UK Chief Pilots and the 'Old Boy' network . . .
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Holt Cj,
I hope you don`t get as easily offended by your protagonists in court, -if that happens to be your arena!
On a more serious note I have to agree with you ,that a fair number of people in our profession (aviation that is) talk a load of self -righteous rubbish:-myself probably included, but is that not the case within any discipline? Is there not a legal website where the same personalities can be found ?
[ 31 August 2001: Message edited by: RT ]
I hope you don`t get as easily offended by your protagonists in court, -if that happens to be your arena!
On a more serious note I have to agree with you ,that a fair number of people in our profession (aviation that is) talk a load of self -righteous rubbish:-myself probably included, but is that not the case within any discipline? Is there not a legal website where the same personalities can be found ?
[ 31 August 2001: Message edited by: RT ]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To bugg smasher
Thank you for your warm greeting. Now that you are back from your slight diversion, I wonder if you, as a pilot, would be kind enough to comment on the poser I set on a previous page? It seems that, with the exception of The Guvnor and slj, nobody wishes to comment. I find the silence rather disquieting given that the ‘A’ in the posed question is a professional pilot and, in my mind, a decent and upright citizen. Surely more of you would hold a view beyond The Guvnor’s well-meaning comment that 'A' is apparently b*****ed!”
To RT
I was not in any way offended, more disgusted. In answer to yours: No, I do not believe this is the case ‘within any discipline’. In my humble opinion, those of us within the professions are not normally given to talking ‘a load of self-righteous rubbish’, at least not with each other. Of course, it is entirely possible that the piloting profession is an exception. I reserve judgment on that for the time being. Certainly, some may have acted badly on this thread, but we must bear in mind that a declaration as to ‘occupation’ does not make it true. I presume there are some on this site claiming to be a professional aviator when they are neither professional nor aviator?
[ 31 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]
Thank you for your warm greeting. Now that you are back from your slight diversion, I wonder if you, as a pilot, would be kind enough to comment on the poser I set on a previous page? It seems that, with the exception of The Guvnor and slj, nobody wishes to comment. I find the silence rather disquieting given that the ‘A’ in the posed question is a professional pilot and, in my mind, a decent and upright citizen. Surely more of you would hold a view beyond The Guvnor’s well-meaning comment that 'A' is apparently b*****ed!”
To RT
I was not in any way offended, more disgusted. In answer to yours: No, I do not believe this is the case ‘within any discipline’. In my humble opinion, those of us within the professions are not normally given to talking ‘a load of self-righteous rubbish’, at least not with each other. Of course, it is entirely possible that the piloting profession is an exception. I reserve judgment on that for the time being. Certainly, some may have acted badly on this thread, but we must bear in mind that a declaration as to ‘occupation’ does not make it true. I presume there are some on this site claiming to be a professional aviator when they are neither professional nor aviator?
[ 31 August 2001: Message edited by: Holt CJ ]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holt CJ
I have been away on my travels and have been unable to reply. I have watched with some considerable interest as this thread has unfolded. I feel I must apologise for my rudeness earlier in the thread by suggesting you leave. I have clearly caused offence to a chap who enjoys being among the pilot fraternity and I really did not intend to. So please accept my sincere apologies for any hurt or offence caused. The sad truth is that none of us really know each other and the written word causes offence when wry smiles can so easily undo any misunderstanding. Very sorry for my shameful rudeness.
Tillii (is that how you spell it?). Now you are altogether different. You have really bitten and I find myself at the great disadvantage of not being able to look you in the eye and know what you are really about. From your post, I presume you must be the first female freemason. I am disappointed to see that you have revealed yourself as thinking I hate teachers (I am married to a wonderful one), engineers (I was one once), nurses (I know so many good ones), women (my own mother was one!). Take a couple of vallium on the way to the Lodge tonight and you will feel so much better about me.
ADC
An excellent view - so well put that I feel positively envious of your non-confrontational presentation.
I have been away on my travels and have been unable to reply. I have watched with some considerable interest as this thread has unfolded. I feel I must apologise for my rudeness earlier in the thread by suggesting you leave. I have clearly caused offence to a chap who enjoys being among the pilot fraternity and I really did not intend to. So please accept my sincere apologies for any hurt or offence caused. The sad truth is that none of us really know each other and the written word causes offence when wry smiles can so easily undo any misunderstanding. Very sorry for my shameful rudeness.
Tillii (is that how you spell it?). Now you are altogether different. You have really bitten and I find myself at the great disadvantage of not being able to look you in the eye and know what you are really about. From your post, I presume you must be the first female freemason. I am disappointed to see that you have revealed yourself as thinking I hate teachers (I am married to a wonderful one), engineers (I was one once), nurses (I know so many good ones), women (my own mother was one!). Take a couple of vallium on the way to the Lodge tonight and you will feel so much better about me.
