KLMuk trouble at mill!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heavy Landing,
The scenario which you describe sounds in principle fair to me; and I believe that most of my colleagues within the VNV would agree. I don't think that it is anyone's intention to stagnate the careers of your pilots by allowing KLM mainline pilots to bid KLC positions. The problem, however, is that under your proposal KLC pilots would enter KLM with full senority and KLM pilots would enter KLC with none. This is because the KLC pilots are already on the KLM master senority list and so they cannot be rescheduled below existing KLM pilots and above KLMuk pilots, as you suggest. The answer to your question is that there is only one list now; how that came about is a long story which I will try to summarize without boring the casual viewer.
A pilot hired by KLC prior to 1996 would have been told that he or she, after 8 years, could transfer to KLM (assuming they passed the assessment) with 4 years senority. In 1996 the VNV, which represents both KLM and KLC, negotiated a new agreement which stated that newly hired KLC pilots would, from July 1997, be immediately placed on a new, combined senority list and could now after six years transfer to KLM with full senority. All KLC pilots who were in service prior to '97, including those who previously did not pass the assessment, were placed on the new list with half-senority. This was a step-up for them, but lots of junior KLM pilots were unhappy about the situation because more KLC pilots appeared above them on the list than what was previously expected. The unhappiest of all were some of the students of the KLM Flight Academy who graduated around 1996. At that time the best students of each class were offered places at KLM and the rest at KLC or other airlines. Those who had qualified to go to KLM had to wait a while before they could begin, but they didn't mind because they expected to be going to a better paying job. What ended up happening, however, was that those who went to KLC could begin right away, and due to the new agreement ended up above the KLM guys on the new list. Some pilots had schoolmates who had graduated more than a year behind them end up far above them on the senority list! And then, to make matters worst, came the terrible stagnation of the past four years on KLM mainline. There has been in the last few years so little training that we have all started rusting to our seats. Meanwhile, at KLC, the disappearance of Braathens and Eurowings as feeders meant a great expansion there. Because no one within the VNV thought, in the good times of 1996, to make it possible for KLM pilots to bid KLC positions, the young KLM pilots saw their classmates who had gone to KLC, and the pilots hired years after they were upgrade quickly. And so what we now have is a situation where KLC pilots with three years senority who are captains, have, during the course of their careers, earned twice as much as KLM pilots with six years! And, more importantly, have been doing a lot of great flying whilst the KLM pilots are still Co-Co s! The VNV considers this an unacceptable situation, and under pressure from the junior KLM pilots, the current president and vice-president were elected under the banner of "integrate the two companies", or "make KLC positions available to KLM pilots." They knew, however, that in order for KLM to agree to this, they would need a bargaining chip; and that bargaining chip was called the Fokker 100.
The F100 is, in Holland, a KLM mainline aircraft. We had a fleet of them before, and they were flown by mainline pilots with mainline salaries. The scope clause in our contract precludes KLC from operating them because they have more than 100 seats. When KLC got F70s they wanted to have F100s too, because the pilots could fly both. So, two years ago when KLM asked the VNV if they could use the F100 at Cityhopper, the VNV said, "Sure; if we now complete the integration and make all positions biddable by all pilots and integrate the salary structure (junior KLM pilots are paid by salary, not by flight hour, and the major determinant is position on the senority list, not what type one flys, unless one is a captain). All of a sudden KLC didn't need to fly the F100 anymore. Everything then went quiet on the integration front, although a simmering anger could be felt from the junior KLM pilots who continued to ask their union leaders why KLC continued to hire new pilots, some even as direct entry captains, when so many of them would love to work there and considering the fact that we were now supposed to be one big happy family.
