UK Chief Pilots and the 'Old Boy' network . . .
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No small number of pilots have been fired or unable to gain further employment over the years as a result of clandestine operations that exploit the cozy relationships between airline management staff. This is perhaps truer of Asian airlines than European ones, ("leaving the family" is a great sin in those cultures) Singapore and EVA pilots having a particularly difficult time.
Anyone who's reputation has been contaminated by this sort of practice has my heart-felt sympathy, proof is indeed hard to come by and the hardship is a terrible one. I'm surprised the caretakers of our present legal system have not yet realized the potentially enormous payouts involved.
Seems you can check out of this hotel, but you can never leave.
Anyone who's reputation has been contaminated by this sort of practice has my heart-felt sympathy, proof is indeed hard to come by and the hardship is a terrible one. I'm surprised the caretakers of our present legal system have not yet realized the potentially enormous payouts involved.
Seems you can check out of this hotel, but you can never leave.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the comment by Mr Benn and ducksoup above I would add that I currently represent a pilot accused of breaking a contract with an airline. It is important to remember that this man is innocent unless and until he is proven guilty. One wonders, then, whether "Geoff Hall of Monarch", or any other employer in the Old Boys' network would refuse to employ him while the legal process is in train (perhaps for several years). Would they employ him after found 'not guilty'? Would they immediately offer him employment were the court to find that the airline was the party in breach of contract and not he? Importantly, would they hold in contempt the 'in breach' airline employer in the same way that they apparently hold the 'in breach' pilot? 
I am indebted to Mr Don Perry (Industrial Editor, Sunday Express, 1964 -1982) for his letter to The Times today in which he informs me:
"Perhaps the Governments's own Employment Relations Act 1999, Section 3, which prohibits lists 'compiled with a view to being used... for the purpose of discrimination in relation to recruitment or... the treatment of workers', is relevant."
So there you go. Such lists are illegal.
WWW
"Perhaps the Governments's own Employment Relations Act 1999, Section 3, which prohibits lists 'compiled with a view to being used... for the purpose of discrimination in relation to recruitment or... the treatment of workers', is relevant."
So there you go. Such lists are illegal.
WWW
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holt CJ
Have you positioned Geoff Hall or anyone else in any conspiratorial Old Boys` network? I say again, conspiritorial, because this appears to be your presumption and you cannot make that stick.
Surely, guilt is simply a question of did he or did he not? If he did, he IS guilty, irrespective of the burden of proof. It is only in LAW that we are required to make your assumption and, as you should be only too aware, the law can be and frequently is, an ass.
WWW
What lists are you referring to?
Have you positioned Geoff Hall or anyone else in any conspiratorial Old Boys` network? I say again, conspiritorial, because this appears to be your presumption and you cannot make that stick.
Surely, guilt is simply a question of did he or did he not? If he did, he IS guilty, irrespective of the burden of proof. It is only in LAW that we are required to make your assumption and, as you should be only too aware, the law can be and frequently is, an ass.
WWW
What lists are you referring to?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr ducksoup. I am a little concerned by your aggressive words above. You said:
FYI, if this chap actually exists, I position him nowhere and say that I do not know him. I merely quoted the precise words as posted by MR Benn above and make no assertion or "presumption" whatsoever.
I make no response to your own assertions with respect to guilt, burdens of proof, assumption, and "the law". You are entitled to your views, however jaundiced they may be. Do please be very careful as to how you choose to express them, at least when making reference to me.
And, just as an aside, since you seem to have now twice leapt to defend this "Geoff Hall of Monarch", I frequently fly as a passenger with the airline called Monarch. Absolutely superb airline in my own, admittedly unqualified, opinion. If this "Geoff Hall" has anything to do with that airline's management, I would venture the opinion that he seems to be doing a splendid job of it, whether or not he holds prejudicial views with regard to "contract breakers". As my wife and children are again flying with Monarch to the Canaries in a few days from now, I sincerely hope that he continues with the good work.
[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]
Have you positioned Geoff Hall or anyone else in any conspiratorial Old Boys` network?
