APMR,
With regard to your original post I did read it, twice in fact before I posted.
You mention that you "identified 3 clear cut improvements for the pilots but could only find 1 change that was a clear disadvantage to the pilots." The 3 clear cut improvements were negotiated changes not clerical errors; these being identified as Clause 36.1( Loss of Licence), Schedule A 1.1 (Calibration allowance) and Schedule A 2 ( training salary); the disadvantage re the cut from 8 to 2 weeks,yes I agree a disadvantage but was this negotiated downwards? I don't know the answer to that.
As to MB being a smart guy, he is; he increased the profit to the Paspaley Group and Aerodata GmBH( collectively Aeropearl)on the Flight Calibration contract as well as expanding the client base and was rewarded with the leg up to Managing Director of Pearl. With regard to the changes/clerical errors and whether they could be challenged after the event; well, the company's argument in court would be that the pilots voted "yes" to the document as presented, so they must agree with it.
The changes are often subtle as Olderairhead has alluded too, and as MB knows how the changes will particularly effect the Flight Calibration contract, yes knowing MB,I think he might just try it on to see how they go and whether other pilots not familiar with the contract would notice the wording changes regarding paperwork.
In regard to our continuing to not sign the Flyability reports even if this new EBA gets up; the insertion of the word "required" does, I believe, change the obligation on the pilots. As this is now an expansion of the duties required and an expectation by the company and client of what will be signed by the pilots after a Flight Inspection operation(ASA requires in the contract for these reports to be signed). Previously, when the original EBA was written, all you were expected to complete was the company Maintaince releases and Flight and Duty times, not client(and therefore Company) required documents that place you in a precarious legal position, should you happen to sign. So, not signing them may lead to termination, but it would be a good argument for the Courts, as that's were it would lead too.
Let's keep the discussion flowing, as hopefully, people are fully reading the document and becoming aware of the changes and implications.
Last edited by Seaeagle109; 20th Jun 2007 at 22:56.
Reason: Spelling, can't spell negotiate consistently