View Full Version : Pearl CA voted down

2nd Jul 2007, 10:50
The votes were counted today. Pity the company could not tell the pilot group the result. Shame.

I will.

It got voted down.

2nd Jul 2007, 11:29
Sometimes the mix of simplicity, solidarity and frankness can make a post like yours hilarious! Nice one mate.

3rd Jul 2007, 10:03
One day on and the group are told:

I regret to inform you that the document titled Pearl Aviation (Pilots) Workplace Agreement 2006 was not approved.

No numbers, no nothing except:

This means your terms and conditions of employment will remain the same and you are not entitled to any part of the offer that was made by the Company.

And apparently no-one is contactable to clarify anything!

Last one out please turn off the light...........................

4th Jul 2007, 08:04
So, why did it not get up? Anybody know?

4th Jul 2007, 08:28
Because some people feel they need to screw the last drop out of the employer whilst putting in the least amount of effort.:ugh:

4th Jul 2007, 10:30
Oh, this I don't believe.

Please tell me it is not happening.

It's like a nightmare that won't go away.

Or is it the first of April.


Seaeaggle109, your mate is back.

4th Jul 2007, 11:03
So far there has been some good debate on the subject of the CA but really tric, you couldn't be serious.

And APMR, I must say I expected no less from you on this subject.

And for those that matter, may I offer my observations for consideration and comment if you feel necessary.

Given the almost total silent response from the company, except for the one eluded to by ringin,one must assume that the result was overwhelmingly against the offer.

Why they refuse to divulge the count is beyond belief. I cannot recall any ballot / election where the resulting vote was not made public. This must be a first and obviously a serious blow to their beliefs.

Today I received an email from the AFAP and the reps and was somewhat flabbergasted by their statements. AFAP members can access the document on the AFAP web site.

If what they say is correct, then one can only assume that Pearl management are either in denial or crisis management.

Either way, they could not expect to have any respect from the pilot group nor their peers.

Interesting times ahead for sure.

4th Jul 2007, 12:25
Dead serious. I have read the CA and what Pearl have offered in response to the pilot's claims and I think the current CA was a reasonable comprimise. That's what the pilots can't seem to grasp. You have to comprimise. Greed. :=

Erin Brockovich
4th Jul 2007, 12:42
Supply and demand tric. Greed is what Pearl and other companies have been displaying up until now. Pilots just want fair T & Cs. Piss us off when the shortage hits and youíll see greed.

The shoe isnít on the other foot yet but the bullies are getting nervous. I think compromise was the spelling your after.

4th Jul 2007, 12:57
I understand the supply and demand ethos, but when it becomes unaffordable no one wins.

This dispute has been drawn out by a few disgruntled old hands who can't see the writing on the wall.

This dispute is putting a stress on a lot of people, some in positions that if they decide to go elsewhere could leave Pearl up shit creek.

As spelling is obviously a concern for you I ran this post through the spell checker......:hmm:

4th Jul 2007, 14:00
My question was a serious question.

I ask it because it is a complete mystery to not just I, but several others.

I will ask it again.

Does anybody know why it didn't get up? Somebody must know.

4th Jul 2007, 14:24
Erin Brockovich, yousaid:
Greed is what Pearl and other companies have been displaying up until now.
You also described Pearl as "bullies". You don't know what you're talking about.

Pearl have been giving pilots a 2% salary increase each year since the current agreement expired. They have been under no obligation to do this but have done so out of goodwill. A truly "greedy" company would have frozen the salaries at the 2002 levels, thus placing considerable pressure on the pilots to reach a new agreement.

In a further act of goodwill, the Pearl management authorised pilots to work to a more restrictive set of flight and duty time limits than those the company is legally required to conform to.

Do these actions sound like those of a "greedy bully"?

Pilots just want fair T & Cs.
I challenge anybody to say, with a straight face, that the T&Cs on offer weren't fair. The offer, in a nutshell, was almost a carbon copy of the existing agreement, but with several significant improvements and a salary increase. Not fair?

4th Jul 2007, 14:34
challenge anybody to say, with a straight face, that the T&Cs on offer weren't fair. The offer, in a nutshell, was almost a carbon copy of the existing agreement, but with several significant improvements and a salary increase. Not fair?