I make no response to your own assertions with respect to guilt, burdens of proof, assumption, and "the law". You are entitled to your views, however jaundiced they may be. Do please be very careful as to how you choose to express them, at least when making reference to me.
And, just as an aside, since you seem to have now twice leapt to defend this "Geoff Hall of Monarch", I frequently fly as a passenger with the airline called Monarch. Absolutely superb airline in my own, admittedly unqualified, opinion. If this "Geoff Hall" has anything to do with that airline's management, I would venture the opinion that he seems to be doing a splendid job of it, whether or not he holds prejudicial views with regard to "contract breakers". As my wife and children are again flying with Monarch to the Canaries in a few days from now, I sincerely hope that he continues with the good work.
[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holt CJ
Can`t see where you get "aggressive words" from. I chose my words very carefully and a careful re-reading of them may perhaps persuade you that my intention is neither to "leap to the defence" of anyone nor be rude to you. I merely read into your previous posting what seemed apparent to me and probably to others too.
I am indeed entitled to my views. Perhaps that is where you should have finished but no such luck. You continue with another presumption which may or may not be true, but you make it anyway.......
Agreed, Monarch is indeed a superb airline and has been for years.
[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: ducksoup ]
Can`t see where you get "aggressive words" from. I chose my words very carefully and a careful re-reading of them may perhaps persuade you that my intention is neither to "leap to the defence" of anyone nor be rude to you. I merely read into your previous posting what seemed apparent to me and probably to others too.
I am indeed entitled to my views. Perhaps that is where you should have finished but no such luck. You continue with another presumption which may or may not be true, but you make it anyway.......
Agreed, Monarch is indeed a superb airline and has been for years.
[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: ducksoup ]
By lists I meant the generic sort you here about being kept on bond breakers or 'troublesome' pilots. No that I know anything about this topic.
WWW
WWW
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By "breaking contract", guessing wildly, I would imagine we are referring to leaving before one's training bond is amortized.
Without knowing the background I can't be specific of course, but a lot of people seem to be under the impression that merely leaving within the bond amortization period constitutes "contract breaking" - correct me if I'm wrong, chaps, but as long as the individual concerned actually pays back the appropriate amount of wonga, I would have thought he would be complying admirably with his contract.
Without knowing the background I can't be specific of course, but a lot of people seem to be under the impression that merely leaving within the bond amortization period constitutes "contract breaking" - correct me if I'm wrong, chaps, but as long as the individual concerned actually pays back the appropriate amount of wonga, I would have thought he would be complying admirably with his contract.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JJ
The other "sin" is not giving the contracted notice period.
Most of us in the UK work to a 3 month notice period which wouldn`t be so bad if some companies didn`t offer jobs with the proviso that we break our current contract i.e. "the course starts in a fortnight if you can make it".
Makes life a bit difficult if you have a concience.
WWW,
Thanks, although I can`t see it myself.
The other "sin" is not giving the contracted notice period.
Most of us in the UK work to a 3 month notice period which wouldn`t be so bad if some companies didn`t offer jobs with the proviso that we break our current contract i.e. "the course starts in a fortnight if you can make it".
Makes life a bit difficult if you have a concience.
WWW,
Thanks, although I can`t see it myself.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For bugg smasher, your question is difficult to answer, given that the law of evidence is a vast topic and, in any event, differs according to the applicable legal jurisdiction. It is simpler for me to say that if you want to provide me with some examples of what kind of evidence you wish to offer up, I might be able to offer you some guidance as to whether or not it would be admissible in a UK court.
For ducksoup and JJ, on the subject of a pilot "breaking contract", I suppose you are both right to some degree. JJ's "leaving before one's training bond is amortized" and ducksoup's "not giving the contracted notice period" might, in some circumstances, lead to allegations as to contract breaking. The point, though, is that such acts by a pilot may be perfectly reasonable and justifiable in the relevant circumstances. It seems less than equitable, then, that a pilot should be shunned, blacklisted, whatever, merely on the basis of an employer's unproven allegation as to contract breaking, or, as I understand is alleged in some cases, "bond-jumping".
