Kraut & others.
This argument about 5 GDO's, or leave or whatever is a red herring.
With efficient rostering, which I presume both sides want, and with the monthly & annual lmits, these 5 days are a drop in the duty ocean and irrelevant. They will not be able to be used, productively, because crews will alreay have reached their limits.
This whole issue is about jealousy and trying to impose equality when not comparing apples & apples.
Do not try to win the leave or 5 GDO's argument. Go for something far more meaningful, the whole roster scheme.
Why is the company, and the crews, trying to design the type of strait-jacket which best suits their position? Such restrictions help no-one. It has always been stressed that flexibility is a requirement of the industry. Howvever, it always seems to be one-sided, and that is why crews want the predictability of their free time, and want to protect that. It can be a double-edged sword. What will happen, if at the last minute, you want a day off within your duty block? Will it be allowed to swop? Predictable, days off, & GDO's, can be nice to have, but how often do events crop up too late to request a GDO? Flexibility should be a 2 way street.
Mr. A from P. Shift workers, on the ground, are governed by EU worker's directives. They can be rostered and average of 40 hours per week. They have freedom of movement at work; they need rest breaks at work; they work in enviroemntly controlled conditions, generally work to a predicatable pattern etc. etc. Contrast that to crews who can be rostered upto 190hrs pm; do not have freedom of movement over a 12 hour shift; do not enjoy rest breaks away from their work station; do work to an unpredictable sleep changing pattern; do operate in a reduced hunidity and oxygen enviroment.
This point has been made many times before, and never answered: Over 12 years ago, when Kinnock was transport commissoner and the early phases of the workers' directive was being introduced, public transport was allowed a dispensation for a short period. During the time it would take for those industries to readjust and introduce some of the measures enjoyed by ground based workers, transport companies were instructed to create 'compernsation packages for their employees.
I have never met anyone who has benefitted from such packages. Can anyone inform us if any airline, or any transport company, has introduced such a scheme? I wrote to BALPA, ECA and a Eurpoean CAA about this matter in the mid/late 90's. No repsonse except from the Eu. CAA who agreed that something should be done, but that it was not their responsibility.
The national unions were not too concerned with anyone outside the national carrier, wherein they had agreements which gave some sort of compensation already in place.
This compensation would have included issues of the roster pattern, length of duty days and days off etc. If I am in error about this EU directive, will someone please correct me. If not, why have the national unions not insisted on its introduction? Surely your 1% would be better spent in that area; indeed it should be spent in that area. The unions have access to labour lawyers, who in turn should have no problem confirming if that directive exists or not. If it is true, I can't see how CAA's can dismiss their responsibilities to ensure an EU directive, related to their jurisdiction, is not introduced. They are tigers when it comes to inspecting maintenance paperwork & procedures. Why not the same vigor concerning their own rules on rostering?
This ej issue is in danger of resurecting all the threads, which started over 2 years ago, concerning FTL's and life styles across the board. It is a great shame, and deely disappointing, that no progress seems to have been made within the profession as a whole.