UK Chief Pilots and the 'Old Boy' network . . .
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tilii - thanks for advising me how to behave as a 'new boy'. I have actually been here for years under a different guise - I could not get back on when they changed the software.
Anyway, we appear to have strayed from the original post. We look like we divide into 2 camps - those that love the legal beagles and those that don't. I don't! My reasons are very simple - I love justice and I hate political correctness. DA made excellent points in his posts that were very rudely dealt with - but there again the truth always hurts. I know for a fact that every major profession (and nowhere is this more true than among lawyers) makes sure that discreet inquiries are made about potential employees. As another excellent contributor has written, anything that contributes to safety in our industry is a good thing. And no, I am not advocating some masonic black-balling system (loads of lawyers among them as well!). What I am advocating is the right to make sensible enquiries that result in the right people getting the job. By right people, I mean the best candidates in terms of ability, character and suitablity from the would-be employer's point of view. Otherwise we are back to the bad old days of women-only shortlists and other similar injustices.
Anyway, we appear to have strayed from the original post. We look like we divide into 2 camps - those that love the legal beagles and those that don't. I don't! My reasons are very simple - I love justice and I hate political correctness. DA made excellent points in his posts that were very rudely dealt with - but there again the truth always hurts. I know for a fact that every major profession (and nowhere is this more true than among lawyers) makes sure that discreet inquiries are made about potential employees. As another excellent contributor has written, anything that contributes to safety in our industry is a good thing. And no, I am not advocating some masonic black-balling system (loads of lawyers among them as well!). What I am advocating is the right to make sensible enquiries that result in the right people getting the job. By right people, I mean the best candidates in terms of ability, character and suitablity from the would-be employer's point of view. Otherwise we are back to the bad old days of women-only shortlists and other similar injustices.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Norman Stanley Fletcher
First you tell us all what you presume we want to read on this site. Next, you decide that we "divide into 2 camps - those that love [lawyers] and those that don't". It is patently clear from your posts that you don't, so there really is no need for you to spell it out to us as if we are all idiots. If you truly "love justice", you must wake up to the fact that things are rarely just right or wrong, black or white. There are infinite shades of grey. For example, you liked DA's points, I did not. Others could not care less what he has to say. Just because you like them, it does not mean that they are "the truth". Likewise, what you say you "know for a fact" may be factual to you and nonsense to others. How do you say you come by this "fact" that "every major profession ... makes sure that discreet inquiries are made about potential employees"? Are you a lawyer, and a doctor, a dentist, a veterinarian, an engineer? The list goes on. They all do this, do they? Yeah, right!
How do you say that "the right people" get the job through chit-chat gathered via the Old Boy's network? I would totally disagree, and it may be that others see it somewhere in between. Again, all shades of grey, dear chap, all shades of grey. BTW, did you, or anyone else here, actually notice that Darth Vader's Lovechild edited his entire post out some time after Holt CJ gave it to him with both barrels? And that after Darth's sole post. Has he now gone into hiding with his tail between his legs, we wonder? So much, then, for Darth's conviction, as a Chief Pilot, about the Old Boy Network.
Norman, have you ever taken the time to list those against whom you harbour such prejudice? So far, you have revealed your distaste for lawyers, freemasons and, it seems, women. And it appears you have a problem with teachers, nurses, engineers, even pilots (your own words). Is that it, or shall we read more of your venom in other posts? Wake up to yourself, man. What you show yourself to be is bigoted, thus what you advocate is inevitably also bigoted.
[ 28 August 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
First you tell us all what you presume we want to read on this site. Next, you decide that we "divide into 2 camps - those that love [lawyers] and those that don't". It is patently clear from your posts that you don't, so there really is no need for you to spell it out to us as if we are all idiots. If you truly "love justice", you must wake up to the fact that things are rarely just right or wrong, black or white. There are infinite shades of grey. For example, you liked DA's points, I did not. Others could not care less what he has to say. Just because you like them, it does not mean that they are "the truth". Likewise, what you say you "know for a fact" may be factual to you and nonsense to others. How do you say you come by this "fact" that "every major profession ... makes sure that discreet inquiries are made about potential employees"? Are you a lawyer, and a doctor, a dentist, a veterinarian, an engineer? The list goes on. They all do this, do they? Yeah, right!
