Pilots jobs could go at British European
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tilii
You seem to have misunderstood BavarianBoy. The company has stated that there will be redundancies, unless 40-odd pilots resign. Assuming they don't, redundancies will be made, starting with external contract pilots, then freelance pilots, then over-60's, then nearly-60's, then two-year contract pilots, then five-year contract pilots.
As there should be sufficient of the above groups to satisfy the need for redundancies, no pilot on the main seniority list should be affected by (forced) redundancy. However, as all of the two-year contract pilots are F/O's, and the eventual fleet will initially be seven less jets and three more turboprops, there will need to be some moving of types and seats. This problem is mainly extant in one base.
All pilots who have received 146 type ratings are bonded for 18K over either 2 or 3 years. I doubt that any of the over- or near- 60's are bonded, so their going will result in no penalty to them or the company. None of the external contract pilots, or the freelance pilots, will be bonded either. The only group that will be is the 2 or 5 year contract guys. Now, given that situation, your comment-
>> Given the terms of the BE bonds, it is now quite clear why BE have elected NOT to make these pilots redundant. If they were to do so, it would make it incumbent upon BE to clear their bonds, would it not? <<
-erroneous. Furthermore, as the two year contract pilots are only on a two-year bond, the company can recover less money from them via the bond than it could from a standard, three-year-bonded pilot.
Further, your statement-
>> Far better, then, to simply give them the option of becoming type-rated on a ‘lesser’ type and be bonded for two types simultaneously or to leave of their own volition. <<
-is incorrect, as any pilot changing types will only have a bond on the new type, which, if he has recently been "promoted" to the jet fleet, will result in his bond being less than the one he had on the jet. In this case, the pilot wins, as he has both type ratings but only the turboprop bond to think about. The company has clearly stated that if a pilot changes type, the bond on the previous type is cancelled.
>> Kindly explain how a pilot bonded on a jet type in the sum of many thousands of pounds (which bond takes the form of a bank-financed loan in the pilot's name), when offered conversion onto a more lowly type on the basis of again being similarly bonded is deemed to have cleared up the original bond UNLESS THE EMPLOYER HAS PAID IT OUT IN THE PILOT'S NAME? <<
Yes, that is exactly what the company has proposed. I quote from their letter to pilots:
I won't be posting the whole terms and conditions, suffice it to say that the company has the right to require a change in type, rank or base (as virtually all pilot contracts allow), and exactly how the bond works into all that is a matter of some interpretation.
Your penultimate and ultimate paragraphs above are unworthy of further comment (but are typically petty and nasty).
[ 29 July 2001: Message edited by: MOR ]
You seem to have misunderstood BavarianBoy. The company has stated that there will be redundancies, unless 40-odd pilots resign. Assuming they don't, redundancies will be made, starting with external contract pilots, then freelance pilots, then over-60's, then nearly-60's, then two-year contract pilots, then five-year contract pilots.
As there should be sufficient of the above groups to satisfy the need for redundancies, no pilot on the main seniority list should be affected by (forced) redundancy. However, as all of the two-year contract pilots are F/O's, and the eventual fleet will initially be seven less jets and three more turboprops, there will need to be some moving of types and seats. This problem is mainly extant in one base.
All pilots who have received 146 type ratings are bonded for 18K over either 2 or 3 years. I doubt that any of the over- or near- 60's are bonded, so their going will result in no penalty to them or the company. None of the external contract pilots, or the freelance pilots, will be bonded either. The only group that will be is the 2 or 5 year contract guys. Now, given that situation, your comment-
>> Given the terms of the BE bonds, it is now quite clear why BE have elected NOT to make these pilots redundant. If they were to do so, it would make it incumbent upon BE to clear their bonds, would it not? <<
-erroneous. Furthermore, as the two year contract pilots are only on a two-year bond, the company can recover less money from them via the bond than it could from a standard, three-year-bonded pilot.
Further, your statement-
>> Far better, then, to simply give them the option of becoming type-rated on a ‘lesser’ type and be bonded for two types simultaneously or to leave of their own volition. <<
-is incorrect, as any pilot changing types will only have a bond on the new type, which, if he has recently been "promoted" to the jet fleet, will result in his bond being less than the one he had on the jet. In this case, the pilot wins, as he has both type ratings but only the turboprop bond to think about. The company has clearly stated that if a pilot changes type, the bond on the previous type is cancelled.