ADC
An excellent view - so well put that I feel positively envious of your non-confrontational presentation.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello HoltCJ,
The contractual agreement signed by the pilot encompassed only those areas related to his actual operational duties, as I am sure you are aware. The verbal agreement to "assist him" in obtaining discounted travel to his home on a regular basis amounted to no more than a convenient enticement to sign, the employer knowing that once the training bond is in force, any such agreement not documented and signed by both parties would hold little weight against that which had been consumated in written form. In a case such as this, the employer knows full well that by disclosing the actual conditions of employment, he is unlikely to acquire the caliber of pilot that his operation by law requires, and faced with the possibility of a crewing shortage and the resultant problems that entail, therefore "modifies" the truth to the extent required to obtain a signature. Whether or not this case has merit in the eyes of the law, is certainly a question for you to determine.
I do not claim knowledge of other professions, but can assure you that the term-contract area of aviation is replete with this kind of incident. It appears to be most common where the junior pilot has been hired with the "promise" of obtaining command, and finds himself many years later occupying the same position in which he was hired. There are certainly many mitigating circumstances in which this can occur, pilot ability and company requirement to name but a few. I do believe, however, there are some on this forum who can attest to, and have indeed experienced problems of this nature, which may shed some light on the current problem at hand.
If there is one thing that is most clear, it is encumbent on the potential employee to uncover as much as possible regarding the potential employer (a subject, I believe, we have up until now been discussing in reverse) and make his/her own determination as to the suitability of the employment in question.
From a contractual point of view, your client does not appear to have any right to legal recourse (pardon me if I over-step your authority with uneducated conjecture), but it would seem to me that barring any agreement entered into directly with a banking institution and/or compromising references that would undermine future employment, there is little if any risk involved. It is certainly not worth the employer's while to pursue a questionable financial gain, if for any other reason than the threat of significant public relations damage. The employer knows that once a professional pilot has been burned in the eyes of his/her colleauges, very few others with the requisite experience would consider applying for work.
The contractual agreement signed by the pilot encompassed only those areas related to his actual operational duties, as I am sure you are aware. The verbal agreement to "assist him" in obtaining discounted travel to his home on a regular basis amounted to no more than a convenient enticement to sign, the employer knowing that once the training bond is in force, any such agreement not documented and signed by both parties would hold little weight against that which had been consumated in written form. In a case such as this, the employer knows full well that by disclosing the actual conditions of employment, he is unlikely to acquire the caliber of pilot that his operation by law requires, and faced with the possibility of a crewing shortage and the resultant problems that entail, therefore "modifies" the truth to the extent required to obtain a signature. Whether or not this case has merit in the eyes of the law, is certainly a question for you to determine.
I do not claim knowledge of other professions, but can assure you that the term-contract area of aviation is replete with this kind of incident. It appears to be most common where the junior pilot has been hired with the "promise" of obtaining command, and finds himself many years later occupying the same position in which he was hired. There are certainly many mitigating circumstances in which this can occur, pilot ability and company requirement to name but a few. I do believe, however, there are some on this forum who can attest to, and have indeed experienced problems of this nature, which may shed some light on the current problem at hand.
If there is one thing that is most clear, it is encumbent on the potential employee to uncover as much as possible regarding the potential employer (a subject, I believe, we have up until now been discussing in reverse) and make his/her own determination as to the suitability of the employment in question.
From a contractual point of view, your client does not appear to have any right to legal recourse (pardon me if I over-step your authority with uneducated conjecture), but it would seem to me that barring any agreement entered into directly with a banking institution and/or compromising references that would undermine future employment, there is little if any risk involved. It is certainly not worth the employer's while to pursue a questionable financial gain, if for any other reason than the threat of significant public relations damage. The employer knows that once a professional pilot has been burned in the eyes of his/her colleauges, very few others with the requisite experience would consider applying for work.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buggs Smasher
An oral statement is as legally binding as a written statement, although harder to prove.It would then come down to witnesses or if no witness who is better in the witness box.
You are so right in your comment "it is encumbent on the potential employee to uncover as much as possible regarding the potential employer".
Do your own investigations and get what to you are essential parts of the contract in writing.
An oral statement is as legally binding as a written statement, although harder to prove.It would then come down to witnesses or if no witness who is better in the witness box.
You are so right in your comment "it is encumbent on the potential employee to uncover as much as possible regarding the potential employer".
Do your own investigations and get what to you are essential parts of the contract in writing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having just returned from a few days down the line, I must say this thread is now shaping up to be of enormous interest to most professional pilots.
