easyJet Lisbon pilots announcing 5 days of strike

[viking767]

I would certainly hope that no one would volunteer to fly trips that were supposed to be flown by pilots on strike.
That would be performing struck work and whoever does so would be a scab in any book.

[EpsilonVaz]

I would certainly hope that no one would volunteer to fly trips that were supposed to be flown by pilots on strike.
That would be performing struck work and whoever does so would be a scab in any book.

But it's not that simple, is it?


I'm on SBY over the Christmas period, I don't really hold Christmas as that important to me. However, I know that a lot of my colleagues do, they have children and families.


So would I volunteer knowing that I could potentially save someone from missing their Christmas? Of course I would.

[kungfu panda]

EpsilonVaz- To me, that you would volunteer is shocking and awful.

[kick the tires]

John_smith

I think the best thing is to ignore kungfu panda, as you rightly say he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Mischief making at its worst!

Nice gesture EpsilonVaz.

[kungfu panda]

I understand the position of the UK based Pilots, if they are required by law to perform a duty which breaks the strike of colleagues. Pilots would not go on strike unless they felt that it was absolutely the final resort to achieve a fair solution.

To volunteer to break the strike of your colleagues is not a nice gesture.

I know that I am taking a lot of heat for my position but so be it. I also understand that my knowledge of Easyjet is limited but that does not prevent me having a view on Pilots breaking others Pilots industrial action.

It isn't mischief making it is expression of opinion.

[kriskross]

Why can't people understand that under UK law you cannot refuse to do what the Company rosters you for just because you may be strike breaking - that is secondary action which is illegal. To refuse would be to open you up to dismissal and also financial proceedings against the individual and also the union if that is what is proposed. If ALL EZY pilots refused then possibly some effect would occur - a complete new set of pilots under even better ( for the Company ) terms, albeit after a huge amount of disruption and shut down. I bet the Company would find pilots willing to come in at short notice on those terms.

Much as sympathy may be felt to our colleagues on much reduced terms, very few are going to put their own livelihood and their families at risk are they?

Not directly replying to Kungfu's last post!!

[beachbumflyer]

UK pilots can always call in sick.

Kriskross, with that kind of thinking pilot unions would have never been created.
There is no excuse for breaking a strike of fellow pilots.

This is a good oportunity for all easy pilots to unite and fight, yes fight, for a companywide contract with the same T&C's at all the bases.
It's up to you guys.

[Flyit Pointit Sortit]

I think you have misunderstood EpsilonVaz's post.

I work on a UK Contract. If BALPA vote on a strike in accordance with UK law, i would down tools and stand on the picket line without hesitation.

If a pilot on a Portuguese contract decides to strike, I, as stated clearly by others before me, have no mandate to join in that strike action as my union has not had a ballot on strike action and therefore I cannot go on strike under my UK contract.

Therefore, If my company call me out on Dec 23rd to go LIS to operate a flight on the 24th and night stop, I have no option but to comply with their instructions as this dispute is in a different country. If this situation were reversed, however, I would find it very hard to endorse the action as I know that the only people to be absolutely screwed over would be my colleagues.

What epsilonVaz is stating is that if I was called out to operate and therefore miss Christmas day with my children, EpsilonVaz would be willing to operate instead of me and therefore their actions are absolutely to be commended as I would not have another legal option.

Anybody who can not see the obstacles that crews based in another country on a different contract face does not have anything to contribute to this discussion

BTW I am on days off over XMAS for the first time in 5 years so this does not affect me directly but I am concerned for those crews that are on SBY!!

[kungfu panda]

Well I am going to contribute to this conversation even if I am an unwelcome guest.

As I said previously I do understand the position of the UK based Pilots, but if they are required to strike break by Law they still need to be seen to take action. In my view (which I understand is not popular amongst the readers here), BALPA need to write to Easy management stating clearly that asking its members to travel to Lisbon in direct action to break a strike is a reprehensible request, which will effect good CRM for years to come, and that the requirement to do so is forced by a law which is not fit for purpose.

Easy management use the "Management friendly" laws of the UK to dictate terms to its Pilots therefore it is entirely understandable that Pilots based abroad should use local Labour Friendly laws in their negotiation for a fair contract.