How do you say that "the right people" get the job through chit-chat gathered via the Old Boy's network? I would totally disagree, and it may be that others see it somewhere in between. Again, all shades of grey, dear chap, all shades of grey. BTW, did you, or anyone else here, actually notice that Darth Vader's Lovechild edited his entire post out some time after Holt CJ gave it to him with both barrels? And that after Darth's sole post. Has he now gone into hiding with his tail between his legs, we wonder? So much, then, for Darth's conviction, as a Chief Pilot, about the Old Boy Network.
Norman, have you ever taken the time to list those against whom you harbour such prejudice? So far, you have revealed your distaste for lawyers, freemasons and, it seems, women. And it appears you have a problem with teachers, nurses, engineers, even pilots (your own words). Is that it, or shall we read more of your venom in other posts? Wake up to yourself, man. What you show yourself to be is bigoted, thus what you advocate is inevitably also bigoted.
[ 28 August 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norman,
The dire picture that you paint of the legal profession certainly has merit in the American system. When a passenger whose life is saved by a highly competent crew is then able to turn on same, sueing and winning millions for some vague psychological distress allegedly caused by the emergency? Well, that my friend, is an appalling travesty of any known or recognized form of civilized human behaviour, and a wincingly painful slap in the face to all of us in whose care the flying public depends upon. The implications of that precedent are apocalyptic. It is, however, altogether a subject that the Americans must urgently take up, for they have perplexingly allowed a great number of deficiently educated and morally bankrupt mercenaries to run amok, which if unchecked will in due course likely elevate the very financial, political and ethical fabric of their society to science-fiction status.
I most certainly do not, Sir, agree with your assessment of HoltCJ. I, for one, would have very little in the way of meaningful contribution to any lawyer's bulletin board. Seen in that light, I admire the honesty of his foray into the unknown and welcome his refreshingly educated commentary, viewing from the outside as it were, our somewhat fractious little community.
The interface between the law and aviation is an extremely complicated one, and little understood, I suspect, by many of us. We would do well to make HoltCJ and others like him feel welcome in this forum.
If you are in fact still following this thread, HoltCJ, pass the Grizzly, bring some buddies, and come out swinging. Don't let me down.
The dire picture that you paint of the legal profession certainly has merit in the American system. When a passenger whose life is saved by a highly competent crew is then able to turn on same, sueing and winning millions for some vague psychological distress allegedly caused by the emergency? Well, that my friend, is an appalling travesty of any known or recognized form of civilized human behaviour, and a wincingly painful slap in the face to all of us in whose care the flying public depends upon. The implications of that precedent are apocalyptic. It is, however, altogether a subject that the Americans must urgently take up, for they have perplexingly allowed a great number of deficiently educated and morally bankrupt mercenaries to run amok, which if unchecked will in due course likely elevate the very financial, political and ethical fabric of their society to science-fiction status.
I most certainly do not, Sir, agree with your assessment of HoltCJ. I, for one, would have very little in the way of meaningful contribution to any lawyer's bulletin board. Seen in that light, I admire the honesty of his foray into the unknown and welcome his refreshingly educated commentary, viewing from the outside as it were, our somewhat fractious little community.
The interface between the law and aviation is an extremely complicated one, and little understood, I suspect, by many of us. We would do well to make HoltCJ and others like him feel welcome in this forum.
If you are in fact still following this thread, HoltCJ, pass the Grizzly, bring some buddies, and come out swinging. Don't let me down.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say I enjoyed HoltCJ's contributions and those of some others. Certainly not those who resorted to the 'You're not one of us, get out of our club attitude'.
The 'pilots only' thing rears it's ugly head again. What next, only pilots with no less than a thousand hours? Proof if anything that an old boys network of sorts exists.
But back to the main point, I suspect there does exist an informal vetting procedure in the airline business. It exists in most other professions. So why not ours?
I know of one airline that resolutely refused to recruit pilots from a particular source no matter how well recommended or experienced they were. This same airline also displayed a peculiar geographical bias, to the extent that they would recruit foreigners before taking people from a specific area in their own country.
I for one am not surprised at the notion of a list of potential pilots being posted for others to see, nor am I surprised at the idea of people being 'unrecommended'. I suspect there are four categories here, don't know them, recommended, dammed by faint praise and thumbs dowm. In a curious way I support the idea although it is open to all sorts of abuse.
But it works, usually.
