Why are they still proposing 140 hours in 28 days? It should be brought down to 130, with overtime from 130 hours AT LEAST in my opinion. That's meeting them half way. 28 day rosters are coming regardless.
With a 28 day roster, at 140 hours, that's (at the proposed 10.15hours per day maximum duty) = 18 days work (10 off), meaning 7.40hours a day to get to 140 hours. How on earth are you going to receive 'overtime' after 140 hours? The only way is to do 7.40hours + a day, for 18 days. Impossible (schedule wise and physically). Big days everyday. Therefore available rates are disappearing, and nothing to compensate - as overtime will be too fatiguing and in my opinion, rare and near impossible to get more than 5 hours of.
I don't care about part time, maternity leave, sick days and other incentives they're proposing to improve. Obviously the MAJORITY of crew do NOT want part time, I think maternity leavers should be offered permament part time automatically once they've had their baby, and have a separate list as per the current conditions. And the MAJORITY of crew do not abuse sick leave. Tired of hearing incentives that don't affect most of us.
I understand the company has to save money to survive (probably a lot has to do with V starting in these troubled times and eating over $70million). But surely by having new crew start off on cheaper salaries (but build to our higher salaries after 5 years of service) should be a huge saving, as there will always be new crew. And as well as the productivity of a 28 day roster should be enough.
10.15hours daily will reduce overnights by only a couple a year per crew member, but when other bases start, overnights will drop a little bit more, but will ALWAYS be there. Therefore I agree with DTA, but it should be more. Proposed DTA is $3 to $3.30. Anything more was said to be unviable. Although a reasonable idea, (but behind compared to other airlines/contracts), we WILL lose money! Don't let other crews' caculations fool you - you WILL lose money this way when doing red eyes, or trips that start late or finish early in your home port. The crew that do calculations are basing it on their OWN rosters over the last few months and probably do NOT include these kind of trips.
Scrapping of AVL days - they could NEVER not have reserve crew. An airline couldn't run without reserve crews. There will always be AVL days in some capacity. Fine if they don't want to pay me for them, but the hours I do count toward my monthly hours & if I work outside my original rostered AVL hours then they pay me an hourly rate (such as QF's IPD) But they're not getting them for nothing!!
Perhaps this is a good idea - as you can make money this way, giving us a bit more realistic and acheivable extra money yet not taking too much money away from the company - good compromise.
For those that don't understand IPD... If I was on an available starting at 0500 and finishing at 1600, and I got called out at 1200 and finished work at 1900, I would get 3 hours of IPD rates (1600 - 1900 gap). At least here, in this one example of many examples of IPD you can get, there's money crew can make and money the company will save - a terrific compromise of conditions from both parties.
A month long line of reserves? Sounds okay and is more efficient for the company... but our competitiors receive an EXTRA DAY OFF for bidding so... There is no incentive with us.
Why is there a proposed bid option to reduce at home port rest down from 15 hours to 12 hours? What is the incentive there to do so? Who would do so?
Once again, we're aware the company needs to save money to keep its head above water, and that's what we all want, but perhaps some unnecessary jobs we have within the company should go? No one would dare bring that up in the roadshow!Also management are comparing us to new airlines' contracts as they know we are on the sweeter deal out there today, but we cannot give too much and receive too little.
To the crew who haven't been to a roadshow yet, talk about what you're reading in these posts and speak up instead of sitting there like stunned mullets.
If a NO vote is acheived, they are bullying by implying they'll bring in the proposed EBA anyway. And that is a tactic that I believe is not allowed. Otherwise what is THE POINT OF VOTING?
