Cargolux does - for the most part - PX their crews on their own freighters. In some rather rare circumstances, they will provide full business class ticket (which allows access to the business lounges, etc.).
As this is rather expensive, the crews are likely to stay a few more days longer in the hotels while waiting for the next freighter to come trough. (Admittedly, these are very good hotels, several levels up from CX hotels). Either way, a hotel is not home - and it gets old very quickly.
Therefore, the average trip is very long compared to CX. A 10 day trip would be considered short. It is more like 14+ days on average. So one should be careful, what to wish for.
On the other hand, Cargolux (or any other Airline, that I know of) does NOT roster its pilots to perform 18+ hour duties, by regularly appending PX sectors, immediately following an operating sector.
Personally, that is where my problem lies with PX ing.
I really don't mind in the least to PX on a freighter - I actually even prefer it, but I don't want to be stuck on an airplane for more than 18 hours, regardless whether it is operating or otherwise. It is just not healthy.
So far, I have not seen the AOA addressing any of this.....still hopefully waiting.
The question is why do we have to PX so much? Answer, the bases are not crewed properly. A PX or PT is 0 productivity gain for the company. It shouldn't be in their interest to PT or PX us on the scale they are doing it. Open the Basings bid again and offer vacancies where they are needed. I agree do not sign the consent form. The abuse has to stop. Operating a 11 hour flight and then staying for another 10 - 15 hours on the same aircraft is just not healthy.
Hands up those who have been 'Rostered' to PX the likes of MAN-FRA-DXB-HKG-Min rest-PX MAA- RP MAA-FRA-PX MAN and then think that this is acceptable. This is an extremely debilitating pattern and is quite common. For those on the 777 the life style change/fatique issues coming your way you cannot comprehend until you have experienced them. While I would occasionally be OK PXing on the Freighter a unilateral Yes or No I believe has to be voted as a NO.
And as for manning on bases, the whole operation would work just fine and be simpler to roster if there was just 1 base where all a/c pass though for every single pattern: HKG. Every flight can be manned from HKG to the "base" and back, just as it is done in reverse now for based pilots. There is no argument for "manning" bases "properly" because no level is required. It is just a compromise that some benefit from, particularly the company, while most don't.
Regardless of someone's wishes and preferences, bases complicate the rosters, deny most seniority-based roster requests, and simply are not necessary. They exist, and will continue to exist, as long as they save the company money while allowing the operation to continue the way the company wants. With 100% of a/c flowing through HKG, there is only 1 location where it is most practical and flexible to have all the pilots, not dispersed around the globe to suit 1 or 2 possible routes.
As for the long patterns, many would love to have Fedex/UPS/Cargolux-style 14 day patterns follwed by 17 days off in a row. Those who don't could simply stick with the dozens of 2-3 day-long options. There's enough for everyone to be happy...most of the time.
Those of you that sign the letter will continue to enjoy the DAK-HAN PX to operate HAN-HKG while I take Dragon Air directly to HAN to operate the short flight back. Max FDP for one, less than half for the other.
BTW, I can also get off the freighter and get on the Dragon Air back to HKG too.
Don't sign unless you absolutely rely on PXing on the freighter. There are some spectacular examples of roster abuse regularly practised by CC that make our eyes water. You find yourself in the car park to drive home after a rostered duty of 28 hours plus. I'm surprised the law allows it - let alone the medics!
How can we complain and go to court over the company ignoring our COS when it suits them if we are allowing ourselves to ignore our COS when it suits us?
If nobody consents to this PX thing, then everyone will get more credit and more overtime and therefore more days off and/or more money. WTF is wrong with everyone?
How about if some of us sign consent forms to consent to the company COS waiving issues regarding seniority? "I personally might/will (temporarily) benefit (or so I think) if I waive the requirement to wait for my seniority to entitle me to an upgrade/pay rise/leave choice/roster request/basing/joker/etc."
WTF? If we don't respect what's in our COS, why would we expect the company to?
If we want a change to our COS (or RPs, housing, anything) then we need to negotiate away something in their favour to get it....like we have naively done all the time, and usually ended up suffering the unexpected consequences they had up their sleeves.
If the company wants a change to our COS, they just send consent forms (if any) without negotiating anything in our favour in exchange...and some crew consent/submit/give in/accept. WTF?