A few years ago, I worked in a ground job for an airline. Alongside me there were two other 'wannabe' pilots. You know the scenario. We all wanted that to fly for the airline. It helped that we were in constant daily contact with the CP and other senior Captains. One guy made a serious effort to impress and even admitted to me he felt confident that he soon would be offered an interview. Unfortunately he was the only one who believed that. Everyone else knew the truth. He simply irritated everyone. His boss was even looking for ways of offloading him. No one wanted to share a cockpit with him. He was doomed. On the other hand, the other pilot was affable, popular, good at his job and as I found out a superb pilot. No need to ask what happened next. As for me, well I left before I could find out whether I was in our out. But I am a good friend of one of those individuals. So if I applied for a job there, well..........
I personally believe, leaving aside all the qualifications and experience, that at least part of the interview involves the interviewer saying to themselves, 'Would I like to share a flight deck with this person?', or even 'Would I go out for a drink with this person?'. If the answer is yes, they're in. Personal recommendations also remove the uncertainty. Sometimes it all goes wrong and certain people get through who shouldn't, yet others are sidelined for no good reason.
We all know pilots, particularly in our training days who really shouldn't be flying. People you would never fly with. How often have I heard a comnent on the lines of 'I knew that would happen to him one day' after someone ended their life in a newsworthy way? I can think of three now. I know of two other who will go that way.
That I believe is the reason for much of this method of selection. It's not the only factor but it's important.
I don't think things will change soon because it generally works.
The 'pilots only' thing rears it's ugly head again. What next, only pilots with no less than a thousand hours? Proof if anything that an old boys network of sorts exists.
But back to the main point, I suspect there does exist an informal vetting procedure in the airline business. It exists in most other professions. So why not ours?
I know of one airline that resolutely refused to recruit pilots from a particular source no matter how well recommended or experienced they were. This same airline also displayed a peculiar geographical bias, to the extent that they would recruit foreigners before taking people from a specific area in their own country.
I for one am not surprised at the notion of a list of potential pilots being posted for others to see, nor am I surprised at the idea of people being 'unrecommended'. I suspect there are four categories here, don't know them, recommended, dammed by faint praise and thumbs dowm. In a curious way I support the idea although it is open to all sorts of abuse.
But it works, usually.
A few years ago, I worked in a ground job for an airline. Alongside me there were two other 'wannabe' pilots. You know the scenario. We all wanted that to fly for the airline. It helped that we were in constant daily contact with the CP and other senior Captains. One guy made a serious effort to impress and even admitted to me he felt confident that he soon would be offered an interview. Unfortunately he was the only one who believed that. Everyone else knew the truth. He simply irritated everyone. His boss was even looking for ways of offloading him. No one wanted to share a cockpit with him. He was doomed. On the other hand, the other pilot was affable, popular, good at his job and as I found out a superb pilot. No need to ask what happened next. As for me, well I left before I could find out whether I was in our out. But I am a good friend of one of those individuals. So if I applied for a job there, well..........
I personally believe, leaving aside all the qualifications and experience, that at least part of the interview involves the interviewer saying to themselves, 'Would I like to share a flight deck with this person?', or even 'Would I go out for a drink with this person?'. If the answer is yes, they're in. Personal recommendations also remove the uncertainty. Sometimes it all goes wrong and certain people get through who shouldn't, yet others are sidelined for no good reason.
We all know pilots, particularly in our training days who really shouldn't be flying. People you would never fly with. How often have I heard a comnent on the lines of 'I knew that would happen to him one day' after someone ended their life in a newsworthy way? I can think of three now. I know of two other who will go that way.
That I believe is the reason for much of this method of selection. It's not the only factor but it's important.
I don't think things will change soon because it generally works.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I definetly see the point that holtcj has been making. This is one industry that needs some very good legal input.
I work in the training department of a BA franchise airline and have also been involved in recruitment. I am so surprised and ashamed by the number of people that seem to approve of unnofficial referencing and croneyism.
Advances in training, engineering, regulations, CRM and culture awareness in airlines are the reasons for the great improvements in safety. Approval of this weak practice insults everybody that has worked hard at these areas.
Croneyism is a practice that has been rife in airlines of old. One only needs to mention such accidents as Tenerife North and Staines to prove that croneyism, and complacency in an individuals abilities, is a dangerous thing. This practice must be stopped not encouraged.
This thread seems full of people suggesting that just because of a bad reference from ex-colleagues or an unofficial chat with an ex-chief pilot, someone should not be offered employment. That is not the road that we should be following. To ask for, accept or give an unofficial reference is to admit your own failings.