[caulfield]

secondary action

It doesnt surprise me that this sort of thing goes on in today's airlines,especially a disreputable one like easyjet that has pay-to-fly and divide and rule mentality.BTW,I'm a Brit and was flying when this sort of thing couldnt happen.The strike would have been called by the union in the name of all crews,not just those crews in one base,thus negating the very convenient secondary action clause that the UK pilots are using to look the other way.That is classic divide and rule.I see it as a sign of the times,a sort of microcosm of what is rotten in the airline industry as a whole.
I'm not a big union guy,never have been even when they were functional.But when a thing is wrong,then the union is a very important part of any employment dispute,whatever sector.Everything in moderation I say.We dont want to return to the 70's and see unions crippling the economy,but neither do we want the immorality of what is being allowed to happen here.

[Lawro]

Panda is correct in that Balpa should be protecting its members & not giving them the half baked hand out it has produced which states something along the lines of UK pilots can not decline a duty rostered in Lisbon but if an individual feels 'bullied' they should contact the Duty Pilot . Hell did we pay 1% of our salary for that kind of protection !?I discussed the problems with the easy CC over two years ago regarding differing Unions across the network but Balpa is so frightened of loosing any of it's grip on the UK pilots that it was & still is unwilling to enter into discussions regarding a pan company Union agreement . It was highlighted that this would only play into company hands as we are now seeing & which will get worse in the future.


You should contact your Balpa reps & demand better informed legal protection which is what you pay for , the money should not be used to pay for Balpa CC's expensive lunches & the dog walkers one of the CC's claims expenses for whilst he's on Union duties !

[Hipennine]

"We dont want to return to the 70's and see unions crippling the economy"

What if the action in Lisbon is a return to this ?

You are arguing with contradictory value judgements - some union action is bad, we don't want that, but if there's some union action everybody should support it????????

[HundredPercentPlease]

Originally Posted by caulfield

a disreputable one like easyjet that has pay-to-fly

Never got to read the rest of your post. If you write utter drivel like this, then I can only assume that the rest of your message is similarly "factually challenged". I would suggest getting your facts right if you want to make a point.

Originally Posted by kungfu panda

Well I am going to contribute to this conversation even if I am an unwelcome guest.

Not unwelcome, just unwilling to understand the law.

Originally Posted by kungfu panda

As I said previously I do understand the position of the UK based Pilots, but if they are required to strike break by Law they still need to be seen to take action. In my view (which I understand is not popular amongst the readers here), BALPA need to write to Easy management

It seems you just don't get it.

The law and the contract are quite clear. You have to go, and no secondary industrial action is allowed. Industrial action includes sick-outs and work to rule. Secondary action can leave both the pilot and the union liable to damages and dismissal.

So, you write that we should be seen "to take action".

No union will deliberately expose themselves to damages. No pilot will expose himself to dismissal and damages. Do you get that?

No, I thought not. Cue another post saying that the UK pilots should take action.

[kungfu panda]

Thanks for your post Caulfield, it took the heat off of me for about 5 minutes.

John Smith- Does everything represent secondary action to you, even expressing disagreement with Easy Management or or distain for their efforts to break the strike, are you going to be taken to court for having an opinion?

John I think that you are Easyjet Management or a Shady associate that does not want to see any support for reasonable collective Bargaining.

As for going back to the 70's, don't make me laugh, the polar opposite situation exists now. We are made to believe by John that even disagreeing with the company is illegal and any expression of disagreement will have us in very hot water.

Good on the guys in Portugal, leaflet the passengers, make the situation clear that UK law is being used to defeat their Justified collective action.

[HundredPercentPlease]

KP, let me have a go at writing that leaflet.

Dear passenger,

We, the British pilots based in Portugal, plan to disrupt your travel by striking over Christmas. The reason for the strike is that we were promised that we only had to do 2 years in this place, but now our managers are telling us it has to be more before we can escape back to our beloved homeland.

It is with regret that we have to tell you that your flights will be legally operated by UK crews on UK aircraft, and in fact you will suffer no disruption at all to your Christmas travel. Not even a 10 minute delay. The pro-employer UK laws make it impossible for UK crews to refuse these duties.

We invite you to join our plight to get out of this dump and back to the UK by, er, by....


KP, sorry, maybe you could finish the leaflet for me.

[dudubrdx]

Why don't EZY call in the french contract pilots? Not a single one has been contacted for this?

[stiglet]

I don't believe easyJet have contacted any individual other than those involved in LIS over this. Why should they?

The negotiations may or may not continue; the strikes may or may not go ahead and others may or may not be called upon to operate over any disruption. Except for the inconvenience it has nothing to do with anyone else. In many ways we are one company in name only because of the different contracts we operate under. For those of you outside this situation it may be easyier to understand our predicament if you saw the different factions (UK, Portugal, Italy, France, Germany) as completely different entities. For example should UK easyJet pilots support industrial action on behalf or BA pilots or visa versa, no.