And now KLC wants to fly the F100 again (albiet your F100s, which I think used to be ours!), and again they will need permission from the VNV to do this. You will say that the F100s fly the system already, so what difference will it make; the difference is that when operated by a regional partner such as KLMuk, there are restrictions in place in the contract as to how many aircraft there can be and where they can be flown. KLC does not have those restrictions. So, you see, by granting permission for KLC to use the F100s, the VNV leaders can finally fufill their election promise of integrating the two groups once and for all. It is an opportunity which they cannot afford to pass up.
So, which way further? Unfortunately (or luckily) I am not personally involved in the negotiations. We have mentioned here a few of the possibilities. Another is to arrange it so that KLM mainline pilots can only transfer to KLC as F/Os, not as captains. But ironically I have now come to the conclusion that the bestuur of the VNV needs to forget about integrating KLM and KLC altogether. For one, I don't see any easy way around your objections to KLM mainline pilots taking KLC positions, and secondly, in the period of expansion on KLM mainline upon which we are about to embark, KLC pilots will again benefit more than junior KLM pilots because they would, under an integrated career path structure, be able to bid over to KLM before the normal six years in service was concluded! Almost all of the die-hard co-cos will soon become co-pilots on the 737, whereas if the integration goes through those positions will go to KLC pilots.
All in all it is an incredible mess in which you all happen to be caught up in, but I hope that I have been able to convince some KLMuk pilots that the members of the VNV are fair people who are not out to screw you. Yesterday I heard it again from one of your colleagues that they had seen it in writing that the VNV wanted to put them at the bottom of the list and they were going to fight it blah, blah blah. That is simply not true. I remain convinced that our negotiating team will use good faith and try their utmost to come up with a solution which will upset the most of us the least.
The scenario which you describe sounds in principle fair to me; and I believe that most of my colleagues within the VNV would agree. I don't think that it is anyone's intention to stagnate the careers of your pilots by allowing KLM mainline pilots to bid KLC positions. The problem, however, is that under your proposal KLC pilots would enter KLM with full senority and KLM pilots would enter KLC with none. This is because the KLC pilots are already on the KLM master senority list and so they cannot be rescheduled below existing KLM pilots and above KLMuk pilots, as you suggest. The answer to your question is that there is only one list now; how that came about is a long story which I will try to summarize without boring the casual viewer.
A pilot hired by KLC prior to 1996 would have been told that he or she, after 8 years, could transfer to KLM (assuming they passed the assessment) with 4 years senority. In 1996 the VNV, which represents both KLM and KLC, negotiated a new agreement which stated that newly hired KLC pilots would, from July 1997, be immediately placed on a new, combined senority list and could now after six years transfer to KLM with full senority. All KLC pilots who were in service prior to '97, including those who previously did not pass the assessment, were placed on the new list with half-senority. This was a step-up for them, but lots of junior KLM pilots were unhappy about the situation because more KLC pilots appeared above them on the list than what was previously expected. The unhappiest of all were some of the students of the KLM Flight Academy who graduated around 1996. At that time the best students of each class were offered places at KLM and the rest at KLC or other airlines. Those who had qualified to go to KLM had to wait a while before they could begin, but they didn't mind because they expected to be going to a better paying job. What ended up happening, however, was that those who went to KLC could begin right away, and due to the new agreement ended up above the KLM guys on the new list. Some pilots had schoolmates who had graduated more than a year behind them end up far above them on the senority list! And then, to make matters worst, came the terrible stagnation of the past four years on KLM mainline. There has been in the last few years so little training that we have all started rusting to our seats. Meanwhile, at KLC, the disappearance of Braathens and Eurowings as feeders meant a great expansion there. Because no one within the VNV thought, in the good times of 1996, to make it possible for KLM pilots to bid KLC positions, the young KLM pilots saw their classmates who had gone to KLC, and the pilots hired years after they were upgrade quickly. And so what we now have is a situation where KLC pilots with three years senority who are captains, have, during the course of their careers, earned twice as much as KLM pilots with six years! And, more importantly, have been doing a lot of great flying whilst the KLM pilots are still Co-Co s! The VNV considers this an unacceptable situation, and under pressure from the junior KLM pilots, the current president and vice-president were elected under the banner of "integrate the two companies", or "make KLC positions available to KLM pilots." They knew, however, that in order for KLM to agree to this, they would need a bargaining chip; and that bargaining chip was called the Fokker 100.
