bmi pays pilot £62,000 compensation
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems at times there are certain pilots for whom the absolute intention by their Flight Ops/whoever is that THEY WILL NEVER COME BACK. In BA we had the dreadful case of Capt. Stuart Clapson. A few minor transgressions over the years, insists on smoking on the flight deck, hads the incident with the mentally unstable woman at Gatwick screaming that a passenger has a bomb (he hadn't). Disrupted a departure twice, after returning to the gate twice, Stuart made, shall we say, an undiplomatic PA. Certain managerial individuals took this as an opportunity to discipline an individual who had evidently rubbed them up the wrong way. In succession, I believe it was docking seniority/appeal/demotion to co-pilot/appeal/termination/appeal. Long drawn out stressful experience. Unfortunately Stuart suffered a stress related death after BA was ordered to reinstate. We were awaiting the outcome with fascination. I gather BA was determined to do as in this case ignore the tribunal and willingly pay the paltry compensation for the loss of ones career. It is incredible and to our shame British Law is as toothless as it is in these matters for us when I read that British law is to be changed to increase the penalty for having counterfeit goods (maybe just simple Far East software?) to 10 YEARS ! A court order for reinstatement should be just that- reinstatement. If the law is to be taken seriously, how can companies flout it like this?- I think a lot of us would like to know!
As a matter of interest, the court cases against Stuart were disgraceful. The evidence presented was so laughable it was actually tragic. One of our senior managers was sitting in a British High Court spouting about how Stuart had 'damaged a boat 20 years before', they dragged up a pilot hating Purser who gave evidence that Stuart was so 'beside himself he stumbled when he went downstairs to see the woman involved and see why she was creating such a scene and accusing an innocent party' (the moral there is if you stumble in such a situation, retreat to the F/D and then make another gracious exit!). The evidence was rejected by the Court. The pilot manager left for another airline shortly thereafter. The others appear to have gotten away with it, though morally they share responsibility for taking the father of a 9 year old away.
A sad saga- I have gone into it in detail because it shows nothing has changed- British aviation disciplinary procedures STINK, and it is still ongoing. If any fine detail is incorrect- I apologise- I have the full Employment Tribunal report available- it makes horrifying reading when you understand the limited intellect of who can be sitting in judgement over you!
(and I haven't even touched on the saga of BA's treatment of Captain Chris Lankey............)
As a matter of interest, the court cases against Stuart were disgraceful. The evidence presented was so laughable it was actually tragic. One of our senior managers was sitting in a British High Court spouting about how Stuart had 'damaged a boat 20 years before', they dragged up a pilot hating Purser who gave evidence that Stuart was so 'beside himself he stumbled when he went downstairs to see the woman involved and see why she was creating such a scene and accusing an innocent party' (the moral there is if you stumble in such a situation, retreat to the F/D and then make another gracious exit!). The evidence was rejected by the Court. The pilot manager left for another airline shortly thereafter. The others appear to have gotten away with it, though morally they share responsibility for taking the father of a 9 year old away.
A sad saga- I have gone into it in detail because it shows nothing has changed- British aviation disciplinary procedures STINK, and it is still ongoing. If any fine detail is incorrect- I apologise- I have the full Employment Tribunal report available- it makes horrifying reading when you understand the limited intellect of who can be sitting in judgement over you!
(and I haven't even touched on the saga of BA's treatment of Captain Chris Lankey............)
Last edited by Notso Fantastic; 15th Jul 2002 at 08:36.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Nottingham, England
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JL and MP
I work for bmi .... enjoy my job but have to say good luck to you both .. you sound better off as you are. I have a philosphy that if you are wrong about something, and we all are at some time then you hold you hands up and admit it .... shame this isn't shared by all.
Best of luck.
ES
I work for bmi .... enjoy my job but have to say good luck to you both .. you sound better off as you are. I have a philosphy that if you are wrong about something, and we all are at some time then you hold you hands up and admit it .... shame this isn't shared by all.
Best of luck.
ES
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Employment Tribunals have the power to order reinstatement where the facts of the case merit it. They have no power to force an employer to comply. A failure to comply with such an order merely increases the compensation payable. If the award figure quoted is accurate, then this represents the maximum a Tribunal can award in cases of unfair dismissal. Tribunal awards in cases where discrimination on the grounds of sex or race is involved are not subject to this cap – the potential award is unlimited.
