FlyBe - Shaft the CRJ fleet pilots again!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Altsel,
You are of course right concerning the 146 replacement / future bonds etc.
Lets face it, those high seniority 146 pilots (mainly Capt.s) are not so much 'cosy' but stuck on a redundant type where they know the only way out is to leave and take a drop in salary whilst sitting in the right hand seat. Not a problem for some but for those that can't/won't, what do you think they will do once they have some 737 or similar type experience under there belt ??? They have been with this company long enough to know that they will never get a fair wage or be treated fairly.
Bond or no bond, there will be a mass exodus of experienced people.
It's probably one of the reasons why they are looking at the EMB 190, - not many company's operating them YET !
You are of course right concerning the 146 replacement / future bonds etc.
Lets face it, those high seniority 146 pilots (mainly Capt.s) are not so much 'cosy' but stuck on a redundant type where they know the only way out is to leave and take a drop in salary whilst sitting in the right hand seat. Not a problem for some but for those that can't/won't, what do you think they will do once they have some 737 or similar type experience under there belt ??? They have been with this company long enough to know that they will never get a fair wage or be treated fairly.
Bond or no bond, there will be a mass exodus of experienced people.
It's probably one of the reasons why they are looking at the EMB 190, - not many company's operating them YET !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bonding makes me ANGRY !
Some suggestions here - you'll need to check their viability.
Refuse to sign the bond. Presumably all they can do is sack you. Then you can claim for unfair dismissal/constructive dismissal ?
All depends upon whether this is valid, and whether you're willing to stick together. Sticking together is supposed to be what BAAAALPA is all about, is'nt it, or am I wrong there too ? I think BALPA work on the principle that a member has to formally raise a claim/complaint, or something.
The potential of an Industrial Tribunal awarding multiple compensation for unfair/constructive dismissal for all of you should make an employer think again.
Sounds like they, arguably, are'nt worth working for anyway, but I realise that there are bills to pay (1% to BALPA for a start !).
I'll re-emphasise that these are just suggestions which you need to check - I'm no expert.
Hope it all goes well.
Some suggestions here - you'll need to check their viability.
Refuse to sign the bond. Presumably all they can do is sack you. Then you can claim for unfair dismissal/constructive dismissal ?
All depends upon whether this is valid, and whether you're willing to stick together. Sticking together is supposed to be what BAAAALPA is all about, is'nt it, or am I wrong there too ? I think BALPA work on the principle that a member has to formally raise a claim/complaint, or something.
The potential of an Industrial Tribunal awarding multiple compensation for unfair/constructive dismissal for all of you should make an employer think again.
Sounds like they, arguably, are'nt worth working for anyway, but I realise that there are bills to pay (1% to BALPA for a start !).
I'll re-emphasise that these are just suggestions which you need to check - I'm no expert.
Hope it all goes well.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clarification of "Bond"
Forgive my limited knowledge, but isn't this the means by which a company seek to "protect" their investment in a pilot's training? Without a bond, what mechanism is in place to prevent a newly qualified pilot leaving and taking his "new" skills to another company? If I am missing the point, could someone kindly summarise this "bond" for me?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A land beyond time
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newswatcher
Yes it is, and for the reasons you have correctly surmised.
The point here is that OK, when you first join an airline, you could reasonably expect to be bonded to protect the investment made in you. A pilot knows this when he or she joins, and, if you don't like it, look elsewhere.
However, in this case a change of type is being forced on existing crews (some with substantial sevice, a.k.a. "loyalty"), and they generally don't wish to change. Most would probably prefer to leave (particularly if a change of base is involved), but as most were initially given only 48 hours to decide (a clear strategy to remove their options and retain them), that is problematical to say the least. Anyone who could not find alternative employment in that short time has little choice but to sign a bond.
This means you end up with very unhappy pilots who want to be elsewhere but can't be, as they are financially chained to the company. Ask yourself if this is a good idea.
Interesting to note here that BA don't bond their pilots. I once asked a BA HR person why this was, she simply said that "We give them a job and a company that they will never want to leave". Flybe (and others) know only too well that they don't offer that, instead they offer what is amongst lowest pay in the industry, little in the way of a career path, and, once the initial warm glow has passed, a desire to move on.
It could be very different, but not while the company takes its present approach to interacting with its staff.
BTW what really needs looking at, as I mentioned above, is the practice of bonding pilots for training received gratis...
Yes it is, and for the reasons you have correctly surmised.
The point here is that OK, when you first join an airline, you could reasonably expect to be bonded to protect the investment made in you. A pilot knows this when he or she joins, and, if you don't like it, look elsewhere.
However, in this case a change of type is being forced on existing crews (some with substantial sevice, a.k.a. "loyalty"), and they generally don't wish to change. Most would probably prefer to leave (particularly if a change of base is involved), but as most were initially given only 48 hours to decide (a clear strategy to remove their options and retain them), that is problematical to say the least. Anyone who could not find alternative employment in that short time has little choice but to sign a bond.
