Pilots jobs could go at British European
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots jobs could go at British European
Heard rumour today that BE is on a severe cut back to cut losses and that this will involve a base closure and staff reductions, including pilots and cabin crew??
Seemingly a northern base to close and the CRJ decision finally confirmed (as on PPrune several weeks ago) all 4 to be traded back to Bombardier. Rumour among crew is that anything from 50-80 pilots will have to go. The big question is how it is decided as the seniority in BE has never mounted to much and there are alot of contractors on the 146??
Anyone know more? Hopefully it will be settled quickly with the least amount of pain for BE and their crews.
Seemingly a northern base to close and the CRJ decision finally confirmed (as on PPrune several weeks ago) all 4 to be traded back to Bombardier. Rumour among crew is that anything from 50-80 pilots will have to go. The big question is how it is decided as the seniority in BE has never mounted to much and there are alot of contractors on the 146??
Anyone know more? Hopefully it will be settled quickly with the least amount of pain for BE and their crews.
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things like this bound to happen now the big boss has gone to the great big ramp in the sky, family based business has no one of merit to follow recently passed away father, accountant now in charge, so when they rule things go to pot!( not the sort Tony and his cronies mean). 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: dublin
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All true I'm affraid. LBA is to close as a base by OCT. CRJ's to be traded for D8-400's. As for job losses I doubt there will be any with the current rate of loss which is bound to increase with this announcement. But rumors are that approx 32 Pilots and 60 Cabin crew to go! Most pilots will be covered with 2 year contract guys and over 60's of which I hear there are quite a few. A sad day for a once good airline lead astray by management that didn't..........
A sad day for a once good airline lead astray by management that didn't..........
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, most of the rumour is wide of the mark.
Yes, one base is to close. The single route it supports will be crewed from the other end.
Some pilots will go, less than 50 and it is expected that most will be contract or over-60's. No pilot on the main seniority list will be lost. All crewing decisions will be done STRICTLY on seniority.
With regard to the CRJs, it has been decided to rationalise our fleets, the CRJs will eventually be replaced by more Q400s.
No cabin crew are to be shed.
barcode, you really are full of it. Please give examples.
Yes, one base is to close. The single route it supports will be crewed from the other end.
Some pilots will go, less than 50 and it is expected that most will be contract or over-60's. No pilot on the main seniority list will be lost. All crewing decisions will be done STRICTLY on seniority.
With regard to the CRJs, it has been decided to rationalise our fleets, the CRJs will eventually be replaced by more Q400s.
No cabin crew are to be shed.
barcode, you really are full of it. Please give examples.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad news be142736, i know alot of great guys at BE and they deserve alot better than they have got. As you say, the management have made some huge clangers in the past 24 months. Maybe enough will leave for better pastures and redundancies will not happen. What about bonds etc, if they need people to go will they cancel bonds in some circumstances??
It is such a pity but at least there are jobs there for the taking. Easyjet were rumoured to be seeking people for BFS, EDI and GLA?? maybe some of the BE crews at those bases can look there.
Having participated in an earlier thread last month on the rumour of this very situation, it was one which both I and others hoped we were wrong about but unfortunately our fears have been proved justified.
Good luck to any BE crews, get everything you can b4 there is nothing left and hopefully the result will be a better job in an Airline that knows how to treat staff.
BTW, hasn't LBA been a long established base with Senior crew based there??
Rgds BB
[ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: BavarianBoy ]
It is such a pity but at least there are jobs there for the taking. Easyjet were rumoured to be seeking people for BFS, EDI and GLA?? maybe some of the BE crews at those bases can look there.
Having participated in an earlier thread last month on the rumour of this very situation, it was one which both I and others hoped we were wrong about but unfortunately our fears have been proved justified.
Good luck to any BE crews, get everything you can b4 there is nothing left and hopefully the result will be a better job in an Airline that knows how to treat staff.
BTW, hasn't LBA been a long established base with Senior crew based there??