The F100 is, in Holland, a KLM mainline aircraft. We had a fleet of them before, and they were flown by mainline pilots with mainline salaries. The scope clause in our contract precludes KLC from operating them because they have more than 100 seats. When KLC got F70s they wanted to have F100s too, because the pilots could fly both. So, two years ago when KLM asked the VNV if they could use the F100 at Cityhopper, the VNV said, "Sure; if we now complete the integration and make all positions biddable by all pilots and integrate the salary structure (junior KLM pilots are paid by salary, not by flight hour, and the major determinant is position on the senority list, not what type one flys, unless one is a captain). All of a sudden KLC didn't need to fly the F100 anymore. Everything then went quiet on the integration front, although a simmering anger could be felt from the junior KLM pilots who continued to ask their union leaders why KLC continued to hire new pilots, some even as direct entry captains, when so many of them would love to work there and considering the fact that we were now supposed to be one big happy family.
And now KLC wants to fly the F100 again (albiet your F100s, which I think used to be ours!), and again they will need permission from the VNV to do this. You will say that the F100s fly the system already, so what difference will it make; the difference is that when operated by a regional partner such as KLMuk, there are restrictions in place in the contract as to how many aircraft there can be and where they can be flown. KLC does not have those restrictions. So, you see, by granting permission for KLC to use the F100s, the VNV leaders can finally fufill their election promise of integrating the two groups once and for all. It is an opportunity which they cannot afford to pass up.
So, which way further? Unfortunately (or luckily) I am not personally involved in the negotiations. We have mentioned here a few of the possibilities. Another is to arrange it so that KLM mainline pilots can only transfer to KLC as F/Os, not as captains. But ironically I have now come to the conclusion that the bestuur of the VNV needs to forget about integrating KLM and KLC altogether. For one, I don't see any easy way around your objections to KLM mainline pilots taking KLC positions, and secondly, in the period of expansion on KLM mainline upon which we are about to embark, KLC pilots will again benefit more than junior KLM pilots because they would, under an integrated career path structure, be able to bid over to KLM before the normal six years in service was concluded! Almost all of the die-hard co-cos will soon become co-pilots on the 737, whereas if the integration goes through those positions will go to KLC pilots.
All in all it is an incredible mess in which you all happen to be caught up in, but I hope that I have been able to convince some KLMuk pilots that the members of the VNV are fair people who are not out to screw you. Yesterday I heard it again from one of your colleagues that they had seen it in writing that the VNV wanted to put them at the bottom of the list and they were going to fight it blah, blah blah. That is simply not true. I remain convinced that our negotiating team will use good faith and try their utmost to come up with a solution which will upset the most of us the least.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem, however, is that under your proposal KLC pilots would enter KLM with full senority and KLM pilots would enter KLC with none.
1. the lack of seniority will not hamper the opportunity for experienced KLM Pilots to take commands at KLC. They will probably have higher hours / experience than most FO’s at KLC so wont have too long to wait, and if they don’t, or if there is a suitably qualified KLC pilot already awaiting a position, it is only fair that the KLC pilot get first shot.
2. Coco’s will similarly have mainline seniority number protection, and on the assumption that mainline is their preference anyway, they will only have to bide their time at KLC (doing actual flying) until a desirable mainline position becomes available
This is because the KLC pilots are already on the KLM master senority list and so they cannot be rescheduled below existing KLM pilots and above KLMuk pilots, as you suggest.
The answer to your question is that there is only one list now; how that came about is a long story which I will try to summarize without boring the casual viewer.