As I have said before individuals can get bad names unfairly due to personal difficulties at that time, or by making a few silly errors through lack of experience or encountering personal stress. They may not fit in with that particular airlines culture or group of colleagues. A bad reputation can simply be attained by crews desire to enjoy a good old slagging session about anyone but themselves.
I have worked alongside an individual who had a terrible reputation of old - although his behaviour at the time may not have been seen as desirable, he is now - most definetly - a skilled and safe operator, a good communicator and a gentleman. He is now living proof that unofficial referencing is wrong, unfair and most often innacurate.
Another airline with a different approach to training and safety, and a different set of colleagues may reveal a totally alternate person to the one refered to.
For this reason alone the practice of the old boys network is illegal and quite wrong.
HOW DARE SOMEONE DENY AN INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO WORK BECAUSE OF THIS WHOLLY UNPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE.
I do accpet that there are people with hazardous traits that would not suit modern airline operations. However, this should be revealed in other ways than those suggested.
Recruitment should be unbiased and based upon qualifications, experience, apparent willingness to work with the airlines safety and management culture (through observance and questioning at interview - facilitative interview techniques are surprisingly accurate and revealing) along with observed flying, management and communication skills.
If someone lacks ability that was not apparent at the interview stage then this should come out during training.
There should then be other safety stops in place - such as SESMA.
(Special Event Safety Monitoring Apparatus - this works alongside flight recorders recording flight safety violations. For example - too fast through 500' of final approach, altitude busts, overspeeds etc - most airlines assosciated with BA operate this system.)
SESMA will tell a chief pilot how safely his fleet is being flown and will provide crucial statsitical safety information. If an individual is operating hazardously then they will be stopped if SESMA is used correctly.
Airline pilot management should spend their time concentrating on putting this and other monitoring systems in place. They should obtain the skills to correctly select pilots. They should develop a culture within their own airline so they can rest assured of good training and that top rate operating standards are being applied.
If hearsay and rumours are to be used then one day soon the law may just catch up with them.
Getting rid of croneyism is the safe approach, is the right thing to do and is correct by law.
Only then can we all rest assured that the system is fair and based upon our rounded abilities. We will then be much clearer about what is required of us and we can all enjoy safe, long, settled and happy careers.
If you are foolish enough to agree with the idea of unofficial referencing then you had better be damn certain that you will not, one day, fall foul of your desired system.
[ 28 August 2001: Message edited by: Joystroker ]
I work in the training department of a BA franchise airline and have also been involved in recruitment. I am so surprised and ashamed by the number of people that seem to approve of unnofficial referencing and croneyism.
Advances in training, engineering, regulations, CRM and culture awareness in airlines are the reasons for the great improvements in safety. Approval of this weak practice insults everybody that has worked hard at these areas.
Croneyism is a practice that has been rife in airlines of old. One only needs to mention such accidents as Tenerife North and Staines to prove that croneyism, and complacency in an individuals abilities, is a dangerous thing. This practice must be stopped not encouraged.
This thread seems full of people suggesting that just because of a bad reference from ex-colleagues or an unofficial chat with an ex-chief pilot, someone should not be offered employment. That is not the road that we should be following. To ask for, accept or give an unofficial reference is to admit your own failings.
As I have said before individuals can get bad names unfairly due to personal difficulties at that time, or by making a few silly errors through lack of experience or encountering personal stress. They may not fit in with that particular airlines culture or group of colleagues. A bad reputation can simply be attained by crews desire to enjoy a good old slagging session about anyone but themselves.
I have worked alongside an individual who had a terrible reputation of old - although his behaviour at the time may not have been seen as desirable, he is now - most definetly - a skilled and safe operator, a good communicator and a gentleman. He is now living proof that unofficial referencing is wrong, unfair and most often innacurate.
Another airline with a different approach to training and safety, and a different set of colleagues may reveal a totally alternate person to the one refered to.
For this reason alone the practice of the old boys network is illegal and quite wrong.
HOW DARE SOMEONE DENY AN INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO WORK BECAUSE OF THIS WHOLLY UNPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE.
I do accpet that there are people with hazardous traits that would not suit modern airline operations. However, this should be revealed in other ways than those suggested.
