong"!!!
The crux of it seems to be then that if any of us are down route then be warned that you better bring your aircraft back (similar to what our Head of Flight Ops stated on the company website but more severe as it was not made in public).
The company want to move to the disciplinary stage this Friday whilst ignoring the defence requests for written answers to many of the key questions.
This was again raised at the meeting and,finally, in a response to a "what have I done wrong" question came the reply-
"You did not bring the aircraft back from BLQ is what you have done wrong"!!!
The crux of it seems to be then that if any of us are down route then be warned that you better bring your aircraft back (similar to what our Head of Flight Ops stated on the company website but more severe as it was not made in public).
The company want to move to the disciplinary stage this Friday whilst ignoring the defence requests for written answers to many of the key questions.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Wouldn't you like to know !
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what is the crime? Are you saying that the Company are no longer arguing over the rights or wrongs of the discretion issue, but have focussed in solely on the "did not bring aircraft home" line?
Where and what is this Company line:
(similar to what our Head of Flight Ops stated on the company website but more severe as it was not made in public).
Cos I haven't seen that one [been too busy trying to vote with my feet, but suffered a minor setback -will just have to tunnel in a different direction].
Surely the Company will HAVE to provide a written accusation of some description to someone - you can't just make it up as go along........
Where and what is this Company line:
(similar to what our Head of Flight Ops stated on the company website but more severe as it was not made in public).
Cos I haven't seen that one [been too busy trying to vote with my feet, but suffered a minor setback -will just have to tunnel in a different direction].
Surely the Company will HAVE to provide a written accusation of some description to someone - you can't just make it up as go along........
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The judge and jury will be our Head of Flight Training (has to be a Senior Manager for potentially serious disciplinary cases).
CC - The official (written) line on the "crime" is...Deliberately allowed circumstances to arise which caused the cancelation of BLQ -MAN flight 7896. It has to be as the CAA would jump on what was given verbally as the real reason ie that she did not bring the aircraft back from BLQ
The decision on guilt has already been taken by the company it seems.
Our Head of Flight Ops said on Intercom...."If disrupted, a crew is expected to work with that disruption to keep the operation going. That may mean using discretion and, if so, the company would expect it to be used"
Unfortunately the way things seem to be going at the moment the investigation appears to be ignoring facts and focusing on clearing a path to some form of disciplinary action.
It is looking like they are just going through the motions and doing / saying what they want.
Only after the formal decision / disciplinary action has been dished out by the company can external legal advice be brought to bear (last point is my understanding but may not be totally correct).
CC - The official (written) line on the "crime" is...Deliberately allowed circumstances to arise which caused the cancelation of BLQ -MAN flight 7896. It has to be as the CAA would jump on what was given verbally as the real reason ie that she did not bring the aircraft back from BLQ
The decision on guilt has already been taken by the company it seems.
Our Head of Flight Ops said on Intercom...."If disrupted, a crew is expected to work with that disruption to keep the operation going. That may mean using discretion and, if so, the company would expect it to be used"
Unfortunately the way things seem to be going at the moment the investigation appears to be ignoring facts and focusing on clearing a path to some form of disciplinary action.
It is looking like they are just going through the motions and doing / saying what they want.
Only after the formal decision / disciplinary action has been dished out by the company can external legal advice be brought to bear (last point is my understanding but may not be totally correct).
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is she bearing up? The pressure generated on her by this disgraceful affair must be huge - is there anything we can do to help other than continuing to make supportive posts on here?
Just a thought - has JA been given the judge's job because he is well known to be a bit of a softy? Maybe the Company see their way out as being a compromise when it finally comes down to it.
Finally, where are BALPA in all this - are they pretty confident that it will all end in tears - for TDLF etc?
Just a thought - has JA been given the judge's job because he is well known to be a bit of a softy? Maybe the Company see their way out as being a compromise when it finally comes down to it.
Finally, where are BALPA in all this - are they pretty confident that it will all end in tears - for TDLF etc?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the reason why this may have dragged on on this that the company is not that well placed.
Take the worse case, an internal disciplinary finds the Captain guilty of deliberately causing the cancellation of the flight. CitiExpress dismiss the Captain.....
The Captain then takes the company to an employment tribunal and cites unfair dismissal. The law is interesting in this area. If a claimant can prove that the company dismissed them for raising concerns over safety then the dismissal is automatically deemed unfair.
In the event that someone is dismissed for raising concerns over safety a Tribunal can award damages, there is no cap or upper limit ie they can be punative.
Plus all ther very bad publicity attached to a public case etc etc.
I imagine the stress of being placed under suspension for all this time has been very stressful and will have had an impact the health of the Captain concerned. Again something that should be addressed by BALPA.
Hope a satisfactory outcome is achieved regards BP
Take the worse case, an internal disciplinary finds the Captain guilty of deliberately causing the cancellation of the flight. CitiExpress dismiss the Captain.....
The Captain then takes the company to an employment tribunal and cites unfair dismissal. The law is interesting in this area. If a claimant can prove that the company dismissed them for raising concerns over safety then the dismissal is automatically deemed unfair.
In the event that someone is dismissed for raising concerns over safety a Tribunal can award damages, there is no cap or upper limit ie they can be punative.
Plus all ther very bad publicity attached to a public case etc etc.
I imagine the stress of being placed under suspension for all this time has been very stressful and will have had an impact the health of the Captain concerned. Again something that should be addressed by BALPA.
Hope a satisfactory outcome is achieved regards BP
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP - She is bearing up well, but is feeling isolated. If you PM me I will send you her e-mail address as she would really appreciate the support.
The only other thing we can do to help is to explain what you know to your colleagues on the flight deck. There is a lot of misinformation being put around by people from the other side of the fence and that needs to be countered.
Unfortunately many people seem to hold the view that she is guilty until proved innocent. The thinking there seems to be along the lines of ....an excellent company like ours would never try to engineer a situation where flight deck felt their job could be on the line if they did not go into discretion!
The Captian is being advised by BALPA that she must not bring this into the public domain whilst her case is sub judice. This is also BALPAs reason for not issuing any statement about the case.
4468 - Interesting that you did not take up my invitation to dispute any of the facts.
What I said in my last post was that publically the company are saying it is about "deliberately allowing circumstances to arise" because they cannot say anything else. In private though they let the cat out of the bag that it is actually about not bringing the aircraft back ie not going into discretion.
At the risk of repeating myself the facts are clear that she actually did everything correctly and, in seven separate instances, took action to expedite the flights.
The basis of the company position seems to be two statements given by people trying to persuade her to go into discretion over the telephone (unfortunately the tape is not available)
The only other thing we can do to help is to explain what you know to your colleagues on the flight deck. There is a lot of misinformation being put around by people from the other side of the fence and that needs to be countered.
Unfortunately many people seem to hold the view that she is guilty until proved innocent. The thinking there seems to be along the lines of ....an excellent company like ours would never try to engineer a situation where flight deck felt their job could be on the line if they did not go into discretion!
The Captian is being advised by BALPA that she must not bring this into the public domain whilst her case is sub judice. This is also BALPAs reason for not issuing any statement about the case.
4468 - Interesting that you did not take up my invitation to dispute any of the facts.
What I said in my last post was that publically the company are saying it is about "deliberately allowing circumstances to arise" because they cannot say anything else. In private though they let the cat out of the bag that it is actually about not bringing the aircraft back ie not going into discretion.
At the risk of repeating myself the facts are clear that she actually did everything correctly and, in seven separate instances, took action to expedite the flights.
The basis of the company position seems to be two statements given by people trying to persuade her to go into discretion over the telephone (unfortunately the tape is not available)