FlyBe - Shaft the CRJ fleet pilots again!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good luck
to all the fine people the CRJ fleet, don't get shafted! stay on a fair deal or leave while you can!
good luck to all the effo's who left for Maersk, well done mate's!
really sad to see the fine hard working flight and cabin crews shafted by EXT....
good luck to all the effo's who left for Maersk, well done mate's!
really sad to see the fine hard working flight and cabin crews shafted by EXT....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO GUTS NO GLORY!!
And for the Flybe 146 boys and girls, I would say you better support the CRJ people, cause it seems that in short or long term your fleet is next. (as it seems from FI; more Q400 and possible E170/190, or 73's)
CRJ folks, fight and decline the bond and stick together!! This will give you a lot more power. DON'T GIVE IN!!
Good luck!!
And for the Flybe 146 boys and girls, I would say you better support the CRJ people, cause it seems that in short or long term your fleet is next. (as it seems from FI; more Q400 and possible E170/190, or 73's)
CRJ folks, fight and decline the bond and stick together!! This will give you a lot more power. DON'T GIVE IN!!
Good luck!!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> A good example is a CRJ Captain of nearly 6 years service at
> JY,who incidently was not bonded on the CRJ originally, has
> been given but days to decide if he wants to stay with the
> airline.
I read somewhere that in the UK....
If an employer offers you a new position as an alternative to redundancy then you are entitled to accept the position AND then have 4 weeks in the new position to make up your mind. If you don't like the new position you can then opt to accept the original redundancy package.
Check I'm right with a CAB office before relying on this.
> JY,who incidently was not bonded on the CRJ originally, has
> been given but days to decide if he wants to stay with the
> airline.
I read somewhere that in the UK....
If an employer offers you a new position as an alternative to redundancy then you are entitled to accept the position AND then have 4 weeks in the new position to make up your mind. If you don't like the new position you can then opt to accept the original redundancy package.
Check I'm right with a CAB office before relying on this.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, can be cwatters, but as a former JEA pilot, I know that when the SD360 and F27 were disposed off, the pilots went totally bond free on the Dash 8. So why would it be different for the CRJ pilots now?? End of SD360 is only about 1,5 year ago. It seems quite obvious that, after 2 years of uncertainties, the CRJ boys and girls get shafted indeed.
Good luck to all.
Ptt
Good luck to all.
Ptt
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A land beyond time
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason all this is happening is because the flybe Ops Director is trying to protect his budget. It has nothing to do with "policy" or anything like that. It is simply the boss being petrified that he might end up splashing out hundreds of thousands of pounds, and then having the trainees leaving whilst on the course or shortly thereafter (as has happened in the past). When a company like flybe is coming back from the brink, there simply isn't the spare money to waste.
Much as I hate and oppose bonds, I have to point out that the reason we have this problem now is that so many pilots (particularly on the turboprop) have reneged on what were basically "gentlemens agreements", and left the company at the first sniff of a jet job elsewhere.
I would be the last to hinder anyones career progression, but if you agree to do a thing, you should stick to your word. What we see now is the result of the behaviour of a small number of dishonourable people.
Still opposed to bonds in all their forms, though. Airlines should either make their employment attractive enough that people don't want to leave, or accept that people moving on is the cost of doing business (as occurs in many other industries.)
Much as I hate and oppose bonds, I have to point out that the reason we have this problem now is that so many pilots (particularly on the turboprop) have reneged on what were basically "gentlemens agreements", and left the company at the first sniff of a jet job elsewhere.
I would be the last to hinder anyones career progression, but if you agree to do a thing, you should stick to your word. What we see now is the result of the behaviour of a small number of dishonourable people.
Still opposed to bonds in all their forms, though. Airlines should either make their employment attractive enough that people don't want to leave, or accept that people moving on is the cost of doing business (as occurs in many other industries.)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
s_y_l, JEA, or Flybe has never been (and probably never will be) a company with spare money since all the real money goes to Walker Aviation (via the tax-free islands). With financial constructions like this it appears that a company is not making much money or even a loss, which is very favourable regarding taxes and towards employees (no pay rise, etc.).
It is clever 'tax-free Channel Islands' thinking.
Ptt
It is clever 'tax-free Channel Islands' thinking.
Ptt
SYL
I think that your post regarding turbo prop pilots is a little biased. They may well have left at the first sniff of a jet job, but that would hardly be neccessary if there was not such an enormous and unwarranted gulf between the pay of a jet pilot and a turboprop pilot at JEA/BE/Flybe.com.
Everyone on this thread has conveniently omitted to mention that whilst Flybe are trying to bond CRJ pilots on the dash, they have agreed to continue to pay the jet salary. Therefore the only reason for objecting to the bond would be if you have in mind to let Flybe train you and then jump ship - as you put it - at the first sniff of a jet job elsewhere. Otherwise there is no financial penalty involved , just no more jet hours in the log book.
