"Are you Jetsbest suggesting that your employer should put on extra services so that you don't have to layover so long (NO) or are you suggesting that your airline shouldn't go to that destination because you have to layover so long (NO) or are you saying that they should bring you home and fly someone else in to replace you?" (NO)
What I am saying though is that:
- Qantas
and AIPA both signed the document that introduced MDC because it was a compromise they evidently found workable,
- Qantas may, and indeed should, roster the workforce in the most efficient way it sees fit,
- Qantas can use its fleet in any way is sees fit, but
- now that Qantas seems to be shrinking/gifting its network they're blaming the agreement for being inefficient,
- were it not for the type of route structure and airframe utilisation described in my previous post QF pilots could be
a whole lot more efficient, and
- every QF pilot I know would like to be efficient!
- If QF had the flight frequencies & route structure of CX, SQ or EK its pilots could be similarly efficient,
"..., does Singapore Airlines, Cathay, Emirates, Etihad have MDC and if not, do the pilots get any pay recognition for the long layover as detailed in Jetsbest post?"
I don't know, but efficient rostering under an MDC-type clause
is achievable
and could largely make the clause moot because, every time a pilot went to work, the company should utilise him/her for more than 5:30 stick hours/day on average.
The Jeppesen "Carmen" rostering at QF has done a lot to improve "density" compared to 'mandraulic' roster crunching, and thus contributed somewhat to surpluses. Qantas has also historically had periods when pilots couldn't be spared for annual leave, and those accumulated 'banks' of leave are now being 'assigned' to pilots whether they want a break or not! Now, no-one is arguing that assigning leave is not a valid strategy in a crisis (SARS, 9/11 etc) but the low flying rates and the skewed pilots-to-hours-flown ratios are being used now to "demonstrate" QF pilot inefficiency.
Into the mix one must add peripheral factors like:
- pilots extending flying beyond 65,
- new aircraft delays,
- natural disasters,
- QF's apparent disinterest in facilitating pilot transfers within 'the Group' where shortages really do exist.
And what of the memos hinting at dire outcomes which encouraged many pilots to accept reduced flying and reduced pay to 'help out' and/or avoid redundancy? Qantas used
that goodwill to assert that 'no QF pilot has been made redundant for forty years'.
Interestingly, 5:30 at a pilot's rank-rate also covers a
12 hour standby, a 7+hour day of emergency procedure training or a 5:30 simulator; do those duty periods sound fair & reasonable to you for 5:30 pay?
So, back to my final point again: it rankles that QF, in effect, has played
the major role in creating/exacerbating the inefficiencies since the GFC and now seems intent on using them as a weapon against its own.
