Your Proxy
1st Aug 2011, 12:41
In the height of economic gloom in Feb 2009, AS sent a letter to all pilots raising the productivity threshold for all pilots from 78 to 92 hours on the basis that everyone was doing more ULR flights and times were hard. This may have been justifiable if everyone was actually doing the same amount of ULR and non-ULR - but clearly this was not the case or likely to be. What was omitted was any comment on those who could seldom or never do ULR. A sweeping change based on an erroneous assumption hitting pay packets squarely in the jaw. Given the opening paragraph it was also reasonable to expect these "difficult decisions" to be reviewed when the situation improved. Later all were told this would never happen
Naturally those who were working hard and achieving relatively high hours despite doing no ULR trips were now going to work hard with much less financial reward, if any.
This was not well received by anyone particularly those unable/unlikely to do ULR at all. Now they could be made to work extensive duties on regional and subcontinent turnarounds often at night with minimum days off at no productivity cost to the company or reward to the crews. The 92 hours productivity threshold became the new rostering target - sometimes even higher.
The fundamental problem was this: With ULR making up some portion of the roster it was possible to still achieve the threshold 92 Block hours without particularly high Duty Hours. However those condemned to short and medium haul found they had to do many more Duty hours to get to the targeted 92 (or higher) Block hours that was the measure of productivity.
With Airbus 330 pilots (and trainers) unlikely to do ULR, it became common to see duty times of 140 hours (and often higher) to achieve the target 92 hours block. On the other fleets this was more likely to be around 105 duty hours to get to the 92 block hours .
In effect they were working harder, spending more time at work and having less time off for the same pay. The general perception was this was grossly unfair. This did not even take into account the extra duty spent at work that is never officially recognised and obviously ramped up with increased number of duties conducted.
In February 2011 the crescendo of complaints was such that Duty Time was removed from the published rosters leaving only Block Time for comparison. Out of sight for comparison then hopefully out of mind... Some excuse was given for this removal but most pilots remained cynical. It reinforced the perception of unfair work distribution being recognised but not addressed. It also begged the question as to whether Duty time was going to be monitored at all.
All hope that this was a temporary sacrifice to get the company through lean times was now gone. It went on to making massive profits and there was no suggestion that the productivity threshold would be reviewed to "spread the joy" to the workers. Bigger profits meant bigger bonus especially higher up the food chain so as some pilots became more haggard by the day or aged visibly, some managers collected multiples of the "profit share" declared.
Given the endless horizon of high duty hours with minimal time off and no respite, arguments were made for some recognition of the extra duty time (that also resulted in less days off) associated with short haul flying to achieve the target block hours because rosters were published to simply balance block time and not duty time or even number of duties.
The company argued that one could not make comparisons on Duty Hours as duties were very different and could not be compared. The strains of ULR could not be compared to those of multiple sectors short haul for example. Block Hours was unilaterally decided to be the only valid measurement for work/productivity.
However this reasoning now appears lacks consistency in both policy and remuneration application with recent developments
Pilots can not change fleets at a whim. However trainers can resign their post and this began to happen. The multiple duties and minimal days off often forced some to sacrifice training pay for lifestyle and return to the line as the number of training duties were increasing to the range of 15 to 20 per month, mostly multiple sector short haul or simulator.
Clearly the solution was to offer more financial incentive to keep them. This was pushed hard by the Training Department, to their credit.
Initially the target number of training duties envisaged was 12 per month the rest of the roster would be a break from training. There was a marginal reward for duties above 12 which previously had seldom occurred enough to have significant financial impact. But as the The Training Dept was pressured to deliver more and more from trainers, they, again to their credit, have pushed this allowance higher so now any duty above the requisite 12 now earns a Dhs 1000 reward. This is logical, reasonable and incentivises the rostering folk to spread the load and possibly entice more into training therefore improving lifestyle for all. While it does not recognise Duty Time per-se, it certainly rewards for multiple duties often with limited recovery time in between, and makes up for the loss of days off.
