Mad as I am with this latest development, I can't condone sabotage by way of increasing costs. We are professionals and the airline itself is not the enemy. Its our very livelihood.
I agree that this was a kneejerk reaction to a situation that put pressure on those who devised this scheme. IMHO it is is badly thought out, unfair and does not address the problem they claim it was set up to solve: "the current hourly block figure that triggers Productivity Pay is no longer appropriate in rosters containing these (LR and ULR) flights."
All rosters are different in the amount of LR/ULR flying they contain. Likewise even the same pilot has a differing component every month. However some do little to no LR/ULR for various reasons, including their freedom to chose.
The solution should have been to factor the LR/ULR block hours for productivity credit purposes while requiring the whole amount to be logged (licencing purposes notwithstanding). I understand that this is in fact the law
This would be fair and would also deal with the problem they posed in their letter. After all 5 hours in a bunk cannot be compared with 2 sectors at night to BOM.
This way the original Block Hour Thresholds could have been maintained, the problem solved, safety preserved and the requirement for efficient rostering maintained.
There would also be a sensible limit on time in aircraft, while addressing fatigue issues on rosters not containing LR or ULR flights.
The original Block Hour Thresholds had previously taken into account the loss of credit for time before and after flight, reserves, sims etc. It was a stretch in itself.
In fact the letter indirectly admits that the previous Thresholds were entirely appropriate in the case of rosters without LR/ULR flying.
There is nothing like fixing things with a sledge hammer. True technicians
"we will only succeed if we work together". I'm still trying to figure out how the "we" includes those who don't actually fly but dreamed up this scheme.
Of course if the problem posed is not actually the problem but simply a guise to increase productivity thresholds for all time, while allowing complete latitude in inefficient rostering and then marketing it to the boss as a budget cut for purposes of personal remuneration - Well that's a different story.
Last edited by disconnected; 14th Feb 2009 at 12:11.