Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Terms and Endearment
Reload this Page >

easyJet pilots, your management are taking the piss now

Terms and Endearment The forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.

easyJet pilots, your management are taking the piss now

Old 23rd Feb 2010, 13:20
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ----
Age: 40
Posts: 1,435
decided I would rather walk over hot coals and eat from a camels arsehole - which is what I have decided to do - so I'm heading out to one of the middle east carriers. Something which I never wanted to do, but would rather do that than work for easyjet under these t and c's.
Well done!

If we all acted this way, our profession would have much better terms and conditions..

Speevy
Speevy is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 13:38
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 1,452
BIGBAD, may I applaude your courage and resolve in sticking to your standards. I hope you and your colleagues soon find something back in the UK (if you want to come back) as soon as possible. As Speevy said if more people showed similar courage then maybe we will see this blight off sooner rather than later and pilot Ts&Cs in general will be up there where they should be.
Best of luck.
lurkio is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 14:30
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: HON121/14 NM
Posts: 664
Good luck Big Bad. I may well try to follow you. I have been unable to get onto the CTC thing because I have the wrong sort of 737 experience. I think that their terms and conditions are appalling, and I cannot see why anyone would think it a good idea. But I am sure some will.
Firestorm is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 15:19
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 36
Thomas Cook redundancies

For the record, TCX are not making any pilot redundancies. On the contrary, they are re-employing all cadets from last year plus taking on experienced F'O's on fixed term contracts. Not ideal, but the terms will be a lot better than EasyJet. It may be of interest also, that the TCX CC have persuaded management not to offer 'pay to fly' contracts any more. A 'proper' cadet scheme is to be announced soon albeit a cost sharing venture between the company and the student.
Tyke is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 17:50
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 75
Companies employing cheap labour - been happening for years

Little johnny had his licence paid for by his daddy, never had a job before as was too young until he went through training, now gets 1700 a month, he must be on cloud nine, literally!!!!
My first job when i left school in '91 was 100/week.

For those who have stumped up the cash themselves, I feel for you.

Ezyjet & Rynair, low cost carriers, low pay = high profits, simple maths.

Good luck to those hard workers amongst us seeking employment
r1flyguy35 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 20:49
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,342
I haven't read the 3 pages of post, but I read many of them.

Most of you, fellows, seem to miss the point. It is not a moral debate.

It is a simple question:

ARE YOU EZY PILOTS (the "normal" ones) GOING TO DEFEND YOUR POSITIONS AND YOUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS OR NOT"

or you think that these programs are not affecting your T&Cs?

Who cares about good and evil? Care about your jobs and your future!

If a trade union does not start a total war after such attack from its company, that trade union is a joke. The executives must be laughing till they wet their pants. It's unbelievable...
Microburst2002 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 21:06
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 66
Posts: 452
DADDY-OH!

What can they do???? Lobby to scrap the 'Pay-to-Fly' abuse for starters.
Perhaps you would like to explain exactly how that change to the law would work and be ring fenced to protect only pilots without being punative to other sectors of the economy.

Flight schools are like any other training facility and they are not alone in using commercial partners in providing industrial experience to their trainees.

Please discuss.
al446 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 21:45
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK/UAE
Posts: 417
Being experienced and out of work (although I have secured part time work), I have noticed a change to airlines recruiting minima. Today, most jobs are asking for ATPL + TR + 500hrs on type + 2000hrs TTetc (The goalposts are always moving away from whet you can afford to pay.)
What this means is if you are willing to borrow the cash and take the gamble, you really have to hope that you can secure a full time job with that airline, because nobody else will touch you until you have 2 or 3 years flying experience.....

I think we are just about to witness, for the first time, a massive amount of wannabes or low timers having to declare bankrupcy to survive. For most this would be the end of the dream. And yet there are endless queues still remortgaging and borrowing way beyond their means because "It won't happen to me..." or "There will be a pilot shortage" or "By the time I'm trained the airlines will be hiring again" etc

Just read the threads in http://www.pprune.org/professional-p...nd-studies-14/

It's beyond belief that so many are still coming through.