>> Kindly explain how a pilot bonded on a jet type in the sum of many thousands of pounds (which bond takes the form of a bank-financed loan in the pilot's name), when offered conversion onto a more lowly type on the basis of again being similarly bonded is deemed to have cleared up the original bond UNLESS THE EMPLOYER HAS PAID IT OUT IN THE PILOT'S NAME? <<
Yes, that is exactly what the company has proposed. I quote from their letter to pilots:
Where a pilot is offered another aircraft type rating the existing bond will be paid off and a new bond commenced for the new aircraft type provided the individual accepts the change of type.
Your penultimate and ultimate paragraphs above are unworthy of further comment (but are typically petty and nasty).
[ 29 July 2001: Message edited by: MOR ]
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: London, UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, what happens to the CRJ routes now?
I can see STN - BHD dropped due competition, but BHX routes should be profitable... Perhaps BRS - BHD gone?
BHX - TLS... 146?
BHX - BHD... Dash?
I can see STN - BHD dropped due competition, but BHX routes should be profitable... Perhaps BRS - BHD gone?
BHX - TLS... 146?
BHX - BHD... Dash?
Guest
Posts: n/a
MOR
My dear chap, thank you for that enlightening post. So much better than its predecessor, though a little evasive, particularly at its conclusion.
So, you say that I have 'misunderstood' BavarianBoy. Certainly some of what you have said is in direct contradiction of what he and many others have said. That does not necessarily mean, though, that I have misunderstood anything.
Having become quite dizzy with the facts and figures being stated here, I now take the time (some considerable time, in fact) to sort out what has been posted here. I compare multitudinous conflicting statements by quotation below:
First, BavarianBoy said:
Then RD, defensively stating that this was “wide of the mark”, alleged:
carlos vandango said:
And barcode was then kind enough to quote RD from some “six weeks ago” as follows:
RD himself then stated:
BavarianBoy then posted this somewhat definitive information:
It was this last post that inflamed me with regard to the bonding implications.
I do not think I have ‘misunderstood’ what BavarianBoy has said here. It is clear, and it is definitive. The assertion is that 69 pilots will go, among which there will be many current jet pilots given a choice between taking a down-grade onto the Dash 8 with a new bond to sign OR resignation with the penalty of then being forced to repay existing jet bonds at a moment in time when they are likely to be unable to do so. Given that this airline is known to bond through a bank loan to the pilot concerned, it seems clear that, under the legal principle of ‘privity of contract’ a new bond does NOT replace a current one unless the airline pays out the outstanding bond amount to the pilot to permit him/her to clear indebtedness to the bank in question. Thus, those who choose to accept the down-grade to Dash 8 (a bitter enough pill to swallow) will, unless the company elects to pay out the outstanding jet bond, have two concurrent bonds. If the company pays out the jet bond, the pilots will in any event be taking on a new bond on the lesser aircraft type and starting all over again in their bonded servitude. And all to suit the ‘rationalisation plans’ of their employer.
Those who reject this bizarre choice by resignation are forced to accept unemployment concurrent with the requirement that they pick up repayments on the jet bond loan. And these unfortunates are effectively cut off from entering into a legal battle with their former employer over bond repayment. Because the bond takes the form of a bank loan in the pilot’s name, their dispute with respect to repayment of the bond can only be with the bank. Will the bank care about the reasons for resignation? You decide.
Of course, were these pilots declared redundant by the airline, it is probable that the airline would be forced to pay out the outstanding sums in jet bond loans to those pilots. Though unemployed, they would not be faced with massive repayments to the bank in question.
At 1140 hours on 29 July, RD posted a small, but very revealing statement in the following terms:
Given that RD claims to be knowledgeable with regard to all that occurs within BE, and that you, MOR, have now made it abundantly clear that RD is at the coal-face of negotiations on this matter, this was indeed a VERY important point. Readers on this site must be forgiven, then, for taking this to quite clearly assert that the airline has elected to reject offering redundancy to its primary workforce thus forcing its employees to face the two awful choices as detailed above. No matter how RD would wish to make this sound like an honourable concession on the part of his company, it is inescapably true that it is no such thing. It is the opposite. In my view, this is a declaration unequalled in the annals of UK airline employment history.
