Really simple, don't sign.
This is a unilaterally offered variation to your contract. Think about that - a unilaterally offered variation to your contract. When has that ever ended well in dealings with CX management?
It's really simple, don't sign.
Notice that the letter is not applicable to Canadian & Australian on-shore crew. Why is that? probably because these sort of unilateral offers of variation are illegal in those jurisdictions.
We can't keep letting them think that they can get away with contract abuse when it suits them.
I know that freighter positioning is convenient for some crew, especially Nth American based crews, but our convenience has NEVER been a factor in their decision making. They do things for 1 reason and 1 reason only - it saves them money, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
We need to make a stand here people. Ignore their silly little threats in the letter. If EVERYBODY refuses, then what will they do? Maybe they might play hard ball for a while, but it saves them lots of money, so pretty quickly, they will have to come to the table with a negotiated offer, which will hopefully be more balanced, and might have something in it for us.
Now, let's look at the letter itself.
I really love the wording that GMA uses. Anyone employed by CX can of course read it, so I won't repeat it here, just my thoughts on what they are really trying to say.
Translation of paragraph 1 & 2: To try & cut a few corners, and save on hotels & allowances, we've been positioning guys on the freighter contrary to their COS. We started out doing it when it might have suited some crew, but when no one complained, we started doing it regularly, and are now shocked that anyone questions our actions. (Sounds like a case of perceived "acquiescence".)
He then goes on in an attachment trying to justify their ongoing breaches of our COS. Here's one little gem justifying freighter positioning:
No Company passenger services on he sector/s for which Crew Positioning is required
Really? So, when they call a crew member on reserve to position to Delhi for a subsequent freighter duty, why do they try to get you to travel on the freighter when there is a CX passenger service at the same time? Their "excuse" of the passenger flight being full is irrelevant to matters. Offload a passenger - it's known as "the cost of doing business". The truth is that crew control see it as a "freighter duty", therefore their logic says you should position on the freighter. When crew feel intimidated and don't say "NO", then that just adds to the company's boldness.
Now, read further on to the "GO-FORWARD" section. This, once again, in typical CX fashion, is a one-way street, in a blatant attempt to intimidate crews into signing with thinly veiled threats. If you don't agree to freighter positioning, they may ask you to do a 1-off freighter positioning, which you can agree for that duty only, however, if you submit a swap which involves freighter positioning, it will be denied.
So, let me get this straight Phil, I can't come to you with a request for a 1-off freighter positioning (via a swap), but you can come to me with the same request? And when they ask me for the 1-off freighter positioning, will the request be 100% threat & intimidation free?
Like I said, a one way street.
Don't sign.