[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]
For ducksoup and JJ, on the subject of a pilot "breaking contract", I suppose you are both right to some degree. JJ's "leaving before one's training bond is amortized" and ducksoup's "not giving the contracted notice period" might, in some circumstances, lead to allegations as to contract breaking. The point, though, is that such acts by a pilot may be perfectly reasonable and justifiable in the relevant circumstances. It seems less than equitable, then, that a pilot should be shunned, blacklisted, whatever, merely on the basis of an employer's unproven allegation as to contract breaking, or, as I understand is alleged in some cases, "bond-jumping".
[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, HoltCJ, for your very level although somewhat guarded reply. Your presence in this forum should prove highly educational to many of us.
On this side of the Atlantic, defamation of character is regarded as a serious offence and has resulted, when successfully prosecuted, in quite large sums of money changing hands. As you quite rightly pointed out, however, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff.
May I refer to my original question; in the absence of documented proof, what avenues of pursuit are open. Recorded telephone conversations perhaps, sworn testimony from fellow pilots?
On this side of the Atlantic, defamation of character is regarded as a serious offence and has resulted, when successfully prosecuted, in quite large sums of money changing hands. As you quite rightly pointed out, however, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff.
May I refer to my original question; in the absence of documented proof, what avenues of pursuit are open. Recorded telephone conversations perhaps, sworn testimony from fellow pilots?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This site is in danger of becoming a favourite on my computer. It was my original intention to do no more than take a peek at the recommendation of a pro pilot involved in a legal scrape. It certainly has some interesting posts on it, scattered throughout the usual tripe one can read on any BB. So, well done to its originators.
For bugg smasher, you will have to excuse my somewhat natural tendency toward guarded reply. I would add that your chosen username does tend to suggest ulterior motives, don’t you think? My presence on this forum is no more than as stated above and is not intended to be educational in any way other than with respect to my own further enlightenment. You previously asked what appears to be a simple question and I pointed to the fact that it is not as simple as it might seem.
As to your more recent remarks that, if I may say so, suggest you may have some legal knowledge (I sincerely hope you are not just pulling my chain here): in the UK we tend not to use the term "defamation of character". Rather, it is simply defamation, and can be either written (libel) or spoken (slander). It is not a “serious offence” here (and I suspect it is not in the USA) for the very simple reason that it is a tort and not a breach of statute. One cannot “prosecute” in the law of tort, one simply brings a civil action. And, as you say, such actions can indeed involve very large sums of money depending on the reputation and standing of the plaintiff and the degree of damage done.
As to your return to the original question, the “absence of documented proof”, though not necessarily fatal to a case, would make it extremely problematic. Recorded telephone conversations are also problematic, and may lead to the pursuer of justice becoming the pursued. Be very careful in this area, for it is a veritable minefield. Sworn testimony from fellow pilots would certainly be permissible provided that it was not merely hearsay. And such testimony would become “documented proof” if sworn by affidavit.
May I suggest that you are yourself being a little guarded? If you have a specific problem, why not come out and tell us about it under the cloak of anonymity provided on this website? I would then do my best to provide assistance within the constraints of my very limited knowledge.
[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]
For bugg smasher, you will have to excuse my somewhat natural tendency toward guarded reply. I would add that your chosen username does tend to suggest ulterior motives, don’t you think? My presence on this forum is no more than as stated above and is not intended to be educational in any way other than with respect to my own further enlightenment. You previously asked what appears to be a simple question and I pointed to the fact that it is not as simple as it might seem.
As to your more recent remarks that, if I may say so, suggest you may have some legal knowledge (I sincerely hope you are not just pulling my chain here): in the UK we tend not to use the term "defamation of character". Rather, it is simply defamation, and can be either written (libel) or spoken (slander). It is not a “serious offence” here (and I suspect it is not in the USA) for the very simple reason that it is a tort and not a breach of statute. One cannot “prosecute” in the law of tort, one simply brings a civil action. And, as you say, such actions can indeed involve very large sums of money depending on the reputation and standing of the plaintiff and the degree of damage done.