Now, I could go on with quoting from conflicting statements, but it is not necessary to do so. It matters little whether the airline’s fleet plans will result in fewer or greater numbers of aircraft in the future. Likewise it matters little whether the precise numbers of affected pilots is 10, 20, or 100. Nor does it really matter whether these poor unfortunates are under-60s, over-60s, contract pilots, freelance pilots or RD’s ‘mainline pilots’, whatever that is said to mean in this penny-ante little airline. What matters here is the principle involved. If this was being forced upon just one pilot, then it is too much. If forced upon a greater number then it is, to put it bluntly, an extreme outrage which MUST be addressed.
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
My dear chap, thank you for that enlightening post. So much better than its predecessor, though a little evasive, particularly at its conclusion.
So, you say that I have 'misunderstood' BavarianBoy. Certainly some of what you have said is in direct contradiction of what he and many others have said. That does not necessarily mean, though, that I have misunderstood anything.
Having become quite dizzy with the facts and figures being stated here, I now take the time (some considerable time, in fact) to sort out what has been posted here. I compare multitudinous conflicting statements by quotation below:
First, BavarianBoy said:
[A]ll 4 [CRJs] to be traded back ... anything from 50-80 pilots will have to go.
Some pilots will go, less than 50 and it is expected that most will be contract or over-60’s ... the CRJs will eventually be replaced by more Q400s.
11% reduction in workforce was quoted by a senior bod in EXT.
[T]here are no “resignations rumour[ed] to follow very very soon”. There is no “severe fleet rationalisation”, the fleet size will be bigger in two years than it is now.
The 11% reduction ... will be mainly on the admin side (if it happens, it is by no means certain). ... We are shedding four CRJs. But ... [will] eventually replace them with 4 Q400s. The fleet size will therefore remain the same over time.
Just heard it confirmed ... pilot reduction from 307 to 238. ... a lot of Jet guys are being given the choice of CRJ and 146 to D-8, with NEW BOND or you make yourself redundant ... .If you refuse and leave then you will still be liable for your jet bond as well.
I do not think I have ‘misunderstood’ what BavarianBoy has said here. It is clear, and it is definitive. The assertion is that 69 pilots will go, among which there will be many current jet pilots given a choice between taking a down-grade onto the Dash 8 with a new bond to sign OR resignation with the penalty of then being forced to repay existing jet bonds at a moment in time when they are likely to be unable to do so. Given that this airline is known to bond through a bank loan to the pilot concerned, it seems clear that, under the legal principle of ‘privity of contract’ a new bond does NOT replace a current one unless the airline pays out the outstanding bond amount to the pilot to permit him/her to clear indebtedness to the bank in question. Thus, those who choose to accept the down-grade to Dash 8 (a bitter enough pill to swallow) will, unless the company elects to pay out the outstanding jet bond, have two concurrent bonds. If the company pays out the jet bond, the pilots will in any event be taking on a new bond on the lesser aircraft type and starting all over again in their bonded servitude. And all to suit the ‘rationalisation plans’ of their employer.
Those who reject this bizarre choice by resignation are forced to accept unemployment concurrent with the requirement that they pick up repayments on the jet bond loan. And these unfortunates are effectively cut off from entering into a legal battle with their former employer over bond repayment. Because the bond takes the form of a bank loan in the pilot’s name, their dispute with respect to repayment of the bond can only be with the bank. Will the bank care about the reasons for resignation? You decide.
Of course, were these pilots declared redundant by the airline, it is probable that the airline would be forced to pay out the outstanding sums in jet bond loans to those pilots. Though unemployed, they would not be faced with massive repayments to the bank in question.
At 1140 hours on 29 July, RD posted a small, but very revealing statement in the following terms:
[N]o-one said that mainline pilots wouldn’t be affected, simply that they wouldn’t be made redundant. Important point.
Now, I could go on with quoting from conflicting statements, but it is not necessary to do so. It matters little whether the airline’s fleet plans will result in fewer or greater numbers of aircraft in the future. Likewise it matters little whether the precise numbers of affected pilots is 10, 20, or 100. Nor does it really matter whether these poor unfortunates are under-60s, over-60s, contract pilots, freelance pilots or RD’s ‘mainline pilots’, whatever that is said to mean in this penny-ante little airline. What matters here is the principle involved. If this was being forced upon just one pilot, then it is too much. If forced upon a greater number then it is, to put it bluntly, an extreme outrage which MUST be addressed.
