Gulers Partners
Contact
Employment Law

PILOTS’ EMPLOYMENT RECEIVABLES: AN ASSESSMENT IN LIGHT OF THE TURKISH CODE OF OBLIGATIONS REGIME, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

The legal framework governing pilots’ employment receivables differs from classical labor law practice and exhibits a multi-layered structure. Pursuant to Article 4 of the Turkish Labor Code No. 4857, pilots engaged directly in flight and dispatch operations fall outside the scope of the Labor Code. Consequently, they are subject not to the Labor Code, but to the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 concerning service contracts, as well as to applicable Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs), if any. This normative distinction leads to the application of procedural rules different from those of the Labor Code, particularly regarding job security, termination procedures, and severance-related compensation. Judicial precedents demonstrate that pilots’ remuneration structures consist of a “base (bare) salary” and flight-dependent payment components (such as flight compensation and sector/leg-based payments). This distinction plays a decisive role in calculating receivables such as severance-like compensation and annual leave pay. The nature and contractual definition of wage components constitute the primary determining factor in resolving disputes. On the other hand, for flight personnel serving within the police force or as reserve pilots within the Turkish Armed Forces, neither general labor law nor the Code of Obligations regime applies. Their financial and personal rights are governed by special statutes such as Laws No. 926 and 6160. Therefore, when assessing pilots’ employment receivables, the first step must be determining their legal status; the applicable legal framework, competent jurisdiction, and calculation principles should then be systematically identified.

Avukat Mine KENANOĞLU
February 23, 2026

I. LEGAL STATUS AND APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Exclusion from the Scope of the Labor Code

Under Article 4 of the Turkish Labor Code No. 4857, pilots engaged directly in flight and dispatch duties are excluded from the scope of the Labor Code. Accordingly:

  1. The job security provisions set forth in Articles 18 et seq. of the Labor Code do not apply.
  2. The reinstatement (re-employment) procedure cannot be directly invoked.
  3. Severance and notice compensation are not calculated pursuant to the Labor Code but rather evaluated in accordance with contractual provisions and the Turkish Code of Obligations.

This demonstrates that, in disputes concerning pilots’ employment receivables, the first and most crucial step is determining the pilot’s legal status and identifying the applicable legislative framework.

B. Service Contract Regime under the Turkish Code of Obligations

For pilots, the primary legal framework is found in the provisions governing service contracts under the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098.

Within this framework:

  • Freedom of termination is broader;
  • Notice periods and their consequences are shaped by contractual provisions;
  • Liability for compensation is determined pursuant to the general provisions of the Code of Obligations and the contractual terms agreed upon by the parties.

Accordingly, pilots’ employment-related rights are largely structured within the framework of contractual freedom and party autonomy.

C. The Role of Collective Bargaining Agreements

For unionized pilots, Collective Bargaining Agreements serve as a superior normative framework regarding wages, compensation, and social benefits. In disputes:

  • Individual employment contracts are interpreted together with the CBA;
  • CBA provisions often take precedence;
  • Wage components and entitlements are determined in light of CBA provisions.

Thus, CBAs play a significant and determinative role in pilot-related employment disputes.

D. Pilots Subject to Special Status

Flight personnel serving within the police force or the Turkish Armed Forces are subject neither to the Labor Code nor to the service contract regime of the Code of Obligations. Their employment-related rights are regulated by special legislation, and disputes fall within the jurisdiction of administrative courts.

II. WAGE STRUCTURE AND CALCULATION PRINCIPLES

A. Distinction Between Base Salary and Flight-Dependent Payments

Judicial precedents recognize that pilots’ wage systems are multi-component in nature. Remuneration generally consists of:

  • A fixed (base/bare) salary specified in the contract,
  • Flight compensation,
  • Sector (leg)-based payments,
  • Per diem and ancillary benefits.

This distinction is particularly decisive in calculating post-termination receivables. Under the Code of Obligations regime, the scope of wages is primarily determined by contractual provisions.

B. Flight Compensation

Flight compensation constitutes the principal variable payment component, calculated based on flight hours or contractual conditions.

In some contracts, flight compensation is subject to a maximum cap (e.g., 4,000 USD per month). In disputes, courts require verification of actual flight hours based on the pilot’s personal records.

Key evidentiary documents include:

  • Flight logbooks,
  • Company operational records,
  • Payroll statements.