The Tribunal system was modified a few years back, when the name was changed from Industrial Tribunal to Employment Tribunal, and the upper limit in unfair dismissal cases was raised from c26K (seldom awarded) to the present limit. The original proposal was that awards in unfair dismissal cases would no longer be limited – the award would be linked to the amount of damage suffered – but this was blocked by that nice Mr. Mandleson. There is some doubt whether the present limit complies with EU law, which requires awards to reflect the loss suffered.
When future employment prospects and pension rights are considered, factoring the award in the present case by ten may not be too far out.
If nothing else, it illustrates quite why employers are petrified at the prospect of even a completely unfounded sex discrimination/harassment claim, but can look upon one for unfair dismissal with utter contempt.
Why has this airline’s conduct not been picked up by the national media?
The Tribunal system was modified a few years back, when the name was changed from Industrial Tribunal to Employment Tribunal, and the upper limit in unfair dismissal cases was raised from c26K (seldom awarded) to the present limit. The original proposal was that awards in unfair dismissal cases would no longer be limited – the award would be linked to the amount of damage suffered – but this was blocked by that nice Mr. Mandleson. There is some doubt whether the present limit complies with EU law, which requires awards to reflect the loss suffered.
When future employment prospects and pension rights are considered, factoring the award in the present case by ten may not be too far out.
If nothing else, it illustrates quite why employers are petrified at the prospect of even a completely unfounded sex discrimination/harassment claim, but can look upon one for unfair dismissal with utter contempt.
Why has this airline’s conduct not been picked up by the national media?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wherever my current employers wish to send me !!
Posts: 718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....I think you'll find that it has...at least, in the Midlands, but if the media choose to keep it within the middle pages, or a 30-sec item on the local news, then that it is how relevant they deem it to be....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little Blue, you are no doubt quite right that it is only of minor interest in the Midlands;howver, I was interviewed 2 days ago by a reporter from the Northcliffe group of newspapers which includes the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
Whether they will run the story remains to be seen; it may be consigned to the inside page of the local paper or 30 seconds on Carlton news but even such limited coverage doesnt help improve bmi' s stature in the eyes of the traveling public.
Additionally, there are several other cases in progress against bmi at varying stages in the process. One in particular will make very interesting television once the issue is ventilated at Tribunal !
What you have to realise is that my case, and the treatment I received, is not isolated: the culture within the company promotes contempt towards the crews, both flight deck and cabin crew. Until there is a change in this fundamental there will be a succession of complaints from staff and a continuing high turnover.
When the ET ordered bmi to reinstate me the best thing and most sensible thing they could have done was to comply and to then give me the responsibility for handling their disciplinary and greivance process. That would have given the flightcrew confidence that they were dealing with someone who new the system and procedures, and had also been through the mill against the company. It would have given Richard Hill a huge burst of credibility with the crews as he would have shown himself to be an honourable man by abiding by the ET decisions and acknowledging that bmi were wrong throughout.
In short he would have been credited with a "win-win" result; as it is bmi have let themselves down and are still going to find themselves embroiled in disputes which waste time and money and cause incalculable damage to their repautation.
Ask yourself what is more important: spending £20 million rebranding to have an "i" added and the rest of the name in lowercase or spending less than 1% of that in improving and maintaining staff morale?
Whether they will run the story remains to be seen; it may be consigned to the inside page of the local paper or 30 seconds on Carlton news but even such limited coverage doesnt help improve bmi' s stature in the eyes of the traveling public.
Additionally, there are several other cases in progress against bmi at varying stages in the process. One in particular will make very interesting television once the issue is ventilated at Tribunal !
What you have to realise is that my case, and the treatment I received, is not isolated: the culture within the company promotes contempt towards the crews, both flight deck and cabin crew. Until there is a change in this fundamental there will be a succession of complaints from staff and a continuing high turnover.
When the ET ordered bmi to reinstate me the best thing and most sensible thing they could have done was to comply and to then give me the responsibility for handling their disciplinary and greivance process. That would have given the flightcrew confidence that they were dealing with someone who new the system and procedures, and had also been through the mill against the company. It would have given Richard Hill a huge burst of credibility with the crews as he would have shown himself to be an honourable man by abiding by the ET decisions and acknowledging that bmi were wrong throughout.