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii - do you always have to be so hostile and attack individuals rather than the issues when you argue something? It's really rather tedious.
Raw Data is right. Basic maths shows that four aircraft out and four aircraft in equals nil change in the number of aircraft. There is therefore not, as Bavarian Boy continues to claim, a "fleet reduction of 4 a/c when all is said and done". Nor can I see why you're making such a fuss about the (perfectly logical) reassignment of crews onto the Q400s when they arrive. What do you expect JE to do, keep the CRJ guys at home twiddling their thumbs just because they no longer operate the type? Come on, that's plain ludicrous!
You also - as usual when it comes to bonding issues - seem to be twisting facts to suit your own bias. I can't see how you could describe the Q400 as being a "lesser type" than the CRJ. Both are regional aircraft - and in numerical terms there are more Dash 8/Q200/300/400 etc around than their are CRJs which would tend to make the ratings more marketable elsewhere. Unless of course you're one of those 'jet jockey' types for whom anything with a prop is a "lesser type"?
Rebonding is a whole different matter and on this I think you, Raw Data and I are agreed - it's immoral.
Raw Data is right. Basic maths shows that four aircraft out and four aircraft in equals nil change in the number of aircraft. There is therefore not, as Bavarian Boy continues to claim, a "fleet reduction of 4 a/c when all is said and done". Nor can I see why you're making such a fuss about the (perfectly logical) reassignment of crews onto the Q400s when they arrive. What do you expect JE to do, keep the CRJ guys at home twiddling their thumbs just because they no longer operate the type? Come on, that's plain ludicrous!
You also - as usual when it comes to bonding issues - seem to be twisting facts to suit your own bias. I can't see how you could describe the Q400 as being a "lesser type" than the CRJ. Both are regional aircraft - and in numerical terms there are more Dash 8/Q200/300/400 etc around than their are CRJs which would tend to make the ratings more marketable elsewhere. Unless of course you're one of those 'jet jockey' types for whom anything with a prop is a "lesser type"?
Rebonding is a whole different matter and on this I think you, Raw Data and I are agreed - it's immoral.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: exeter
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being one to regularly contribute,but as this issue is close to my heart,I feel I can legitimately add to this. Bavarian Boy stated that a large number of our crews phoned in sick on Sat and Sun..and that we would see 'as little cooperation from crew as possible'. For the record, the sickness rate at the weekend was slightly up on a normal weekend, but not overly considering the weather with sunburn and bbq food. As for the little cooperation, a full programme was flown with no cancellations, dispite the sickness, thanks to the excellent cooperation of the crews..quite the opposite of what has been suggested. I know that the superb attitude of many was well appreciated by the company.
With regards to the bonding issue, I believe that the BE pilot promotion committee are actively considering all the points raised by our CRJ pilots and that each will be written to individually once the way forward is clear.
Shakespeare,the company is going ahead with the RJX order, the first will arrive next april.
Now that is all clear,I will return to lurking!
With regards to the bonding issue, I believe that the BE pilot promotion committee are actively considering all the points raised by our CRJ pilots and that each will be written to individually once the way forward is clear.
Shakespeare,the company is going ahead with the RJX order, the first will arrive next april.
Now that is all clear,I will return to lurking!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, having digested that somewhat verbose and rambling post from tilii, let me clarify.
First of all, the pilot staff losses and the quoted (but not substantiated at any of the meetings I have been at) figure of 11% reduction in work force are different animals. The latter is amongst admin and management.
The assertion by BavarianBoy that 69 pilots will go is incorrect, more like 40.
Nobody will have two bonds going a the same time; if a pilot accepts a new bond, the old one is paid off by the company. The quote by MOR is direct from the letter sent to pilots on Friday and I can confirm its veracity.
The distinction I made, and that tilii takes exception to:
>> quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[N]o-one said that mainline pilots wouldn’t be affected, simply that they wouldn’t be made redundant. Important point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-is simply information, not an opinion.
MORs' summation of my reaction to this is an understatement. To use a colloquialism that the prim and pompous tilii will surely object to, it sucks. Bigtime.
First of all, the pilot staff losses and the quoted (but not substantiated at any of the meetings I have been at) figure of 11% reduction in work force are different animals. The latter is amongst admin and management.