Rgds BB
[ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: BavarianBoy ]
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: england
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raw Data , can't see how any of this is wide of the mark. Cabin Crew who started six months ago were not given permenant contracts and so can be shed at any time. 11% reduction in workforce was quoted by a senior bod in EXT. It isn't rumour..it's happening..just like the CRJ's going too. Nobody likes it and it's not good for the industry but there's no point in denying it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just as carlos vandango has said above, '[n]obody likes it' when an airline runs into problems other than the circling vultures who seek to profit from such scenarios.
However, it is probably untrue to say that 'it's not good for the industry' for our industry is a widely diverse one in which there are those that are successful, those that are not, and many who hold a position somewhere in between. Some describe these 'in-betweeners' as 'fringe operators' and among such airlines there are certainly those who do not deserve success. In many instances, it is decidedly 'good for the industry' that they should fail. In a way, they do so via a process of natural selection and I, for one, am always pleased to hear of the demise of the ruthless, the unscrupulous, and the undeserving.
Having said that, I am not certain where BE sits in the scale among fringe operators. I knew it many long years ago, at which time it was certainly low on the scale with regard to its overall standards of operation. But it has been a survivor, and I recently flew as a pax on one of its 146s to find that it has in all respects vastly improved from its early days. It had all the hallmarks of a slick operation likely to succeed, and I hope that in the long term it will. But this does not mean that it will do so without the necessary growing pains.
From time to time, all successful airlines must take stock and review. Inevitably, this will lead to fleet rationalisation programmes and the loss of some personnel. Where this occurs in the long-term best interests of the airline, it usually turns out to be in the long-term best interests of all who work within that airline. Strangely, I know of few cases where it has not eventually been in the best interests of those who find themselves without employment for a period of time. It is interesting to read here that many BE pilots are contracted for just two years, perhaps itself an indication of an intelligent and forward-thinking management.
Whether or not BE is a deservedly successful operator, there is no point in denying what is currently happening. But, by the same token, I can see little worth in any who seek to gloat or to take advantage from it. Raw Data has said that 'less than 50' pilots will go, most of whom 'will be contract or over-60s'. Whether or not this is true, in the present environment this is unlikely to be disastrous for the vast majority of them.
It is interesting to read from Raw Data that '[n]o pilot on the main seniority list will be lost' and '[a]ll crewing decisions will be done STRICTLY on seniority'. Some weeks ago he made it known that he sits very loftily on the seniority list, so he is clearly not directly affected. His bold defence of this action might be merely a whisper were he in a more lowly position.
To Raw Data I would say: you have accused barcode, BavarianBoy, and others of spreading false rumour. You are now shown to have been wrong to do so. Why not now have the good grace to admit that and offer an apology to them?
To barcode, Bavarian Boy, and others I would say: fine, you were right, but let us not overstep the mark lest we be seen as HAPPY to be right ... without regard for the pain and detriment caused to our colleagues.
To all at BE I would say: my sincere best wishes for your future ... wherever you may be sitting during this sad, but inevitable, period of rationalisation. Good luck.
[ 28 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
However, it is probably untrue to say that 'it's not good for the industry' for our industry is a widely diverse one in which there are those that are successful, those that are not, and many who hold a position somewhere in between. Some describe these 'in-betweeners' as 'fringe operators' and among such airlines there are certainly those who do not deserve success. In many instances, it is decidedly 'good for the industry' that they should fail. In a way, they do so via a process of natural selection and I, for one, am always pleased to hear of the demise of the ruthless, the unscrupulous, and the undeserving.
Having said that, I am not certain where BE sits in the scale among fringe operators. I knew it many long years ago, at which time it was certainly low on the scale with regard to its overall standards of operation. But it has been a survivor, and I recently flew as a pax on one of its 146s to find that it has in all respects vastly improved from its early days. It had all the hallmarks of a slick operation likely to succeed, and I hope that in the long term it will. But this does not mean that it will do so without the necessary growing pains.