Eventually, there will be a massive public outcry when they realise that ANYONE can sit up front, as long as they (or Daddy) have the readies. As usual in the UK this would end up with a draconian overreaction by the authorities, banning training from all revenue flights. And how much would that cost the airlines in legitimate training??

Just a few thoughts on the matter. If you disagree, I don't really care!

LJ

PS for those wannabes who think it's easy to pay large sums back, after gaining ATPL in 2001, I have 5000hrs TT, 3500hrs jet time and I still owe 30K in training costs.....
luvly jubbly is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 22:21
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Behind you all the way!
Posts: 359
al446

Laws CAN be amended & changed ESPECIALLY if there is a safety concern. THAT is one of the founding, fundamental reasons why Unions were created.

A previous poster has highlighted that the CAA isn't happy with current experience levels & I don't for one minute think their concerns apply just to EZY. And you can understand why, when...

...there are increasing numbers of young men & women who are ,for the main, relatively in-experienced in their roles which subject them to demanding working conditions in a hazardous, often fatiguing job, who are constantly coming to work carrying massive financial burdens coupled with NO job security, in addition to everything else that encompasses this most stressful of jobs. As for your patronising remarks concerning why should pilot's be treated any differently, I'll not take the bait, however why MUST pilot's be subject to 'special' employment terms & conditions?

BECAUSE THEY ARE THE LAST LINE OF DEFENCE STOPPING MILLIONS OF AIR TRAVELLERS EVERYDAY BECOMING ACCIDENT STATISTICS IN ALL WEATHERS, DAY & NIGHT, 365 DAYS OF THE YEAR ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Such patronizing posts could only come from someone who is not a pilot but one of a growing number of pilot-haters. I think you must be either airline groundstaff, airline office staff, atc, security or engineer. All are vital disciplines that are essential to getting aircraft ready for flight.

But only one team can sign to accept the responsibility for getting that aircraft,crew & pax to where it's supposed to be going safely.

Only one team can through experience, training & competency, deal with plethora of potential problems, dilemmas & scenarios that stop a routine flight ending up in a smouldering mess plastered all over the news bulletins.

Only one team will most likely NOT be at the subsequent accident investigation should an catastrophic & fatal incident occur. In this case, the ground & office staff will get other jobs, negligent engineers may be prosecuted & subject to a custodial sentence, yet free to practice on another part of the planet.

Only one teams' family & loved ones MAY have to use any compensation or 'Death in Service' benefits to pay off burdening loans to unscrupulous banks in deals brokered by people who have no respect WHATSOEVER for the one team, ultimately responsible for the safe passage of the very people who pay everyone's wages- The Customers.

That 'one team' is the Flight Deck, the Pilot's, The arseholes at the pointy end, the miserable demanding letch's, & their over inflated egos & opinions. Whatever your view of the Flight Deck team, your lives & the financial health of an airline is dependant upon their judgement, skills, experience, knowledge & integrity.

Treat them with the respect they deserve & reward them accordingly. Abuse them & take them for granted at your peril.

On a final note, well done to our Kameraden in Luftie!
DADDY-OH! is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2010, 23:37
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 66
Posts: 452
DADDY-OH!

You are about as wide of the mark as you could be in who I am, perhaps you should look look through my previous posts. I am not gong to going to give a biog here, it's mostly in there.

You mention something about CAA, until CAA says it I won't believe it. Anyone can second guess CAA.

If you read through my posts you will see that I actually WANT your T&Cs to be maintained or improved. And I detest P2F, BRK contracts etc but I asked how do you do this legally? Your reply vented your spleen but would do nothing in progressing an argument.
al446 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2010, 06:06
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Where the work is.
Posts: 127
Daddy-OH


That was Oscar winning stuff but little over the top don't you think. At the end of the day pilots are just another job and as much as we would like to think we are the most vital part of any aviation organisation well its just not true. Could you be replaced, yes for the most part by the aircraft its self which with guidance from you does the majority of the flying, well that's how the management see it.

The industry is going down hill and for a number of reasons but throughout so many different post we will always get the armature dramatics of how incredibly important we are but at the end of the day we like to fly so over time we as pilots have allowed the industry to take advantage of this.

