Would "Job share" be a viable option?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
betpump5
You're right. No one owes you anything in this business. Having been in it a few years, I can safely say it's always the airlines that get the most out of the contractual agreement between pilots and airline (not sure about BA - but I'm sure they would argue their case very reasonably).
Thankfully, many have been able to come to some agreement in the past where everyone is equally unhappy without wholesale decimation of pilot ranks.
The smaller operators, who stand to gain the most out of a deal with pilots, are usually the ones to cock a deaf'un. But then they're also the ones who sail closest to the bankruptcy wind.
No real answer. If you're lucky, you'll have good leadership in difficult times.
Thankfully, many have been able to come to some agreement in the past where everyone is equally unhappy without wholesale decimation of pilot ranks.
The smaller operators, who stand to gain the most out of a deal with pilots, are usually the ones to cock a deaf'un. But then they're also the ones who sail closest to the bankruptcy wind.
No real answer. If you're lucky, you'll have good leadership in difficult times.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: varies..a lot
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we suggested job share in our company, between the number of pilots who were made redundant, we offered to be on charter and positioning flights only, we offered to be on permanent standby ready to cover leave and shortages.............all to no avail, nobody gives a 
that you spent over 100K to get to where you are and then dropped with NO consideration for YOUR commitment to the company! Ha what, pay for sim, pay for medicals, pay for currency? we dont have a job for you mate, so Off!
Am not bitter....
that you spent over 100K to get to where you are and then dropped with NO consideration for YOUR commitment to the company! Ha what, pay for sim, pay for medicals, pay for currency? we dont have a job for you mate, so Off! Am not bitter....
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebodies livelyhood is always going to be an emotive subject. The hard reality of course is that an employee is simply another commodity. If you cannot utilize that commodity profitably and effectively, then there is no point in hiring it. The author of this thread was questioning the viability of one person faced with redundancy sharing the "job" of another person who was willing to do so, from an employers point of view.
A business is an entity faced with ensuring its survival by making a profit. It is not a charity or a social service. If 10 people are made redundant, it saves the business nothing at all by having them share their jobs into half as many units. Only if 10 people not faced with redundancy were willing to share their roles at a salary less than 50% of that they were previously on would there be any argument for neutrality of cost.
What you spent on your training, medicals or currency is of no meaningful concern to the business, that is your concern. Your commitment to the business is what they paid you for. If they are no longer paying you, they will not expect any further commitment.
I am very sympathetic to your viewpoint, and completely understand where you are coming from. However putting the emotion to one side (as a business normally will,) the mathematics of the equation are much more simple and clear cut.
A business is an entity faced with ensuring its survival by making a profit. It is not a charity or a social service. If 10 people are made redundant, it saves the business nothing at all by having them share their jobs into half as many units. Only if 10 people not faced with redundancy were willing to share their roles at a salary less than 50% of that they were previously on would there be any argument for neutrality of cost.
What you spent on your training, medicals or currency is of no meaningful concern to the business, that is your concern. Your commitment to the business is what they paid you for. If they are no longer paying you, they will not expect any further commitment.
I am very sympathetic to your viewpoint, and completely understand where you are coming from. However putting the emotion to one side (as a business normally will,) the mathematics of the equation are much more simple and clear cut.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: varies..a lot
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub
I couldn't agree with you more, it's simple numbers. Unfortunately, in some cases, the commitment does go both ways ( bonding or self funding) on a financial level, and in this case only one party lost and it wasn't the airline!
I appreciate that I and I alone made ALL the decisions to spend whatever was required to get to where I am, no one made me, however from a certain point on, I expect the commitment to go both ways! And with the way the industry is going and with my own contribution to the current pilots pay for it all situation, its a race to the bottom my friend!! And I'm contemplating doing it ALL over again just so I can keep flying! WHAT A MESS!! C'est la vie!
I couldn't agree with you more, it's simple numbers. Unfortunately, in some cases, the commitment does go both ways ( bonding or self funding) on a financial level, and in this case only one party lost and it wasn't the airline!
I appreciate that I and I alone made ALL the decisions to spend whatever was required to get to where I am, no one made me, however from a certain point on, I expect the commitment to go both ways! And with the way the industry is going and with my own contribution to the current pilots pay for it all situation, its a race to the bottom my friend!! And I'm contemplating doing it ALL over again just so I can keep flying! WHAT A MESS!! C'est la vie!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company has just said yes to a deal whereby crew can bid for reduced lines of around half the minimum normal line. We are currently all on minimum guarranteed hours. One senior guy tried to get them onside to job share years ago but to no avail.
As everyone has said, the fixed costs of employment is the issue (about 35k Aust) for a 737 Pilot in my company. The company have allowed it for up to 2 years at a time and have obviously decided to suck up the cost of keeping people rather than train them from new when the ball rolls again.
All the benefits of job share as far as I can see.
As everyone has said, the fixed costs of employment is the issue (about 35k Aust) for a 737 Pilot in my company. The company have allowed it for up to 2 years at a time and have obviously decided to suck up the cost of keeping people rather than train them from new when the ball rolls again.
All the benefits of job share as far as I can see.
