jtr
yeah I don't get it either. I just assume that the GC of the time thought it was the best path to follow! With 20/20 hindsight I think I would rather have taken them to court using MAG's case, than have RP04 and then fallback!!!!
W2
I have spoken to the AOA rostering egg heads. They are of the firm belief that fallback hurts us, not CX. If you can illuminate an alternative argument I would love to hear it.
No its not doom and gloom if we end up on fallback and yes they can do another 'sign or be fired' if it is in our COS. But I would rather have the choice to sign or be fired than have RPs as CX policy, unilaterally changeable by them. So if we go to the fallback we will most likely end up in a situation where we will never need to worry about 'sign or be fired' as they can change RPs right up to AFTLS limits...and even those can be changed with the approval of CAD. I would rather have 3man ULR in my contract than subject to collusion between CX/CAD!
What I would like to see is quantitative information. Not generalisations(of which I know I am guilty;-) of how the company will be unable to man the fleet on fallback. Why? What extra protections do we have in fallback? I know the initial position on May 1st is 6hr reserve(which I like) and 5-4-3. I don't understand the dynamics but I know that we lose 5-4-3 at some stage(within 4 years). Maybe someone in the know can explain it better.
Anyway, lets talk about 6hr reserve and 5-4-3.
There is no doubt that they will need to roster more reserve under fallback. On ULR fleets that is do-able. On the 777??? On the bus with its mixed fleet flying it is also do-able(IMHO). Have you been G/O days off limited in your rostering over the last 2 years?
5-4-3...this means 3 days off before a regional...so if you are bus or 777 from late this year you will get 3days off instead of the table X minimum of 2(or more). I can only go by my rosters and what I hear from others; none of us have been days off limited. I suspect the 777 may be. I think that will alleviate with the 777ERs bringing them more into airbus rostering. On the 400...hmmmm....some ULR patterns are 3 days, most are 4 and a few are longer. Take the average of 4 and you can do 3 1/2 patterns per month under 5-4-3 for about 84ish hrs. So, can't see where it hurts them. People wanting to commute will still waive their 5-4-3 for W patterns. The 700 'productive' hr limit applies to about 20 to 30 people..with the 14% loading for 2man crew on RP07 it equates to about 800 credit hrs anyway(close to what we do now!).
So I really can't see how fallback hurts CX in the short term and I know that they will be better off in the longterm under AFTLS!
The assumption that everything they offer is bad is understandable. But in 1993 they offered CPAPF in lieu of CPALRS (A scale PF) to any A scalers that wanted it. Well, 2 of my very financially savvy friends and I worked out that the new 15.5% scheme was better than the old A scale scheme for about 11-13 years. And in fact it is better for people that have done 17years than staying in CPALRS.
My point is not everything the company offers has to be bad for us, good for them.
I am curious as to what would happen in the fallback...whether a court would find our RPs contractual or CX policy, but I am not prepared to 'volunteer'(by voting RP07 down) for a few years of crappy rostering to find out.
I am still firmly a YES voter....I wait to read/hear information that would make me vote otherwise.