I am a Pearl Aviation pilot and an AFAP member.
From discussions with other pilots, and from what I have heard on the grapevine, there is quite some angst over what has been raised in the AFAP-produced document that was emailed to us all recently.
Contributing to that angst is a perception that the company has underhandedly and quietly made a number of changes to the draft CA document that was presented to the pilots in February.
My motivation for this post is because I feel that, 1, the AFAP document has presented a deliberately biased and unfair analysis of details in the proposed CA, and that 2, the perception that the company has been underhanded cannot be justified. My reasoning for these opinions is below.
Please note that this post is concerned only with the AFAP document and our perception of the company’s conduct. My views on the proposed CA may follow in a subsequent post.
Firstly, my thoughts on the AFAP document.
The document is titled “Negotiation objectives” and contains a section that lists the changes (made by the company) between the draft CA and the CA document that we will be voting on. I will withhold my comments on the way the changes were made till later in this post.
The AFAP document gives the impression it is a full account of all the changes, and that all these changes are bad for the pilots. In fact, it is not a full account as those changes that are beneficial to the pilots are not mentioned (e.g. the increase in area allowance). And, several of the changes that are listed (and claimed to be bad) are actually beneficial to the pilots.
Also, several of the supposed changes were not actually changed. There are 5 such items and their wording in the proposed CA is identical to that of the draft.
After noticing that the area allowance changes weren’t included in the AFAP list, I wondered what other changes (beneficial to the pilots) there may have been. I hope to get time to go through both documents searching for more.
There are 23 “change” items (including the 5 that weren’t actually changed). 22 of these items have AFAP comments printed alongside. I have categorised the 22 items into groups according to the AFAP comments or the effect of the change. At the end of this post I will list each item, its category and give a short explanation for its categorisation.
Here follows a list of my categories with a few comments and a count of the items in that category. I start with the category of most concern to us:
Definitely detrimental to pilots (1 item)
A clear cut case. No ambiguity. The item in question concerns the reduction from 8 weeks to 2 weeks of the period during training that the company will pay for accommodation when a new pilot is receiving training at their designated base.
Possibly detrimental to pilots (2 items)
I say “possibly” because it can be argued that, for both of these items, the pilots are no worse off, and could actually be better off. For example, consider the clause re rostering to achieve a weekend off. The new wording appears to make it less likely we will get weekends off, when in fact it actually brings a certainty to getting one of the days off.
There is no such certainty contained in the wording being replaced, however. See what I mean? Is this change of detriment or benefit? I look closer at the two wordings in the item by item treatment later.
The other item in this category is to do with the meal allowances. See later.
Improvement for pilots (3 items)
Clear cut, unambiguous improvements such as the increases to training salary and remuneration for calibration contract pilots. That the AFAP comment alongside each of these items seeks to portray the improvement as somehow “negative” is the reason why I have described this whole document as “deliberately biased and unfair”.
Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion (9)
Almost half the document is in this category. It is quite clear that the AFAP staff member making the comment did not understand what the original clause meant, or why the clause was changed. It is also obvious that no consultation occurred between the AFAP and our pilot reps on each of these changes, and I will be asking our pilot reps why they have allowed this to happen, and why they have taken no action to correct these misunderstandings.
In all 9 instances, the change to the clause was to effect a wording change for the purpose of improving and/or clarifying the clause.
For example, consider the “Schedule A 3.5” change. The change to the wording was the addition of some words to clarify when overtime meal allowance can be claimed. The extra words simply say that you can’t claim it for sitting at home watching TV with the girlfriend.
The AFAP analysis of this change is that “the company is trying to remove this right from Airmed pilots” (!). How’s that for a jump to a false conclusion?
Three of these wording changes involve the addition of a single word into the clause. Here is another example, with a similarly wild leap to conclusion by the AFAP:
“Schedule A 3.9”. The word “late” has been inserted into the clause so as to clarify when the reimbursement can be claimed. The wording now reads “pilots who are rostered for more than 8 late night operations … will be reimbursed …”. The AFAP analysis of this change: “inserting this word removes all entitlements you previously had” (!).
The other 7 instances, substantially similar to these, are detailed below.
Barking at shadows (2)
Very minor changes that would only be of concern to someone suffering from paranoid delusions. One of these changes is so minor that its inclusion in this list by the AFAP, along with this comment by them “let your mind run wild with this one” leads me to suspect that they are simply trying to scare us, which further supports my “biased and unfair” opinion of their document.
No big deal (3)
Self explanatory. One of the items in this category is about split duty (definition 3.46). Of course it should not be in the CA as this matter is governed by CASA flight and duty time legislation. This means that it doesn’t matter what it says in the CA about flight and duty time issues as the government legislation will always override the CA. So why bring it up?
What are they on about? (1)
See below.
No comment (1)
This item involves check & training captain salaries. Being a mere line pilot, I am not qualified to comment.
Now, on to the question of how the changes between the draft and proposed CA were made and handled.