Joystroker comes pretty close to my own sentiments with regard to the subject of this thread where he shouts “HOW DARE SOMEONE DENY AN INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO WORK BECAUSE OF THIS WHOLLY UNPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE”.
As my friend
The Guvnor rightly says above, the subject of bonding is one near to my heart and I am appalled at what has happened to Holt CJ’s client, ‘A’. To answer your question above, Holt CJ, I agree with The Guvnor’s remark that it is “[i]mmoral, certainly unethical”. 
From what you say about friend and colleague ‘A’, it seems he has fallen foul of what is a very common practice amongst unscrupulous airlines desperate to hire pilots, especially pilots with substantial experience (and I presume ‘A’ was enticed into this position as a direct entry Captain?), namely, to lie through their teeth with all kinds of enticements simply to obtain a signature on a standard employment contract that rarely contains the promised enticements. Once ensnared, the hapless pilot is then in a position where the bonding agreement places him/her between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Perversely in ‘A’’s case, it seems he is luckier than others in that there were no witnesses. Most airlines interview with a panel, thus there are usually two or three management yes-men lurking in the background to swear under oath that the promises were not made (or at least to suffer complete loss of recall when asked) :o . Thus it is usually two or three words against one. ‘A’ is better off merely because it seems it is going to be his word against the sole interviewer’s, leaving it for the judge to decide who is to be believed.
As for ‘A’’s stance on the safety issue in him driving hundreds of miles to and from duty, he is quite obviously a thoroughly professional individual deserving considerable credit for his willingness to place himself at risk of bond enforcement in resigning under these circumstances. Well done, that man! Well done indeed. And a pox on the entire bonding system, especially when it is used as a coercive tool in this way.
Norman Stanley Fletcher
No doubt Holt CJ will accept your apology, for he seems the perfect gentleman. But I will certainly forgive neither your past display of gross ignorance and prejudice nor the disparaging remarks you address to me above – “the first female freemason”, indeed! Fancy that, your mother was a female. And there was me thinking that you did not have one.
ADC
The answer to your question is a resounding: No, I would not! I would rely on the system in place to properly assess the individual applicant. If that cannot do the job, then I am at fault and ought not to rely on a friend’s personal view unless the applicant specifically names that friend as a personal or professional referee.
Well said, bugg smasher, agree with most of your post above, except I am sure that slj is right when he says: “[a]n oral statement is as legally binding as a written statement, although harder to prove.”
Finally, I think we would all do well to pay attention to slj’s words as follows: “Do your own investigations and get what to you are essential parts of the contract in writing.” I would like to hear Holt CJ and slj further on this one. How do you each suggest the pilot goes about getting what are essential parts of the contract in writing? I have tried this myself and been promptly told where to go, in no uncertain terms.
Joystroker comes pretty close to my own sentiments with regard to the subject of this thread where he shouts “HOW DARE SOMEONE DENY AN INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO WORK BECAUSE OF THIS WHOLLY UNPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE”.
As my friend
The Guvnor rightly says above, the subject of bonding is one near to my heart and I am appalled at what has happened to Holt CJ’s client, ‘A’. To answer your question above, Holt CJ, I agree with The Guvnor’s remark that it is “[i]mmoral, certainly unethical”. From what you say about friend and colleague ‘A’, it seems he has fallen foul of what is a very common practice amongst unscrupulous airlines desperate to hire pilots, especially pilots with substantial experience (and I presume ‘A’ was enticed into this position as a direct entry Captain?), namely, to lie through their teeth with all kinds of enticements simply to obtain a signature on a standard employment contract that rarely contains the promised enticements. Once ensnared, the hapless pilot is then in a position where the bonding agreement places him/her between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Perversely in ‘A’’s case, it seems he is luckier than others in that there were no witnesses. Most airlines interview with a panel, thus there are usually two or three management yes-men lurking in the background to swear under oath that the promises were not made (or at least to suffer complete loss of recall when asked) :o . Thus it is usually two or three words against one. ‘A’ is better off merely because it seems it is going to be his word against the sole interviewer’s, leaving it for the judge to decide who is to be believed.
As for ‘A’’s stance on the safety issue in him driving hundreds of miles to and from duty, he is quite obviously a thoroughly professional individual deserving considerable credit for his willingness to place himself at risk of bond enforcement in resigning under these circumstances. Well done, that man! Well done indeed. And a pox on the entire bonding system, especially when it is used as a coercive tool in this way.
Norman Stanley Fletcher
No doubt Holt CJ will accept your apology, for he seems the perfect gentleman. But I will certainly forgive neither your past display of gross ignorance and prejudice nor the disparaging remarks you address to me above – “the first female freemason”, indeed! Fancy that, your mother was a female. And there was me thinking that you did not have one.