I wish it was differant but its the truth in all sectors.
Wildpilot is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2010, 08:49
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Behind you all the way!
Posts: 359
al446

Well may I suggest you try offering options, suggestions & alternatives to how we can fight P2F & enlighten those who seek such a path, instead of picking through other people's posts. I haven't read through any of your previous posts because I don't micro-examine what people wrote days or weeks ago. If you are passionate about ending P2F then help find a solution & refrain from questioning at every turn, those who want to try. By the way, my previous post wasn't spleen venting- It's just the findings, observations & opinions of someone who has been in this industry for the last 24 years.

Wildpilot.

'Oscar-winning stuff'? Nope just the thoughts & feelings of someone who has been in airlines from charter to scheduled long haul to Low Cost & knows exactly how 'important' pilots are & how 'unimportant' pilots are deemed, but if we don't start to make a stand, where will it end? You may not be an airline pilot- that's your choice.

How many careers in industries start off with someone having to pay over 100k for the joy of doing a job they love?

How many careers in industries are there when someone has the responsibility of hundreds of lives every day?

I decided to be a pilot because I wanted to fly, loved aeroplanes & wanted to travel & see the world. Don't get me wrong, I still love the job & go to work with a smile on my face, but when I come to retire on a pittance of a pension & no savings because I've been too poorly paid to save & spent half of my career paying off training debts, those days of smiles while driving to work aren't going to pay my bills are they? You are a bush pilot & I'm happy for you. I was a bush pilot too when I first started out in my career over 20 years ago & enjoyed it but knew my dream was airliners. As for you're inferrence that the aeroplane flies itself, well that may be but we don't get paid for watching what it does, we get paid for taking over when it doesn't.

Enough said.
DADDY-OH! is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2010, 09:01
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 46
Posts: 359
If you want to question what can be done to stop this, then here's a suggestion. IT contractors have been plagued for about 10 years now by IR35. IR35 essentially states that if you are set up to run as a company or sole trader but you only supply your services to one client, then you are considered what HMRC terms "a deemed employee".

If you are in this category then you are liable for all the standard PAYE terms and conditions applicable...and hence your own limited company must pay you as such (drastically reducing your income - hence the IT contractors chagrin). Moreover, the - if I can term is such - "deemed employER" is ALSO liable for the company funded parts of this, such as NI contributions etc.

In the case of these latest offerings from Ezy and BRK - and freely stating that I do not know the terms of the deal and suspect that no company using this route would have been so dumb as to not check it out - it is absolutley clear that the "contractor" is a deemed employee.

If Balpa put their hand in the pants and find their nuts, they can pursue the legal point that these pilots are deemed employees. Succeeding in this would then put the employing airline in the position of having to pay backdated contributions to HMRC and quite probably a tasty little fine. I rather suspect that this would stop it dead.

Food for thought though...
clanger32 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2010, 09:07
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 46
Posts: 359
If you want to question what can be done to stop this, then here's a suggestion. IT contractors have been plagued for about 10 years now by IR35. IR35 essentially states that if you are set up to run as a company or sole trader but you only supply your services to one client, then you are considered what HMRC terms "a deemed employee".

If you are in this category then you are liable for all the standard PAYE terms and conditions applicable...and hence your own limited company must pay you as such (drastically reducing your income - hence the IT contractors chagrin). Moreover, the - if I can term is such - "deemed employER" is ALSO liable for the company funded parts of this, such as NI contributions etc.

In the case of these latest offerings from Ezy and BRK - and freely stating that I do not know the terms of the deal and suspect that no company using this route would have been so dumb as to not check it out - it is absolutley clear that the "contractor" is a deemed employee.

If Balpa put their hand in the pants and find their nuts, they can pursue the legal point that these pilots are deemed employees. Succeeding in this would then put the employing airline in the position of having to pay backdated contributions to HMRC and quite probably a tasty little fine. I rather suspect that this would stop it dead.

Food for thought though...
clanger32 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2010, 09:17
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: HON121/14 NM
Posts: 664
Clanger. The flexy crew contract is through a different company effectively acting as an agency (albeit with only one customer company at the moment). I don't know if that makes a difference. I know that if you are employed by that company you are not self employed because of the level of risk in a legal sense as a pilot, and because HMRC has rules about self employed people working for only one contract.