In short he would have been credited with a "win-win" result; as it is bmi have let themselves down and are still going to find themselves embroiled in disputes which waste time and money and cause incalculable damage to their repautation.
Ask yourself what is more important: spending £20 million rebranding to have an "i" added and the rest of the name in lowercase or spending less than 1% of that in improving and maintaining staff morale?
BALPA invovement
Grothaasje
"I didnt get any support from BALPA other than in the initial stages from some of the people on the CC. New Road was singularly silent. "
Were you a member of BALPA, in good standing, at the time of the initial incident which set in train this sorry course of events?
YS
"I didnt get any support from BALPA other than in the initial stages from some of the people on the CC. New Road was singularly silent. "
Were you a member of BALPA, in good standing, at the time of the initial incident which set in train this sorry course of events?
YS
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yellow and Fuzz,
My apologies, I have only just logged on and found your posts.
The support I hoped for, and asked BALPA for, was simply a statement that they supported my case: I did not ask for my legal fees to be paid: on the contrary, I made it quite clear from the outset that I did not want financiall support. This was my fight, not BALPA's.
Nevertheless, when I asked BALPA head office for support and advice, Carolyn Evans apart, I got nothing. Reg Allen did not respond to emails and John Moore was continually out of the office.
Roger Kline, on the other hand was always in the office, and I spoke to Roger on several occasions about other issues, however, he is not involved with bmi.
Sean McHugh and Paul Montgomery were helpful in the initial stages, Monty particularly so. However, they had other battles to fight with bmi in an ongoing war and once I had been sacked I no longer fell within their sphere of influence.
Whether I was was in good standing - I do have an email from BALPA head office stating just that, you are welcome to a copy if you wish, but again I point out that all I asked for was a statement of BALPA's position, not financial support.
Now, fortunately for you, and every other CAA licensed pilot, I put my money where my mouth was; if your contract states that a CAA / JAA Class 1 medical is the requirement for your job then that is all you need. I was asked to undergo a psychiatric assessment by / with an examiner who had no training in aviation medicine. I did point this out to the Personnel Manager and my Fleet Manager who both acknowledged and accepted that I fulfilled the Ts & Cs and was fit, but then ignored it; furthermore, this was way outside the scope of my, and every other bmi pilot's contract. The Tribunal found that it was "unreasonable".
Now, when you call in fatigued, as you are required to do if you feel that your fatigue would jeopardise the safety of the flight, you may be asked to have a psychiatrist meet with you and discuss your "problem". The fact that the problem may well not be yours but the company's is insignificant; fortunately for you I have walked that path and have an independent decision that requiring a medical assessment outwith the terms and conditions of one's contract, and with an unqualified practitioner is unreasonable.
Whether I was a member in good or bad standing is not the issue; whether BALPA were prepared to make a staement of support - that doesn't cost them - is. There was never any statement of support from New Road. As I said, apart for Carolyn, who was helpful, I was left to my own devices.
If you think BALPA are always forthcoming, even with " members in good standing" I think that you will find that the needs of the individula may often be subordinate to the needs of the many; such is the existence of the political animal.
Finally, I'm not bitter or angry about BALPA's refusal to make a statement; I took a leading role in pressing for BALPA recognition in the company I worked for immediately after leaving bmi, whilst all this was going on. As I said, I didnt want any financial help, I made that clear from the outset, all I wanted was morale support.
You will both have read the variety of threads here on the efficacy, or otherwise, of BALPA, and of course of BALPA membership; that is at issue. Your comments only seek to move to the debate away from the primary issue. Whether you like it or not, I was lied to, repeatedly by managers; even when presented with my contract of employement they refused to read, or acknowledge it. They discussed, and presented in eveidence, their refusal to accept the terms and conditions. The outrageous demand that i should undergo a medical examination of their choosing, with a practitioner of their choosing, at a time of their choosing and in a place of their choosing fundamentally threatened every pilot in bmi; if I may plagiarise the words of the Operations Director, as reporetd to me from a roadshow " we will manage the over 55's situation ". Now call me a cynic, but had I agreed with their demands, and equally had the tribunal, they suddenly have a precedent to work on; it was, therefore vital, that there assertions were refuted.
