TUI Recruiting
 

Just had an email alert that TUI are recruiting for pilots various bases fixed term contract summer 2013. Holding interviews January. Not for me as I am not current:{:{

Thomson I'd expect

Much debate here. Thomson Recruiting

Seems they are determined not to offer permanent jobs to us guys in the hold pool who rejected the offer of a summer contract :ugh:

To OP, Did you apply to TOM for the perm position?

Yes I did but got a PFO
5000TT
4000 B737 NG &Classic

Not Me !
 

Jeez, I'm unemployed right now and even I wouldn't consider this.

Hi All,
This has been covered in the Thomson Recruiting thread, but I will repeat it here. The permanent positions have been filled already. The temporary summer only positions are to crew an aircraft out of Leeds for summer 13. This flying was originally to be done by a 3rd party airline, but at fairly short notice it was decided to operate it with a Thomson aircraft. It is only for summer 13 with a view to a more permanent situation should the holiday uptake indicate a viable operation. We are maxed out on 737 conversions this winter with 100+ pilots converting from the Airbus and 757/767 fleets, hence the permanent positions going to current rated NG pilots who will only need an Operators Conversion Course and 4 sectors of line training. It is the availability of line training sectors which is a major factor. The Leeds positions would normally be crewed by a recruitment of cadets under the recently agreed Thomson cadet programme, but due to the training load already being undertaken this couldn't be done this time, hence again the requirement for type rated pilots. There is also another aircrafts work for summer 13 being flown out of Edinburgh for the first time, but this is being flown with an aircraft and pilots from Sunwing a Canadian TUI airline under a reciprocal agreement whereby we send aircraft and crews to Canada for their busy season over our slacker winter and vice versa.

You are having a laugh if you think it's a good idea to put cadets into LBA.

The cadets would be recruited to produce the correct establishment levels, not to be based in LBA themselves. In the past LBA has been crewed by locally based cabin crew and pilots from other bases on a temporary summer basing there. That is why the original poster has referred to temporary positions "at various bases." They would be providing cover for pilots from those various bases flying out of LBA from time to time.

Cracks & Papering over

Unfortunately Thomson have went down a path that I never thought they would. Maybe it's a case of once bitten twice shy? More likely a case of having Easy and Ryan as your competition.

The situation at TOM regarding these temporary contracts is as described. The cadet programme in place delivers a far better package to the cadets than is available anywhere else with full duty pay, pension contributions,and operating to the Memorandum of Agreement with access to Flexible Working (paid working on days off) etc. The idea is then that these pilots are able to be absorbed into the Company on permanent contracts, and this is what has happened with the CTC cadets taken on at the beginning of summer 12, hence the reduced external requirement for 18 permanent posts rather than the 30 or so originally suggested.

The Company Council have agreed (reluctantly) to the temporary contracts for next summer for the reasons already given, but the Company are in no doubt as to the response should they try to repeat this in the future.

The following is from the latest BALPA Company Council newsletter to members on this subject. The Dave Lawrence referred to is the head of Pilot Management at TOM.

"As you are aware the CC have been discussing the crewing of LBA for summer 2013 at some length. The Company position for LBA is that the pilots are only needed for summer 2013 at present; they have no certainty that they will be required for summer 2014. For that reason the Company do not want to employ on permanent contracts.
The CC has essentially been faced with a dilemma. We are not in favour of any 'fixed term' employment contracts. We are however convinced that the work in LBA should be carried out by us as opposed to Sunwing or another third party carrier because we can see a future for LBA as a base for Thomson pilots. We think this because the commercial department tell us that the LBA work for summer 2013 is already selling well.
We do not agree with short term fixed employment for new pilots because it does not fit in with our vision of Thomson Airways as an airline of choice that treats its pilots with dignity and respect, with permanent jobs. We will continue saying this to the Company......

