Actually I think we would be foolish to vote YES to the dispensation.
We all know what the company is capable of and what their motives are so why would we risk our flying by creating a precedent.
We will be agreeing to new long range flights such as per/lhr and syd/jfk but that is single sector not multi sector as in LAX/JFK/LAX .To say if you don't want to do them you don't have to bid for them will not work if we have to accept Mel/Sin/Mel or Syd/Sin/Syd or Bne/Sin?bne to mention just a few
It is simplistic to say that the flights are easier than a LA direct but what if the loads are full and there are delays, they are still close to 17 hours and with the time problems a lot of crew are not getting adaquate rest before doing this sector . I feel as though a lot of crew only look at the short term gain from the overtime payments and the company knows this and appeals to it.
I think we should get independent legal advice just not from the faaa and the ACTU legal apprentices we have. I am concerned that the faaa gave the company temporary dispensation without a vote or any communication .Perhaps we should pay a surcharge and get a QC or someother legal rep with experience not just well meaning crew.
I personally do not think that they have enough Kiwi crew to do this without a lot of effort and AS at the faaa actually said to me that they had not worked out how many crew the company would need to do the JFK flights before giving the company the green light.So if the faaa had not done that basic piece of homework,how do we know if they do any other research.
This vote could be a critical to our future so let's tread carefully
Last edited by lowerlobe; 10th Aug 2005 at 14:02.