From time to time, all successful airlines must take stock and review. Inevitably, this will lead to fleet rationalisation programmes and the loss of some personnel. Where this occurs in the long-term best interests of the airline, it usually turns out to be in the long-term best interests of all who work within that airline. Strangely, I know of few cases where it has not eventually been in the best interests of those who find themselves without employment for a period of time. It is interesting to read here that many BE pilots are contracted for just two years, perhaps itself an indication of an intelligent and forward-thinking management.
Whether or not BE is a deservedly successful operator, there is no point in denying what is currently happening. But, by the same token, I can see little worth in any who seek to gloat or to take advantage from it. Raw Data has said that 'less than 50' pilots will go, most of whom 'will be contract or over-60s'. Whether or not this is true, in the present environment this is unlikely to be disastrous for the vast majority of them.
It is interesting to read from Raw Data that '[n]o pilot on the main seniority list will be lost' and '[a]ll crewing decisions will be done STRICTLY on seniority'. Some weeks ago he made it known that he sits very loftily on the seniority list, so he is clearly not directly affected. His bold defence of this action might be merely a whisper were he in a more lowly position.
To Raw Data I would say: you have accused barcode, BavarianBoy, and others of spreading false rumour. You are now shown to have been wrong to do so. Why not now have the good grace to admit that and offer an apology to them?
To barcode, Bavarian Boy, and others I would say: fine, you were right, but let us not overstep the mark lest we be seen as HAPPY to be right ... without regard for the pain and detriment caused to our colleagues.
To all at BE I would say: my sincere best wishes for your future ... wherever you may be sitting during this sad, but inevitable, period of rationalisation. Good luck.
[ 28 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carlos Vandango:
As we are currently well under establishment with cabin crew members, with the current attrition rate we will have to hire more, not lose them, as the fleet size changes. That rumour is therefore completely untrue. The 11% reduction ( a figure not mentioned by any senior manager, BTW) will be mainly on the admin side (if it happens, it is by no means certain).
Barcode:
let's do this bit by bit:
>>For example, there are no "resignations rumour to follow very very soon".<<
There have been NO resignations since that time!
>>There is no "severe fleet rationalisation", the fleet size will be bigger in two years than it is now. <<
We are shedding four CRJs, but it is also planned to eventually replace them with 4 Q400s. The fleet size will therefore remain the same over time (it takes time to deliver all the Q400). So, yes, it may not be bigger, but there is still no "severe fleet rationalisation" either (you will note we agreed to differ on that later in the thread that you so selectively quote).
>> Whilst you may not know anybody who is "happy at BE", I know plenty who fit that description- especially those who have worked for the competition. <<
Still true.
Tilii:
NOBODY on the main seniority list will be affected, not just me. See above for the "false rumour" (as it has shown to have been).
As we are currently well under establishment with cabin crew members, with the current attrition rate we will have to hire more, not lose them, as the fleet size changes. That rumour is therefore completely untrue. The 11% reduction ( a figure not mentioned by any senior manager, BTW) will be mainly on the admin side (if it happens, it is by no means certain).
Barcode:
let's do this bit by bit:
>>For example, there are no "resignations rumour to follow very very soon".<<
There have been NO resignations since that time!
>>There is no "severe fleet rationalisation", the fleet size will be bigger in two years than it is now. <<
We are shedding four CRJs, but it is also planned to eventually replace them with 4 Q400s. The fleet size will therefore remain the same over time (it takes time to deliver all the Q400). So, yes, it may not be bigger, but there is still no "severe fleet rationalisation" either (you will note we agreed to differ on that later in the thread that you so selectively quote).
>> Whilst you may not know anybody who is "happy at BE", I know plenty who fit that description- especially those who have worked for the competition. <<
Still true.
Tilii:
NOBODY on the main seniority list will be affected, not just me. See above for the "false rumour" (as it has shown to have been).