ADC
The answer to your question is a resounding: No, I would not! I would rely on the system in place to properly assess the individual applicant. If that cannot do the job, then I am at fault and ought not to rely on a friend’s personal view unless the applicant specifically names that friend as a personal or professional referee.
Well said, bugg smasher, agree with most of your post above, except I am sure that slj is right when he says: “[a]n oral statement is as legally binding as a written statement, although harder to prove.”
Finally, I think we would all do well to pay attention to slj’s words as follows: “Do your own investigations and get what to you are essential parts of the contract in writing.” I would like to hear Holt CJ and slj further on this one. How do you each suggest the pilot goes about getting what are essential parts of the contract in writing? I have tried this myself and been promptly told where to go, in no uncertain terms.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks HoltCJ ( and those who put their heads above the parapet) a wonderful thread; I've learnt something.
Nothing like reading a well constructed argument.
Nothing like reading a well constructed argument.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tilii
If an employer is not prepared to put the contractual parts, including the verbal inducements in writing then I would be very suspicious about them as a prospective enmployer.
One of the strengths of a BB such as this should be the ability to form a network of information providers who might be able to inform those seeking employment what the compnay is really like. It goes further than the entitlements and whatsaname thread.
In some ways it could be similar to the closed airline forums. The organisational dynamics need working out as these thoughts are from the top of my head or ar*e.(Edited to add "depending on how you view the idea")
I'm sure some of the creative minds of the 35000 plus superior brains that constitute PPRune can begin to put these brainstorming ideas into practice.
The management have their networking. Why shouldn't we have ours?
Any ideas?
[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: slj ]
If an employer is not prepared to put the contractual parts, including the verbal inducements in writing then I would be very suspicious about them as a prospective enmployer.
One of the strengths of a BB such as this should be the ability to form a network of information providers who might be able to inform those seeking employment what the compnay is really like. It goes further than the entitlements and whatsaname thread.
In some ways it could be similar to the closed airline forums. The organisational dynamics need working out as these thoughts are from the top of my head or ar*e.(Edited to add "depending on how you view the idea")
I'm sure some of the creative minds of the 35000 plus superior brains that constitute PPRune can begin to put these brainstorming ideas into practice.
The management have their networking. Why shouldn't we have ours?
Any ideas?
[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: slj ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tilli, and in modest pursuance of ADC question - not that he/she needs it , let's (again) say that you're a Chief Pilot / Ops Director and somebody applied to your airline.
Let's also say that somewhere early-on during the recruitment process (e.g. shortly after the CV arrived) ...... and it doesn't really matter under what circumstances ......... that another Chief Pilot / Ops Dir (who's actually also good personal friend, known to you for many years, who's bonefides are beyond reproach, to say nothing of his excellent judgement and aeronautical ability) comes out with the following:
"Hi Bert, how's things mate ?" ....... a few minutes of idle chat, then...... "Actually I'm glad I've bumped into you, because a 'little birdy' has told me that you're thinking of employing XYZ. Now trust me mate, and we've known each other a long time, but you wanna dump that bloke like the plague ! You see, when I employed him three years ago, he initially came across very well..... jeez even I was taken in, and you know me Bert, I'll always give an oak a chance..... but it transpired, in spite of his apparently impressive credentials, that he only just scraped through the type conversion course.... and as I'm sure you'll remember, three'ish year ago we desperately needed bums on seats and so, somewhat between a rock and a hard place - and giving him the benefit of the doubt, we had to pass him....... but when he got on the line he was an operational and interpersonal nightmare..... and, for all manner of reasons, he ultimately cost us a small fortune. Ultimately we got off light when he left for pastures new, about eighteen months ago, because he was destined for a failure in the sim sooner or later, more from his own hand than ours ! Listen mate, if you'd like some independent proof I can put you in contact with scores of top notch blokes..... indeed some of whom you've since employed..... and I'm 100% confidant that they'll reiterate what I've mentioned about XYZ. So, it's your choice mate, but there's my two'penneth ! Want another beer ?"
So what are you now going to do ? Your friends advice has previously been solidly reliable / faultless - would you now spend (waste) both your company's time and money interviewing and simulator assessing XYZ ?