Recruitment should be unbiased and based upon qualifications, experience, apparent willingness to work with the airlines safety and management culture (through observance and questioning at interview - facilitative interview techniques are surprisingly accurate and revealing) along with observed flying, management and communication skills.
If someone lacks ability that was not apparent at the interview stage then this should come out during training.
There should then be other safety stops in place - such as SESMA.
(Special Event Safety Monitoring Apparatus - this works alongside flight recorders recording flight safety violations. For example - too fast through 500' of final approach, altitude busts, overspeeds etc - most airlines assosciated with BA operate this system.)
SESMA will tell a chief pilot how safely his fleet is being flown and will provide crucial statsitical safety information. If an individual is operating hazardously then they will be stopped if SESMA is used correctly.
Airline pilot management should spend their time concentrating on putting this and other monitoring systems in place. They should obtain the skills to correctly select pilots. They should develop a culture within their own airline so they can rest assured of good training and that top rate operating standards are being applied.
If hearsay and rumours are to be used then one day soon the law may just catch up with them.
Getting rid of croneyism is the safe approach, is the right thing to do and is correct by law.
Only then can we all rest assured that the system is fair and based upon our rounded abilities. We will then be much clearer about what is required of us and we can all enjoy safe, long, settled and happy careers.
If you are foolish enough to agree with the idea of unofficial referencing then you had better be damn certain that you will not, one day, fall foul of your desired system.
[ 28 August 2001: Message edited by: Joystroker ]
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right of course, joystroker but it's not just about safety and competance. It's about fitting in, if you're face doesn't fit no amount of experience will get you in. It's hard to legislate for that kind of thing and it exists in all forms of clubs and employment. Sometimes it results in racism and sexism but most of the time it goes unnoticed.
I'm pretty sure I've been a victim of it, most of us have. But sometimes you have to work within the system, whether you like it or not.
I'm pretty sure I've been a victim of it, most of us have. But sometimes you have to work within the system, whether you like it or not.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apropos of the current thread, the following has been forwarded to me by a concerned acquiatance. Any comments?
Apropos of nothing more like... way too many paragraphs of sheer irrelevance, unrelated to the topic and now deleted. Post stuff like that in the new Jet Blast II forum, please, not here.
Sick Squid
Rumours and News Moderator
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]
Apropos of nothing more like... way too many paragraphs of sheer irrelevance, unrelated to the topic and now deleted. Post stuff like that in the new Jet Blast II forum, please, not here.
Sick Squid
Rumours and News Moderator
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]
Bottums Up
bugg smasher
I can't quite determine the relevance of the first sentence, "I am the chief pilot ...." to the remainder of your post.
I wonder if some one's got the wrong BB?
I too enjoyed reading Holt CJ's contributions.
I can't quite determine the relevance of the first sentence, "I am the chief pilot ...." to the remainder of your post.
I wonder if some one's got the wrong BB?I too enjoyed reading Holt CJ's contributions.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To bugg smasher and others who have been so kind in their remarks above, I have been too busy to check this site until now, but I offer late thanks.
Curiosity was, in any event, getting the better of me. In particular, I was hoping to read that Darth Vader's Love-child had revealed the name of his employer as requested. Instead, I find he has removed his post entirely and disappeared.
Here is a little poser for you all. I have attempted to use lay language here (no offence intended, anyone
) and make no claims as to accuracy in aviation matters:
"A, an airline pilot, is offered several positions flying older aircraft types based near to his family home. B Airlines, very short of pilots, then offers A employment on high-technology aircraft but based hundreds of miles from his home. At interview, A tells B he is unable to relocate to the base. B tells A that it will support A in obtaining discount airfares to enable regular commuting between home and base. A then accepts B’s offer and signs its standard employment contract, which omits any mention of the airfares support.
After five weeks training overseas, A commences work at the distant base. But on A’s first rostered duty break, B refuses said support in obtaining cheap airfares to and from A’s home, stating that the promised support is available only via 'Interline' and therefore only after twelve months employment. A travels at full airfare cost for his first break and then, unable to afford further airfares, drives by road on two subsequent breaks. A becomes severely fatigued and unwell. Holding that his flying in these circumstances is rendered unsafe, perhaps unlawful, A resigns giving B the requisite notice period. B then sues A under a bonding agreement for £20,000, the full cost of training.
Advise A."
What sayest thou all?
Curiosity was, in any event, getting the better of me. In particular, I was hoping to read that Darth Vader's Love-child had revealed the name of his employer as requested. Instead, I find he has removed his post entirely and disappeared.