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: OMDB
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt that any Cabin Crew will be made redunant as we are so short of them in BHX (especially No.1's) that the reduction in fleet numbers will mean that we'll still be understrength
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: england
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't say they were paying off cabin crew, I said they were not isuing permenant contracts to them..something which is most unusual for BE in recent times. And the 11% figure did come from Management in EXT.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tilli,
I apologise if it seems that I am pleased to have been right on the above issue many weeks ago, it is certainly not intended. I have quite a few great friends at BE and do not wish any jobs to go. However, as previously stated, it is happening and RD is foolish to try and deny it and I will not get drawn into a personal slagging match with him. I guess PPruners can read and decide as Barcode says.
Carlos, I also heard that 11% figure from an EXT bod and seemingly the casualties will know next week at Admin level. The Crew are due to receive a letter from "EuroDisney" in the next few days. CC are not safe from the axe though with 60 resignations since Christmas anyway I think they will all leave anyway.
Also heard that Dash crews will be furious if CRJ and 146 guys are put onto the Dash on Jet money... even heard that the Dash trainers are ready to refuse to train them if it comes to that. It seems a real hot potato and with the Ops Directors record no-one trusts letters or personal assurances.
At LBA, long serving CC and Pilots who have sold their souls for BE may well have bouts of sudden sickness till they find alternative employment. Not great I know but they say you reap what you sow and BE managemnet had alot more reaping to do before it gets better.
As Tilli says, good luck to you all. It was heard yesterday that a senior Capt at BE described the atmosphere at work as that of a wake... well done EXT!!
Rgds BB
I apologise if it seems that I am pleased to have been right on the above issue many weeks ago, it is certainly not intended. I have quite a few great friends at BE and do not wish any jobs to go. However, as previously stated, it is happening and RD is foolish to try and deny it and I will not get drawn into a personal slagging match with him. I guess PPruners can read and decide as Barcode says.
Carlos, I also heard that 11% figure from an EXT bod and seemingly the casualties will know next week at Admin level. The Crew are due to receive a letter from "EuroDisney" in the next few days. CC are not safe from the axe though with 60 resignations since Christmas anyway I think they will all leave anyway.
Also heard that Dash crews will be furious if CRJ and 146 guys are put onto the Dash on Jet money... even heard that the Dash trainers are ready to refuse to train them if it comes to that. It seems a real hot potato and with the Ops Directors record no-one trusts letters or personal assurances.
At LBA, long serving CC and Pilots who have sold their souls for BE may well have bouts of sudden sickness till they find alternative employment. Not great I know but they say you reap what you sow and BE managemnet had alot more reaping to do before it gets better.
As Tilli says, good luck to you all. It was heard yesterday that a senior Capt at BE described the atmosphere at work as that of a wake... well done EXT!!
Rgds BB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just heard it confirmed, fleet reduction of 4 a/c when all is said and done, pilot reduction from 307 to 238. Not sure if there are 49 contractors but i guess it will be sorted out by DOJ etc. The notion that seniority pilots will not be affected is not true, huge fleet changes at various bases mean alot of Jet guys are being given the choice of CRJ and 146 to D-8, with NEW BOND or you make yourself redundant?? Me thinks this is outrageous, any BE pilots want to comment. Am told that a very high number will have to move down. If you refuse and leave then you will still be liable for your jet bond as well. Hmmmmm... make up your own minds but I think that is pretty bad. How can you expect loyalty in the future if you continually shaft crew.. If BE need pilots to go why not let them, say if in the last 6 months of a 3 year bond, let the bond drop, bet 49 would go, therefore no redundancies. Also, to expext to re bond pilots on another "lesser" type which you force them onto is rediculous!!
This mess is due to mismanagement not crew mistakes so give them a break. Maybe the Trustees should chop all the board and bring in people who are more useful.
Once again, good luckto all you BE crews, better off somewhere else it seems.
Regards... a very sad BB
This mess is due to mismanagement not crew mistakes so give them a break. Maybe the Trustees should chop all the board and bring in people who are more useful.