The assertion by BavarianBoy that 69 pilots will go is incorrect, more like 40.
Nobody will have two bonds going a the same time; if a pilot accepts a new bond, the old one is paid off by the company. The quote by MOR is direct from the letter sent to pilots on Friday and I can confirm its veracity.
The distinction I made, and that tilii takes exception to:
>> quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[N]o-one said that mainline pilots wouldn’t be affected, simply that they wouldn’t be made redundant. Important point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-is simply information, not an opinion.
MORs' summation of my reaction to this is an understatement. To use a colloquialism that the prim and pompous tilii will surely object to, it sucks. Bigtime.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am afraid Tilli is correct in his summation. There are Pilots at one of the larger bases that are normal, in some cases senior pilots who have finished or nearly completed 3 year jet bonds who are being forced to the D-8 and a new bond. How can anyone justify that??
Guvnor, am afraid there is a fleet reduction, 7 146's to go and 4 CRJ's=11. $ new RJX next year and some 4 Q400's. Result by company admission is 4 a/c less.
Exmouth, point taken on sickness, it was a rumpur from an excollegue at BE but I see you admit it was higher than usual.
Overall, no matter how you try to dress it up, there are now 300 odd pilots bidding for their livlihoods with only 240 odd positions. Effectively, once those who are made redundant go, the rest are all at the wrong bases and on the wrong fleets. This is a horrendous situation for most crew, ok, one base as Exmouth says is the most affected but having everyone rebid makes those mostly senior crew at that base bid for other bases to maintain rank and fleet. Consequently even RD may find himself disposed from his base as more senior crew bid there??
The worst peart is that EXT cocked up big style and the people at the coalface pay the price!!!!
Good Luck BB
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: BavarianBoy ]
Guvnor, am afraid there is a fleet reduction, 7 146's to go and 4 CRJ's=11. $ new RJX next year and some 4 Q400's. Result by company admission is 4 a/c less.
Exmouth, point taken on sickness, it was a rumpur from an excollegue at BE but I see you admit it was higher than usual.
Overall, no matter how you try to dress it up, there are now 300 odd pilots bidding for their livlihoods with only 240 odd positions. Effectively, once those who are made redundant go, the rest are all at the wrong bases and on the wrong fleets. This is a horrendous situation for most crew, ok, one base as Exmouth says is the most affected but having everyone rebid makes those mostly senior crew at that base bid for other bases to maintain rank and fleet. Consequently even RD may find himself disposed from his base as more senior crew bid there??
The worst peart is that EXT cocked up big style and the people at the coalface pay the price!!!!
Good Luck BB
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: BavarianBoy ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Guvnor
Can’t see that I have done either, but sorry to have bored you.
Time for you to go back to school for some “basic maths”. As carlos vandango says, seven 146's and one shed being replaced by four dash 8's is a reduction of four aircraft, that is +4-(7+1)=-4 or at least it was when I did basic maths.
No, I have not suggested the CRJ guys remain “at home twiddling their thumbs just because they no longer operate the type”. I would suggest that, if their employer chooses to now sell their present type, they should be offered training on the new type without the imposition of a new bond. Simple, isn’t it, and far from “ludicrous”?
As to your taking issue with my phrase ‘lesser type’, I suggest you take this up with the CAA and all other licensing authorities. When I began flying pure jet types, it was deemed to be a whole different ballpark to flying the turboprops which preceded it. Perhaps this was based on such elements as the fact that the pure jet was considerably faster, engine/power management was vastly different, the cruise environment was considerably more hostile, and so on. Forgive me, then, if I perceive that the turboprop is a ‘lesser type’ than a pure jet, in much the same way that a pure jet is a 'lesser type' than the Space Shuttle. Forgive, also, the CAA and other authorities that have had it wrong for so long. We collectively bow to your patently superior knowledge.
I am so relieved to read that you agree with my view as to the bonding issue, even if you do limit that concession to what you so quaintly call “rebonding”. Yawn.
Raw Data
So nice to hear from you again. I was under the impression from MOR that you were far too busy and in need of protecting your position in this matter to lower yourself in responding to anything I might wish to post on this subject. As usual, you begin with a personal derogation as to the content of my post and then seek to “clarify” in the way in which you are uniquely gifted; for ‘clarify’ here read ‘obfuscate’. You then offer absolutely nothing new and suggest that I took exception to your little post about redundancy. Quite wrong, dear chap, no exception taken for it was clearly ‘information’ not ‘opinion’, as you quite rightly say. It was, then, taken as information as to your employers’ awful intent.
