pilots against hours increase
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the past
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inspite the nationwide strike in Italy (all pilots unions except Volare) and transport minister's promise to introduce lower limits from 1st March 03 it is the same music as before.If the brothers in EU don't care they soon will:Volare is starting a low cost EU operation soon.You have been warned (even before)!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LOCATION LOCATION
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you write to Brian Simpson, you'll just be fobbed off with a standard letter, with a stamp of his signature at the bottom. I think a more effective tactic would be to state your case to your own MP and MEP. They will then have to write to Mr Simpson on your behalf.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hapton
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with all Max and RAT 5 have said on the subject and they have a great deal more experience than I have. I have written to both my MP and MEP about this subject and BALPA's campaign "FULLY AWAKE" is a step in the right direction. However it is up to myself and my colleagues in the industry to fight this. It's our lives that will be directly affected and we are the ones who should be fighting it with BALPA's help. If we do not, and try to let BALPA 'go it alone' without our support then we will lose and then our last resort my be something along the lines WE mentioned. Namely to fight any attempts by our employers to change working hours by using the EU convention on Human Rights in the Law courts.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I emailed Brian Simpson and got the standard reply. I went to see him in his Warrington office last week. The man doesn't want to listen to anything that is put to him that questions his proposals, he talks over over you, tries to belittle any concerns by blaming both sides and claims that he has done the best he could under the circumstances. He even swears several times during the meeting, especially with regard to scientific evidence and BALPA (he's not the first to swear about them though!) This is what I posted on another thread after the meeting;
BALPA is trying it's best to raise it's concerns. I personally had an 'audience' with Brian Simpson MEP yesterday to discuss these matters and he 'was not for turning'. He disputes that his proposals are unsafe on the grounds that no scientist will state this fact and go public with it. The fact is that the most respected scientists in the field (ECASS, whom he dismisses) have deep concerns but are not prepared to enter into the political argument about it. This is fair enough as it is outside their modus operandi being completely impartial and reporting only what they conclude. They have put their concerns into print but Simpson dismisses this as, and I quote; " for every scientist that says the proposals are unsafe I have another disputing this." He believes that because BALPA commissioned QinetiQ to appraise his proposals they will come up with a result that fits BALPA's position as regards the proposals. He also states that the AEA (the airlines) commissioned experts come up with a view that fits their position. He is naive in this belief and unwilling, when challenged to give details of ANY scientific evidence that he took into account when formulating his proposals, other than stating that he has a pile 9" deep of scientific evidence on his desk that is contradictory and he has taken it into consideration. The fact is he is horse-trading politically to reach an 'harmonisation' position and is not looking at best practice when coming up with an FTL that primarily takes into account safety and then looks at the other issues.
The next stage is the Council of Ministers giving their opinion on these matters, as the vote in the European Parliament has already passed and they have not rejected the proposals. The Council of Ministers have the power to reject them, send them back for ammendment/ reassessment or to accept them. Simpson is of the belief that his proposals are the best thing since sliced bread because some ststes don't have any FTL currently and therefore these states have given him the nod. The fact is that these states have taken no studies of pilot fatigue into consideration whatsover and can hardly be considered if you are looking at best practice in harmonisation. I agreed with him that his proposals are a step forward for these states, but at what expense? The fact is that the nations who have lead the field in Europe with regard to best practice in FTL planning have all taken on board the fatigue studies of organisations such as QinetiQ in the UK and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. His proposals will set back the current 'best practice', which is not ideal (CAP371 in the UK) years. Pilots will be flying a/c with a performance detriment due to fatigue greater than someone who is just over the (fairly common European) drink drive limit. This is the danger.
Simpson says that member states can keep their FTL with his proposals forming an absolute maximum. He said, and I quote, if airlines exploit loopholes or less restrictive FTLs elsewhere in Europe "that's not my problem'. His brief is to formulate a framework for harmonisation, it appears at any cost.
The best way forward now is to canvass your local MP, make them aware of your safety concerns and push them to argue the case with the Transport Minister before he goes to Europe for the Council of Ministers vote in September (I believe). State what you want from that meeting which is that the proposals should be rejected on the grounds of safety and an indepedent scientific study should be commissioned to ascertain a primarily safe framework for harmonisation.