Once again, good luckto all you BE crews, better off somewhere else it seems.
Regards... a very sad BB
Guest
Posts: n/a
Raw Data
In my opinion, the tone of your post above alluding to a so-called ‘small correction’, together with your overall attitude to current happenings within BE, suggests a callous disregard within you with respect to the careers and well-being of your colleagues.
Until now, I have resisted the temptation to criticise BE, indeed some may think I have defended its actions. The information posted by BavarianBoy above with respect to the issue of bonding of these pilots is, in my view, a far more ‘important point’ than any you make with respect to whether or not the seniority list pilots will lose their jobs.
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? 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. This way, the airline is not held responsible for their election to depart and the poor unfortunate, now unemployed, pilot must repay any existing bond whilst without the income to do so.
This practice is, as BavarianBoy quite rightly asserts, utterly scandalous and BE is to be roundly condemned. I would hope that BALPA intends to step into the fray. Failing that, I would strongly advise the affected crews to take legal advice and commence a joint action against the airline. I am of the view that, in these circumstances, they would most certainly succeed and give the airline the caning it deserves. And if that results in the airline’s demise, and your own loss of employment, then all well and good. The industry would be so much the better for it.
In my opinion, the tone of your post above alluding to a so-called ‘small correction’, together with your overall attitude to current happenings within BE, suggests a callous disregard within you with respect to the careers and well-being of your colleagues.
Until now, I have resisted the temptation to criticise BE, indeed some may think I have defended its actions. The information posted by BavarianBoy above with respect to the issue of bonding of these pilots is, in my view, a far more ‘important point’ than any you make with respect to whether or not the seniority list pilots will lose their jobs.
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? 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. This way, the airline is not held responsible for their election to depart and the poor unfortunate, now unemployed, pilot must repay any existing bond whilst without the income to do so.
This practice is, as BavarianBoy quite rightly asserts, utterly scandalous and BE is to be roundly condemned. I would hope that BALPA intends to step into the fray. Failing that, I would strongly advise the affected crews to take legal advice and commence a joint action against the airline. I am of the view that, in these circumstances, they would most certainly succeed and give the airline the caning it deserves. And if that results in the airline’s demise, and your own loss of employment, then all well and good. The industry would be so much the better for it.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
......phew!!!And to think that as recently as April, BE were loudly proclaiming their 'greatness' to new pilots being interviewed at the ATP Academy with all sorts of impressive pie charts, statistics, newspaper cuttings, etc.
In retrospect, it was clearly obvious even then that no one within the organisation (that was at the interview anyway) really knew where they were headed or how they were going to get there. Shame really, cos they appeared to be a potentially very good outfit, but if this is the callous, despicable way in which they attempt to go about re-structuring........
Best wishes in these troubled times to those very new pilots at BE, if they are affected by all this.....thank God I went somewhere else.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reported today that a large number of BE crew phoned in sick Sat and Sun.... maybe making a point?? Who knows, but I believe that some bases are furious, especially BHD and at the end of all this BE could lose alot more than 49. Capts at BHD with 5 years seniority are not secure on type and will be forced to bid for other bases. Also LCY who don't know if they still have a base or not and fear they will follow LBA.
Seems like a right cock up to me. If the EXT bods wanted a fight i believe they might just have got one, it seems a mass exodus is on the way as well as as little cooperation from crew as possible until they get another job!!
How can the airline I once knew and was proud to have worked for get into such a bad state??
Good luck guys, for info, i believe Cityjet and BACE are looking for 146 pilots and as previously mentioned, Easyjet at BFS and GLA.
Rgds BB
Seems like a right cock up to me. If the EXT bods wanted a fight i believe they might just have got one, it seems a mass exodus is on the way as well as as little cooperation from crew as possible until they get another job!!
How can the airline I once knew and was proud to have worked for get into such a bad state??
