Originally Posted by
juliet
Don't get me wrong, Im hoping you're right! But for R6 and R7 all long haul are under 60IP, with plenty of room for 777 pilots to move to 787 and lower the IP there.
And if hours do start to get up by then what will the response be from the pilot group. As I said before, I don't think there will be the same ballot response if the question is maintaining the pay cut for another year vs rehiring pilots.
Yes once the 777 Pilots move across IP will likely go down on the 787, however 787 Pilots are also being moved down the A320.
Still yet to hear exactly how the shuffle is going to happen. Company seems adamant they can do the notional process in one sweep. There's been some push-back on this from the Pilot group however, as it should be done by fleet/rank so any notional vacancies can filter down (specifically C20).
As I read section 11 of the CEA, especially 11.5.2.1, I don't think they can keep flogging the 787 crews above 75 hours for more than 3 rosters. Desperate times and all with COVID, but it seems silly to not utilize the 777 a bit more to spread the work around during the re-shuffle.
In terms of the Ballot, they go hand in hand. The 60IP trigger to re-hire Pilots is only valid for the duration of the AFFA. If we vote not to extend it, then the we give the Company the ability to flog us on max hours without hiring anyone back. Even at 100hrs, IP is still cheaper than hiring more Pilots. I believe being consistently above 80-85 causes Flight and Duty limitations and increase in sickness, but if that becomes the re-hiring trigger then it could be a long wait for those to come back.
Personally, as long my colleagues are redundant I'll be voting to extend it.