This means you end up with very unhappy pilots who want to be elsewhere but can't be, as they are financially chained to the company. Ask yourself if this is a good idea.
Interesting to note here that BA don't bond their pilots. I once asked a BA HR person why this was, she simply said that "We give them a job and a company that they will never want to leave". Flybe (and others) know only too well that they don't offer that, instead they offer what is amongst lowest pay in the industry, little in the way of a career path, and, once the initial warm glow has passed, a desire to move on.
It could be very different, but not while the company takes its present approach to interacting with its staff.
BTW what really needs looking at, as I mentioned above, is the practice of bonding pilots for training received gratis...
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are those of you calling for BALPA to get involved actually in BALPA? It certainly doesn't sound like it. Usual pathetic response from individuals who love to whinge about BALPA but don't have the balls to actually join the union.
There is a page on PPrune that has a working paper on bonding produced by BALPAs lawyers a few years ago. It is at http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=/pub...tant_Info.html
I wonder how many of the shock horror merchants posting here have actually done anything apart from post here. Do you even have any representation in FlyBe? If you haven't organised yourselves yet then you only have yourselves to blame.
There is a page on PPrune that has a working paper on bonding produced by BALPAs lawyers a few years ago. It is at http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=/pub...tant_Info.html
I wonder how many of the shock horror merchants posting here have actually done anything apart from post here. Do you even have any representation in FlyBe? If you haven't organised yourselves yet then you only have yourselves to blame.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want the actual figures the normal jet bond is £18000 over three years. The companies intention is to re-bond all pilots going onto the 146 for £18000 over two years regardless of any current bond.
BALPA are aware of this, and I hope they are trying to reach a compromise. Some of the CRJ guys think that £9000 over 18 months might be fairer, others are a little more militant!
The company contract by the way only mentions three year bonds for turboprops or jets, so where does this two year bond come from?
BALPA are aware of this, and I hope they are trying to reach a compromise. Some of the CRJ guys think that £9000 over 18 months might be fairer, others are a little more militant!
The company contract by the way only mentions three year bonds for turboprops or jets, so where does this two year bond come from?
e28 driver
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fullback, why shouldn't a CRJ Captain go into the left seat of a 146 ahead of an F.O. on that fleet regardless of seniority? Could understand if it was a turboprop Captain going into the left seat but surely someone who has already captained a jet couldn't fairly be expected to go back to the right hand seat. It almost sounds like you seek to punish your colleagues for having the misfortune of being the last to come off an orphan fleet or have I misunderstood?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: london
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My sympathy goes out to all you guys. The management are out of order. I worked for JEA before the bonding was introduced. Nothing has changed at all. I see them as a company to get some experiance with then get the hell out of there as soon as you can.
If you think BALPA will fight your case dream on, they are just not interested. They take your subs and listen to your gripes but will not help.
Come on BALPA there's a chalange for you,
prove me wrong !
If you think BALPA will fight your case dream on, they are just not interested. They take your subs and listen to your gripes but will not help.
Come on BALPA there's a chalange for you,
prove me wrong !
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A dark rainy monday morning in Exeter:
Today the problem is solved halfway as the company recieved 8 resignations of crj pilots. Only a handfull more to go.
A shame to see those pilots leaving because almost every one of them was experienced enaugh for a Dash or even Jet captainy.
Complicated Q400, low hours and experience, London city here we come.
Good luck
Today the problem is solved halfway as the company recieved 8 resignations of crj pilots. Only a handfull more to go.
A shame to see those pilots leaving because almost every one of them was experienced enaugh for a Dash or even Jet captainy.
Complicated Q400, low hours and experience, London city here we come.
Good luck
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't rely on BALPA.
I am a training captain with BA Citiexpress. Now my aircraft type has been sold I am to be:
1) Removed to another base and bonded for the removal expenses.
2) Demoted to FO, trained on new jet type and bonded for the type rating.
3) Have a £10k pa pay cut in the first year and at the company's discretion a further £6k pa pay cut after that.
I am a member of BALPA, we have full industrial recognition at BACX and all this is done with the approval of BALPA, with exeption of the pay cut.
Unless you are mainline BA save your money and spend your 1% on loss of licence insurance or legal protection insurance etc.
I am a training captain with BA Citiexpress. Now my aircraft type has been sold I am to be:
1) Removed to another base and bonded for the removal expenses.
2) Demoted to FO, trained on new jet type and bonded for the type rating.
3) Have a £10k pa pay cut in the first year and at the company's discretion a further £6k pa pay cut after that.
I am a member of BALPA, we have full industrial recognition at BACX and all this is done with the approval of BALPA, with exeption of the pay cut.
Unless you are mainline BA save your money and spend your 1% on loss of licence insurance or legal protection insurance etc.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you guys should even think of relying on help from BALPA. They did nothing to help the demise of the 146 at BMI Regional, except to tell us that they would only deal with individual cases not as a group. This was because they also represented other groups ( ie Embraer Guys).
You'll probably get the same response.