As to your return to the original question, the “absence of documented proof”, though not necessarily fatal to a case, would make it extremely problematic. Recorded telephone conversations are also problematic, and may lead to the pursuer of justice becoming the pursued. Be very careful in this area, for it is a veritable minefield. Sworn testimony from fellow pilots would certainly be permissible provided that it was not merely hearsay. And such testimony would become “documented proof” if sworn by affidavit.
May I suggest that you are yourself being a little guarded? If you have a specific problem, why not come out and tell us about it under the cloak of anonymity provided on this website? I would then do my best to provide assistance within the constraints of my very limited knowledge.
[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ducksoup, I totally agree, I wouldn't take on someone willingly breaking a contract either.
I merely mentioned that this comment had been made. In fact anyone at the BALPA employment conference where he spoke would have heard that comment, it was said publicly. I was just mentioning it in the context of what we were talking about.
As for "blacklists" of people not to employ, unfortunately these things are generally not in writing.
I only found out about my bad reference because someone who had interviewed me had heard the comments and could not believe they were true, and wanted to let me know that this was being said about me.
So there are still some gentlemen out there.
I merely mentioned that this comment had been made. In fact anyone at the BALPA employment conference where he spoke would have heard that comment, it was said publicly. I was just mentioning it in the context of what we were talking about.
As for "blacklists" of people not to employ, unfortunately these things are generally not in writing.
I only found out about my bad reference because someone who had interviewed me had heard the comments and could not believe they were true, and wanted to let me know that this was being said about me.
So there are still some gentlemen out there.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello HoltCJ,
Your comments are, as ever, highly informed and much appreciated. My apologies for this long delay in replying.
My user name is in fact my "callsign", and was awarded to me by colleagues in the Navy some years ago. It refers to the low and slow nature of the aircraft I was flying at the time. And although it was somewhat of an embarrassment then, I wear it now, perhaps a little childishly, with head held high. (I preferred "Poontang", but alas it was not to be.)
Perhaps you have seen the thread where a certain pilot was failed and terminated after a simulator check ride, not because he was unable to do the job, but because he was extremely unpopular. (Perhaps this is the very legal scrape you speak of.) I am an amateur observer of the human animal, and have always been fascinated by the propensity of that certain caste of individual, hiding behind the managerial title and powers bestowed upon him by the corporation at large (without which he would feel himself to be the toothless eunuch that he is), to vilify and condemn those that "rub him the wrong way". The current Cathay dispute is replete with this kind of atrocity. In any Samson & Goliath scenario, you will always find me in the peanut gallery, right or wrong, tossing sharp and pointed objects at the bully's aft lavatory.
With regard to tort law, how does one assign a quantifiable value to the "standing and reputation" of an individual. It would seem to me that reputation is a matter of democratic opinion in most cases, and, as such, a question of deft and skillful maneuvering by the legal counsel concerned.
Your comments are, as ever, highly informed and much appreciated. My apologies for this long delay in replying.
My user name is in fact my "callsign", and was awarded to me by colleagues in the Navy some years ago. It refers to the low and slow nature of the aircraft I was flying at the time. And although it was somewhat of an embarrassment then, I wear it now, perhaps a little childishly, with head held high. (I preferred "Poontang", but alas it was not to be.)
Perhaps you have seen the thread where a certain pilot was failed and terminated after a simulator check ride, not because he was unable to do the job, but because he was extremely unpopular. (Perhaps this is the very legal scrape you speak of.) I am an amateur observer of the human animal, and have always been fascinated by the propensity of that certain caste of individual, hiding behind the managerial title and powers bestowed upon him by the corporation at large (without which he would feel himself to be the toothless eunuch that he is), to vilify and condemn those that "rub him the wrong way". The current Cathay dispute is replete with this kind of atrocity. In any Samson & Goliath scenario, you will always find me in the peanut gallery, right or wrong, tossing sharp and pointed objects at the bully's aft lavatory.
With regard to tort law, how does one assign a quantifiable value to the "standing and reputation" of an individual. It would seem to me that reputation is a matter of democratic opinion in most cases, and, as such, a question of deft and skillful maneuvering by the legal counsel concerned.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Strood, Kent
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a bit of a red herring to suggest that in the scenario to which I referred earlier, that the applicant concerned had had the sim used against him as a weapon.