BALPA memebr or not, in good standing or not, you now have a precedent to argue should your employer demand that you have your next medical with an unqualified practitioner.
BTW, bmi had pre briefed the doctor on what to look for!!!!!!
My apologies, I have only just logged on and found your posts.
The support I hoped for, and asked BALPA for, was simply a statement that they supported my case: I did not ask for my legal fees to be paid: on the contrary, I made it quite clear from the outset that I did not want financiall support. This was my fight, not BALPA's.
Nevertheless, when I asked BALPA head office for support and advice, Carolyn Evans apart, I got nothing. Reg Allen did not respond to emails and John Moore was continually out of the office.
Roger Kline, on the other hand was always in the office, and I spoke to Roger on several occasions about other issues, however, he is not involved with bmi.
Sean McHugh and Paul Montgomery were helpful in the initial stages, Monty particularly so. However, they had other battles to fight with bmi in an ongoing war and once I had been sacked I no longer fell within their sphere of influence.
Whether I was was in good standing - I do have an email from BALPA head office stating just that, you are welcome to a copy if you wish, but again I point out that all I asked for was a statement of BALPA's position, not financial support.
Now, fortunately for you, and every other CAA licensed pilot, I put my money where my mouth was; if your contract states that a CAA / JAA Class 1 medical is the requirement for your job then that is all you need. I was asked to undergo a psychiatric assessment by / with an examiner who had no training in aviation medicine. I did point this out to the Personnel Manager and my Fleet Manager who both acknowledged and accepted that I fulfilled the Ts & Cs and was fit, but then ignored it; furthermore, this was way outside the scope of my, and every other bmi pilot's contract. The Tribunal found that it was "unreasonable".
Now, when you call in fatigued, as you are required to do if you feel that your fatigue would jeopardise the safety of the flight, you may be asked to have a psychiatrist meet with you and discuss your "problem". The fact that the problem may well not be yours but the company's is insignificant; fortunately for you I have walked that path and have an independent decision that requiring a medical assessment outwith the terms and conditions of one's contract, and with an unqualified practitioner is unreasonable.
Whether I was a member in good or bad standing is not the issue; whether BALPA were prepared to make a staement of support - that doesn't cost them - is. There was never any statement of support from New Road. As I said, apart for Carolyn, who was helpful, I was left to my own devices.
If you think BALPA are always forthcoming, even with " members in good standing" I think that you will find that the needs of the individula may often be subordinate to the needs of the many; such is the existence of the political animal.
Finally, I'm not bitter or angry about BALPA's refusal to make a statement; I took a leading role in pressing for BALPA recognition in the company I worked for immediately after leaving bmi, whilst all this was going on. As I said, I didnt want any financial help, I made that clear from the outset, all I wanted was morale support.
You will both have read the variety of threads here on the efficacy, or otherwise, of BALPA, and of course of BALPA membership; that is at issue. Your comments only seek to move to the debate away from the primary issue. Whether you like it or not, I was lied to, repeatedly by managers; even when presented with my contract of employement they refused to read, or acknowledge it. They discussed, and presented in eveidence, their refusal to accept the terms and conditions. The outrageous demand that i should undergo a medical examination of their choosing, with a practitioner of their choosing, at a time of their choosing and in a place of their choosing fundamentally threatened every pilot in bmi; if I may plagiarise the words of the Operations Director, as reporetd to me from a roadshow " we will manage the over 55's situation ". Now call me a cynic, but had I agreed with their demands, and equally had the tribunal, they suddenly have a precedent to work on; it was, therefore vital, that there assertions were refuted.
BALPA memebr or not, in good standing or not, you now have a precedent to argue should your employer demand that you have your next medical with an unqualified practitioner.
BTW, bmi had pre briefed the doctor on what to look for!!!!!!
Last edited by Grotehaasje; 18th Jul 2002 at 23:45.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So mate, what were you paying the grossly extortionate sum of 1% of your salary for??? Insurance? legal support? Help? Looks like a waste of time and money and then you go and seek to get BALPA into your new company, have you no conscience? Join the IPA/IPF they look after their members.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriph,
If you look at the BALPA rules legal assistance / insurance is not automatic; in fact, BALPA are reluctant to fund every Employment Tribunal as it costs £20K - £30K in legal fees. The words of the Deputy Secretary, not mine.