As a final note - And this is quite separate to any moral arguments about bonding (for the record I, like most pilots am totally against them) - I joined the company 4 1/2 years ago and, like others, signed a contract which quite clearly states, and I quote :
"9.3 If the pilot is required by the company to undertake any training, the pilot must at the request of the company execute a training bond agreement ("a training agreement") with the company, a specimen copy of which is attached in appendix (K) to this agreement"
Possibly those who joined before I did don't have that in their agreement, but if they do I really don't see that there is any legal case for BALPA to fight against a company which is merely enforcing a clause in a contract which someone freely signed on commencing employment.
I think that your post regarding turbo prop pilots is a little biased. They may well have left at the first sniff of a jet job, but that would hardly be neccessary if there was not such an enormous and unwarranted gulf between the pay of a jet pilot and a turboprop pilot at JEA/BE/Flybe.com.
Everyone on this thread has conveniently omitted to mention that whilst Flybe are trying to bond CRJ pilots on the dash, they have agreed to continue to pay the jet salary. Therefore the only reason for objecting to the bond would be if you have in mind to let Flybe train you and then jump ship - as you put it - at the first sniff of a jet job elsewhere. Otherwise there is no financial penalty involved , just no more jet hours in the log book.
As a final note - And this is quite separate to any moral arguments about bonding (for the record I, like most pilots am totally against them) - I joined the company 4 1/2 years ago and, like others, signed a contract which quite clearly states, and I quote :
"9.3 If the pilot is required by the company to undertake any training, the pilot must at the request of the company execute a training bond agreement ("a training agreement") with the company, a specimen copy of which is attached in appendix (K) to this agreement"
Possibly those who joined before I did don't have that in their agreement, but if they do I really don't see that there is any legal case for BALPA to fight against a company which is merely enforcing a clause in a contract which someone freely signed on commencing employment.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 52N 20E
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRJ Boys & Girls, check your contracts, mine says, bonded for intial type rating only and that if you are re-type rated at the companys behest, then there will be no further bond.
But then there are so many different contracts flying around nowdays, its a miracle that the "damagement" know who has what contracts at all.
With the "Weazel" still sticking his slimey oar in down at EXT, you can be certain that fairness/seniority lists will not play a part in any of his shenanigans; whilst he secures
plum jobs/postions/and basings for himself and the rest of his cronies.
But then there are so many different contracts flying around nowdays, its a miracle that the "damagement" know who has what contracts at all.
With the "Weazel" still sticking his slimey oar in down at EXT, you can be certain that fairness/seniority lists will not play a part in any of his shenanigans; whilst he secures
plum jobs/postions/and basings for himself and the rest of his cronies.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TDK...
Sorry, didn't notice your post at the bottom of the page.
Excrab has dealt with it already but just to re-iterate...
This whole business is unique in that Seniority is everything. Your position on the list entitles you to fleet changes, seat changes,preferance on requested days off/leave and even the last few seats on the aircraft with your standby ticket to go on holiday!!!
Why should my command, which I've all the necessary experience and successful command assessments for be put back by the accomodation of people that have been with the company only a year or two?
Another argument is that I'm more suitable for command because I have the experience on type....
If we bend over backwards to accomodate them all, which I assume will not happen (Balpa would have a field day), we will have the breakdown of the very system that has been in place since year dot. And people being punished for showing loyalty to the company in the first place.
Sorry, didn't notice your post at the bottom of the page.
Excrab has dealt with it already but just to re-iterate...
This whole business is unique in that Seniority is everything. Your position on the list entitles you to fleet changes, seat changes,preferance on requested days off/leave and even the last few seats on the aircraft with your standby ticket to go on holiday!!!
Why should my command, which I've all the necessary experience and successful command assessments for be put back by the accomodation of people that have been with the company only a year or two?
Another argument is that I'm more suitable for command because I have the experience on type....
If we bend over backwards to accomodate them all, which I assume will not happen (Balpa would have a field day), we will have the breakdown of the very system that has been in place since year dot. And people being punished for showing loyalty to the company in the first place.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A land beyond time
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excrab
It isn't so much a question of money, as of the fact- as others have stated- that many will quite ruthlessly use companies like flybe as stepping stone to other things. Very few people who join flybe have any intention of spenidng their careers there- although many end up staying longer than they had maybe anticipated.
Also, people in this current situation do not "have in mind to let Flybe train you and then jump ship", they probably would prefer to leave but very few can find an alternative job in the 48 hours they were given to find alternative employment. Most have no choice but to sign the bond- unless they can afford to choose unemployment.