, let's (again) say that you're a Chief Pilot / Ops Director and somebody applied to your airline.Let's also say that somewhere early-on during the recruitment process (e.g. shortly after the CV arrived) ...... and it doesn't really matter under what circumstances ......... that another Chief Pilot / Ops Dir (who's actually also good personal friend, known to you for many years, who's bonefides are beyond reproach, to say nothing of his excellent judgement and aeronautical ability) comes out with the following:
"Hi Bert, how's things mate ?" ....... a few minutes of idle chat, then...... "Actually I'm glad I've bumped into you, because a 'little birdy' has told me that you're thinking of employing XYZ. Now trust me mate, and we've known each other a long time, but you wanna dump that bloke like the plague ! You see, when I employed him three years ago, he initially came across very well..... jeez even I was taken in, and you know me Bert, I'll always give an oak a chance..... but it transpired, in spite of his apparently impressive credentials, that he only just scraped through the type conversion course.... and as I'm sure you'll remember, three'ish year ago we desperately needed bums on seats and so, somewhat between a rock and a hard place - and giving him the benefit of the doubt, we had to pass him....... but when he got on the line he was an operational and interpersonal nightmare..... and, for all manner of reasons, he ultimately cost us a small fortune. Ultimately we got off light when he left for pastures new, about eighteen months ago, because he was destined for a failure in the sim sooner or later, more from his own hand than ours ! Listen mate, if you'd like some independent proof I can put you in contact with scores of top notch blokes..... indeed some of whom you've since employed..... and I'm 100% confidant that they'll reiterate what I've mentioned about XYZ. So, it's your choice mate, but there's my two'penneth ! Want another beer ?"
So what are you now going to do ? Your friends advice has previously been solidly reliable / faultless - would you now spend (waste) both your company's time and money interviewing and simulator assessing XYZ ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Devils Advocate
Ah, Holt CJ’s not so humble antagonist, the Devil, emerges once again to put what is virtually the same question as ADC above. What is different, though, is that you are not nearly as clever as was ADC for you foolishly inject into the hypothesis a number of points requiring urgent challenge as follows:
1. You say the chum (the “gossiper” now) says to the potential employer chum (the “gossipee” now)
This demonstrates beyond doubt that the gossiper is given to being a receptive gossipee. He listens to “little birdies”, does he not? And, friend or no friend, this would lead me to doubt the so-called “beyond reproach bonafides” of the gossiper, to say nothing of his professed “excellent judgement”;
2. The gossiper then goes on to say that
Thus the gossiper by his own statement admits that he is a poor judge of applicants, relying on how an applicant “initially came across” as a true measure of suitability;
3. Then the gossiper puts his foot firmly in mouth, saying:
Clearly, then, the gossiper did not properly check the “apparently impressive credentials” to discover in advance that they were in fact unimpressive, thereby saving his own employer the cost and trouble of putting the applicant through the type conversion course through which he ultimately “just scraped”;
4. The applicant “only just scraped through”, yet the gossiper tells the gossipee that the reason the employment continued was because
So, the gossiper here confesses to the gossipee that he is prepared to put commercial expediency above public safety. Worse, the gossiper demonstrates his personal unwillingness to make the quite obviously required fundamental management decision of dismissing the employee, this despite knowing he is “an operational and interpersonal nightmare”. Even worse, the gossiper allows the situation to continue to a point where it ultimately costs his employer “a small fortune”. Again, so much for the “beyond reproach bonafides” and “excellent judgement” of the gossiper. As a CP or FOD he is surely a hopeless inadequate;
5. The gossiper allowed the situation to continue until the employee “left for pastures new” of his own volition, telling his friend, the gossipee, that the employee was, in any event, “destined for a failure in the sim sooner or later”. The fact that the gossiper admits that this would be “more from his own hand than ours” is a confession that “our hand” will nevertheless play a part. What a gutless wonder this gossiper is, then. He will not fire the employee. Instead he will delegate the employee’s demise, at least in part, to his training organisation; and, finally
6. The gossiper then refers the gossipee to “scores of top notch blokes”, no doubt each and every one also a gossiper, for so-called “independent proof” by gossip.
Wow, I am truly impressed Devils Advocate. I suggest you take this scenario with you to the bottom of the Marianas Trench you spoke of earlier, for that is where it truly belongs. And so does anyone who thinks this way. If you are really flying 73s out there, I sincerely hope you never occupy any nearby airspace while I am airborne. Good grief!
[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
Ah, Holt CJ’s not so humble antagonist, the Devil, emerges once again to put what is virtually the same question as ADC above. What is different, though, is that you are not nearly as clever as was ADC for you foolishly inject into the hypothesis a number of points requiring urgent challenge as follows:
1. You say the chum (the “gossiper” now) says to the potential employer chum (the “gossipee” now)
I'm glad I've bumped into you, because a 'little birdy' has told me that you're thinking of employing XYZ.
2. The gossiper then goes on to say that
When I employed him three years ago, he initially came across very well..... jeez even I was taken in …
3. Then the gossiper puts his foot firmly in mouth, saying:
It transpired, in spite of his apparently impressive credentials, that he only just scraped through the type conversion course ….