So, two years ago when KLM asked the VNV if they could use the F100 at Cityhopper, the VNV said, "Sure; if we now complete the integration and make all positions biddable by all pilots and integrate the salary structure
So, you see, by granting permission for KLC to use the F100s, the VNV leaders can finally fufill their election promise of integrating the two groups once and for all. It is an opportunity which they cannot afford to pass up.
So, which way further? Unfortunately (or luckily) I am not personally involved in the negotiations. We have mentioned here a few of the possibilities.
Another is to arrange it so that KLM mainline pilots can only transfer to KLC as F/Os, not as captains.
But ironically I have now come to the conclusion that the bestuur of the VNV needs to forget about integrating KLM and KLC altogether.
Last edited by Heavy Landing; 28th Apr 2002 at 22:52.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to put the record straight !
I find a lot in Long Hauls post that angers me. To give an example;
Re the students ".... who graduated around 1996. At that time the best students of each class were offered places at KLM and the rest at KLC or other airlines" .
Note the 'Put Down' of KLC and Other Airlines ! Pathetic ! (KLMuk and Buzz, I guess you would qualify for 'other' here !)
Here's an alternative story. Similar time period. At the time the students graduated there were no jobs available. Then 'cityhopper' required some pilots. The best of the group were offered the available positions. About nine months later, those that were unsuccessfull with the cityhopper recruitment were recruited directly into KLM when KLM mainline started recuiting again.
Now, when the group that were recruited FIRST by KLM into the 'cityhopper' division finish their 6 years in KLC and are eligible to move across to one of the other 'mainline' divisions, quess what ? They will have to lose half there seniority in the move, ending up 3 years further down the list from those recruited from their same class but almost a year later than them !
If that's not discrimination, what is ? And it continues NOW, so be careful you guy's and gals in the UK. Despite some very promising posts in this thread this is the sort of mentality you'll have to deal with when dealing with the VNV.
Re the students ".... who graduated around 1996. At that time the best students of each class were offered places at KLM and the rest at KLC or other airlines" .
Note the 'Put Down' of KLC and Other Airlines ! Pathetic ! (KLMuk and Buzz, I guess you would qualify for 'other' here !)
Here's an alternative story. Similar time period. At the time the students graduated there were no jobs available. Then 'cityhopper' required some pilots. The best of the group were offered the available positions. About nine months later, those that were unsuccessfull with the cityhopper recruitment were recruited directly into KLM when KLM mainline started recuiting again.
Now, when the group that were recruited FIRST by KLM into the 'cityhopper' division finish their 6 years in KLC and are eligible to move across to one of the other 'mainline' divisions, quess what ? They will have to lose half there seniority in the move, ending up 3 years further down the list from those recruited from their same class but almost a year later than them !
If that's not discrimination, what is ? And it continues NOW, so be careful you guy's and gals in the UK. Despite some very promising posts in this thread this is the sort of mentality you'll have to deal with when dealing with the VNV.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what happens when, a year or two down the line, KLM decide that they have got a couple of hundred too many pilots due to fleet rationalization?
Those couple of hundred pilots nearest the bottom of the KLM seniority list will be the ones that are laid off - guess who they will be!
Those couple of hundred pilots nearest the bottom of the KLM seniority list will be the ones that are laid off - guess who they will be!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I dont think so 'Wet Power'. Any intergration well thought out should cover those points in a watertight manner. Any cut backs in the KLM mainline division should be handled by stand-downs in that division and any cutbacks in the proposed KLMuk,KLC,Buzz operation should be covered by cutbacks in that division.
The final text of the intergration aggrement should reflect those options and how they are to be handled. Just make sure that the final aggrement says exactly what you ment it to say with no room for other interpretations, because if it is worded too loosely it may be turned to work against you.