I fear there are a number of contributors on this forum who are not employed by easyJet anywhere who have a vested interest in stirring up as much trouble as they can. There may be some temporary, localised industrial unrest in the company at the moment but it is still arguably one of the most desired airlines in the world to be employed by at the moment; hence the amount of applications from pilots.

[captplaystation]

I doubt if anyone could level the accusation of being "Pro American" in my direction, however, it is good to see that the Unions there portray "secondary action" as "calling a spade a spade" rather than some subversive attempt to dismantle capitalism.

Then again, it could be good old-fashioned protectionism.

Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l (ALPA)2013-12-17 22:30:00

ALPA to U.S. Government: Reject Norwegian Air’s Evasive Scheme


The Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l (ALPA) today called for the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) to immediately reject Norwegian Air
International’s (NAI) foreign air carrier permit application because the
company appears to be attempting to evade its national laws and
regulations to compete unfairly against U.S. airlines and their
employees. The call came in an answer that ALPA filed in response to
NAI’s application.


“Norwegian Air International was clearly designed to attempt to dodge
laws and regulations, starting a race to the bottom on labor and working
conditions,” said Capt. Lee Moak, ALPA’s president. “If successful, the
company would gain a serious and unfair economic advantage over U.S.
airlines in the competition for the business of international passengers
flying to and from the United States. This exploitation of the laws
intended to prevent labor law shopping cannot be allowed to stand.”


While Norwegian citizens control NAI, which is a subsidiary of Norwegian
Air Shuttle (NAS), the company uses aircraft registered in Ireland and
has applied for an air operator certificate from that country. It
appears that its flight crews will work under individual employment
contracts that are governed by Singapore law and that have wages and
working conditions substantially inferior to those of NAS’s Norway-based
pilots.


“If NAS is permitted to pick and choose the countries in which it
establishes its subsidiaries and employs its flight crews, U.S. carriers
will be put at a severe competitive disadvantage because the United
States has one set of laws and regulations for all of its airlines,”
said Capt. Moak. “The U.S.-EU air services agreement was never intended
to allow this type of scheme, which games the system for competitive
economic advantages.”


ALPA maintains that the NAI scheme raises the specter of the “flag of
convenience” business practice that undermined the U.S. maritime
industry by allowing a vessel to be registered in a country different
from its ownership and apply the country of registry’s laws to its
operations. The practice precipitated the decline of the industry and
the loss of tens of thousands of U.S. maritime jobs as companies flew
the flag of countries with the weakest labor and tax laws and
regulations.


Moak noted a quote by the AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Department in
an opinion piece published today by Aviation Daily: “We must
reject business models premised on scouring the globe for cheap labor no
matter the consequences, and not pretend this is somehow acceptable
competitive behavior.”


“The NAI scheme must be immediately and unequivocally rejected,” said
Moak. “The DOT must not permit U.S. airlines and their employees to face
an unfair competitive disadvantage from this runaway shop and swiftly
dismiss NAI’s air carrier permit application.”


Moak also called on the Irish government to reject NAI’s attempt to
register the aircraft in Ireland. “Ireland should not allow itself to be
complicit in NAI’s avoidance scheme,” he concluded.


Founded in 1931, ALPA is the world’s largest pilot union, representing
nearly 50,000 pilots at 32 airlines in the United States and Canada.
Visit the ALPA website at Air Line Pilots Association, International.

[SR71]

Correct CaptPlayStation. Well done ALPA.

For John Smith and 100%, lets put it this way...

Do you, or do you not think that using UK based pilots to break a legitimate Portugese pilot dispute is a good idea in the grand scheme of things?

If the latter, cognisant of the law with respect to secondary action, what do you think the solution to the problem is?

BALPA absolutely should lobby for a change in the law with respect to the type of multi-jurisdictional issues airlines are now using to their advantage, because the law was conceived well before a time when these issues were a problem.

In just the same way they are lobbying/continuing to lobby for changes/review of the new FTL legislation whose inception was a complete fiasco....

[kungfu panda]

SR71 and Captplay.....

I was clearly sciving when articulation was being handed out... Thank you..

Let me just add my disappointment that UK and Irish based Pilots are allowing their political motivations to drive Captain salaries rapidly toward those of London underground train drivers, am I wrong, don't Jet aircraft Captains have significantly more responsibility and Skill. It should not be just a question of supply and demand.

If it wasn't for those political motivations we would have a stronger bargaining position than the train drivers.