PP
BALPA is trying it's best to raise it's concerns. I personally had an 'audience' with Brian Simpson MEP yesterday to discuss these matters and he 'was not for turning'. He disputes that his proposals are unsafe on the grounds that no scientist will state this fact and go public with it. The fact is that the most respected scientists in the field (ECASS, whom he dismisses) have deep concerns but are not prepared to enter into the political argument about it. This is fair enough as it is outside their modus operandi being completely impartial and reporting only what they conclude. They have put their concerns into print but Simpson dismisses this as, and I quote; " for every scientist that says the proposals are unsafe I have another disputing this." He believes that because BALPA commissioned QinetiQ to appraise his proposals they will come up with a result that fits BALPA's position as regards the proposals. He also states that the AEA (the airlines) commissioned experts come up with a view that fits their position. He is naive in this belief and unwilling, when challenged to give details of ANY scientific evidence that he took into account when formulating his proposals, other than stating that he has a pile 9" deep of scientific evidence on his desk that is contradictory and he has taken it into consideration. The fact is he is horse-trading politically to reach an 'harmonisation' position and is not looking at best practice when coming up with an FTL that primarily takes into account safety and then looks at the other issues.
The next stage is the Council of Ministers giving their opinion on these matters, as the vote in the European Parliament has already passed and they have not rejected the proposals. The Council of Ministers have the power to reject them, send them back for ammendment/ reassessment or to accept them. Simpson is of the belief that his proposals are the best thing since sliced bread because some ststes don't have any FTL currently and therefore these states have given him the nod. The fact is that these states have taken no studies of pilot fatigue into consideration whatsover and can hardly be considered if you are looking at best practice in harmonisation. I agreed with him that his proposals are a step forward for these states, but at what expense? The fact is that the nations who have lead the field in Europe with regard to best practice in FTL planning have all taken on board the fatigue studies of organisations such as QinetiQ in the UK and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. His proposals will set back the current 'best practice', which is not ideal (CAP371 in the UK) years. Pilots will be flying a/c with a performance detriment due to fatigue greater than someone who is just over the (fairly common European) drink drive limit. This is the danger.
Simpson says that member states can keep their FTL with his proposals forming an absolute maximum. He said, and I quote, if airlines exploit loopholes or less restrictive FTLs elsewhere in Europe "that's not my problem'. His brief is to formulate a framework for harmonisation, it appears at any cost.
The best way forward now is to canvass your local MP, make them aware of your safety concerns and push them to argue the case with the Transport Minister before he goes to Europe for the Council of Ministers vote in September (I believe). State what you want from that meeting which is that the proposals should be rejected on the grounds of safety and an indepedent scientific study should be commissioned to ascertain a primarily safe framework for harmonisation.
PP
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What staggers me is that, in a safety concious industry like ours, the very people who have the greatest impact on safety, and who have been identified as the most likely to cause an accident, (pilot error) are being subjected to working 'at the limit' on a regular basis.
While the rest of the EU work force has had a massive improvemnt in general working conditions, we are being pressurised into a degradation. It beggars belief.
What to do about it? How many of the fire-fighters wrote to their MP's?? Count them on one hand.
The bus drivers, lorry drivers. ATC controllers, doctors & nurses. teachers; all of these professions shouted loud over work and made it into print and the public domain. They scotched the myth of overpaid and underworked. Public opinion changed in their favour.
I still think the general public have the impression about our profession left over from the glamorous BOAC days. It was common to hear pax say that they thought we were getting off in TFS for a few days on the beach.
When they were told we flew 4-6 sectors a day for an LCA they were amazed. When they climb aboard at LGW afetr a 6 hour delay in the middle of the night, they do not realise that the crews have also been hanging around at home 'off duty' just waiting for the scramble call. They get on in blind faith.
When asked what they really thing about it all, they say that they assume we are protected by the CAA. Surely the licencing authority would not allow anything unsafe. The pblic are so used to 'sell by dates' and standards of this and that, that they assume an industry such as ours must be regulated upto the eyeballs in safety.