Remember too that you are approaching this from two different legal backgrounds;
The U.K. 'Adversarial' system with its 'letter of the law' approach, case history references etc. ....and
The Dutch 'Napoleonic' system which (supposedly) works on the 'principle' within the document presented rarther than the specific text, and therfore case histories do not necessarily apply. Furthermore the Dutch language is not as comprehensive as the English language and so one word can have different meanings dependant on the percieved context of its setting. This can be interperated differently by different legal people and I've seen some amazing findings from an apparently clear presentation.
Therefore the need to have the document of intergration say EXACTLY what you MEAN it to say, and as it will probably have to be in the Dutch Language, this is no easy task.
Good luck to you all.
The final text of the intergration aggrement should reflect those options and how they are to be handled. Just make sure that the final aggrement says exactly what you ment it to say with no room for other interpretations, because if it is worded too loosely it may be turned to work against you.
Remember too that you are approaching this from two different legal backgrounds;
The U.K. 'Adversarial' system with its 'letter of the law' approach, case history references etc. ....and
The Dutch 'Napoleonic' system which (supposedly) works on the 'principle' within the document presented rarther than the specific text, and therfore case histories do not necessarily apply. Furthermore the Dutch language is not as comprehensive as the English language and so one word can have different meanings dependant on the percieved context of its setting. This can be interperated differently by different legal people and I've seen some amazing findings from an apparently clear presentation.
Therefore the need to have the document of intergration say EXACTLY what you MEAN it to say, and as it will probably have to be in the Dutch Language, this is no easy task.
Good luck to you all.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: England
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heavy Landing;
Very well put, the more that i think about it and the more that is said on here it is becoming obvious that the only way to go is to have two seniority lists.
The integration into KLM mainline is far to complex and emotive, i for one would back all the way a KLC/KLMuk single list based on date of joining.
Those that have KLM mainline right should be allowed to keep those rights, however to add the KLMuk pilots to the bottom of the main list i think should be open to negotiation, I for one do not consider it important to me.
Very well put, the more that i think about it and the more that is said on here it is becoming obvious that the only way to go is to have two seniority lists.
The integration into KLM mainline is far to complex and emotive, i for one would back all the way a KLC/KLMuk single list based on date of joining.
Those that have KLM mainline right should be allowed to keep those rights, however to add the KLMuk pilots to the bottom of the main list i think should be open to negotiation, I for one do not consider it important to me.
Last edited by driver1; 3rd May 2002 at 09:16.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: England
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longhaul;
Just to put the record straight about the F100s history in AirUK/KLMuk.
AirUK have operated the F100 since 1992 and had 11 aircraft in the fleet 7 were ex canadian aircraft and 4 came from the defunct air Europe. we also operated 7 boeing 737-400 aircraft for charter.
When KLM bought AirUK and and renamed it KLMuk the 7 boeing 737-400s were transfered to KLM mainline initially operated by airuk pilots, but due to objections by KLM pilots the aircraft were put on the dutch register and operated by KLM mainline crews.
KLMs 6 Fokker 100 aircraft were then transefered to KLMuk, however two were very quickly sold by KLM to Montenegro airlines.
Todays fleet is made up of 11 ex Airuk F100 aircraft plus 4 ex KLM aircraft.
We lost 7 737s and gained 4 F100s at the end of the day!!
Just to put the record straight about the F100s history in AirUK/KLMuk.
AirUK have operated the F100 since 1992 and had 11 aircraft in the fleet 7 were ex canadian aircraft and 4 came from the defunct air Europe. we also operated 7 boeing 737-400 aircraft for charter.
When KLM bought AirUK and and renamed it KLMuk the 7 boeing 737-400s were transfered to KLM mainline initially operated by airuk pilots, but due to objections by KLM pilots the aircraft were put on the dutch register and operated by KLM mainline crews.
KLMs 6 Fokker 100 aircraft were then transefered to KLMuk, however two were very quickly sold by KLM to Montenegro airlines.