Here is a little poser for you all. I have attempted to use lay language here (no offence intended, anyone
) and make no claims as to accuracy in aviation matters:"A, an airline pilot, is offered several positions flying older aircraft types based near to his family home. B Airlines, very short of pilots, then offers A employment on high-technology aircraft but based hundreds of miles from his home. At interview, A tells B he is unable to relocate to the base. B tells A that it will support A in obtaining discount airfares to enable regular commuting between home and base. A then accepts B’s offer and signs its standard employment contract, which omits any mention of the airfares support.
After five weeks training overseas, A commences work at the distant base. But on A’s first rostered duty break, B refuses said support in obtaining cheap airfares to and from A’s home, stating that the promised support is available only via 'Interline' and therefore only after twelve months employment. A travels at full airfare cost for his first break and then, unable to afford further airfares, drives by road on two subsequent breaks. A becomes severely fatigued and unwell. Holding that his flying in these circumstances is rendered unsafe, perhaps unlawful, A resigns giving B the requisite notice period. B then sues A under a bonding agreement for £20,000, the full cost of training.
Advise A."
What sayest thou all?
Guest
Posts: n/a
'A' is, unfortunately, ******ed unless there are independent third party witnesses present to confirm that the offer of rebate travel was made.
Without wishing to put words onto his mouth, I'd suggest that this is the sort of scenario that my friend Tilii envisages in his strong opposition to bonding. Immoral, certainly unethical. Breach of contract? Not if it wasn't included in the written agreement; and not if there are no witnesses present.
Advice? Try to negotiate some sort of amicable settlement - the company remains short of pilots; and if they honour their original commitment re the tickets then both parties would be satisfied. As it stands, B would get its training costs back but still be down a pilot; and A would be out of pocket £20k - no small sum. It's a lose-lose scenario - let's rather try for a win-win one.
Without wishing to put words onto his mouth, I'd suggest that this is the sort of scenario that my friend Tilii envisages in his strong opposition to bonding. Immoral, certainly unethical. Breach of contract? Not if it wasn't included in the written agreement; and not if there are no witnesses present.
Advice? Try to negotiate some sort of amicable settlement - the company remains short of pilots; and if they honour their original commitment re the tickets then both parties would be satisfied. As it stands, B would get its training costs back but still be down a pilot; and A would be out of pocket £20k - no small sum. It's a lose-lose scenario - let's rather try for a win-win one.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chief Justice Holt
Just read your problem.
Just a few thoughts whilst typing this :
Any witnesses to agreement re travel?
If no, is there a witness?
Have B offered others similar travel arrangemnents as allegedly offered to A?
If yes, you may be in busiess.
If yes, have others been similarly shafted?
If yes and they say they will stand up in court get written statements straight away, otherwise when the time comes to stand in the witness box, amnesia will be claimed.At least with a written statement you can blackmail the bu**ers to speak up. Yes, I know they may be useless witnesses but that may be a risk worth taking.
Misrepresentation?
Bonding issue Victimisation?
Think about Human Rights re bonding proportionality / balance issues
Was there a contract?If both sides are so unclear about its terms was there a meeting on minds?
These are some of the first flush aspects I would want to think about etc.
It is not a considered opinion merely a check list I would start for myself.
What does the Chief Justice think?
For non lawyers Holt CJ was a famous Lord Chief Justice of England.
Coming back to the original question in this thread. Of course the old boy network exists and will exist despite data protection laws etc.
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: slj ]
Just read your problem.
Just a few thoughts whilst typing this :
Any witnesses to agreement re travel?
If no, is there a witness?
Have B offered others similar travel arrangemnents as allegedly offered to A?
If yes, you may be in busiess.
If yes, have others been similarly shafted?
If yes and they say they will stand up in court get written statements straight away, otherwise when the time comes to stand in the witness box, amnesia will be claimed.At least with a written statement you can blackmail the bu**ers to speak up. Yes, I know they may be useless witnesses but that may be a risk worth taking.
Misrepresentation?
Bonding issue Victimisation?
Think about Human Rights re bonding proportionality / balance issues
Was there a contract?If both sides are so unclear about its terms was there a meeting on minds?
These are some of the first flush aspects I would want to think about etc.
It is not a considered opinion merely a check list I would start for myself.
What does the Chief Justice think?