If you want a widget for the toilet door it has to be tested and approved to the nth order. 'Safety'!
For the human element? That's too expensive.
Considering that MP's have changed their working hours to be more family friendly and improve their quality of life, how can they not give the same consideration to our profession?
Ah! Politics.
While the rest of the EU work force has had a massive improvemnt in general working conditions, we are being pressurised into a degradation. It beggars belief.
What to do about it? How many of the fire-fighters wrote to their MP's?? Count them on one hand.
The bus drivers, lorry drivers. ATC controllers, doctors & nurses. teachers; all of these professions shouted loud over work and made it into print and the public domain. They scotched the myth of overpaid and underworked. Public opinion changed in their favour.
I still think the general public have the impression about our profession left over from the glamorous BOAC days. It was common to hear pax say that they thought we were getting off in TFS for a few days on the beach.
When they were told we flew 4-6 sectors a day for an LCA they were amazed. When they climb aboard at LGW afetr a 6 hour delay in the middle of the night, they do not realise that the crews have also been hanging around at home 'off duty' just waiting for the scramble call. They get on in blind faith.
When asked what they really thing about it all, they say that they assume we are protected by the CAA. Surely the licencing authority would not allow anything unsafe. The pblic are so used to 'sell by dates' and standards of this and that, that they assume an industry such as ours must be regulated upto the eyeballs in safety.
If you want a widget for the toilet door it has to be tested and approved to the nth order. 'Safety'!
For the human element? That's too expensive.
Considering that MP's have changed their working hours to be more family friendly and improve their quality of life, how can they not give the same consideration to our profession?
Ah! Politics.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have written to my MP & MEP, who passed my comments on to Jacqueline Foster MEP, the Conservative spokesman. She was quite indignant that I thought Simpson's proposals had ignored common sense from those with experience on these matters - she cited her own 26 years of "airline experience". Anybody know what this was? She also said she supported Simpson because it improved the lot of those who had little/no FTL protection. I replied that there was no point in lowering UK FTL standards below CAP371 - which I reckon gives us the bare minimum protection anyway - to make the worst feel better. I await her reply with interest.
Here's another thought that might be worth pursuing. Here in the UK there are signs appearing beside our roads saying "Tiredness kills, take a break". A recent fatal rail crash was caused by a car driver falling asleep and blocking the track, and police have said they regard driving when fatigued as a crime. Simpson's FTL proposals mean we can fly aircraft in a state that mean we should not be driving a car - and we would be unsafe to drive home after duty.
Here's another thought that might be worth pursuing. Here in the UK there are signs appearing beside our roads saying "Tiredness kills, take a break". A recent fatal rail crash was caused by a car driver falling asleep and blocking the track, and police have said they regard driving when fatigued as a crime. Simpson's FTL proposals mean we can fly aircraft in a state that mean we should not be driving a car - and we would be unsafe to drive home after duty.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacqueline Foster was cabin crew for BA between 1969 & 1999. She was also a founder member of CC89, the cabin crew union alternative to BASSA. So says her personal info on the Conservative Party web site.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding any softening of CAP 371; (I feel it should be tightened, but that's another story); the CAA have stated some years ago, and Chirps printed the statement also,
"that CAP 371 limits are not a complete protection against fatigue or undue tiredness."
Company rosters need to be constructed in a common sense way. However, it is simply the case that limits have, and will be, treated as the norm and the CAA have never policed their own philosophy and guidelines. Thus, any relaxation will be detrimental.
For the MEP's to say that the national authorities, or unions, can impose or negotiate stricter conditions than JAA is wildly naive and ludicrous.
For the number of peanuts they get paid I do not expect monkey statements. And for an ex BA stewardess to feel qualified to make comments on today's T&C's for the charter and low cost operators is arrogance that might be astonishing if it did not come from an ex member of the world's favorite feathered nest.
"that CAP 371 limits are not a complete protection against fatigue or undue tiredness."
Company rosters need to be constructed in a common sense way. However, it is simply the case that limits have, and will be, treated as the norm and the CAA have never policed their own philosophy and guidelines. Thus, any relaxation will be detrimental.