It was clearly wrong of the company to have made changes to the document they claimed would be the one we would be voting on. The company should have known that there was no way the differences would go unnoticed and should have advised us, and the AFAP, that these changes had occurred.
Was this a dishonest and underhanded attempt to steal some conditions from the pilots?
I don’t think so. If that was the case, all the changes would have been to the detriment of the pilots. As I have shown above, only one of the changes is definitely detrimental (two are possibly detrimental) whilst three are definitely beneficial.
Further evidence against the conspiracy theory, albeit circumstantial, is that the management of the company are nowhere near stupid enough to think they could make some secret changes without those changes being detected.
I rang the General Manager of Pearl Aviation to get his explanation for how the changes were made. He assured me that there was “nothing sinister, just a standard clerical error”. He went on to describe how the document, since evolving in December has travelled widely, been copied and distributed to many and been worked on by many.
Given the administrative shortcomings we so often see elsewhere throughout the company, I rather tend to believe him!
Now, the item by item list of the changes that were detailed in the AFAP document. The category I have placed them in is in italics:
Definition 3.29: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The company is merely seeking to clarify the definition of “grey day”. I believe it is an NTAMS contractual requirement that pilots be contactable on their grey day – if so, this would help to explain the company’s intention to clarify this. The new wording does not say what the AFAP alleges. CASA flight and duty time regulations prevent us from being on 24 hour callout.
Definition 3.41: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). Gross misunderstanding by the AFAP with gross leap to a false conclusion. The new wording of the clause is considerably tidied up from the original – it is now actually understandable. The AFAP say “you will not be entitled to a day off …” but that statement is false.
Definition 3.46: (No big deal). There is no point expressing flight and duty limit related conditions in a CA (unless the condition is more restrictive than those legislated by CASA – in which case they are beneficial to the pilot, not the company). Similarly, there is no point bringing our attention to this clause. This clause is one of the five that were not actually changed.
Definition 3.50: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The wording change by the company is to clarify the definition of “standby at home”. The AFAP, in their false conclusion, are implying that the company is trying to redefine “standby at home”, when in fact, the new definition now matches exactly the definition given in the CAO 48 Standard Industry Exemption.
Clause 4.3.1: (No big deal). The wording of the clause has been improved by the removal of the redundant words. The clause is now less wordy and easier to understand. Who gives a?
Clause 6.7: (What are they on about?). Not really sure what the AFAP is getting at, but the company has modified this clause to make it more easy to recover money from those trainees that renege on their obligations to repay training costs should they leave the company early.
Clause 7.3: (Barking at shadows). The company has inserted the word “required”. This was a simple change that results in the sentence being “better english”. The AFAP comment seeks to conjure up all manner of fears over how this sentence now reads.
Read it yourself. Here it is: “Pilot duties will include … completion of statutory and company required documentation in connection with a flight”.
Clause 20.8: (Barking at shadows). The company has made this change, I would say, to give them a little more breathing space when it comes to getting your salary payments to you (4 days instead of 2). Perhaps an acknowledgement of the inefficiencies that exist throughout the administration of Pearl Aviation!
The AFAP comment here is “read in conjunction with debt collection!”. What do they mean by this? I tried to read up on the debt collection, but there is nothing about it anywhere (that I could find).
Clause 36.1: (Improvement for pilots). The only change in the wording is the change from $980 to $1100.00. This is an amount the company pays, on behalf of the pilot, for loss-of-licence insurance. The AFAP comment seeks to put a negative spin on this.
Clause 42.4: Not categorised by me, as the AFAP made no comment about this. The change, anyway, was a clarification to the conditions under which the company would pay casual pilots.
Schedule A 1.1: (Improvement for pilots). This change is the announcement that pilots on the calibration contract would be paid a special premium. The final sentence of the AFAP comment is “put it in the ‘trying to buy us off’ column”, which language I think is adversarial and inappropriate.
Schedule A 2: (Improvement for pilots). This change announces two improvements to the training salary. The amount has gone up to $31K from $26K, and the maximum period under this salary before reversion to the full salary has come down to 3 months from 6.
The AFAP comment is as per the previous paragraph.
Schedule A 2: (Definitely detrimental to pilots). This change reduces the period from 8 weeks to 2 weeks throughout which the company will pay for the trainee’s accommodation costs whilst the trainee is at their assigned base.
Schedule A 3.2.1: (No comment). This item is not about a change, but an alleged omission on the part of the company to detail check and training captain salaries. I am not qualified to comment.
Schedule A 3.5: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This change was to clarify that overtime meal allowance cannot be claimed whilst at home on standby. As if! The AFAP’s claim is that “the company is trying to remove this right from Airmed pilots”.
Schedule A 3.9: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This change was to clarify when pilots could claim for the late night roster reimbursement and involved the insertion of the single word “late”.
The AFAP analysis of this change: “By inserting the word ‘late’ into this clause removes all entitlements you previously had”. I think the AFAP have gotten a little carried away there!