Again I say that neither the number of pilots who “will go” nor the mooted reduction of the workforce is of any real significance here. But what you now say with respect to bonding is.
You now say that nobody will have two bonds going at the same time; ‘if a pilot accepts a new bond, the old one is paid off by the company’. Are we to take it, then, that you now speak for the company on this issue? The company has authorised you to issue this statement on its behalf? If this is true, I am greatly heartened to hear it said. But it does not detract from the larger issue as to the enforcement of a new bond. Why should pilots who have served their bonding period against a bank-advanced loan of some £18,000 (according to MOR) now be forced to start a new bonding period on a type not of their choosing merely because the company wishes it to be so? Oh yes, I know they have a choice, but that choice does not include retraining on the new type without the imposition of a new bond. It is merely to leave and immediately be liable for any unpaid repayments on the existing bond. What a choice! You are right in what you say about this and right as to what words I personally would use to describe it. At the same time, I would vigorously uphold your own right to express it in any terms you choose. Well said.
BavarianBoy
On a light-hearted note, I could not suppress a chuckle over your typographical error: would love to serve at one of those “lager bases”, hic!
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
[D]o you always have to be so hostile and attack individuals rather than the issues when you argue something?
Time for you to go back to school for some “basic maths”. As carlos vandango says, seven 146's and one shed being replaced by four dash 8's is a reduction of four aircraft, that is +4-(7+1)=-4 or at least it was when I did basic maths.
No, I have not suggested the CRJ guys remain “at home twiddling their thumbs just because they no longer operate the type”. I would suggest that, if their employer chooses to now sell their present type, they should be offered training on the new type without the imposition of a new bond. Simple, isn’t it, and far from “ludicrous”?
As to your taking issue with my phrase ‘lesser type’, I suggest you take this up with the CAA and all other licensing authorities. When I began flying pure jet types, it was deemed to be a whole different ballpark to flying the turboprops which preceded it. Perhaps this was based on such elements as the fact that the pure jet was considerably faster, engine/power management was vastly different, the cruise environment was considerably more hostile, and so on. Forgive me, then, if I perceive that the turboprop is a ‘lesser type’ than a pure jet, in much the same way that a pure jet is a 'lesser type' than the Space Shuttle. Forgive, also, the CAA and other authorities that have had it wrong for so long. We collectively bow to your patently superior knowledge.
I am so relieved to read that you agree with my view as to the bonding issue, even if you do limit that concession to what you so quaintly call “rebonding”. Yawn.
Raw Data
So nice to hear from you again. I was under the impression from MOR that you were far too busy and in need of protecting your position in this matter to lower yourself in responding to anything I might wish to post on this subject. As usual, you begin with a personal derogation as to the content of my post and then seek to “clarify” in the way in which you are uniquely gifted; for ‘clarify’ here read ‘obfuscate’. You then offer absolutely nothing new and suggest that I took exception to your little post about redundancy. Quite wrong, dear chap, no exception taken for it was clearly ‘information’ not ‘opinion’, as you quite rightly say. It was, then, taken as information as to your employers’ awful intent.
Again I say that neither the number of pilots who “will go” nor the mooted reduction of the workforce is of any real significance here. But what you now say with respect to bonding is.
You now say that nobody will have two bonds going at the same time; ‘if a pilot accepts a new bond, the old one is paid off by the company’. Are we to take it, then, that you now speak for the company on this issue? The company has authorised you to issue this statement on its behalf? If this is true, I am greatly heartened to hear it said. But it does not detract from the larger issue as to the enforcement of a new bond. Why should pilots who have served their bonding period against a bank-advanced loan of some £18,000 (according to MOR) now be forced to start a new bonding period on a type not of their choosing merely because the company wishes it to be so? Oh yes, I know they have a choice, but that choice does not include retraining on the new type without the imposition of a new bond. It is merely to leave and immediately be liable for any unpaid repayments on the existing bond. What a choice! You are right in what you say about this and right as to what words I personally would use to describe it. At the same time, I would vigorously uphold your own right to express it in any terms you choose. Well said.