Push to talk
The stories about financial chicanery involving Walker Aviation and the Channel Islands are legion. However, I don't really agree with them as (a) nobody has ever produced any evidence to back up the allegations and (b) it makes no logical sense to starve a company of money- unless of course your only purpose is to kill it stone dead. It was only recently that the company intended to float, the money raised would have financed considerable fleet and route expansion that could conceivably have generated a large income for all concerned. I think the intent is there, both from the Walker board and company management, to become profitable and expand- even if only to allow the sale of the company (as a going concern).
Of course, if you can explain why it would be beneficial to present a financial profile as you describe, I'd be really interested to hear it!
It isn't so much a question of money, as of the fact- as others have stated- that many will quite ruthlessly use companies like flybe as stepping stone to other things. Very few people who join flybe have any intention of spenidng their careers there- although many end up staying longer than they had maybe anticipated.
Also, people in this current situation do not "have in mind to let Flybe train you and then jump ship", they probably would prefer to leave but very few can find an alternative job in the 48 hours they were given to find alternative employment. Most have no choice but to sign the bond- unless they can afford to choose unemployment.
Push to talk
The stories about financial chicanery involving Walker Aviation and the Channel Islands are legion. However, I don't really agree with them as (a) nobody has ever produced any evidence to back up the allegations and (b) it makes no logical sense to starve a company of money- unless of course your only purpose is to kill it stone dead. It was only recently that the company intended to float, the money raised would have financed considerable fleet and route expansion that could conceivably have generated a large income for all concerned. I think the intent is there, both from the Walker board and company management, to become profitable and expand- even if only to allow the sale of the company (as a going concern).
Of course, if you can explain why it would be beneficial to present a financial profile as you describe, I'd be really interested to hear it!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the day's go by since this bonding scandal came to light and can anybody tell me if the BALPA chaps have done anything for the CRJ pilots yet?
Despite many CRJ First Officers jumping ship to Easy and a large group to Mearsk last week my spies tell me the Devon avis of evil has sent some poor souls to the Woodford centre of correction,
-Where indoctrination in things 146 will occur!
This weekend see's an illigal assembly of disgruntled & ex CRJ pilots at a secret location in darkest N.W.leicestershire where effigy's of BE managment will feature on the BBQ and a good time will be had by all.
Salut!
Despite many CRJ First Officers jumping ship to Easy and a large group to Mearsk last week my spies tell me the Devon avis of evil has sent some poor souls to the Woodford centre of correction,
-Where indoctrination in things 146 will occur!
This weekend see's an illigal assembly of disgruntled & ex CRJ pilots at a secret location in darkest N.W.leicestershire where effigy's of BE managment will feature on the BBQ and a good time will be had by all.
Salut!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S_y_l,
If flybe would pay their flight crew more and give them a life the turnover of staff would probably be a lot less and people would not use it as a stepping stone.
At the end; Loyalty has to come from BOTH sides.
Unfortunately for the employees it seems a bit like; what will the management come up with next. So you can not really blame the pilots for the whole thing.
About the finances; possibly. But it is a discussion I'd rather not like to start, since it most likely will only end in 'Is! Is not!'.
Give respect and earn respect!
Cheers,
Ptt
If flybe would pay their flight crew more and give them a life the turnover of staff would probably be a lot less and people would not use it as a stepping stone.
At the end; Loyalty has to come from BOTH sides.
Unfortunately for the employees it seems a bit like; what will the management come up with next. So you can not really blame the pilots for the whole thing.
About the finances; possibly. But it is a discussion I'd rather not like to start, since it most likely will only end in 'Is! Is not!'.
Give respect and earn respect!
Cheers,
Ptt
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A land beyond time
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree it is not the pilots fault per se , but it is also true that most pilots (particularly on the turboprop) wouldn't stay for more money, as a) the 146 isn't much of a step up, and b) anyone with any sense will be looking to put a 737 (or larger) on their licence as quickly as they can.
I also agree that loyalty is a two-way street, and we are currently being shown precious little of it by management.
Having a life- yes, the current philosophy seems to be that we are paid to be b*ggered from pillar to post, whether it be re-location, type changes or just excessive night-stopping. I disagree; we are paid our (low) salaries to safely get our pax from A to B. Any of us screw up badly, goodbye company. That level of responsibility is why pilots get paid more than baggage handlers.
Regarding the finance thing, I'd be more than happy to believe this stuff if there was any evidence of it- until then I have an open mind (either way).
And yes- respect is vital, both ways.
I also agree that loyalty is a two-way street, and we are currently being shown precious little of it by management.
Having a life- yes, the current philosophy seems to be that we are paid to be b*ggered from pillar to post, whether it be re-location, type changes or just excessive night-stopping. I disagree; we are paid our (low) salaries to safely get our pax from A to B. Any of us screw up badly, goodbye company. That level of responsibility is why pilots get paid more than baggage handlers.
Regarding the finance thing, I'd be more than happy to believe this stuff if there was any evidence of it- until then I have an open mind (either way).
And yes- respect is vital, both ways.