Last edited by Iron Skillet; 13th May 2012 at 02:22.
Iron man You have made many brilliant points. Well done. Everyone - if in doubt, go back to the beginning of this thread and read all of I S's points. DO NOT SIGN. Also - how about the 'normality' of writing in the letter that it applies to about 20 different Conditions of Service!! Wannabes beware!
Last edited by Arfur Dent; 12th May 2012 at 08:29.
1) Fit the freighters with current long haul business class seating/IFE. 2) Fit the bunks with IFE. 3) Give full credit for px'ing. 4) Give us the facility to take our partners/companions with us on those ridiculously long freighter patterns like other freighter operators! 5) Approach the AOA with the above and then allow the membership to vote on your proposal.
THEN, you'll probably get your revenue-generating business class seats back!!!
maybe 50 guys will sign. They will all be people with a commute and an expectation that they can tweak the system.
the reality is that they will be screwed. Many people will not sign anything without a clear benefit. In addition there is a sizable minority who will sign nothing because they are required to actually do something.
So Cathay ends up with 50(or 60 or?) guys who want to PX 168 hours a month on the freighter. Those guys will end up with some interesting rosters!
At worst, a few guys will rack up plenty of frequent flier miles from PT instead of PX, and take the family somewhere.
And they will find that when PX can't be used to keep them on fake R and EXB days, or make them "work" more due to receiving 100% credit for non-PX flights, and more credit for longer PT flights, they will end up going to work less and being home more, too. Why else would you think the company wants guys agreeing to PX on freighters...because it helps the guys out??? Seriously, come on!
Last edited by Iron Skillet; 12th May 2012 at 17:16.
Iron Skillet, since all except Canada and Australia ARE technically on individual contracts (albeit a contract designed and discussed between the company and the AOA) each pilot DOES have the right to modify his or her individual contract.
True, that does nothing for solidarity, but, when have you seen solidarity accomplish anything around here?
Sure, you can take care of just yourself, cause you're all right, without sticking together to get something first. Did you forget that whole contract compliance threat hanging over the company not too long ago, because we stuck together?
Since they want something from you (consent form) then have they or you schedule your negotiations to find out what they are offering you in return for altering your COS?
Or you can just give away what little leverage you have to maintain the status quo, with no written agreement as to what will happen, how it will happen, what it will mean and how it will affect you when the situation (a/c, routes, basings, FTLs, RPs, etc.) changes in the future?
Come on, man...you'd be a fool to give in at the first offer in any "sale" of what you have that they want...specially when you are interested in just giving it away. Short term thinking, with short term memories, it seems...
Last edited by Iron Skillet; 13th May 2012 at 22:10.
The AOA and the company come to an agreement on this, let just for arguments sake say full credit for PX.
BUT then CX claims it doesn't apply to the guys who already agreed to PXing on the freighter, they signed an agreement. So now you are still stuck with .5 factor for PX while the rest will have 1 to 1.
How would you feel then.
It might not be credit factor, it could be anything else, but surely you can imagine CX saying it only applies to whoever didn't agree in the first place
Guys wouldn't have 12-day patterns if they were not PXing on the freighter. But, with so many sectors per month at 50% credit, they are available for much more flying before hitting their 84th credit hour.
If nobody would PX, everyone would work less and therefore get paid more for the same amount of work. WTF is so hard to understand?
And guys would be rostered to operate to their home base, not PT. As it is, the company is scheduling an extra 20 pilots to work each day just to avoid paying even 1 guy some overtime. That's easy with so many flying at 50% credit. But with nobody at 50% credit, the rosters will get more efficient (less work days/less flights for the same pay), more rewarding for the pilots (more pay for same flights), or generate more overtime (more pay for more flights) and obviously, if earning double or more than double the credit (100%/107%/115% vs. 50%) for 2 or 5 or 8 sectors per month, pilots will have more days off. Why do you think the company loves freighter PXing? WTF is so hard to understand?
We know there are plenty of pilots (certain bases/fleets/conditions combinations) who rarely come near 84 credit hours per month, and they would have to start taking on some of the load left behind by those no longer working at 50% credit while remaining below 84 credit hours. Why do you think the company loves freighter PXing? WTF is so hard to understand?
Last edited by Iron Skillet; 15th May 2012 at 02:43.