BavarianBoy
On a light-hearted note, I could not suppress a chuckle over your typographical error: would love to serve at one of those “lager bases”, hic!
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It`s pretty easy to spot the "management pilots" or those who aspire to it from the above comments . But then it is easy to spot them from the day they join the company anyway. I feel sorry for the hard working guys at the BE coalface
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: RT ]
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: RT ]
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: RT ]
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: RT ]
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what happens if someone near the end of his jet bond is forced to accept a new bond on another type ( or as the letter makes quite clear -become redundant) .He still has a new bond which may be more or less than the one he/she had before thru no fault of his own. During this "bond extension" period ,the new bond makes it very difficult to seek alternative employment as is his right whenever working conditions are significantly eroded . Very convienient for the company who have delivered this situation despite the financial advantage they have traditionally had over the years by paying their workforce well below the going rate. I wonder how the European courts would view their latest ploys. Several years ago they even bonded several new pilots who had the required type on their licence (FACT).
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: RT ]
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: RT ]
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all you at BE, sorry to hear about the troubles.
Guess this is what can happen with expansion without strategy.
Someone mentioned EasyJet hiring at BFS and GLA.
FYI: Go is hiring too, at STN, BRS and EDI/GLA
Guess this is what can happen with expansion without strategy.
Someone mentioned EasyJet hiring at BFS and GLA.
FYI: Go is hiring too, at STN, BRS and EDI/GLA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tilli, I too would love a lager base, know any?? haha! typo now corrected... I think! Thanks.
RT, am afraid the bond situation at BE is about to come to a rather large crunch. As I said earlier, it is believed that BALPA view it as illegal, or at least they are advising ANY CREW from signing one until it is qualified. Also feel sorry for the long under paid BE pilot who has worked days off without renumeration and been pushed to the limit for sake of the company and as a crewmember said over the weekend, they have now been delivered a huge bat up the arse!!
Carlos, Your maths is spot on, 4 to go!!
RgdsBB
RT, am afraid the bond situation at BE is about to come to a rather large crunch. As I said earlier, it is believed that BALPA view it as illegal, or at least they are advising ANY CREW from signing one until it is qualified. Also feel sorry for the long under paid BE pilot who has worked days off without renumeration and been pushed to the limit for sake of the company and as a crewmember said over the weekend, they have now been delivered a huge bat up the arse!!
Carlos, Your maths is spot on, 4 to go!!
RgdsBB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barcode, heard a "rumour" it was a couple of mill. Funny how the board cock up and get enough to pay off the mortgage and live a great life just for leaving while the crew will have to pay to leave plus all the usual crap. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....... OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Enough said. BB
Enough said. BB
Guest
Posts: n/a
Carlos Vandango/Bavarian Boy - I have reread this thread again and I could not see any reference to any aircraft other than the four CRJs going - thanks for clarifying that.
tilii - you really ought to address that problem you have of personal attacks and snide comments. You should be able to make your points without being insulting or sarcastic.
Incidentally, just got off the line with the bloke who will be our flight ops inspector and he says that there's no such CAA classification as a 'lesser type' categorising modern turboprops as being the poor cousins of regional jets. They're treated the same. Now, if you were talking heavy jets then that's a completely different story and I'd agree with you wholeheartedly - but we're not.
tilii - you really ought to address that problem you have of personal attacks and snide comments. You should be able to make your points without being insulting or sarcastic.
Incidentally, just got off the line with the bloke who will be our flight ops inspector and he says that there's no such CAA classification as a 'lesser type' categorising modern turboprops as being the poor cousins of regional jets. They're treated the same. Now, if you were talking heavy jets then that's a completely different story and I'd agree with you wholeheartedly - but we're not.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ladies and Gentlemen
Again, I give you The Guvnor, soothsayer extraordinaire and master of the inane, not to say insane, comment. Please excuse me if I resile from responding to his last post above. Not much point in debating with one so ill-equipped to respond. Yawn.
Again, I give you The Guvnor, soothsayer extraordinaire and master of the inane, not to say insane, comment. Please excuse me if I resile from responding to his last post above. Not much point in debating with one so ill-equipped to respond. Yawn.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, tilii.
It is almost a pleasure to lower myself to responding to you. I always find it a challenge to find a level at which I can communicate with someone as deeply in love with themselves (and their somewhat pretentious prose), as you so clearly are.