Todays fleet is made up of 11 ex Airuk F100 aircraft plus 4 ex KLM aircraft.
We lost 7 737s and gained 4 F100s at the end of the day!!
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: North
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long Haul,
Thanks for your last post.
Not only does it explain the history of the KLM/KLC seniority list saga but I am also pleased to hear your wishes for a fair solution to the problem we are all caught up in.
However, could you please clarify the situation with regard to KLC operating F100s?
We have had a meeting with EVG and FVP regarding the changes to KLMuk and EVG said that there is no scope clause preventing KLC operating F100s. She said the only reason they don't is that she cannot agree a suitable pay scale with the VNV. Ie the problem is only salary and not a scope clause restriction. Is this true?
HP
KLMuk
Thanks for your last post.
Not only does it explain the history of the KLM/KLC seniority list saga but I am also pleased to hear your wishes for a fair solution to the problem we are all caught up in.
However, could you please clarify the situation with regard to KLC operating F100s?
We have had a meeting with EVG and FVP regarding the changes to KLMuk and EVG said that there is no scope clause preventing KLC operating F100s. She said the only reason they don't is that she cannot agree a suitable pay scale with the VNV. Ie the problem is only salary and not a scope clause restriction. Is this true?
HP
KLMuk
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: England
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have any of you guys at KLM mainline or KLMcityhopper been told of any developments? (otterman?Longhaul?)
As usual the silence from KLMuk is disturbing!
All we have is rumours of the NWI flights transfering to jet equipment and the re-introduction of the ABZ-SVG route dropped by Pallant a few years ago, poss to be operated by the F70.
As usual the silence from KLMuk is disturbing!
All we have is rumours of the NWI flights transfering to jet equipment and the re-introduction of the ABZ-SVG route dropped by Pallant a few years ago, poss to be operated by the F70.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Driver1. No there is nothing but silence. When the numbers for 2001/2002 were presented the CEO gave a bit away about what he would like to do.
But in the Netherlands things don't happen all that quickly. I am sure talks are going on behind the scenes on this topic. But I don't expect anything substantial to happen for awhile.
I also have requested some information that relates to the Fokker 100. KLC can't fly them without breaking agreements with the VNV. I am just trying to find out how the scope clause is worded. Before KLMuk took the ex-KLM Fokker 100's they were operated by KLM mainline pilots at KLM mainline wages. KLC was operating the Fokker 70 at that time as well. I know KLM wanted KLC to operate them, but it was a no go for our union. Even KLM mainline supplying 6 complete crews for a common Fokker 70/100 pool was a no go. The number of seats in the Fokker 100 precludes regional payscales as things stand right now. If KLC/KLMuk merge this problem would rear its head again. Once again there are solutions, one of which will fit this situation, but it is not realistic for people to expect the VNV to play ostrich. They aren't. That is not why I pay dues.
As far as the silence being disturbing. I don't know I have had to get my company news out of the newspaper like everyone else for 14 years now.
But in the Netherlands things don't happen all that quickly. I am sure talks are going on behind the scenes on this topic. But I don't expect anything substantial to happen for awhile.
I also have requested some information that relates to the Fokker 100. KLC can't fly them without breaking agreements with the VNV. I am just trying to find out how the scope clause is worded. Before KLMuk took the ex-KLM Fokker 100's they were operated by KLM mainline pilots at KLM mainline wages. KLC was operating the Fokker 70 at that time as well. I know KLM wanted KLC to operate them, but it was a no go for our union. Even KLM mainline supplying 6 complete crews for a common Fokker 70/100 pool was a no go. The number of seats in the Fokker 100 precludes regional payscales as things stand right now. If KLC/KLMuk merge this problem would rear its head again. Once again there are solutions, one of which will fit this situation, but it is not realistic for people to expect the VNV to play ostrich. They aren't. That is not why I pay dues.
