@Pilotman: Basé sur ta traduction préliminaire
http://www.pilotman.net/petition-europe ... al-pilots/ de la pétition en français, j'ai pondu ça
(j'ai fait très attention à chaque détails...):
___________________________________
Dear members of the European commission,
I am writing to you
to draw your attention on the practice that consists in
selling flight hours packages to both professional airline pilots and multi-pilot helicopter crews.
Indeed, it is abnormal to have pilots invest
vast amount of money to fill their logbooks flying airliners
while carrying passengers.
And yet, upon buying a flight ticket, one can reasonably assume to be taken care of by professional pilots employed and paid by the company,
however, such is not the case everywhere in Europe.
Nowadays, one can find pilots paying up to sixty thousand euros
(60.000€) for 500 flight hours on an airliner with 150 souls on board in the European Union.
This practice of charging crews, also known as
'line training', raises concerns about the effective responsibility of professional pilots.
Under normal circumstances, pilots are paid to be entrusted with the safety and efficient conduct of the flight. By reversing the cash flow, airlines are positioning themselves as
service providers, thus
reducing or canceling the liability endorsement of the pilot, causing implicit impact on flight safety.
In this respect, 'line training' was recently
outlawed in the United States of America by the US Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), which does not prevent companies like
'EagleJet' (flight hours provider based in Florida, USA) to keep trading pro pilots to air companies operating... in Europe (such as Astraeus Airline, Wizzair , Strategic Airline to name but a few)!
Airlines supporting this business allegedly see no conflict in selling hours to a pilot as the latter is said to do so to gain experience.
This is but
a poor excuse to reduce their operating costs by
withdrawing their investment on copilots who are yet meeting Joint Airworthiness Requirements (JAR) - granting European licenses.
In the meantime, thousands of qualified and unemployed European professional pilots are
unable to find a job partly because,
out of corporate greed, those airlines choose to use
pilots who pay to work.
It goes without saying if we tolerate this
abuse, soon air pilots pay grade will plummet below rational level,
increasing safety issues and killing our profession.
This is why, in the interest of European citizens, airline passengers and professional European pilots flying the European sky,
'line training' must come to an end.
In this regard, we, professional pilots, ask of our European parliament to legislate on this matter by
implementing a set of laws that would
prohibit commercial airlines from selling flight hours to professional pilots.
If such request proved overambitious considering its various national implications, we request airlines to disclose this practice in the most visible way possible so as to get passengers clearly informed they sell flight hours to their pilots.
We hope this petition will engage your attention and induce the commission to take adequate measures.
Respectfully,
The professional pilots of Europe
___________________________________
(j'éditerai au fur et à mesure des remarques si nécessaire)
Edit:
proposé par raf47:
- buying a flight ticket
(au lieu de "an flight ticket", coquille corrigée)
- les 30 000 € à mon avis tu peux facilement doubler
(ça m'a pas l'air aberrant. Rectifié)
- "amazing" enlevé, et "air" pilots à la fin
(remplacé par "killing our profession", et signature changée)
proposé par panpan18:
- "to file a complaint against" remplacé par "to draw your attention to"
par moi même:
- mise en gras de "prohibit commercial airlines from selling [...]"
Avec l'aide de mon amie:
- We are writing to you (et pas "I am")
- draw your attention on (et pas "to")
- "flabbergasting" remplacé par "abnormal" pour le ton
- "the effective responsibility" et pas "the actual effective..." cause redondance
- "outrageous excuse" remplacé par "poor excuse", cause ton (et il ne nous revient pas de juger de l'outrage mais plutôt que les faits soient assez bien décrits pour qu'ils parlent d'eux-même)
- "There is no telling" remplacé par "It goes without saying" cause, le sens.
- après "abuse", "industry gone too far" enlevé, cause ton (dommage je voulais le garder, mais encore une fois ce n'est pas à nous de juger)
- ponctuaction "we, professionnal..."
- "their practice"->"this practice"
- "notified" -> "informed"
-" an official list containing all of them not being out of the question." eliminé (ils trouveront les solutions s'ils se penchent sur le problème)
- phrase de conclusion rajoutée.
On tient la version finale.
Qui se dévoue pour voir les syndic pour co-signer la lettre?
).
?