Kudos to the training managers for achieving "the right thing to do". Not perfect but a healthy step in the right direction.
Now a hardworking Instructor gets his salary, his training pay, his hourly pay, possibly overtime, and 1000 Dhs for any training duty above 12. (Nearly every duty they do is a training duty anyway). He may only get the minimum days off but this has been compensated for financially. A happy balance in recognising not only Block Time but acknowledging Duties worked as relevant.
So...
Why the double standard? Why are line pilots doing more than 12 duties not likewise being remunerated? It is one obvious way to balance the blatant work differential that can exist and also make up for the loss of days off. The precedent has been set and acknowledged within the training sphere. Arguments that duties are not comparable are dead in the water. A line pilot can only do ULR or Non-ULR duties; a trainer, however, can do those and even more - like simulator, classroom instruction, office days etc.
Duty it seems is duty and it is irrelevant as to what it is. This should not be surprising as it is in any other industry. Time at work is what counts - so much so that workers clock in and out. Temp secretaries submit time sheets despite typing or being on the phone.
The train driver or bus driver does not only get paid when the vehicle moves, he gets paid for the time it stops too! He still maintains responsibilities at work. The block hours used in aviation remuneration is an aberration introduced by the aviation industry to cut pay based on regulation that was designed and intended to account accurately for hours logged to a pilot or aircraft. It does not pretend to make any recognition of work being done. The time the crew spend in setting up the cockpit is acknowledged as a high pressure, work intensive, error prone time. To pretend its not work or should not be financially recognised is preposterous. Airlines will certainly take a dim view of it being badly conducted and constantly reiterate the attendant risks. It is here where potentially catastrophic mistakes can and have been made but those who do it more often are paid less! Likewise a crew reviewing the route and weather are conducting their duties for which they are employed, trained and entrusted. No rational man can claim this is not work.
It seems our industry has been distorted by cost cutting. But there is no need for companies to abandon common sense. It seems that this has prevailed in the Training Department but why not throughout the company?
Nobody likes an unbalanced system or distorted remuneration for their labours. But we seem to have a double standard here. Can anyone enlighten me or perhaps demonstrate why the system is in fact fair because it sure does not look that way?
Naturally those who were working hard and achieving relatively high hours despite doing no ULR trips were now going to work hard with much less financial reward, if any.
This was not well received by anyone particularly those unable/unlikely to do ULR at all. Now they could be made to work extensive duties on regional and subcontinent turnarounds often at night with minimum days off at no productivity cost to the company or reward to the crews. The 92 hours productivity threshold became the new rostering target - sometimes even higher.
The fundamental problem was this: With ULR making up some portion of the roster it was possible to still achieve the threshold 92 Block hours without particularly high Duty Hours. However those condemned to short and medium haul found they had to do many more Duty hours to get to the targeted 92 (or higher) Block hours that was the measure of productivity.
With Airbus 330 pilots (and trainers) unlikely to do ULR, it became common to see duty times of 140 hours (and often higher) to achieve the target 92 hours block. On the other fleets this was more likely to be around 105 duty hours to get to the 92 block hours .
In effect they were working harder, spending more time at work and having less time off for the same pay. The general perception was this was grossly unfair. This did not even take into account the extra duty spent at work that is never officially recognised and obviously ramped up with increased number of duties conducted.
In February 2011 the crescendo of complaints was such that Duty Time was removed from the published rosters leaving only Block Time for comparison. Out of sight for comparison then hopefully out of mind... Some excuse was given for this removal but most pilots remained cynical. It reinforced the perception of unfair work distribution being recognised but not addressed. It also begged the question as to whether Duty time was going to be monitored at all.