4. The applicant “only just scraped through”, yet the gossiper tells the gossipee that the reason the employment continued was because
We desperately needed bums on seats and so, somewhat between a rock and a hard place - and giving him the benefit of the doubt, we had to pass him....... but when he got on the line he was an operational and interpersonal nightmare..... and, for all manner of reasons, he ultimately cost us a small fortune
5. The gossiper allowed the situation to continue until the employee “left for pastures new” of his own volition, telling his friend, the gossipee, that the employee was, in any event, “destined for a failure in the sim sooner or later”. The fact that the gossiper admits that this would be “more from his own hand than ours” is a confession that “our hand” will nevertheless play a part. What a gutless wonder this gossiper is, then. He will not fire the employee. Instead he will delegate the employee’s demise, at least in part, to his training organisation; and, finally
6. The gossiper then refers the gossipee to “scores of top notch blokes”, no doubt each and every one also a gossiper, for so-called “independent proof” by gossip.
Wow, I am truly impressed Devils Advocate. I suggest you take this scenario with you to the bottom of the Marianas Trench you spoke of earlier, for that is where it truly belongs. And so does anyone who thinks this way. If you are really flying 73s out there, I sincerely hope you never occupy any nearby airspace while I am airborne. Good grief!
[ 03 September 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
Hello Tilii,
Your posting regarding Norman and the somewhat controversial nature of his comments is bravely stated. I applaud the manner and competence with which you defend yourself, to allow such statements unchallenged passage would be a terrible dereliction of moral duty. Charity being, however, in such short supply in these times of woe and want, perhaps you might cut him some slack; a doubtful parental lineage is most difficult to deal with.
Not wishing to divert the very interesting subjects addressed here, in particular the entrenchment of certain attitudes and practices within the industry at large, do you foresee a further polarization in the eventual development of an "Old Girl's" network?
Your posting regarding Norman and the somewhat controversial nature of his comments is bravely stated. I applaud the manner and competence with which you defend yourself, to allow such statements unchallenged passage would be a terrible dereliction of moral duty. Charity being, however, in such short supply in these times of woe and want, perhaps you might cut him some slack; a doubtful parental lineage is most difficult to deal with.
Not wishing to divert the very interesting subjects addressed here, in particular the entrenchment of certain attitudes and practices within the industry at large, do you foresee a further polarization in the eventual development of an "Old Girl's" network?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ In answer to your original question, I for one, find the practice of hire/gossip a most disgusting and cowardly practice that has fortunately been outlawed in most civilised professions. Alas unfortunately not in aviation (well not in my 13yrs anyway), and please correct me if wrong but is not the judiciary of this great nation of GB not also a little tarnished with the same?
I feel it's a sad fact the practice is rife in flying and unfortunately for it's victims will probably remain so for a while to come, sadly.
It is a sad reflection on humanity that the views of the few are what perpetrate this ritual cruelty and unfairness, but that they are the first to scream for a fair trial when the gossip is anti and not pro. Fortunately where there is a "Devils advocate" argument there is also a "Tilii"argument to return the faith in the profession, thank goodness.
This next exit will do! No problem lets try the next! Ooh I haven't been down ere before!
I feel it's a sad fact the practice is rife in flying and unfortunately for it's victims will probably remain so for a while to come, sadly.
It is a sad reflection on humanity that the views of the few are what perpetrate this ritual cruelty and unfairness, but that they are the first to scream for a fair trial when the gossip is anti and not pro. Fortunately where there is a "Devils advocate" argument there is also a "Tilii"argument to return the faith in the profession, thank goodness.
This next exit will do! No problem lets try the next! Ooh I haven't been down ere before!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dodger, Tilii
Whilst one admires the high moral ground re asking contacts in a network for information on applicants, it is a widespread practice in almost all UK industry.
It could be argued that those who seek the information are doing the right thing for their organisation in getting as much information as possible before making a decision. Now I understand some of this may be tittle tattle but the same can sometimes be found in formal written references which may be deliberately misleading.
The old boy networker may also claim, in justification, that he or she has a duty of care to his company and to fellow employees and passengers to ensure that we engage the truly competent.
[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: slj ]
Whilst one admires the high moral ground re asking contacts in a network for information on applicants, it is a widespread practice in almost all UK industry.
It could be argued that those who seek the information are doing the right thing for their organisation in getting as much information as possible before making a decision. Now I understand some of this may be tittle tattle but the same can sometimes be found in formal written references which may be deliberately misleading.
The old boy networker may also claim, in justification, that he or she has a duty of care to his company and to fellow employees and passengers to ensure that we engage the truly competent.