For non lawyers Holt CJ was a famous Lord Chief Justice of England.
Coming back to the original question in this thread. Of course the old boy network exists and will exist despite data protection laws etc.
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: slj ]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the Guvnor
Thank you for your reply. I most sincerely hope that A will not be … ah, as you said. First let me say to all that I did not put this in order that I might receive 'legal' advice. I advise on this, and several other related issues, as we speak. What I would like to know is whether this is commonplace, whether it sounds familiar, and whether any Pruners have suffered similar experiences. I would also appreciate comment as to whether you, as aviators, believe A and/or B has behaved badly?
[Later edit: The Guvnor, I am sure you are aware that many contracts are made without witnesses present. Further, not all contractual terms are necessarily to be found within the 'four corners' of a written document.]
To slj
Please, kind sir, I am not Chief Justice Holt come back to haunt, merely Holt CJ, novice Pruner. Responding to yours: there is no witness. A and B sat alone in the recruitment interview, and B now denies telling A any such thing. Important point: there was no ‘offer of rebate travel’, nor does A allege this. What is alleged is that B agreed to support A in obtaining a regular, low-cost fare. A states that such a fare is readily obtainable when an airline makes application for an employee travelling to and from duty as opposed to toodling off on hols with family, etc. I see the way you are thinking, but I am inclined toward the contractual breach rather than misrep. You know, frustration, implied term, collateral contract, whatever. There is not, in my mind, a ‘bonding issue’, or even a HumRts issue, here. I intend to express my mind fully at some later stage.
Meanwhile, I do hope my friends on this site are interested in this poser and do not, as before, feel I am boring them with … ‘legal blah’, I think was said. If I am, then, on the basis of recent past experience, I will no doubt be very quickly, even brutally, advised.
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]
Thank you for your reply. I most sincerely hope that A will not be … ah, as you said. First let me say to all that I did not put this in order that I might receive 'legal' advice. I advise on this, and several other related issues, as we speak. What I would like to know is whether this is commonplace, whether it sounds familiar, and whether any Pruners have suffered similar experiences. I would also appreciate comment as to whether you, as aviators, believe A and/or B has behaved badly?
[Later edit: The Guvnor, I am sure you are aware that many contracts are made without witnesses present. Further, not all contractual terms are necessarily to be found within the 'four corners' of a written document.]
To slj
Please, kind sir, I am not Chief Justice Holt come back to haunt, merely Holt CJ, novice Pruner. Responding to yours: there is no witness. A and B sat alone in the recruitment interview, and B now denies telling A any such thing. Important point: there was no ‘offer of rebate travel’, nor does A allege this. What is alleged is that B agreed to support A in obtaining a regular, low-cost fare. A states that such a fare is readily obtainable when an airline makes application for an employee travelling to and from duty as opposed to toodling off on hols with family, etc. I see the way you are thinking, but I am inclined toward the contractual breach rather than misrep. You know, frustration, implied term, collateral contract, whatever. There is not, in my mind, a ‘bonding issue’, or even a HumRts issue, here. I intend to express my mind fully at some later stage.
Meanwhile, I do hope my friends on this site are interested in this poser and do not, as before, feel I am boring them with … ‘legal blah’, I think was said. If I am, then, on the basis of recent past experience, I will no doubt be very quickly, even brutally, advised.
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holt CJ
Let me give you a REAL world example. I'll put it into a legal scenario.
Your practice is recruiting new employees. You are expanding rapidly and you are looking for experienced candidates.
One very experienced candidate applies and passes all the early selection stages easily, now you are going to interview him (with someone else there, of course, to ensure no misunderstandings).
While reviewing the candidates CV, you notice that he appears to have moved around a bit, all the time gaining more experience. In particular, you see he spent a relatively short time with a Firm run by a friend of yours from your University days. This friend has kept in touch over the years, and you rate him as very professional.
When you ask the candidate about his time with your friends firm, he says he fell out with the Management, different ideas, different culture, didn't feel comfortable, didn't suit his lifestyle...a series of plausable reasons, but leaving you in doubt as you know the firm and the owner very well.
Now, what do you do. This candidate has all the experience, the background, has performed well in all tests, and puts in a very good interview ( as rated by your assistant at the interview board).
Do you ring your friend?
ADC
Let me give you a REAL world example. I'll put it into a legal scenario.
Your practice is recruiting new employees. You are expanding rapidly and you are looking for experienced candidates.