Dave Lawrence has replied with the assurances below; "I would like to emphasise that the introduction of fixed term employment pilots for S13 is to facilitate the LBA flying only and is not driven by any other reason. There will be no more than 10 fixed term employment pilots, the minimum number required to cover the LBA flying. They will all be First Officers, will be directly employed by Thomson Airways and will have the same MoA and salary entitlements as other pilots. Our preferred option for crewing LBA this summer (or other similar requirements in future) was to use TACPS pilots, but as you recognise in your email, this has not been possible due to the training programme this winter. To this end, to avoid this issue in future, we will have a TACPS in place in time to supply pilots to the Summer 14 flying programme. ""
(TACP = Thomson Airways Cadet Pilot)

Hope this helps to provide some factual basis for the discussion here. I know that the preferred route of cadet entry pilots is not good news for experienced people from other backgrounds seeking a change. All I would say is that I was recruited by BA 38 years ago as a cadet entry pilot (Got made redundant before the end of the course and never actually joined BA....some things never change!) so this is not a new system of recruitment. Having said that it would be great to have a mixture of pilots entering Thomson, and all would be welcome.

So I guess that's the nail in the coffin for us hold pool guys.


Ah well at least I got a free pen.....

SkyHigh

I'm afraid I am not privy to the Company's view regarding a hold pool. Having successfully gone through the selection process, provided you remain current on the NG, I guess you are "attractive" to the Company as you would only require an OCC and 4 sectors line training. Cadets would require a full type rating course , so you might be available, subject to the required notice period at your current employer, on a shorter time scale. Whether that is their thinking or not I don't know. Sorry I can't be of more help.

Matey, in all honesty you have done a lot to try and explain the reason why your employer has decided to go down this route. Credit where credit is due. However I'm sure you can understand the obvious disappointment behind those who successfully passed assessment with TOM and in turn assumed that they would be offered something else. People can say what they like, however I would still regard your employer as being a career airline. The people that I know who successfully passed selection were looking to embark on career. As you say this still might happen, however all roads presently suggest otherwise. Shame really.

Kilo
As someone who is involved as a recruiter I am sorry that anyone should feel let down, although I should emphasise that we have no input into how our management choose to employ/hold pool people who are found suitable. I can only repeat that the available permanent positions were all filled by the people who were scored most highly on assessment. The Company then identified the need for flying out of LBA and that this created further jobs which they chose to offer as temporary contracts as the future of the Leeds programme was uncertain. These positions were then offered to the people who had passed the assessment but were not offered a permanent position due to their relative scores. They are, therefore, no worse off than they were originally. I fully appreciate that the terms of the temporary contract are not attractive, and emphasise that this is not a route down which the Company Council and established pilot workforce wish to travel in future. The issue of cadet versus experienced recruitment is a whole other ballgame, and not one over which we as the recruitment team have any influence. Perhaps Yeoman who is a CC member can clarify that better than me if he visits.

Matey;

Although I appreciate that you are trying to help here, publishing that people were offered jobs by "scores" and only those with lower scores were offered temp positions is very unprofessional in my opinion, bit like publishing peoples sim results in the crew room! From one recruiter to another (different company) may i suggest that HR should have a "benchmark" score, anyone over that is deemed suitable.

Indeed so, and then if you have 20 vacancies and 30 suitable how do you award the jobs?

I would have thought that it was perfectly obvious that if you were selected for a temporary contract instead of a permament contract then you have not done as well as the others.

What's the problem?

Some people on this planet ARE better than some others; get over it.

Hear Hear
 

Blue pilot - as you mentioned posting on a "public forum" might I suggest that pointing out somebody's perceived unprofessionalism on the same public forum is, in itself, un-professional? Tongue-twister, but you get my point. If you've got something sensitive to say, put it in a PM. Anything else is just baiting and bitching for the sake of making yourself feel high and mighty. It's childish and the main reason I never go onto this forum unless I have a good reason.

Matey is being very helpful and giving those of us in the hold pool a better idea of what is going on than the blanket response by the company - that's appreciated.

I'm in the hold pool and I have absolutely no doubt that I'm here because I didn't do myself justice on the assessment day. That was my feeling then and this is just the confirmation - however it's nice not to be outright rejected and to think that if somebody suddenly has a re-think I might get a look in. Any information about what is going on is helpful.

i'll second JackN's opinion
transparency is the answer. better to know at least part of the criteria and being able to improve the next time than be left to wonder...