As far as the silence being disturbing. I don't know I have had to get my company news out of the newspaper like everyone else for 14 years now.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All real comany news is first in De Telegraf as usual, hope some of the issues are sorted out soon. I suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for the VNV....Hell only freezes rarely.... Good luck guys keep your heads up with EVG............
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Holland
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While talking about the Telegraaf(which is a dutch mix of the times with the Sun.. (I never buy it but only read it at the hairdresser.. of course 
)
They had this interesting topic
Wat it is saying that there is a new pilot union in the netherlands because a lot of pilots dont feel that the VNV monopoly is representing them properly... Where did I hear that before... somewhere in a topic about KLC and KL UK????
Anyway I will look into it and come back with some more info later..
) They had this interesting topic
Stormloop bij nieuwe
bond voor piloten
AMSTERDAM - Een groep verontruste verkeersvliegers heeft uit onvrede met het monopolie van hun huidige vakbond, de Vereniging Nederlandse Verkeersvliegers (VNV), een tweede pilotenbond opgericht.
bond voor piloten
AMSTERDAM - Een groep verontruste verkeersvliegers heeft uit onvrede met het monopolie van hun huidige vakbond, de Vereniging Nederlandse Verkeersvliegers (VNV), een tweede pilotenbond opgericht.
Anyway I will look into it and come back with some more info later..
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just received an answer to my scope clause question from the union. It appears that the situation has changed with regards to scope when it comes to KLM/KLC. We now have one seniority list and this means that we are one pilot group. The pilots who fly for KLC work under a separate contract from the mainline contract (referred to as amendment 21, employment with KLC). With this situation the 100 seat mark became history. If either KLM or KLC decides to add a new aircraft to its fleet it has to enter negotiations with the VNV to come to an agreement where this new aircraft is placed and scaled as far as salary, work-rules, and pilot career path is concerned.
So the information that Hoover Pilot received from his people is absolutely correct there is nothing preventing KLC from operating the Fokker 100 except that the VNV and KLC/KLM management can’t agree where to place this aircraft in the scheme of things. And of course this problem doesn’t go away with any integration of the KLC/KLMuk fleets. No other news to report from our side of the fence. Regards. Otterman
So the information that Hoover Pilot received from his people is absolutely correct there is nothing preventing KLC from operating the Fokker 100 except that the VNV and KLC/KLM management can’t agree where to place this aircraft in the scheme of things. And of course this problem doesn’t go away with any integration of the KLC/KLMuk fleets. No other news to report from our side of the fence. Regards. Otterman
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: England
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanx for the information Otterman;
As to the F100, please remind the VNV that very soon the KLMuk pilots will be part of the KLM/KLC pilot force, so any negotiations regarding pay for this fleet MUST include us as we are the operators!
There is still much talk about the seniority issue at KLMuk and in general the feeling is that a second "regional list" is regarded as the best option. I dont think that the pilots here would ever accept being just added to the bottom of the list as many have 15 years plus service.
We talked some time ago about arranging some kind of social function to get the KLM and KLMuk guys together informally, any suggestions??
Regards.
As to the F100, please remind the VNV that very soon the KLMuk pilots will be part of the KLM/KLC pilot force, so any negotiations regarding pay for this fleet MUST include us as we are the operators!
There is still much talk about the seniority issue at KLMuk and in general the feeling is that a second "regional list" is regarded as the best option. I dont think that the pilots here would ever accept being just added to the bottom of the list as many have 15 years plus service.
We talked some time ago about arranging some kind of social function to get the KLM and KLMuk guys together informally, any suggestions??
Regards.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: North
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Otterman, thanks for the info.
The question of scope was largely academic in that KLC pilots cannot operate the F100 without VNV agreement.
BUT if KLC could not operate the F100 because the scope clause absolutely forbids it due to capacity (more than 100 seats) then as soon as they become part of the KLC fleet they technically would become grounded for both KLC AND KLMuk pilots.