Why don't you stick the T&Cs up here for the rest of us to see and we'll give you an opinion of whether we reckon it was 'fair' or not. It couldn't hurt....I'm a dispassionate observer and don't care either way so I'm not going to back off from giving a true appraisal of what I think! :E

4th Jul 2007, 20:48
A correction.

The 2% per annum is required by law not goodwill. It had to go to the IRC for you to receive it.

Also the company didn't impose the more restrictive rostering limits out of goodwill, they were fought for by your representatives.

Further, all the points raised in the AFAP letter were not to do with money, they were to do with conditions. How can this be described as greed.

Pearl is in its current position because of mis-management and years of ripping off the pilot conditions.

The pilots, with their vote have obviously said enough is enough.

Cloud Whisperer
4th Jul 2007, 23:38
. . . . So should the next thread be started now?? . . . :rolleyes::rolleyes:
........... " 8 YEARS ON " ..........
:oh: :E

4th Jul 2007, 23:55
If the protracted negotiations are putting "stress" on individuals, maybe they should take head(s) out of the sand and acknowledge that the proposed agreement was finally voted on AND DEFEATED - even though they won't tell us by how much (??!!). Or maybe they should ask for a pay rise (he he he).

Please tell me what is the "writing on the wall" that the "disgruntled old hands" can't see, or is that simply a turn of phrase to use in your post? I guess you are referring to (amongst others) the pilot reps?

I put it to you that the "writing on the wall" is there for all - it is management that either can't see it, or are choosing to ignore it - hence the result just witnessed.

Can you confirm or deny the following - 2% (less than CPI) was enforced (and then cited by JW etc. as "good will" - mate, he lost me right there and then). CAO 48 is in force in the Darwin base after industrial action, now also extended to NTAMS, after initially being denied through the courts, based on the nature of the service being provided.

Affordability - what a joke. How many ways could efficiency and cost effectiveness be improved at Pearl? Let's not even start on the rest of the Group (Aerorescue etc.) T&C for the pilots is simply where they expected to get a gain for not much effort. Now it has grown through time into something else, and people start getting stubborn...:hmm:

Compare the company today, (from a pilot's point of view) to what it was several years ago - can you really not understand why this proposal failed (without considering the conduct of the company throughout).

Compromise IS required, no result is not what anyone is seeking, but who really wants this deal done? The pilot group have just indicated quite clearly that they are prepared to reject what was proposed, knowing that it will mean more time to a resolution. The company were advised of this likely result by the AFAP before the vote - yet they decided to "try it on" instead of improving the document, and therefore the chances of a successful vote.

Let me say, I actually enjoy working at Pearl, it's probably the best job I've had. A very considerable part if that is not working with a bunch of piss weak sniveling chicken gutted backstabbing short cutters (steady on there CR :ouch::p) that have populated my previous workplaces.
In my view the company got exactly what it was asking for in the failure of the proposed CA. Obviously it will be interesting in the extreme to see how they deal with it.

5th Jul 2007, 10:20
Any negotiation is usually between 2 parties and neither wants to lose. So the most favourable outcome for both is when there is a win/win situation.

When the result of negotiation is not even, then the party that feels they have been "done over" tend to react and vote a document down or put it up, depending on which side of the negotiating table you are sitting on.

Pearl chose to put it up after being advised by the AFAP and the pilot reps that it would most probably not get up. The MAJORITY of pilots have determined that it was not acceptable and therefore voted it down. This is now a given. If someone cannot understand why the majority (yet to be announced) have done so it is probably because of a lack of communication.

There are 3 parties involved in these negotiations and all 3 should be approached to gain a full picture of what has transpired, and not only in recent times but also in the past. Pearl has a lot of baggage and you must gain some insight into this baggage to have a proper understanding of these negotiaitons.

Negotiated conditions over the years have been arrived at because of bitter lessons, both from a pilots perspective and also from a management perspective. Single word changes can have a significant impact on both sides. Part of the negotiation process for both parties is to explore these subtle changes and the impact they may have. The pilot reps have done this and reported it to the group for their consideration. It is important for everyone take these observations on board.

Remember also that there are many hours of dialogue between the parties before a document is released. Not only is a "word" discussed but also the "intent" of that word.

