The higher turnover combined with new aircraft and a situation where EK has to compete with European and American carriers (after their long absence from the jobmarket) to hire new staff has created the current situation where some of EKs pilots have to take on a higher workload. This is not a situation that can be blamed on EKs management as EK don't control the factors that create the current situation. EK will always have a hard time competing against US and Western European carriers when it comes to staff as people always have a higher wish to work in their native country. EK try to compensate this by giving employees compensation packages that is highly competitive, and is very successful in doing so.
Utter, Utter, Utter CRAP!!!
EK did not do any recruiting during a period when aircraft were rolling in and people were leaving. Why? Because they had changed the productivity threshold and thus thought they could man the new aircraft with the same number of crew working 90+ hrs/mth indefinatley.
Not their fault that this simply didn't work? I can tell you first hand that senior members of flight ops told the VPs it couldn't be sustained and were ignored.
As to a competative package, yes, it's still not bad. But how do you explain a situation where the demand for pilots is increasing, yet our package is significantly less than it was previously?
I am not going to discuss company policy regarding people who is let go because of mishandling on their part. As such cases are strictly personal I think its unprofessional to speculate about what the individual has ore has not done. No one is let go at EK unless they have performed actions that is in severe breach with regulations.
So, you don't think company policy (or, more accuratley, the comopanies propensity to IGNORE it's non-punative policy!!) is of interest to existing pilots or prospective joiners?
Regarding the utilities cap neither your ore I am lawyers, and I based my posts on the legal view expressed by UAE lawyers on this matter. I think you should do the same as it is not our personal opinion that is relevant for how the contract is to be interpreted.
But why was the interpretation changed? The COMPANY interpreted the contract to mean that all utilities were paid, then changed its mind. This would be a breach of coman law under any decent legal system. If it is fair and reasnoble to have a cap on utilities, why was that cap not specified in the contract?
As I said, Mana, if you've pissed ME off to the point of having to point out the flaws in your pro-company ramblings, you've done your case no good at all!