I can't imagine why anyone would get involved in this scheme. It completely favours the employer, and Easy Jet, and confers next to no security on the pilot in terms of levels of income, and so on. I hope that enough people have the sense to refuse it, and that it falls flat on it's face.
Firestorm is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2010, 09:18
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: edinburgh,uk
Posts: 248
luvy jubbly
Eventually, there will be a massive public outcry when they realise that ANYONE can sit up front, as long as they (or Daddy) have the readies.
you would hope wouldn't you but people really care about cheap flights ! The only thing that will stop this is existing company pilots standing up say enough is enough or an accident...........

I think the easyjet pilots should be worried, it can only ever have a negative impact on their tand c's, prompotion prospects etc..........
BIGBAD is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2010, 10:00
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 46
Posts: 359
Firestorm,
There may or may not be some technicality due to the nature of the job, but certainly you could make a very very compelling argument that in everything other than name these pilots will ONLY be working for one company. Therefore they would definitely be deemed employees....that's the angle I'd pursue if I were Balpa. However, as I have previously noted, Balpa doesn't actually appear to "be" anything more than a disparate collection of CCs that represent one company only....hence the lack of representation for student pilots, newbies and smaller companies.

The fact they're employed by an agency makes absolutely no difference - or doesn't at least in IT contracting...the net result is you have one person providing services to one company = deemed employee...
clanger32 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2010, 11:38
  #58 (permalink)  
DFC
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
The important issues in this case were highlighted in the first posts;

Established Easy pilots know that there is a limited amount of money to pay salaries and therefore to ensure that they continue to receive their well established terms and conditions they are happy thast a scheme is in place that is not going to overstretch that limited resource especially when times are hard and thereby are only too happy to see a system in place where new entrants remove as little as possible from that limited amount of money.

It's called "I'm all right Jack". and as posted early in the debate they turn their backs on or give a cold shoulder to the new entrants - not because they really dislike the way they entered the industry - it has been the practice for decades (how many of us remember Hamble closing) but because they are embarrased by the fact that it is clear to the world that they are maintaining tyheir terms and conditions in difficult times thanks to the fact that new entrants cost the company less.

There is nothing different from other industries - were agency work has become the norm or even the aviation industry - go ask a NATS ATC what happened to the new entrant terms and conditions in the past 20 years and you will have the exact same picture - new entrant Ts and Cs drastically reduced while established ATC's get increases (clearly paid for by ther new entrants)

One does not need a legal basis to see what is happening - just the willingness to seek change.
DFC is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2010, 13:22
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,342
Clanger32 has it:

No matter how many "legal engineering" is made by means of contracts, agencies, etc... A group of good lawyers can show to any judge or jury that these pilots are actually RYR or EZY pilots, that they are "deemed workers" or whatever the term is. It is not so difficult. Against legal engineering, you can use good lawyers. BALPA should coordinate such movement and put an end to this amazing cut in worker rights. It is a trade union, isn't it?

Imagine that RYR has to pay you all the vacations and other things they did not pay to you in the last years. It is a lot of money. Your money! which was stolen from you by means of legal engineering.

They are fu*ing us with clever and complex contracts? OK, then let's defend with lawyers. It is the only way. Anything else is like trying to kill an armoured samurai with your bare hands.
Microburst2002 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2010, 16:05
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Preferably on terra firma.
Posts: 703
DFC,

because they are embarrased by the fact that it is clear to the world that they are maintaining tyheir terms and conditions in difficult times thanks to the fact that new entrants cost the company less.
How completely wrong.

easyJet has once again made a profit despite the management's best efforts to prevent this by applying appallingly bad judgement to the fuel hedging policy.

Permanent positions are not under threat and neither are their terms and conditions.

Any financial benefit that comes from these flexi-crew contracts goes straight into the management fund for bonuses.

The vast majority of senior pilots are greatly concerned about this turn of events and are emploring Balpa to come up with a solution.

I am disgusted that you believe that we would happily accept these aspirational young men and women on lesser terms and conditions to improve our own lives.

We are not management.
Man Flex is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.