Unfortunately the "intent" is very difficult to convey in a document to all parties hence the need to spell it out in explicit detail. History has shown that "intent" can be interpreted differently by successive mangement.
So to finish up, this has given Pearl management two things to consider. The first is that the pilot reps do actually represent the majority feeling of the pilot group and secondly that they have to do something soon or they will end up in a no win situation.

Silence is not the expected nor desirable response.

Further, I suggest that most looked at the proposal, not from a personal point of view but how it would affect other pilots as well. I believe they have made their decision on this in addition to how it will impact on pilots employed in the future. If I am correct, this is probably a first. If not, feel free to shoot me down. But given the current situation in Pearl, I believe most are not there for the long term and therefore are not impeded by blinkers.

Well done guys (and girls?).

Finally, I sincerely hope I have not overstepped the mark by pointing out a few obvious (to me) observations and also a small lesson in the negotiation process and history.

5th Jul 2007, 14:42
I find it revealing that nobody has come out today and declared, with their hand over their heart, that the offer was "not fair".

And still nobody has offered up an answer of any substance to my question of why the proposal did not get up. Counter-rotation has suggested that a comparison between now and several years ago should serve to answer my question, but that is not really saying anything.

Olderairhead seems to be suggesting it was voted down out of concern for other pilots across the group or those yet to join the company, but although fanciful, this again still does not really say anything.

A proper answer would be something like "many pilots were concerned about condition XXX, where they would lose YYY, or condition ZZZ, where they felt they would be worse off..." "Insufficient increases to the salary" would also be an answer of some substance.

Of course, it is quite possible that nobody really does have any idea, but that then would just further underline the mystery.

What really was wrong with the offer? As I suggested in my previous post, about 85% of the offer was identical to the existing agreement, 10% was of clear cut improvements, and the remaining 4% was of contentious conditions affecting the Brisbane pilots (such as grey days and days off whilst overseas). And there was the sign-on bonus and the salary increases.

There was only ONE condition where the pilots would be worse off under the proposed agreement - the reduction from 8 weeks to 2 weeks of time where the company would pay accomodation expenses for trainees at their assigned base (this is the 1% that was unaccounted for in the previous paragraph).

Thanks for the offer. What you have asked is not a small job but I will endeavour to put up a summary of the T&Cs as soon as I get the time.

You made a reference to "the conduct of the company". Could you please elaborate? If you are referring to the alleged "non negotiated changes" between the draft and proposed CA documents then you have been seriously misled.

On the subject of those "non negotiated changes", by the way, much more needs to be said (and asked), and I will be doing just that in one of my forthcoming posts, as that episode has revealed much about the AFAP, the pilot reps, the company reps and the whole negotiation process.

You said:
The 2% per annum is required by law not goodwill. It had to go to the IRC for you to receive it.
Your "required by law" claim is not true. If the IRC had made a ruling to that effect then yes, it would be "required by law", but there was no such ruling as this matter was not heard. It is true that, when the question of annual increases came up, the AFAP appealed to the IRC on this matter but the IRC simply said "sort it out between yourselves".

If the company was truly the "greedy bully" they would have contested it, and would easily have won. They couldn't possibly have lost, as the requirement to make 2% pa increases applied only to the years 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. If the document had not listed salaries for each year but had instead made a statement to the effect that "salaries will be increased by 2% each year" then that would have been a very different story.

So, whether you agree to the term "goodwill" or not, it remains true that the company decided to make the increases when they were not legally required so to do.

They also decided to make annual CPI increases to all allowances from 2003. So those allowances were static during the years governed by the agreement and only started increasing once it had expired! Is this the behaviour of a "greedy bully"?

As for the return of the more favourable flight and duty limits being the result of the reps "fighting for it" - you are correct, but give the company some credit for not contesting this matter when they actually had a strong case that the adoption of the FMS was in accordance with the consultation requirements of the prevailing agreement.

Pearl is in its current position because of mis-management and years of ripping off the pilot conditions.
Salary wise, the pilots are paid well above the award. What are the conditions you are alluding to?

5th Jul 2007, 22:37

This is the Grey day definition from the first document sent to me by JW:

3.29 GREY DAY Means the period of time rostered prior to a Duty where if the pilot is contactable may be requested to perform a Duty which may impact upon the pilots next Duty.