[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: slj ]
Thread Starter
Bad mouthing an employee who wants to leave is hardly logical. Presumably if he/she is causing a problem then (as a Chief Pilot) you would rather they just left?
Of course, if pilot retention is a problem for your company bad working practices may be a factor.
Good selection procedures exist that don't require a patronage culture. For good employers hearsay should not necessary.
I started this thread and thought it would be popular. Its at the back of a lot of pilots minds that senior management can cause personal disadvantage through misplaced comment.
Aircraft Commanders must never feel their judgement is undermined; perceived pressure from management can adversely affect safety.
Of course, if pilot retention is a problem for your company bad working practices may be a factor.
Good selection procedures exist that don't require a patronage culture. For good employers hearsay should not necessary.
I started this thread and thought it would be popular. Its at the back of a lot of pilots minds that senior management can cause personal disadvantage through misplaced comment.
Aircraft Commanders must never feel their judgement is undermined; perceived pressure from management can adversely affect safety.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Devils Advocate
You miss the point entirely, don't you? In the scenario you chose (and it was your very own, my friend), there was no "wise counsel". Therefore, "tried and trusted friend" or not, I would not take such patently prejudiced advice. In fact, if this came from a tried and trusted friend, I would counsel him to change his errant ways with some great haste before he loses his own job.
The real question here is, given the same circumstances, would you take such counsel? Clearly you would, for you are apparently one of these sad creatures whose wont it is to rely on the Old Boy network instead of proper selection procedures. I guess the sky in the world in which you live is whatever was the colour of your old school tie, dear chap. The sky where I fly is always blue.
slj
I must say I am a little surprised to read that you defend this practice by suggesting that
Even with your caveat re "tittle tattle", surely you would agree that accurate, truthful, and therefore reliable, information is not derived from tittle tattle or gossip? Such "information gathering" is surely not permissible in law, is it? This practice is unarguably one of relying on pure hearsay. What is more, I point you again to the words of Holt CJ above where he argues that this practice may, of itself, be a breach of a duty of care. I agree with him entirely and see no reasonable way in which it can be argued that this practice ensures the engaging of "the truly competent". It seems to me more likely that the opposite is closer to the truth, that the incompetent are more likely to sneak past the proper assessments and into employment.
[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
You miss the point entirely, don't you? In the scenario you chose (and it was your very own, my friend), there was no "wise counsel". Therefore, "tried and trusted friend" or not, I would not take such patently prejudiced advice. In fact, if this came from a tried and trusted friend, I would counsel him to change his errant ways with some great haste before he loses his own job.
The real question here is, given the same circumstances, would you take such counsel? Clearly you would, for you are apparently one of these sad creatures whose wont it is to rely on the Old Boy network instead of proper selection procedures. I guess the sky in the world in which you live is whatever was the colour of your old school tie, dear chap. The sky where I fly is always blue.
slj
I must say I am a little surprised to read that you defend this practice by suggesting that
Those who seek the information are doing the right thing for their organisation in getting as much information as possible before making a decision.
[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid tilli that it is you whom has seemingly missed the point..... because in the above scenario it was plainly left to the individual to make up his own mind about the applicant, e.g. 'So, it's your choice mate, but there's my two'penneth !' (sic) - i.e. you don’t have to take honest advice, freely given - and, quite evidently, you'd choose to ignore it.
Accordingly one would imagine that in such an event you'd continue to process the applicant, making full use of formalised methods of testing. However having been 'tipped the wink', in your capacity as Chief Pilot / Ops Dir, one would hope that you'd certainly then fully probe any areas of concern from your conversation (e.g. during the interview and / or simulator assessment), i.e. you'd make sure that candidates performance was beyond all reproach, prior to making an offer for employment, or not - and what's wrong with that ? The candidate will either pass or fail.
Nb. For what it's worth, I've been in involved with sim assessments and have personally witnessed licensed pilots fail abysmally (some crashed three times in succession ! ) off of a very simple V1-cut engine failure - which is all the more worrying when you consider that these folks are actually flying commercially right now…… and there's a dilemma, i.e. should I tell their employer and / or the CAA what I've witnessed, or should I keep schstum ? But what if they crashed next week, and I'd kept quite about their witnessed short comings, uhm ?! Would I then be 'telling tales' and / or indulging in 'gossip' ?
Perhaps a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't ?!
Of course I'm sure that you'll retort that a 'proper' recruitment process should cover all the angles but in order to enlighten us with just how you'd go about doing the same job - this of course assumes that you actually work for an airline, as an airline pilot, and in that capacity that you have actually been involved with pilot recruitment / assessment, rather than speaking as a lay person - could I be so bold as ask you to describe what it is that you'd included in your pilot selection criteria - and just how far you would go (and how much money would you spend) in ascertaining that the right candidates are employed ?