For the MEP's to say that the national authorities, or unions, can impose or negotiate stricter conditions than JAA is wildly naive and ludicrous.
For the number of peanuts they get paid I do not expect monkey statements. And for an ex BA stewardess to feel qualified to make comments on today's T&C's for the charter and low cost operators is arrogance that might be astonishing if it did not come from an ex member of the world's favorite feathered nest.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the past
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe J.Foster should fly as crew for Blue Panorama for a month or so.Could try Volare,too and then offer some "inside knowledge".Thank God in UK the judges are elected by judges and not by politicians.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been reported that the opinions of the proposers for these JAA FTL's follow the lines that
"it will be an improvement for those crews who have none or very bad FTL's at present."
I fail to see how improving the lot of some requires a degradation of my present conditions. Surely, we should all aspire "to the best practices". Now there's a buzz word/phrase, as well as 'bench marking' that I remember well from previous employers where they were both conspicuous by their absence.
I doubt anyone has reduced famine in one country by going on a diet at home.
"it will be an improvement for those crews who have none or very bad FTL's at present."
I fail to see how improving the lot of some requires a degradation of my present conditions. Surely, we should all aspire "to the best practices". Now there's a buzz word/phrase, as well as 'bench marking' that I remember well from previous employers where they were both conspicuous by their absence.
I doubt anyone has reduced famine in one country by going on a diet at home.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chester
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no point trying to negotiate with people like Simpson he is an "unconscious incompetent".FTL is not up for discussion,those of us who work close to them know how dangerous that would be.
Support BALPAs campaign but accept that ,ulitimately,we may just have to take industrial action.
Support BALPAs campaign but accept that ,ulitimately,we may just have to take industrial action.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that's what it takes then count me in.
However it is no good every body saying that they will agree with industrial action, then on the day they suddenly remember their mortage's, CSA payments, kids school fees, their next Holiday somewhere exotic, possible promotion, up grade to a jet, etc, etc, etc .
I say except these new changes at your peril
If the HSE won't allow the lorry drivers, et al to work excessive hours then why should they allow it for us ?
All you newbys out there take note, coz if you aint got the balls to stand up now, then you will reap the consequences for the rest of your careers....................and it wont be in your life time's before there is a change for the best.
However it is no good every body saying that they will agree with industrial action, then on the day they suddenly remember their mortage's, CSA payments, kids school fees, their next Holiday somewhere exotic, possible promotion, up grade to a jet, etc, etc, etc .
I say except these new changes at your peril
If the HSE won't allow the lorry drivers, et al to work excessive hours then why should they allow it for us ?
All you newbys out there take note, coz if you aint got the balls to stand up now, then you will reap the consequences for the rest of your careers....................and it wont be in your life time's before there is a change for the best.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Middle England
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The solution is fairly simple but involves a little hard work. We have to threaten these MEPs where it hurts - their wallet and career.
Since they won't listen to reason, all the pilots that live in Mr Simpson's and Mrs Forster's European constituencies need to write to their local papers. We need to club together and buy advertising in these papers quoting what they say and making them look the fools they are. We need some candidates to stand in their constituencies with the sole purpose of unseating these 2 people. Affecting a politician's career is the best way of getting them to stand up and listen - look what happened to Chris Darke when you don't listen and someone stands with the sole purpose of removing you.
Since they won't listen to reason, all the pilots that live in Mr Simpson's and Mrs Forster's European constituencies need to write to their local papers. We need to club together and buy advertising in these papers quoting what they say and making them look the fools they are. We need some candidates to stand in their constituencies with the sole purpose of unseating these 2 people. Affecting a politician's career is the best way of getting them to stand up and listen - look what happened to Chris Darke when you don't listen and someone stands with the sole purpose of removing you.
Last edited by Checked No Pressure; 30th Mar 2003 at 07:10.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't your Regs say you must be fit for duty? If so, if you are tired get off. Fixes problems around here.
I guess the fear of the sack is the major impediment to the above but if your master has that attitude and you consider yourself a professional then do you really want to be there?
It's your licence, if you muck up and lose it see how long they'll want you around.