The Job market isn't great but experience does count and I know other airlines like guys who have flown CRJs. It worked for me!
You'll probably get the same response.
The Job market isn't great but experience does count and I know other airlines like guys who have flown CRJs. It worked for me!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Whereever the principle wants to go
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to hear this practice is going on in Europe. It all sounds like Bonded slavery to me. We want a commitment from you but we guarantee you nothing in return. After you sign a committment is there any guarantee of you working conditions, salary, benefits? ETC.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$800 m order, brave or foolhardy ?
Time will tell whether the FlyBe $800 m order is brave or foolhardy.
Yes, the D8-400 can to some extent offer jet type performance at turboprop costs. Perhaps, as FlyBe claim, it does have a lower seat cost/mile than a 737-700.
But at the end of the day, it is still a propellor driven aircraft and I doubt whether the public is now so blinkered by price that they care not what engines are on their aircraft.
I hear rumours that they are going to operate the 400 into regional airports where few jets can go. As an ex JEA employee I have a bit of a soft-spot for FlyBe and I hope for the sake of my old mates still working there that the Exeter crowd get it right !
Yes, the D8-400 can to some extent offer jet type performance at turboprop costs. Perhaps, as FlyBe claim, it does have a lower seat cost/mile than a 737-700.
But at the end of the day, it is still a propellor driven aircraft and I doubt whether the public is now so blinkered by price that they care not what engines are on their aircraft.
I hear rumours that they are going to operate the 400 into regional airports where few jets can go. As an ex JEA employee I have a bit of a soft-spot for FlyBe and I hope for the sake of my old mates still working there that the Exeter crowd get it right !
TDK Mk2
The reason that a CRJ captain shouldn't get a 146 command ahead of a 146 F/O (or a Dash8 Capt or F/O for that matter) who is senior is exactly that - the seniority system. If you join an airline which operates a seniority list, and which recognises BALPA, you should expect to be bound by it, not take advantage of it when it suits you and complain when it doesn't.
Interestingly, in the last four months both the flight ops director and the jet fleet manager promised that when the CRJs finally went (and remember it has been an ongoing situation for at least 18 months) places on other fleets would be offered purely on a seniority basis and would not disadvantage turbo-prop captains or jet F/Os who had bid for commands on the 146 and were senior to CRJ pilots.
Despite this, rumour has it that one CRJ captain who demonstrated his loyalty to Flybe by leaving to work for a 727 operator and then returned less than 15 months ago has been promised a 146 command ahead of several Dash 8 pilots who had bid for that a/c and base and are considerably senior to him.
Regarding Captains flying RHS it would not be the first time it has happened, or the first company it has happened in. it also happens every day on the Flybe Q400 fleet where line trainers, TRIs and TREs spend their lives filling seats left vacant by the compay's total inability to employ enough F/Os - but that is a bit of the topic.
The reason that a CRJ captain shouldn't get a 146 command ahead of a 146 F/O (or a Dash8 Capt or F/O for that matter) who is senior is exactly that - the seniority system. If you join an airline which operates a seniority list, and which recognises BALPA, you should expect to be bound by it, not take advantage of it when it suits you and complain when it doesn't.
Interestingly, in the last four months both the flight ops director and the jet fleet manager promised that when the CRJs finally went (and remember it has been an ongoing situation for at least 18 months) places on other fleets would be offered purely on a seniority basis and would not disadvantage turbo-prop captains or jet F/Os who had bid for commands on the 146 and were senior to CRJ pilots.
Despite this, rumour has it that one CRJ captain who demonstrated his loyalty to Flybe by leaving to work for a 727 operator and then returned less than 15 months ago has been promised a 146 command ahead of several Dash 8 pilots who had bid for that a/c and base and are considerably senior to him.
Regarding Captains flying RHS it would not be the first time it has happened, or the first company it has happened in. it also happens every day on the Flybe Q400 fleet where line trainers, TRIs and TREs spend their lives filling seats left vacant by the compay's total inability to employ enough F/Os - but that is a bit of the topic.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The initial bond on type is legal, all subsequent bonds are not.
This is because essentially it becomes descrimination against promotion when moving; normally on to a larger/jet aircraft type.
The same applies to being re-bonded when you get either, a command on the same aircraft or a different type.
That descrimination is ILLEGAL.
As for industrial tribunals, if you are a member of BALPA they pay the (what little ) cost there is.
If you go to the High Court, then that is a different story.
Hopefully BALPA would have done there job well at the IT stage and the High Court won't be necessary.
It would certainly rattle the employers cage though, multiple IT's.
This is because essentially it becomes descrimination against promotion when moving; normally on to a larger/jet aircraft type.
The same applies to being re-bonded when you get either, a command on the same aircraft or a different type.
That descrimination is ILLEGAL.
As for industrial tribunals, if you are a member of BALPA they pay the (what little ) cost there is.
If you go to the High Court, then that is a different story.
Hopefully BALPA would have done there job well at the IT stage and the High Court won't be necessary.
It would certainly rattle the employers cage though, multiple IT's.