FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1969
1969 - 1525.PDF
324 AIR TRANSPORT... FLIGHT International, 27 February 1969 Future of Eagle's apprentices "Flight" recently received a letter from Mr C. D. Peacock, managing director of Airline Engineering Ltd, of Luton Air port, discussing the position of former apprentices of British Eagle. In it he criticised the actions of the Civil Air Transport Industry Training Board; and to give the latter an opportunity of a reply for simultaneous publication we sent them a copy of Mr Peacock's letter. It is published below followed by the board's comments. WHEN British Eagle he writes] went into liquidation on November 8, 1968, Airline Engineering offered to take five <ar six of the apprentices. However, we were originally told that, because we wore a new company and had not paid the levy, it was doubtful whether the Civil Air Trans port Industry Training Board would be able to let the appren tices join us, because we would not be eligible for the grant. We wrote to the board on November 25, telling them that we would waive the grant, that we would allow an accountant from the board, or one nominated by them, to examine the financial status of the company, and we invited discussion with the board on our future plans, so that we could assure them of our stability in the future. On November 29, at the CAT ITB's symposium in East bourne—the day after Transglobe had gone into liquidation— the chairman of the board, Mir Majendie, appealed to all the companies to do what they possibly could to take in the ex-Eagle apprentices; he mentioned the failure of both British Eagle and Transglobe as creating this situation, which made it necessary for us all to try our hardest to accommodate the 75 boys. Having set up all the arrangements, we were then told that the corporations had taken their quota of boys, with full grant facilities being afforded; but that, due to the uncertainty in the industry, no more companies would receive grants in respect of the ex-Eagle apprentices. Further to this, the boys were advised that, until after the Edwards Committee report had come out, they should not join any airline. The following are quotes from the actual address made to the apprentices by a member of the board's staff, at a meeting on December 16, 1968: — "Due to the uncertainty in the air transport industry at present, as further indicated by the recent close-down of Transglobe, the board, at its meeting last Thursday, decided that it was not right to actively encourage former British Eagle apprentices to continue their training with airline operators until after the publication of the report of the Edwards Committee. . . . "It may well be that some of you may, after all, decide that you would prefer to join one of the airline operators or alterna tively you may prefer to move outside of the industry to Hawker Siddeley, British Aircraft Corporation, or one of the other firms we have been contacting. Whilst we would not as a board actively encourage this course of action by continuing to give grants to employers we would certainly do nothing to prevent this." A further illustration of the effect this had on the boys can be seen from a letter received from one of them shortly afterwards. This letter, dated December 17, and addressed to Mr Rainbow, engineering manager of Airline Engineering (until February 1968 technical training manager of British Eagle), reads as follows: — "Thank you for your letter offering an apprenticeship to me, with your company at Luton. Since my interview with you the Civil Air Transport Industry Training Board has advised me to stay in their employ until the Edwards Committee report is pub lished and the air transport situation becomes a little clearer. "I am sure you will appreciate that at this time I feel I must be guided by them, but thank you for your offer." I have protested very strongly about this action on the part of the board; I have told them I consider it very wrong of them to pre-judge the Edwards Committee findings, and that I will fight their decision with every means at my disposal. As we are a small company you will appreciate that this does not amount to an awful lot of fighting power; but, perhaps, on reading this other people in the industry may raise their voices. If anybody reading this letter wishes to send anyone down to me at Luton, he can go through the whole interchange of correspondence on this subject. The comments of the Civil Air Transport Industry Training Board are as follows; the letter is signed by the chairman, Mr A.M. A. Majendie:— Mr Peacock's letter [he writes] raises a number of matters of detail which the Civil Air Transport Industry Training Board has already attempted to deal with in. previous corres pondence with him. The main issues are as follows: — (1) The Civil Air Transport Industry Training Board undertook responsibility for ensuring the continuity of training of former British Eagle apprentices for 12 months from November 8, 1968. This decision, taken with commendable rapidity for a public body, was made within 36 hours of the public announce ment of the closure of British Eagle, and in the light of the prospect of the industry facing a shortage of technical man power in the future. It was felt that every effort should be made to avoid the loss of these young men to the industry. (2) It was decided to arrange for boys to join those employers able and willing to provide appropriate training places, meeting the standards of the board. Training grants were given in respect of such boys who then became apprentices of the companies concerned. The board took no active part in the allocation of which boys went to which employers, merely acting as the agency between the parties. (3) By the date of the next board meeting, on December 12, 1968, the situation was that out of 77 apprentices made redundant by British Eagle, seven had left the industry altogether, 32 had been placed with employers and 38 remained on the payroll of the board. Apart from the 32 boys placed with BUA, BEA and BOAC, no offers of further training places for specific boys had been made. There was a clear danger that more boys would be lost -to the industry unless we could provide them and their parents with a reasonable assurance that their training would continue. In the light of this it was decided to use the remaining money allocated for the training of these boys by providing appropriate training for up to 12 months from the most economic sources. These sources proved to be the Engineering Industry Training Board Group Training Centre at Feltham for the first- and second-year boys, and the RAF School at Halton for third- and fourth-year boys. At both centres the boys are continuing their training to the appropriate syllabus for the civil air transport industry. Throughout this affair we have had as our principal aims the continuation of the training of these boys to an appropriate standard and the retention of their services for the future benefit of the industry. We have been attempting to do this in a period of uncertainty and with a very small staff, making use of temporary assistance for this purpose. Airline Engineering Ltd has been treated no differently from any other employer. That company made an offer to a number of boys after the December board meeting. We have not in any way prevented boys from accepting these offers and, in fact, one boy has accepted. Only Mr Peacock has taken issue with the board over this matter. At every step in the board's decision-taking it has been motivated solely by the best interests of the boys and of the industry as a whole. In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity of putting on record die very real appreciation of the board for the assistance which it has received from the. Royal Air Force and the Engineering ITB in ensuring the continuity of the training of the unplaced boys.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