Right, now that we have the ritual abuse out of the way...
I'm afraid the one in need of some maths advice is yourself. You see, the figures quoted in the letter to flight crews only show the plan until Mar 2003. The intent is to replace the CRJ fleet with extra Q400 aircraft, taking that fleet to eight. However, as the delivery dates for these aircraft would come some time after Mar 2003, they don't appear in the totals from the letter. If you had read my post on the first page of this thread, you could have avoided insulting the Guv- but then, that would deprive you of one of your few pleasures, would it not?
Oh, by the way, I was at the meetings, unlike BavarianBoy or Carlos Vandango.
A turboprop is not a lesser type than a jet, it is a different type. It has unique problems tha the jet doesn't share, such as less power, less redundancy, less tolerance to icing, and the problems peculiar to propellers. Your assertion is somewhat arrogant to say the least.
The CAA do not make the distinction as far as I am aware, and the distinction the airlines make is as much about history and payscales as anything else.
Fortunately, the term "obfuscate" does not apply to any of my posts, perhaps you should revisit a dictionary.
As the company has sent a letter to all pilots clearly stating that no pilot will have two bonds at one time, and that all old bonds will be paid off when a new one is started, you can safely assume that I do in fact speak for the company on this (and was specifically authorised to do so). The quote that MOR made is correct.
OK, tongue-in-cheek insults aside, I am somewhat furious about this bond situation. I feel it is deeply unfair, and I will be doing everything I can to change it. My view is that the very least that should be done is the CRJ crews should be allowed to leave if they wish, and their bonds should be paid by the company. This a simple sign of good faith on the part of the company, and is the least that should be done. Similarly, any pilot required to train on a new type is being penalised enough, without the added potential burden of a new bond. The company should say, "OK, we screwed up. There will have to be some pain, but we will make it as easy for you as we can to continue with your own career paths, rather than attempt to trap you financially".
I fully understand the need to preserve training budjets and cut costs, but somebody needs to take account of the human cost of these "adjustments".
I'll probably regret saying that publically, but what the hell...
It is almost a pleasure to lower myself to responding to you. I always find it a challenge to find a level at which I can communicate with someone as deeply in love with themselves (and their somewhat pretentious prose), as you so clearly are.
Right, now that we have the ritual abuse out of the way...
I'm afraid the one in need of some maths advice is yourself. You see, the figures quoted in the letter to flight crews only show the plan until Mar 2003. The intent is to replace the CRJ fleet with extra Q400 aircraft, taking that fleet to eight. However, as the delivery dates for these aircraft would come some time after Mar 2003, they don't appear in the totals from the letter. If you had read my post on the first page of this thread, you could have avoided insulting the Guv- but then, that would deprive you of one of your few pleasures, would it not?
Oh, by the way, I was at the meetings, unlike BavarianBoy or Carlos Vandango.
A turboprop is not a lesser type than a jet, it is a different type. It has unique problems tha the jet doesn't share, such as less power, less redundancy, less tolerance to icing, and the problems peculiar to propellers. Your assertion is somewhat arrogant to say the least.
The CAA do not make the distinction as far as I am aware, and the distinction the airlines make is as much about history and payscales as anything else.
Fortunately, the term "obfuscate" does not apply to any of my posts, perhaps you should revisit a dictionary.
As the company has sent a letter to all pilots clearly stating that no pilot will have two bonds at one time, and that all old bonds will be paid off when a new one is started, you can safely assume that I do in fact speak for the company on this (and was specifically authorised to do so). The quote that MOR made is correct.
OK, tongue-in-cheek insults aside, I am somewhat furious about this bond situation. I feel it is deeply unfair, and I will be doing everything I can to change it. My view is that the very least that should be done is the CRJ crews should be allowed to leave if they wish, and their bonds should be paid by the company. This a simple sign of good faith on the part of the company, and is the least that should be done. Similarly, any pilot required to train on a new type is being penalised enough, without the added potential burden of a new bond. The company should say, "OK, we screwed up. There will have to be some pain, but we will make it as easy for you as we can to continue with your own career paths, rather than attempt to trap you financially".
I fully understand the need to preserve training budjets and cut costs, but somebody needs to take account of the human cost of these "adjustments".
I'll probably regret saying that publically, but what the hell...