It did not become common knowledge that he had even applied to the company until after he had already passed the interview. You can be sure that were it to have been widely known that the individual had applied, he would not have even made it to interview.
As Darth Vaders Love-child has pointed out, there is a lot of good information available from one's existing line pilots, and when several proferred the same poor opinion of this chap, our recruitment department would have shyed away at the application stage.
As nobody knew about his application until he had already passed the interview, but it was then obvious that the individual was not the sort of person wanted here, I don't see a problem in him not being selected folling his sim check.
Perhaps I phrased it badly before... I obviously don't know exactly how his sim check went (not having been present). When I said his sim check went badly, I meant that he was unsuccessful in landing the job having completed it!
Does that sound better?
It did not become common knowledge that he had even applied to the company until after he had already passed the interview. You can be sure that were it to have been widely known that the individual had applied, he would not have even made it to interview.
As Darth Vaders Love-child has pointed out, there is a lot of good information available from one's existing line pilots, and when several proferred the same poor opinion of this chap, our recruitment department would have shyed away at the application stage.
As nobody knew about his application until he had already passed the interview, but it was then obvious that the individual was not the sort of person wanted here, I don't see a problem in him not being selected folling his sim check.
Perhaps I phrased it badly before... I obviously don't know exactly how his sim check went (not having been present). When I said his sim check went badly, I meant that he was unsuccessful in landing the job having completed it!
Does that sound better?
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings Darth Offspring, may the force be in your genes...
Very sensible posting, if only everyone in the industry shared the same point of view.
Your comments certainly apply to the greater part of the European aviation environment that you speak of, however "saying it as one sees it" can mean some interesting things, particularly in the Middle and Far East where cultural filters tint the glass through which these things are viewed.
In a certain sandy place, for example, local national pilots are routinely exonerated for the direst of incidents (explantion given makes for some riveting reading) while the expatriate pilot is villified for the least. In another place further east known for its morale-boosting genius, ten-thousand hour relief captains are bypassed for command by local 1500-hour F/O's, safety being secondary to national face, damn the insurance premiums. And in yet another place just north of there, expat pilots have been beaten up (one hospitalized as a result) in Flight Operations by locals indignant at the acknowledged need for the expat presence. Holy sh@t Darth, pass the light sabre...
The above examples are, of course, extreme, but they do seem to have their varying counterparts in the "civilized" world as well. In defending a pilot who has fallen victim to malicious or partisan management agendas, as HoltCJ appears to be doing at the moment, it's not quite as simple and eloquent as your posting seems to suggest. There are always two sides to any story; the corporate brick wall (and the suits hiding behind it), however, carry inordinately more weight than the individual.
Rumour has it, by the way, that a certain establishment in San Fransisco considers pointy-hats and whips a treat. Not that I would know anything about it of course.
Very sensible posting, if only everyone in the industry shared the same point of view.
Your comments certainly apply to the greater part of the European aviation environment that you speak of, however "saying it as one sees it" can mean some interesting things, particularly in the Middle and Far East where cultural filters tint the glass through which these things are viewed.
In a certain sandy place, for example, local national pilots are routinely exonerated for the direst of incidents (explantion given makes for some riveting reading) while the expatriate pilot is villified for the least. In another place further east known for its morale-boosting genius, ten-thousand hour relief captains are bypassed for command by local 1500-hour F/O's, safety being secondary to national face, damn the insurance premiums. And in yet another place just north of there, expat pilots have been beaten up (one hospitalized as a result) in Flight Operations by locals indignant at the acknowledged need for the expat presence. Holy sh@t Darth, pass the light sabre...
The above examples are, of course, extreme, but they do seem to have their varying counterparts in the "civilized" world as well. In defending a pilot who has fallen victim to malicious or partisan management agendas, as HoltCJ appears to be doing at the moment, it's not quite as simple and eloquent as your posting seems to suggest. There are always two sides to any story; the corporate brick wall (and the suits hiding behind it), however, carry inordinately more weight than the individual.
Rumour has it, by the way, that a certain establishment in San Fransisco considers pointy-hats and whips a treat. Not that I would know anything about it of course.