All hope that this was a temporary sacrifice to get the company through lean times was now gone. It went on to making massive profits and there was no suggestion that the productivity threshold would be reviewed to "spread the joy" to the workers. Bigger profits meant bigger bonus especially higher up the food chain so as some pilots became more haggard by the day or aged visibly, some managers collected multiples of the "profit share" declared.
Given the endless horizon of high duty hours with minimal time off and no respite, arguments were made for some recognition of the extra duty time (that also resulted in less days off) associated with short haul flying to achieve the target block hours because rosters were published to simply balance block time and not duty time or even number of duties.
The company argued that one could not make comparisons on Duty Hours as duties were very different and could not be compared. The strains of ULR could not be compared to those of multiple sectors short haul for example. Block Hours was unilaterally decided to be the only valid measurement for work/productivity.
However this reasoning now appears lacks consistency in both policy and remuneration application with recent developments
Pilots can not change fleets at a whim. However trainers can resign their post and this began to happen. The multiple duties and minimal days off often forced some to sacrifice training pay for lifestyle and return to the line as the number of training duties were increasing to the range of 15 to 20 per month, mostly multiple sector short haul or simulator.
Clearly the solution was to offer more financial incentive to keep them. This was pushed hard by the Training Department, to their credit.
Initially the target number of training duties envisaged was 12 per month the rest of the roster would be a break from training. There was a marginal reward for duties above 12 which previously had seldom occurred enough to have significant financial impact. But as the The Training Dept was pressured to deliver more and more from trainers, they, again to their credit, have pushed this allowance higher so now any duty above the requisite 12 now earns a Dhs 1000 reward. This is logical, reasonable and incentivises the rostering folk to spread the load and possibly entice more into training therefore improving lifestyle for all. While it does not recognise Duty Time per-se, it certainly rewards for multiple duties often with limited recovery time in between, and makes up for the loss of days off.
Kudos to the training managers for achieving "the right thing to do". Not perfect but a healthy step in the right direction.
Now a hardworking Instructor gets his salary, his training pay, his hourly pay, possibly overtime, and 1000 Dhs for any training duty above 12. (Nearly every duty they do is a training duty anyway). He may only get the minimum days off but this has been compensated for financially. A happy balance in recognising not only Block Time but acknowledging Duties worked as relevant.
So...
Why the double standard? Why are line pilots doing more than 12 duties not likewise being remunerated? It is one obvious way to balance the blatant work differential that can exist and also make up for the loss of days off. The precedent has been set and acknowledged within the training sphere. Arguments that duties are not comparable are dead in the water. A line pilot can only do ULR or Non-ULR duties; a trainer, however, can do those and even more - like simulator, classroom instruction, office days etc.
Duty it seems is duty and it is irrelevant as to what it is. This should not be surprising as it is in any other industry. Time at work is what counts - so much so that workers clock in and out. Temp secretaries submit time sheets despite typing or being on the phone.
The train driver or bus driver does not only get paid when the vehicle moves, he gets paid for the time it stops too! He still maintains responsibilities at work. The block hours used in aviation remuneration is an aberration introduced by the aviation industry to cut pay based on regulation that was designed and intended to account accurately for hours logged to a pilot or aircraft. It does not pretend to make any recognition of work being done. The time the crew spend in setting up the cockpit is acknowledged as a high pressure, work intensive, error prone time. To pretend its not work or should not be financially recognised is preposterous. Airlines will certainly take a dim view of it being badly conducted and constantly reiterate the attendant risks. It is here where potentially catastrophic mistakes can and have been made but those who do it more often are paid less! Likewise a crew reviewing the route and weather are conducting their duties for which they are employed, trained and entrusted. No rational man can claim this is not work.
It seems our industry has been distorted by cost cutting. But there is no need for companies to abandon common sense. It seems that this has prevailed in the Training Department but why not throughout the company?
Nobody likes an unbalanced system or distorted remuneration for their labours. But we seem to have a double standard here. Can anyone enlighten me or perhaps demonstrate why the system is in fact fair because it sure does not look that way?