What you have to bear in mind is that when you work for a company with no morals, bmi in this case, the only possible chance you have of getting any improvement in the conditions is through solidarity. To that end BALPA and the bmi CC are the only hope.
Sean McHugh, Barry Hedges, Paul Monty and Jeremy D-S, amongst others ( not forgetting that stalwart Martin Hawkins) work their butts off for the troops;the least you can do is offer support by being a member.
Sometimes you have pay your taxes for the common good rather than for your own self interest. This "profession" has gone down the road of "F**k you Jack, I'm allright" for too long; if you want to gain the respect of your peers perhaps you have to take a more selfless line at times and support your local CC.
But let's not lose the plot here; the case was not about BALPA doing nothing or doing too much; in fact my legal advisors asked BALPA not to write to, speak to, the company over my case as they believed it may be prejudical to have more than front open.
The case was about the blatant disregard by, an ostensibly highly thought of company, treating a Captain whom they regarded as "Outstanding in some aspects and significantly above the average standard in everything else" ( last LPC / OPC report by the guy who signed the letter sacking me 4 months later with utter contempt.
BALPA did not breach the terms and conditions of my contract;BALPA did not disregard the principles of natural justice; BALPA did not LIE repeatedly to me; BALPA did not waste the time of the Employment Tribunal; BALPA did not, in the first instance, break the scheduling rules.
BALPA, in fact, had already told the company that the arrangements they had in force were not appropriate; however, the CC were so stretched that keeping all the balls in the air was difficult. If you look at the sickness records for the bmi Fokker fleet for the summer of 2 years ago you will find that significant numbers were off long term sick due to stress or stress related illnesses.
Stop muddying the water by trying to drag BALPA and the CC in to this;it has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the incompetence of bmi management techniques.
That is what the case dealt with and that is what this thread is about !
If you look at the BALPA rules legal assistance / insurance is not automatic; in fact, BALPA are reluctant to fund every Employment Tribunal as it costs £20K - £30K in legal fees. The words of the Deputy Secretary, not mine.
What you have to bear in mind is that when you work for a company with no morals, bmi in this case, the only possible chance you have of getting any improvement in the conditions is through solidarity. To that end BALPA and the bmi CC are the only hope.
Sean McHugh, Barry Hedges, Paul Monty and Jeremy D-S, amongst others ( not forgetting that stalwart Martin Hawkins) work their butts off for the troops;the least you can do is offer support by being a member.
Sometimes you have pay your taxes for the common good rather than for your own self interest. This "profession" has gone down the road of "F**k you Jack, I'm allright" for too long; if you want to gain the respect of your peers perhaps you have to take a more selfless line at times and support your local CC.
But let's not lose the plot here; the case was not about BALPA doing nothing or doing too much; in fact my legal advisors asked BALPA not to write to, speak to, the company over my case as they believed it may be prejudical to have more than front open.
The case was about the blatant disregard by, an ostensibly highly thought of company, treating a Captain whom they regarded as "Outstanding in some aspects and significantly above the average standard in everything else" ( last LPC / OPC report by the guy who signed the letter sacking me 4 months later with utter contempt.
BALPA did not breach the terms and conditions of my contract;BALPA did not disregard the principles of natural justice; BALPA did not LIE repeatedly to me; BALPA did not waste the time of the Employment Tribunal; BALPA did not, in the first instance, break the scheduling rules.
BALPA, in fact, had already told the company that the arrangements they had in force were not appropriate; however, the CC were so stretched that keeping all the balls in the air was difficult. If you look at the sickness records for the bmi Fokker fleet for the summer of 2 years ago you will find that significant numbers were off long term sick due to stress or stress related illnesses.
Stop muddying the water by trying to drag BALPA and the CC in to this;it has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the incompetence of bmi management techniques.
That is what the case dealt with and that is what this thread is about !
Last edited by Grotehaasje; 19th Jul 2002 at 18:49.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and Gentlemen, this Bulletin Board has appraised us most clearly of an employer who may not treat its flying staff in a manner which most of us would like. At present jobs are hard to come by but as sure as "eggs is eggs" the situation will change in a year or two and the boot will then be on the other foot. Let's hope we all remember the contents of this thread when "they" are screaming at "us" to fly for them.
Remember BWA!
Remember BWA!