Good luck guys, for info, i believe Cityjet and BACE are looking for 146 pilots and as previously mentioned, Easyjet at BFS and GLA.
Rgds BB
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't really want to get involved in this one, but as tilii has entered the fray with his customary mix of ignorance and arrogance, I think I will.
I was at the meeting on Thursday, and watched (from a distance) as RD and another BE Base Captain had a fairly heated debate with their Flight Ops Director over the bonding issue. Both of them denounced the way bonds are being dealt with as unfair and discriminatory, RD being the most vocal in opposition. For that alone, you owe him an apology; many people were there, I'm sure someone else can confirm what I say.
Your facts are wrong, too. The most likely redundancies are amongst those with the shortest service in the company. They therefore have the largest bonds to pay. Any that the company make redundant will therefore cost the company the most money, in clearing their bonds. Only the over-60's will not fit that picture.
There is no provision for being bonded on two types simultaneously, it is either one type or another. All of this is well within the scope of their contracts. However, it is early days yet and the picture will almost certainly change within the next few days.
Finally, I know RD is hopping mad about the bond situation, and is doing all he can to get it changed. He might possibly be successful if the right people can be convinced to listen. I know he won't publically respond to your usual misinformed baiting, he needs to keep his position clear and strong with those who can help.
Your pathetic attempts to get back at him for showing you up last time you clashed, are doing more harm than good. Desist.
I was at the meeting on Thursday, and watched (from a distance) as RD and another BE Base Captain had a fairly heated debate with their Flight Ops Director over the bonding issue. Both of them denounced the way bonds are being dealt with as unfair and discriminatory, RD being the most vocal in opposition. For that alone, you owe him an apology; many people were there, I'm sure someone else can confirm what I say.
Your facts are wrong, too. The most likely redundancies are amongst those with the shortest service in the company. They therefore have the largest bonds to pay. Any that the company make redundant will therefore cost the company the most money, in clearing their bonds. Only the over-60's will not fit that picture.
There is no provision for being bonded on two types simultaneously, it is either one type or another. All of this is well within the scope of their contracts. However, it is early days yet and the picture will almost certainly change within the next few days.
Finally, I know RD is hopping mad about the bond situation, and is doing all he can to get it changed. He might possibly be successful if the right people can be convinced to listen. I know he won't publically respond to your usual misinformed baiting, he needs to keep his position clear and strong with those who can help.
Your pathetic attempts to get back at him for showing you up last time you clashed, are doing more harm than good. Desist.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
please can we keep this thread to the topic in the title and not a personality grudge match. Yes bonding is part of it but I can hardly think of any pilot who agrees with it, I am sure RD nor Tilli do.
Seemingly, though not sure, that BALPA will shortly advise most BE pilots not to sign anymore bonds with the company as they are investigating the legality into how they are set up between the pilot and a third party.
I stress that this is only a rumour but i guess as MOR says things will be ever changing over the next few weeks.
The reason I posted the thread was to find out if it was true as I was a bit surprised at the severity of the cuts. Once again crews that have worked very hard to help the company expand are having their jobs changed and cut off for something that was bad management,. This being the case I find it hard to believe that the company will then try and treat the pilots so badly in the "clean up"??? To RE BOND on the D-8 a 146 or CRJ pilot is mad considering that it is not their choice. To have Capts in both the left and right seat daily is a matter of opinion but quite a few would say unwise. To have people on the D-8 on grossly different salaries is also mad.
What a mess?????
I really feel for those affected and can only hope that they get a satisfactory result from the company.
Good Luck Rgds BB
please can we keep this thread to the topic in the title and not a personality grudge match. Yes bonding is part of it but I can hardly think of any pilot who agrees with it, I am sure RD nor Tilli do.
Seemingly, though not sure, that BALPA will shortly advise most BE pilots not to sign anymore bonds with the company as they are investigating the legality into how they are set up between the pilot and a third party.
I stress that this is only a rumour but i guess as MOR says things will be ever changing over the next few weeks.