Moreover, substantial unilateral changes in payment conditions (e.g., removal of a 20-hour threshold) cannot be valid without the employee’s written consent. Rights that have become established workplace practices cannot be unilaterally abolished.

C. Sector-Based Payments

Sector-based payments represent additional remuneration paid per flight leg, particularly to captains.

The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has held that sector compensation is not embedded within flight compensation but is calculated and paid separately in company practice.

Even where the contract remains silent, managerial emails or past payment records may serve as evidence of an “incentive-based additional payment.” Established and continuous workplace practices may create vested rights, even absent explicit contractual regulation.

D. Per Diem and Overnight Expenses

These payments cover accommodation and related expenses incurred during assignments. Unpaid per diem (e.g., 1,690 USD) may be claimed together with wage receivables and can form the subject of a lawsuit under the Code of Obligations.

III. TERMINATION REGIME AND COMPENSATION ISSUES

A. Differences in Job Security

Since pilots fall outside the Labor Code, the classical reinstatement mechanism does not apply. Judicial review of termination is conducted within the framework of:

  • The principle of good faith,
  • Breach of contract,
  • Abuse of rights.

B. Notice Periods and Penalty Clauses

Parties may stipulate:

  • Notice periods,
  • Termination-related penalty clauses,
  • Compensation multiples.

These provisions are subject to judicial review under the proportionality principle within the Code of Obligations framework.

The sale of an aircraft or suspension of flight operations does not, in itself, constitute just cause for termination.

C. Severance-Type Compensation

There is no statutory severance pay system under the Code of Obligations. However, contractual or CBA-based severance-like compensation may be provided.

In such cases:

  • Eligibility conditions and calculation methods are determined by contract,
  • The Labor Code’s severance system does not directly apply.

According to established case law of the 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, annual leave pay should be calculated based on the “bare salary” stipulated in the contract, unless otherwise agreed, rather than on a “grossed-up wage” including flight compensation.

If termination occurs without just cause and contractual notice periods (e.g., three months) are not observed, contractual penalty clauses or compensation multipliers (e.g., triple compensation) may apply.

In certain service contracts, flight compensation is agreed to cover flights performed on public holidays. In such cases, the pilot may not claim additional national holiday and general holiday pay (UBGT).

IV. BONUSES, PERFORMANCE PAY, AND TRAINING COSTS

A. Bonus Systems and Distribution Conditions

Performance- or profit-sharing bonuses are governed by company procedures. Conditions such as “being employed on the distribution date” are considered valid under the principle of contractual freedom.

If a pilot resigns before the distribution date, they may not be entitled to the bonus pursuant to company procedures.

B. Training Costs and Reimbursement

Contracts frequently include reimbursement clauses for costly training programs, such as type-rating training.

In judicial review, courts consider:

  • The actual cost of training,
  • The committed service period,
  • The pilot’s actual working duration,
  • The principle of proportionality.

The date of actual commencement of flight duties is critical. Some decisions indicate that pilot candidates receive only a percentage of flight compensation until they begin actual flight operations and become entitled to full remuneration thereafter.

V. BURDEN OF PROOF AND DISPUTE MANAGEMENT

Under the Code of Obligations regime, the scope of wages and additional payments is contract-based; therefore, written evidence is of primary importance.

In pilot disputes, decisive evidence includes:

  • The employment contract,
  • CBA provisions,
  • Payroll records,
  • Flight logbooks,
  • Company correspondence,
  • Operational records.

Particularly in high-income employment relationships, bank records and flight logs constitute fundamental evidence.

Conclusion

Pilots’ employment receivables are subject to a contract-based legal regime centered on the Turkish Code of Obligations, distinct from the Labor Code system.

When assessing disputes:

  1. The pilot’s legal status must first be clarified;
  2. The applicable legal framework (Code of Obligations, CBA, or special legislation) must be determined;
  3. Wage components must be distinguished according to contractual definitions;
  4. Claims must be supported by technical and documentary evidence.

In particular, the exclusion of flight compensation from annual leave pay calculations and the inclusion of public holiday work within flight compensation represent critical legal interpretations that may produce unfavorable outcomes for pilots.

In disputes concerning pilots’ employment receivables, a contract-centered and technically supported analytical methodology must be adopted instead of classical labor law assumptions.

PreviousNext