So, over to you.....
Ps. Anybody know how many s's there are in sanctimonious ?
Accordingly one would imagine that in such an event you'd continue to process the applicant, making full use of formalised methods of testing. However having been 'tipped the wink', in your capacity as Chief Pilot / Ops Dir, one would hope that you'd certainly then fully probe any areas of concern from your conversation (e.g. during the interview and / or simulator assessment), i.e. you'd make sure that candidates performance was beyond all reproach, prior to making an offer for employment, or not - and what's wrong with that ? The candidate will either pass or fail.
Nb. For what it's worth, I've been in involved with sim assessments and have personally witnessed licensed pilots fail abysmally (some crashed three times in succession ! ) off of a very simple V1-cut engine failure - which is all the more worrying when you consider that these folks are actually flying commercially right now…… and there's a dilemma, i.e. should I tell their employer and / or the CAA what I've witnessed, or should I keep schstum ? But what if they crashed next week, and I'd kept quite about their witnessed short comings, uhm ?! Would I then be 'telling tales' and / or indulging in 'gossip' ?
Perhaps a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't ?!
Of course I'm sure that you'll retort that a 'proper' recruitment process should cover all the angles but in order to enlighten us with just how you'd go about doing the same job - this of course assumes that you actually work for an airline, as an airline pilot, and in that capacity that you have actually been involved with pilot recruitment / assessment, rather than speaking as a lay person - could I be so bold as ask you to describe what it is that you'd included in your pilot selection criteria - and just how far you would go (and how much money would you spend) in ascertaining that the right candidates are employed ?
So, over to you.....
Ps. Anybody know how many s's there are in sanctimonious ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Devils Advocate
I do not wish to debase this fine thread by responding to your post above in the manner it deserves. So, with considerable restraint, I say:
1. Yes, I would “probe” the applicant fully. But I would have done in any event;
2. Provided I was the assessor (and not merely an uninvolved, and therefore out of the information loop, bystander), I would indeed inform the “abysmally failed” sim pilot’s employer and/or the CAA. But I would do so only after I had informed the pilot of my view as to his/her performance, allowed him/her an opportunity to respond, perhaps mitigate, as to that performance, and then only after I informed the pilot that I intended to advise the employer/CAA. No gossip involved there, do you see?;
3. Yes, a 'proper' recruitment process should cover all the angles;
4. Where I work and in what capacity is none of your business (unless you work with me, and I assure you that you do not); and
5. There are two, as you quite rightly display.
I do not wish to debase this fine thread by responding to your post above in the manner it deserves. So, with considerable restraint, I say:
1. Yes, I would “probe” the applicant fully. But I would have done in any event;
2. Provided I was the assessor (and not merely an uninvolved, and therefore out of the information loop, bystander), I would indeed inform the “abysmally failed” sim pilot’s employer and/or the CAA. But I would do so only after I had informed the pilot of my view as to his/her performance, allowed him/her an opportunity to respond, perhaps mitigate, as to that performance, and then only after I informed the pilot that I intended to advise the employer/CAA. No gossip involved there, do you see?;
3. Yes, a 'proper' recruitment process should cover all the angles;
4. Where I work and in what capacity is none of your business (unless you work with me, and I assure you that you do not); and
5. There are two, as you quite rightly display.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the apparent assumption that the old boy network or any of its variants always provides negative information about applicants?
If so, it certainly cannot be proved whilst personal experience suggests that employers and former employers often speak well of their colleagues as well as sometimes warning. As someone else states it is up to the recipient of the information to take whatever action they wish on it.
If so, it certainly cannot be proved whilst personal experience suggests that employers and former employers often speak well of their colleagues as well as sometimes warning. As someone else states it is up to the recipient of the information to take whatever action they wish on it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
slj
Surely it makes no difference whether the information provided is negative or positive, does it? A gossiper may provide fallacious comment in either sense and it "cannot be proved" right or wrong. This is the essence of what is wrong with gossip. Speaking well of someone does not mean it is deserved any more than speaking badly of them. It is surely more a reflection of whether the subject of the gossip is in a position of good or bad standing in the eyes of the gossiper.
[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]
Surely it makes no difference whether the information provided is negative or positive, does it? A gossiper may provide fallacious comment in either sense and it "cannot be proved" right or wrong. This is the essence of what is wrong with gossip. Speaking well of someone does not mean it is deserved any more than speaking badly of them. It is surely more a reflection of whether the subject of the gossip is in a position of good or bad standing in the eyes of the gossiper.
[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]