The reason I posted the thread was to find out if it was true as I was a bit surprised at the severity of the cuts. Once again crews that have worked very hard to help the company expand are having their jobs changed and cut off for something that was bad management,. This being the case I find it hard to believe that the company will then try and treat the pilots so badly in the "clean up"??? To RE BOND on the D-8 a 146 or CRJ pilot is mad considering that it is not their choice. To have Capts in both the left and right seat daily is a matter of opinion but quite a few would say unwise. To have people on the D-8 on grossly different salaries is also mad.
What a mess?????
I really feel for those affected and can only hope that they get a satisfactory result from the company.
Good Luck Rgds BB
Guest
Posts: n/a
MOR
It is perhaps most revealing to read that, by your own admission, you watched the meeting you claim to have attended "from a distance".
You assert that RD denounced "the way bonds are being dealt with" and was "the most vocal in opposition".
That RD is held by you to be most vocal comes as no surprise, though I am a little puzzled to hear that he opposed a bonding issue within his company after reading his vigorous justification for same on these pages.
I was certainly not present at this meeting, so I accept your version of these events and there is therefore no need for your call for independent verification.
However, there is nothing in your post above that would lead me to make any form of apology to RD. On the contrary, for no matter how vigorously RD is purported to be fighting this bonding issue, his attempts will be no greater than my own have been in this regard over many long years.
As for my supposedly getting facts wrong, I would be more than happy to read your proper explanation as to how this is so, since your post above is unclear.
Quite agree, dear chap. So, what is your point? This is in line with what I have said above and is clearly the motivating factor in the airline electing NOT to make its pilots redundant and to, instead, offer the 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' choice as detailed above by BavarianBoy. Or is it that you now aver that what was posted by BavarianBoy with regard to the choices offered is untrue? 
What nonsense is this? 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? And just how do you say that such a matter is within the scope of the employment contracts. Please post the precise term/s of the contract that are said to cover this eventuality, for this I would dearly love to read. I think your last comment in the quote above is closer to the truth. You believe the picture will almost certainly change over the next few days because you now realise that the rumoured action by BE is in fact unlawful, thus inevitably forcing such change.
Your penultimate and ultimate paragraphs above are unworthy of further comment.
I close by asking why it is that you watched the said meeting from afar? Could it be that you did so because you are not a pilot employee but a management employee? If not, then you really ought to be at the front supporting your friend RD. If so, then you really must hang your head in eternal shame.
[ 29 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
It is perhaps most revealing to read that, by your own admission, you watched the meeting you claim to have attended "from a distance".
You assert that RD denounced "the way bonds are being dealt with" and was "the most vocal in opposition".
That RD is held by you to be most vocal comes as no surprise, though I am a little puzzled to hear that he opposed a bonding issue within his company after reading his vigorous justification for same on these pages.
I was certainly not present at this meeting, so I accept your version of these events and there is therefore no need for your call for independent verification.
However, there is nothing in your post above that would lead me to make any form of apology to RD. On the contrary, for no matter how vigorously RD is purported to be fighting this bonding issue, his attempts will be no greater than my own have been in this regard over many long years.
As for my supposedly getting facts wrong, I would be more than happy to read your proper explanation as to how this is so, since your post above is unclear.
The most likely redundancies are amongst those with the shortest service in the company. They therefore have the largest bonds to pay. Any that the company make redundant will therefore cost the company the most money, in clearing their bonds. Only the over-60's will not fit that picture.
There is no provision for being bonded on two types simultaneously, it is either one type or another. All of this is well within the scope of their contracts. However, it is early days yet and the picture will almost certainly change within the next few days.
Your penultimate and ultimate paragraphs above are unworthy of further comment.
I close by asking why it is that you watched the said meeting from afar? Could it be that you did so because you are not a pilot employee but a management employee? If not, then you really ought to be at the front supporting your friend RD. If so, then you really must hang your head in eternal shame.
[ 29 July 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]