This is the Grey day definition from the final document sent to me by JW:

3.29 GREY DAY Means the period of time rostered prior to a Duty where if the pilot is contactable may be requested to perform a Duty which may impact upon the pilots next Duty; or means the period of time rostered after a Duty or Standby period and following a minimum rest period, a pilot must be contactable and may be requested to perform a Duty which may impact upon the pilots next Duty.

I don't know about you but I can see they are different.

According to your discussion with MB the differences between the documents were clerical errors. Sorry, but I cannot see how this is a clerical error.

I have read both documents and have found more clerical errors. Somehow I am unable to believe these variations are clerical errors but a direct attempt by the company to impose changes without consultation.

Why do they even bother to have negotiations when they blatantly do such things. Let me remind you, they do go to negotiations because they were forced to do so by the pilots and their reps.

As far as why the document was voted down the above example is one of the reasons. The pilot group do not trust the company. The pilot group want a document that is supported by all parties and not just the company. Remember the AFAP and the reps advised us they did not support it and they gave reasons. The result of the ballot shows that the majority of the pilot group agree.

Most pilots also supported an Airmed allowance. Just ask the Metro drivers. Just ask the rest of the Airmed drivers.

Rather than me giveing you the rest of the reasons, maybe ask others why. I am sure they will tell you. All you have to do then is listen and you will get answers to your questions.

As far as the legalities of the current CA and the 2% increases go, it has been tested and the company is required to pay the 2% upon each anniversary of the agreement. They are also required to increase all allowances by the annual CPI as it is a condition of the agreement. Please do not tell me you asked MB or JW what they thought on this issue.

And Salary wise, the pilots are paid well above the award..

What award? They only have one and it is the current CA. Are you seriously trying to tell me that we are being paid above the amounts dictated in that agreement? I know I am not and I am yet to meet one who is. If you are does that mean you are on a special package?

And as far as deteriorated conditions, do a bit of research. Have a look at where we have come from when the original Skywest agreement was ratified way back in 1984 and look at each agreement since then and you will be able to see for yourself what conditions have been traded off. It just takes a bit of research. Try doing searches on the web like I have. All previous documents can be found. Do the work and see for yourself.

And finally, have a look at all the other posters on the subject of the proposed agreement. I do not see many YES voters aprt from yourself posting here. Does that not suggest something to you? Maybe you are the only YES voter!

3 Holer
5th Jul 2007, 23:41
That definition of a grey day is grey and susceptible to roster abuse.

A more definitive wording would be:

A Grey Day is neither a rostered Day Off nor a rostered Duty Day. The Company may allocate duty on a Grey Day and if mutually acceptable to the Crewmember, will make him/herself available for such duty.

It has been practice by some Companies to roster a group of "grey days" and then fill them in with duty as and when required.

This is done for two reasons:

1. There is no duty reflected on a pilot's roster as in Reserve or Standby. Therefore avoiding any possible CAO 48 limitations.

2. It effectively provides the Company with an unlimited "Clayton's" standby

However, this type of rostering may also diminish the pilot's ability to secure adequate rest before flight and therefore, if this occurs regularly, can impact on fatigue management for the overall roster period.
I believe CASA are now scrutinising rosters more thoroughly these days during their audits.

6th Jul 2007, 11:35
Hey oldfella looks like you got him beat! Well done. :ok:

Stilted Converstions
6th Jul 2007, 12:31
:=As a former Pearl pilot who left for a lack of direction from the Management in regard to the Aerorescue Contract and their willingness to see Pay and Conditions eroded I can say that I am disgusted with the likes of APMR for showing such ignorance on this forum. Cant you guys pick up a phone and talk to each other as there aint that many pilots left there anymore??? Do you really need to air your dirty washing in this way as the Skywest Aviation/Pearl Aviation pilots of days gone by were always better than this very public bickering. I guess the shortage of pilots that we are experiencing in this country has lowered the bar and let the likes of APMR get a job that he would not have achieved in days gone by. Oops does that sound bitchy?? Well he started it!
Back to my Muscat!

6th Jul 2007, 13:21
The only fact,(although only gathered from a rumour site) is that the CA was voted down.
Back to the tables gents and sort it out.

VERY interesting times ahead.

8th Jul 2007, 08:23
Stilted, one thing that did impress me about this thread, even though I don't agree with most posts, is that it was somewhat congienial, that was until your post. Well done.:D