Unsafe is unsafe and we are our own worst enemies with this "press on itis" attitude. Draw the line and toe it.
I guess the fear of the sack is the major impediment to the above but if your master has that attitude and you consider yourself a professional then do you really want to be there?
It's your licence, if you muck up and lose it see how long they'll want you around.
Unsafe is unsafe and we are our own worst enemies with this "press on itis" attitude. Draw the line and toe it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Checked No Pressure -
A fine idea, but I'm afraid the matter is not so simple. MEPs are elected in large constituencies according to proportional representation. Those who are elected are not elected directly, but chosen from a list of their party's candidates according to the proportion of the popular vote in their consituency. These lists are drawn up by the party membership in an internal vote with the priority of candidates being determined by the number of votes each gained in the internal election. If the candidate gets to the top of the party list they are virtually guranteed election regardless of party, as happened to the UKIP MEPs in the south east of England.
The thing to do is look at Mr. Simpson's and Mrs. Forster's party lists. If they are close to the top then you have no chance of unseating them. Even if they are not, any campaign you might mount would have to gain significant popular support to alter the outcome of the vote significantly, and I regret to say that this is unlikely on an issue which is likely to be perceived by the public as a limited, technical one.
The best approach is to lobby through a group like BALPA who have some experience of this.
A fine idea, but I'm afraid the matter is not so simple. MEPs are elected in large constituencies according to proportional representation. Those who are elected are not elected directly, but chosen from a list of their party's candidates according to the proportion of the popular vote in their consituency. These lists are drawn up by the party membership in an internal vote with the priority of candidates being determined by the number of votes each gained in the internal election. If the candidate gets to the top of the party list they are virtually guranteed election regardless of party, as happened to the UKIP MEPs in the south east of England.
The thing to do is look at Mr. Simpson's and Mrs. Forster's party lists. If they are close to the top then you have no chance of unseating them. Even if they are not, any campaign you might mount would have to gain significant popular support to alter the outcome of the vote significantly, and I regret to say that this is unlikely on an issue which is likely to be perceived by the public as a limited, technical one.
The best approach is to lobby through a group like BALPA who have some experience of this.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Middle England
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Neo,
I am already lobbying both my MEPs and MP and have seen my local MP who has promised to ask a parliamentary question of the Transport Minister. As you'll know from your MEP, the matter is back with Members States Transport Ministers who have a veto.
It was one of the MEPs who suggested the tack of standing against the people concerned. You are right about the lists. However when one or another party realises it may lose some few thousand votes to a pressure group and with it 1 or 2 seats, it tends to force the offender to back down or drop them from the list. Political parties do not like supporting something which is easily shown to be unsafe or stupid.
BALPA is doing a good job but has a problem: All the MEPs and the MP who I have dealt with point out that BALPA is a union so they immediately dismiss it. It will have to be us, the workforce, who will have to fight this battle individually if we are to win. Since I have not seen it in my local paper or on the news certainly we are not making enough noise. Worse still some of my non BALPA colleagues have not even heard about the problem when I raise it with them!
So what I am saying is yes lets lobby through BALPA but lets also do some work ourselves - just as BALPA has asked in the Fit To Fly Handout.
I am already lobbying both my MEPs and MP and have seen my local MP who has promised to ask a parliamentary question of the Transport Minister. As you'll know from your MEP, the matter is back with Members States Transport Ministers who have a veto.
It was one of the MEPs who suggested the tack of standing against the people concerned. You are right about the lists. However when one or another party realises it may lose some few thousand votes to a pressure group and with it 1 or 2 seats, it tends to force the offender to back down or drop them from the list. Political parties do not like supporting something which is easily shown to be unsafe or stupid.
BALPA is doing a good job but has a problem: All the MEPs and the MP who I have dealt with point out that BALPA is a union so they immediately dismiss it. It will have to be us, the workforce, who will have to fight this battle individually if we are to win. Since I have not seen it in my local paper or on the news certainly we are not making enough noise. Worse still some of my non BALPA colleagues have not even heard about the problem when I raise it with them!
So what I am saying is yes lets lobby through BALPA but lets also do some work ourselves - just as BALPA has asked in the Fit To Fly Handout.