Seriph, before you continue with your anti-BALPA, pro-IPA stance, why not wait for a full answer to the earlier question: "Were you a member of BALPA, in good standing, at the time of the initial incident which set in train this sorry course of events?"? Even if the answer is in the affirmative, can you guarantee that IPA or any legal insurance scheme would have taken on the case regardless of forecast cost and forecast outcome?
Last edited by Hew Jampton; 21st Jul 2002 at 09:04.
BALPA Involvement
Grotehaasje
Thank you for your response to my question:
"Were you a member of BALPA, in good standing, at the time of the initial incident which set in train this sorry course of events?"
All I was hoping for was a simple, unequivocal "Yes" or "No" Could you oblige?
Thanks
YS
Thank you for your response to my question:
"Were you a member of BALPA, in good standing, at the time of the initial incident which set in train this sorry course of events?"
All I was hoping for was a simple, unequivocal "Yes" or "No" Could you oblige?
Thanks
YS
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grotehaasje
It's deafening cos you didn't answer the question, as Yellow Sun has said.....
"Were you a member of BALPA, in good standing, at the time of the initial incident which set in train this sorry course of events?"
All I was hoping for was a simple, unequivocal "Yes" or "No" Could you oblige?
And yes it does matter because on the one hand you say
"I didnt get any support from BALPA other than in the initial stages from some of the people on the CC. New Road was singularly silent. "
And then you say.....
"Stop muddying the water by trying to drag BALPA and the CC in to this;it has nothing to do with ......"
Seems to me like it is you who are 'dragging BALPA into it and muddying the water. Try to be a bit more consistent in future. The only reason I ask is because I KNOW you were not a member in good standing at the time of the incident - so be a big boy and own up !
I think I'll cancel my car insurance this year - with your logic I can have a crash and then get a 'statement of support' from my old insurance company. Grow up for christ's sake, BALPA is not a charity.
It's deafening cos you didn't answer the question, as Yellow Sun has said.....
"Were you a member of BALPA, in good standing, at the time of the initial incident which set in train this sorry course of events?"
All I was hoping for was a simple, unequivocal "Yes" or "No" Could you oblige?
And yes it does matter because on the one hand you say
"I didnt get any support from BALPA other than in the initial stages from some of the people on the CC. New Road was singularly silent. "
And then you say.....
"Stop muddying the water by trying to drag BALPA and the CC in to this;it has nothing to do with ......"
Seems to me like it is you who are 'dragging BALPA into it and muddying the water. Try to be a bit more consistent in future. The only reason I ask is because I KNOW you were not a member in good standing at the time of the incident - so be a big boy and own up !
I think I'll cancel my car insurance this year - with your logic I can have a crash and then get a 'statement of support' from my old insurance company. Grow up for christ's sake, BALPA is not a charity.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Messrs Fuzzy & Yellow, reading this thread purely out of interest, I note that that the subject of BALPA was introduced by Mr. Wibble Hatstand and not by Grotehaasje. Which makes the statement "it is you who are 'dragging BALPA into it and muddying the water. Try to be a bit more consistent in future." in the post above rather odd, to say the least.
Grotehaasje writes: "Whether I was was in good standing - I do have an email from BALPA head office stating just that, you are welcome to a copy if you wish" so you might or might not have a point regarding the currency of membership here, but your sarcasm seems rather unwarranted to the impartial observer.
The way posts by Fuzzy & Yellow faithfully follow & support eachother is very endearing though..........
Grotehaasje writes: "Whether I was was in good standing - I do have an email from BALPA head office stating just that, you are welcome to a copy if you wish" so you might or might not have a point regarding the currency of membership here, but your sarcasm seems rather unwarranted to the impartial observer.
The way posts by Fuzzy & Yellow faithfully follow & support eachother is very endearing though..........
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Were you a member of BALPA, in good standing, at the time of the initial incident which set in train this sorry course of events?"
I.E. Were his subscriptions paid up. The suggestion being that BALPA has a patronage culture and might not support you if your face doesn't fit. That would make it a club not a union.
A wise pilot would belong to BALPA, the IPA and ALPL.
I.E. Were his subscriptions paid up. The suggestion being that BALPA has a patronage culture and might not support you if your face doesn't fit. That would make it a club not a union.
A wise pilot would belong to BALPA, the IPA and ALPL.