IF however, the F100 could be flown by KLC but the VNV needs to be involved to agree salary, career progression etc etc then when they do become part of the KLC fleet there is nothing in the scope clause to prevent KLMuk pilots from still operating them as we are currently doing.
Granted, all parties will have lots to say when the F100 does become part of the KLC fleet but since you say the seat restriction part of the scope clause does not now apply then at least the aircraft would not be immeadiately grounded. For KLC pilots to operate them though the VNV still have to agree to terms.
HP
The question of scope was largely academic in that KLC pilots cannot operate the F100 without VNV agreement.
BUT if KLC could not operate the F100 because the scope clause absolutely forbids it due to capacity (more than 100 seats) then as soon as they become part of the KLC fleet they technically would become grounded for both KLC AND KLMuk pilots.
IF however, the F100 could be flown by KLC but the VNV needs to be involved to agree salary, career progression etc etc then when they do become part of the KLC fleet there is nothing in the scope clause to prevent KLMuk pilots from still operating them as we are currently doing.
Granted, all parties will have lots to say when the F100 does become part of the KLC fleet but since you say the seat restriction part of the scope clause does not now apply then at least the aircraft would not be immeadiately grounded. For KLC pilots to operate them though the VNV still have to agree to terms.
HP
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can’t see them being grounded whatever happens. That is not the Dutch way. But if there is integration of KLMuk/KLC than it is too simple to say that there is no problem.
There are synergies to be had for management otherwise they wouldn’t even contemplate doing this integration. IF there were integration I would think the same situation applies with the KLM/KLC integration. We wouldn’t be talking about two pilot groups but one. So KLMuk pilots would be considered KLM pilots (leaving the whole seniority integration of how, when and why aside). So the situation at the new regional wouldn’t be any different in regards to the Fokker 100. It would have to be negotiated with the VNV. Granted of course that you guys are already flying them.
If there would be a solution which would entail two lists one regional and one KLM mainline, with KLC guys occupying a spot on both, the situation would be different once again. I would tend to see the problem reverting back to the pre KLM/KLC merger case where this merged company can’t operate any aircraft with more than a 100 seat design. The KLC guys having the best of both worlds might turn out to be more in favour for this scope, because the pay and benefits on the European fleet at KLM are higher than at KLC, and they can transfer to the mainline.
If I know my company and union a bit this it what I could see happening. I can see the Fokker 100 being grand-fathered to this new entity. The fleet frozen, that way the “problem” would solve itself over time. There are cases of this happening at other regional carriers. And it would do justice to all I believe. But as I have noticed in the past in this discussion, my glasses are definitely coloured by my position at KLM mainline. Regards Otterman.
There are synergies to be had for management otherwise they wouldn’t even contemplate doing this integration. IF there were integration I would think the same situation applies with the KLM/KLC integration. We wouldn’t be talking about two pilot groups but one. So KLMuk pilots would be considered KLM pilots (leaving the whole seniority integration of how, when and why aside). So the situation at the new regional wouldn’t be any different in regards to the Fokker 100. It would have to be negotiated with the VNV. Granted of course that you guys are already flying them.
If there would be a solution which would entail two lists one regional and one KLM mainline, with KLC guys occupying a spot on both, the situation would be different once again. I would tend to see the problem reverting back to the pre KLM/KLC merger case where this merged company can’t operate any aircraft with more than a 100 seat design. The KLC guys having the best of both worlds might turn out to be more in favour for this scope, because the pay and benefits on the European fleet at KLM are higher than at KLC, and they can transfer to the mainline.
If I know my company and union a bit this it what I could see happening. I can see the Fokker 100 being grand-fathered to this new entity. The fleet frozen, that way the “problem” would solve itself over time. There are cases of this happening at other regional carriers. And it would do justice to all I believe. But as I have noticed in the past in this discussion, my glasses are definitely coloured by my position at KLM mainline. Regards Otterman.
