PPRuNe Forums - Parc B747-400 Program?

Parc & Clx
From the European Cockpit Association

Outsourcing Pilots – Is This a Sign of The Times?
The Pilots Association in Luxembourg, ALPL, was confronted with a problem of the hiring policy of
its cargo airline based in Luxembourg. For many years, this cargo airline has had contract pilots,
mostly captains. ALPL voiced its objection on this continued practice without clarifying the need for
these contract pilots. While the airline continued to expand with an introduction of a new freighter
aircraft in April 2004, no permanent pilots were hired. In fact, numbers were reducing with
retirements and long-term illnesses.

Pilots in the company were frustrated because they
could not get upgraded. The company answered that
they could not upgrade people because they needed
all the F/Os. But they proposed a solution.
In order to solve its short-term demand problem, the
cargo airline concluded an agreement with its longterm
pilot provider, a well-known Irish company. Since
the airline had the training facilities available, they
agreed to train new “non-permanent” contract pilots
and provide them with 9 months type rating flying
experience.
The catch was that the pilot had to pay EUR 32,000 to
the company through a bank loan. The average salary
of a F/O is EUR 4000 per month. When you deduct
taxes and the EUR 2,770 to be paid back to the bank,
this contract pilot is left with approx EUR 100 per month
to live on, allowances included!

For ALPL this is unacceptable, because it undermines
the pilot profession and the Collective Work
Agreement. It is "social dumping" as the contracted
pilots would have less time off, less vacation and less
money.
ALPL decided to act: We organized a meeting with the
Labour Ministry & its Division of Labour Inspection.
ALPL researched the local law relevant to the issue
and a lawyer was contracted to prepare a document
for an eventual court case.
We also obtained the support of IFALPA, ECA, and
our Local Trade Union.1) Finally, a meeting was set
up with management where ALPL managed to
freeze the intake of these contract F/Os until the
issue was clarified.

The elections in Luxembourg attracted attention
away from the issue. However, when a well-known
German magazine reported on the case, the
process was accelerated and the Inspection of
Labour took up the case. They now will oblige the
airlines to also apply the collective agreement of
the permanent pilots to the contract pilots.
ALPL is now doing its best to improve transparency of
its pilot numbers to hopefully avoid a similar situation
in the future. Our experience has lead us to conclude
that swift action and good research to ensure that all
avenues are explored has helped gain a better
knowledge of what was needed to tackle the situation
effectively.

15 October 2004

Parc First Officer Contracts

Dear Colleagues,

GOOD NEWS!

On September 30, the Luxembourg labor minister met with Cargolux’s CEO. In a subsequent letter, as a direct result of this meeting, the Labour Minister requested that Cargolux improve the social dialogue with its staff. Furthermore, with reference to the subject of interim pilots, it was stated that Cargolux must abide by Luxembourg labor law. Therefore, even if a case can be made to tolerate the temporary employment of Parc pilots, these too (in fact all pilots) must be worked according to the same guidelines as stipulated in the pilots’ collective work agreement (with all applicable references to pay, vacation, off days, and flight time limitations).

SO WHAT’S THE NEXT STEP?
The Minister of Labour has requested a meeting with the ALPL and the LCGB in November to further review our concerns. From our part, we will insist Cargolux abide by Luxembourg law and will emphasize our readiness to go to court finding no other satisfactory solution. Furthermore, we will demonstrate how, via the supposed creation of another base (KUL), Cargolux attempted to circumvent Luxembourg law (our CWA), and how this project was predominantly staffed by contract pilots. Thus, we will underscore how the hiring of an alternate-pilot group can have far reaching implications affecting the entire community and not just the odd first-officer’s upgrade.

HISTORY
So that you may have a more detailed understanding of this issue and to give you an idea of how much work has been done to get us to this point, we include here a brief synopsis. As always, we welcome any comments or questions you may have on this, or any other issue affecting our group.

March 2004
We first noticed through some members that a project that Cargolux had undertaken with Parc Aviation (an Interim pilot agency) to train suitably qualified pilots at our facilities in March 2004.
Of course the ALPL, Delegation or any other group of employees had not been informed of such a project was under way.
Therefore the ALPL immediately took the following steps;
1. Contacted IFALPA about what was transpiring and requested assistance on how to tackle the situation
2. Contacted the Delegation who would immediately contact the various labor administrations
3. Proceeded to collect as much information as possible
4. On collecting this information engaged a lawyer to prepare a legal case.
5. Contacted the LCGB
6. Sent letters to Flight Operations management asking clarification on what conditions applied to the training of these Parc First Officers.

April 2004
The response to our communications to management was futile as there were only very vague replies.
The Delegation met with various government agencies to highlight our concerns.
The ALPL had to wait until the first Comite Mixte meeting in April to have a heated discussion on the CWA breaches including these Parc F/O contracts. Management recommended that a further meeting be held in May to discuss all the concerns on the Pilot issues.

May 2004
The meeting was held with ALPL Board, Delegation, and ExCom members present. The ALPL presented a dossier of no less than 20 Documents with various complaints and concerns. On the issue of the Parc contracts, when it was asked to have a copy of their contracts, it was flatly refused. We did agree that a freeze on this “ordeal” was necessary until all aspects were clarified.

June 2004
The information that we had been able to collect revealed our concerns about the legality of this “project”.
The F/O’s will be paid a salary of €4,000 per month plus standard Perdium. From this they would have to pay for any taxes and social costs.
In order to qualify for the contract of 12 months they would have to sign up for a bank guarantee of €32,000 which of course has to be repaid within the 12 month period at €2,770 per month plus additional expenses for handling this guarantee.
This leaves them with less than the minimum salary specified by Luxembourg law. Other items such as only having 24 days vacation also contravened the law.

All the data that had been collected so far was sent to our lawyer to be reviewed.

July 2004
Our lawyer sent us a draft for a proposed court case. In his research he identified no less than ten (10) breaches of Luxembourg Law.
This draft was reviewed and it was agreed by the Executive Board and Divisional Board of the ALPL to proceed after one last attempt at resolving this “ordeal” with management.
At the Comite Mixte meeting, this item was once again brought up and once again no clarification was given except that it would be responded to in the October Comite Mixte.
Our contacts with the government bodies at this stage had produced little as the summer vacation was approaching.

August 2004
The Spiegel (a well known German magazine) publicized the Parc F/O “ordeal” that had transpired in Luxembourg. This of course brought attention to the local media where the ALPL was able to confirm the current factual situation.
The LCGB agrees to cooperate with the ALPL in initiating the court case against Cargolux.

September 2004
The ALPL writes letters to the Labor Ministry inviting them to make a stand on this issue.
Cargolux management is summoned to explain the situation with the Labor Ministry. They are also requested to improve the social dialogue with their employees.
The ALPL places the pending court case on hold as the media coverage has accelerated this “ordeal” to where the various ministries and administartions have now acted to resolve this issue.