Judge for yourself; here is how the clause now reads: “Pilots who are rostered for more than 8 late night operations … will be reimbursed $9.59 for each night rostered as a personal inconvenience allowance.”
Schedule A 3.8.2: (No big deal). The change was to further clarify when the maintenance allowance could be claimed. The new wording rules out seat removal as a reason. I believe the company did not pay out for this anyway, so this change only brings the clause into line with current practice.
Schedule A 3.10: (Possibly detrimental to pilots). This item did not actually undergo any change between the draft and the proposed CA. The item is to do with meal allowances and the AFAP comment claims that these will somehow go down by 30%.
The comment mentions the ATO “reasonable benefit allowance” which I know nothing about, but because the amounts can only change by a few dollars I won’t be spending any time researching it. I have categorised this as “possibly detrimental” because it is arguable that the new terms are better than those of the (existing) 1999 CA.
Under the old CA, the amounts were not linked to anything. Under this clause, they are.
Schedule C 1.2.1: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The wording change to this clause is to emphasise the fact that NTAMS pilot pre and post flight duties can be different to those of a “normal” flight so the pre and post flight duty time allowances for NTAMS, when factoring these in for the purposes of rostering, should be considered differently.
A glaringly obvious misunderstanding by the AFAP. The purpose of the clause, headed “maximum duty time”, is to remind pilots and operational staff that when considering a duty period, such consideration must include certain time allowances for pre and post flight duties. Big deal!
The wording change has the simple effect of saying that the NTAMS pre and post allowances may not be the same as those for a “normal” Pearl Aviation flight.
The AFAP analysis: “By accepting this condition any duty pre or post flight would be considered not to be duty”. This is a spectacularly wild conclusion. Once again, when it comes to issues of flight and duty time, the governing terms and conditions are as laid out in the CASA legislation.
Schedule C 1.8.3: (Possibly detrimental to pilots). This is the clause about getting weekends off. My impression, having briefly discussed this with other pilots, is that this particular change has been seriously misunderstood and is causing great concern and fear amongst pilots.
The AFAP comment on this, which is misleading (or should that be mischievous?) has done much to foster that fear and concern. The AFAP comment was “this removes any right to having a weekend off”.
In fact, we never had any right to weekends off to start with. As I said earlier, the new wording brings some certainty where there was none under the existing agreement – this is why I have categorised this change as “possibly detrimental”. Let’s look at the exact wording of both the old and new clauses.
The clause as it appeared in the draft CA document (which is also how it is worded in the 1999 CA document):
“Over a 28 day roster cycle pilots will be entitled to 8 designated days off which a minimum of 2 sets will be of 2 or more consecutive days, one of which shall incorporate a Saturday and Sunday where practical.”
How it is worded in the proposed CA:
“Over a 28 day roster cycle pilots will be entitled to 8 designated days off which a minimum of 2 sets will be of 2 or more consecutive days, one of which shall incorporate a Saturday or Sunday unless another arrangement is mutually agreed.”
So, the original wording says “Saturday and Sunday where practical” whilst the new wording says a definite “Saturday or Sunday”.
In my opinion, the only effect that this wording change should be having on pilots is a slight lowering of their expectations in regard to getting weekends off.
It most certainly is not saying that pilots will never again get a weekend off.
I believe the intent of the wording change was to bring the wording into line with both the current rostering practices and the current pilot expectations.
Possibly detrimental, definitely detrimental or beneficial to the pilots?
Schedule C 1.8.9: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This is another item that was not actually changed between the two CA documents. The “change” is actually between the 1999 CA and the draft/proposed CAs.
The clause in question relates to the payment of RDO payments and the thing that has changed is … wait for it … “rostered duty free day” is now called “designated day off”.
The AFAP comment on this reveals another obvious misunderstanding with consequent leap to spectacularly false conclusion. The AFAP “analysis” of this change is that it “removes that entitlement. The implication is evident”.
How can the AFAP come to such a conclusion? Judge for yourself. Here is the entire clause (the new form):
“A pilot shall not be required to work on a designated day off, provided that the company may request a pilot to work and where the pilot so agrees, they shall receive 2.5 times the pilot’s day rate of pay for each day so worked.”
Schedule C 1.8.11: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The change to this clause was the insertion of the word “designated” before “day off”. That part of the sentence now reads “designated day off”. The AFAP comment against this is “same as above”. Their “above” comment was about “entitlements being removed – the implication is evident”.
This was just a simple little wording change by the company. They changed “day off” to “designated day off”.
Schedule C 1.9.3: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This clause is another of those that did not actually change between the draft and proposed CA documents. My guess for why the AFAP have listed this clause is because it contains the phrase “designated day off”.
So just why have the AFAP listed this clause? If you change “designated day off” to “rostered duty free days” in this clause the result is then identical to clause 10.2.3 of the 1999 CA document!
Last edited by APMR; 19th Jun 2007 at 10:50.