Seaeagle109,
1/ Yes, they were trying to get one past us.
Ok, just what and where was the attempted deception? I'm surprised I have to ask you this question - I expected you would answer it "in advance" as you knew I would ask it.
2/ Yes , I agree with the comparison document.
There's that contempt again - perhaps a required trait in a pilot rep? At least OAH had the integrity to duck this question when I asked it of him. Perhaps you are a little more savvy in that you know you can get away with such a statement because you are not held to anywhere near the same degree of accountability as management. You would not be so arrogantly flippant if you were under the same degree of scrutiny.
Now, onto the "comparison document". You say you "agree with it", so this must mean you agree with every comment and assertion in it. The sheer number of absurd claims and statements made therein forces one to conclude it was meant to frighten the pilots into voting NO. There was
not one statement in it that even hinted the pilots were better off, or benefitting in some way.
Take the "change" that revealed calibration contract captains would be getting the $5,000 PA "special premium" for example - the comment against that "change" was
"put it in the trying to buy us off column".
Nevertheless, I have picked out the three most hysterical claims and reproduce them, as well as the associated before/after clauses below.
For a memory refresher, the "comparison document" was produced by the AFAP/pilot reps and listed each change, made by management, between the draft CA document and the CA document our votes would be based on. Against each listed change was an AFAP/pilot rep "comment", or "claim" which allegedly "exposed" what the devious management were up to.
As you read these, keep it in mind that
Seaeagle109 agrees with each one of these claims:
Hysterical claim 1: "This removes any right to having a weekend off".
We never had any such right. Here are the two clauses, firstly the clause as it appeared in the draft CA document (and the 1999 agreement we are currently working to), then the clause as it appeared in the proposed 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.”
“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.”
Hysterical claim 2: "The company is trying to remove this right from Airmed pilots"."No pilot shall be required to be on duty, including standby duty, for a period in excess of five (5) hours without a (30) minute break free of all duty for a meal or in excess of ten (10) hours without two (30) minute breaks free of all duty."
"No pilot shall be required to be on duty, including standby duty (excluding when on standby duty at home), for a period in excess of five (5) hours without a (30) minute break free of all duty for a meal or in excess of ten (10) hours without two (30) minute breaks free of all duty."
Hysterical claim 3: "By inserting the word LATE into this clause removes all entitlements you previously had.""Pilots who are rostered for more than eight night operations, including Standby, as defined, in any (28) day duty cycle will be reimbursed $9.59 for each night rostered as a personal inconvenience allowance".
"Pilots who are rostered for more than eight (8) late night operations, including Standby, as defined, in any (28) day duty cycle will be reimbursed $9.59 for each night rostered as a personal inconvenience allowance".
Agree with these and all the other hysterical claims in that document do you Seaeagle109?