One very experienced candidate applies and passes all the early selection stages easily, now you are going to interview him (with someone else there, of course, to ensure no misunderstandings).
While reviewing the candidates CV, you notice that he appears to have moved around a bit, all the time gaining more experience. In particular, you see he spent a relatively short time with a Firm run by a friend of yours from your University days. This friend has kept in touch over the years, and you rate him as very professional.
When you ask the candidate about his time with your friends firm, he says he fell out with the Management, different ideas, different culture, didn't feel comfortable, didn't suit his lifestyle...a series of plausable reasons, but leaving you in doubt as you know the firm and the owner very well.
Now, what do you do. This candidate has all the experience, the background, has performed well in all tests, and puts in a very good interview ( as rated by your assistant at the interview board).
Do you ring your friend?
ADC
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADC, a very nicely structured question, and deserving of a considered response, which I am more than willing to provide. When you respond to mine above, I will respond to yours. Howzat?
(Gentlemen, you did tell me to keep the word count down )
(Gentlemen, you did tell me to keep the word count down
)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holt C J
The offer to help obtain regular low cost fares could be regarded as a term of the main contract.
I would still be trying to findout if similar offers had been made, perhaps a PPruner reading this might recognise a similar interview and offer made to them.
The existence of such offers would help your client, especially as we are at the stage at which would be the best witness.
I can't see the chance of running frustration although would not rule out misrepresentation altogether. Consider running it with breach of contract.
There are some esoteric claims on Human Rights re infringement to rights of family etc. property et al.
With a conflict resting on who said what you need as much "stuff" as possible to blacken B's name and reputation.
One question I have is if the low fare is claimed to be readily obtained (with employer) suppport why did the employer (B) break the oral, and still contractual part of the contract?
Hope these views help.
SLJ
Just another thought. Although your client would not have the right to claim unfair dismissal employmmment law has a strong implied term that the employer has a duty of care to behave decently and with respect towards employees etc. Another little factor to throw at B.
[ 30 August 2001: Message edited by: slj ]
The offer to help obtain regular low cost fares could be regarded as a term of the main contract.
I would still be trying to findout if similar offers had been made, perhaps a PPruner reading this might recognise a similar interview and offer made to them.
The existence of such offers would help your client, especially as we are at the stage at which would be the best witness.
I can't see the chance of running frustration although would not rule out misrepresentation altogether. Consider running it with breach of contract.
There are some esoteric claims on Human Rights re infringement to rights of family etc. property et al.
With a conflict resting on who said what you need as much "stuff" as possible to blacken B's name and reputation.
One question I have is if the low fare is claimed to be readily obtained (with employer) suppport why did the employer (B) break the oral, and still contractual part of the contract?
Hope these views help.
SLJ
Just another thought. Although your client would not have the right to claim unfair dismissal employmmment law has a strong implied term that the employer has a duty of care to behave decently and with respect towards employees etc. Another little factor to throw at B.
[ 30 August 2001: Message edited by: slj ]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slj, we are almost as one on most of the topics in your post. You will understand that I cannot be too specific here for reasons of confidentiality. There are many factors in this matter that I feel unable to mention. This one issue is merely the tip of a very large iceberg. I posed it for quite specific reasons, as already said. I do appreciate your input, but would be more grateful if you were able to address the questions that I put to aviators rather than to lawyers (and it is clear that you are both, despite your profile). Having said that, I think you would find this a fascinating case and we certainly could enjoy many hours in discussion of its legal aspects. But Pruners have made it clear above that we must not engage on this site. My respect and regards. Holt CJ.
[ 31 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]
[ 31 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
Gentleman,
Allow me to apologise for a most frivolous posting, which has been quite rightly deleted from this forum by the administrators. At the risk of being gutted and fried, I was merely expressing frustration at what appeared to be a very promising exchange of valuable information, inexplicably metamorphosing into a most unsatisfactory mud-slinging match.
Warmest greetings HoltCJ, glad to have you back Sir, welcome aboard.
Allow me to apologise for a most frivolous posting, which has been quite rightly deleted from this forum by the administrators. At the risk of being gutted and fried, I was merely expressing frustration at what appeared to be a very promising exchange of valuable information, inexplicably metamorphosing into a most unsatisfactory mud-slinging match.
Warmest greetings HoltCJ, glad to have you back Sir, welcome aboard.