Credit Hours System

[Neutral Stability]

The following is my initial contribution to the request for open debate on a new Credit Hours System. Having read all correspondence on the issues of Roster Stability and the Proposed Credit Hours System, I get the impression that, with a bit of give and take on both sides, a deal is possible. However, I must say that management's proposal does lose a certain degree of credibility when it is plain that some of their figures, which appear to be derived mathematically, are then subjected to an arbitrary increase of 5%! Also their use of the lower of the two thresholds (i.e. 84.07 instead of 88.27) to credit simulator, ground school and office days, does nothing to strengthen their case. Furthermore, the arbitrary allocation of two hours for leave and published sick days misses the mark by a long way. Also, their financial inducements to tempt us all to work on G days need to be factored upwards somewhat. And finally, some words for NR, if I may be so bold. Of course, the AOA position of today has changed somewhat from that of their concessionary bargaining position of mid-1999! Since those depressing days, serious pay cuts have been imposed on the aircrew body! You now have an unrivalled opportunity to put right much of what was destroyed at the stroke of a pen in 1994. You just need to show a little bit of guts and leadership. A great deal of what you have agreed with the AOA makes good sense and does both sides great credit. You just need to take that one further step. Do not, whatever you do, go down the road of imposing a deal on the aircrew. Therein lies a bucket of worms that none of us wish to explore.

I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the AOA negotiators for all their hard work. Your proposal papers were extremely well written and were largely backed up by empirically formulated figures which most of us feel are reasonable. Let's all get back to the table and get this thing sorted out once and for all. Remember, NR, you needn't worry about sickness credits and sickness rates. The sickness rate will take care of itself. Just give the aircrew an incentive to go to work again because, now, there is absolutely none! At present, most of us don't care whether we fly 18 hours or 80 hours per month, preferably the former. You have a chance to change that. It may cost the company money, but I know in the long run that it will be worth every cent to have us all pulling in the same direction once again.

[bigblackdog]

I am hardly surprised it has come to this yet again, so close yet so far. The cause however is clear, the individuals negotiating on behalf of the company are once again treating the whole process as a haggling session in a Mong Kok market. Absolutely no interest in forming a calculated and considered opinion, just throwing random numbers around and seeing if they can get away with it again. It has been proven time and again, the one thing these people react to is a hard response, a big stick. I fear the only way this will go forward from here is through court or industrial action.

[fodder]

What was wrong with the old overtime scheme ? It was simple to understand, kept the company honest, prevented one from being worked to death after returning from leave and worked well for years. That is until the company decided it was too expensive and they no longer wanted to be held accountable for the working conditions of their employees. I will give them that it was a good system, but maybe a little too good. I would be prepared to accept a trigger threshold of 75 hours per month. Why are we trying to re-invent the wheel, when we had a round one before? No the talks are more delaying tactics, the company has no interest in fixing the problems if it's going to cost them more than a couple of dollars. The only way things will improve is if we apply enough pressure to make it hurt!!Then and only then will the willingness to negotiate come to the fore>>>

[Cloud Cuckooland]

Lets start with the positives:
1. Monthly threshold
2. Schedule or Better - works in both the company's and the crews interest with regard to OTP.
3. Factoring up short haul & Med Haul.
Um, that's it for the postives I think.

Real No No's

1. High Threshold
2. 5% Variance - this is a rip off.
3. 1 for 5 for DT - 1 for 1 is standard - there may be an argument for a lesser rate for BT to increase basing slots.

Points to be haggled:
1. EFP rates
2. upping the Sick/leave credits

BTW GDO callout compensation is bad news when coupled with "cheap" reserve (CX's proposal). You can bet that within 12 months you'll have min "G" rostering as a permanent feature.

I would much rather have no GDO callout compensation and "expensive" reserve. This would encourage "lifestyle" rostering.Each officer could then consider his/her EFP position & loyalty quotient when the phone goes on a "G".

Well done negotiators

[jagman]

Just perusing the rosters briefly you can see why NR is reluctant to give anything but a token gesture towards credit for BT/DT. The misuse of BT especially is appalling and we see guys working 85 hours with 20 hours of 'freebee' BT. It's still over 100 hours in an aircraft and you arive at your base knackered and dried out - for 5 days off.
I'm surprised the CAD allow it.
1 for 1 is the 'Industry Standard' and it also is a severe disincentive to compiling such dreadful rosters.
Also have you noticed that a lot of people with 14 days leave are still doing 60 hours in the remaining 14 days at work. That's effectively over 100 hours pm too.
Thanks to negotiators too.

[This message has been edited by jagman (edited 05 September 2000).]