Pearl Aviation pilots - towards a new CA (Merged)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 years on...
Apparently after 4 years of "negotiations" the p*arl people are finally going to get a chance to vote!
Pity 3 management teams have come and gone and the last lot are less than honest so the rumour mill says.
Will it get up? Once again the rumour mill says no.
Votes will tell.
Pity 3 management teams have come and gone and the last lot are less than honest so the rumour mill says.
Will it get up? Once again the rumour mill says no.
Votes will tell.
Gee, 400 views and no replys. Pretty amazing!
As I am one of those involved I can only say I agree.
For those that are fed members, can I suggest you go to the AFAP site and look at the Pearl News.
I think once you read the AFAP release you may get a pretty good understanding of what has been going on at Pearl.
Judging from what has been posted it seems it would be pretty amazing if anyone voted for the document. But then again there are always company sympathisers. Especially if you have "CP" on your business card.
Pity, I thought they were supposed to be neutral!
Anyway, my belief is it will be voted down.
Come on guys come out of the closet and have your say!.
As I am one of those involved I can only say I agree.
For those that are fed members, can I suggest you go to the AFAP site and look at the Pearl News.
I think once you read the AFAP release you may get a pretty good understanding of what has been going on at Pearl.
Judging from what has been posted it seems it would be pretty amazing if anyone voted for the document. But then again there are always company sympathisers. Especially if you have "CP" on your business card.
Pity, I thought they were supposed to be neutral!
Anyway, my belief is it will be voted down.
Come on guys come out of the closet and have your say!.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: In my cave
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without making a statement on the value of the offer or whether the AFAP supported the original agreement; the management's behaviour since the negotiations is outrageous.
It's amazing that the management of Pearl/Paspaley think that they can negoiate an agreement and have it signed off by the AFAP so it can go out to a vote; then change the body of the agreement(to their advantage, and with disregard to the legal implications of some of the clause changes) and expect that the pilots will accept the deal. As an example, would you buy a car for an agreed price with agreed options, only to find that when you went to take delivery that it now didn't come with wheels or a radio as the dealer wanted more profit? Who's going to be stupid enough to agree to get shafted in this manner?
Pearl has gone from a company that had people knocking on the door wanting a job and with a good relationship with CASA,to a basket case in the regards to recruiting( the CP's memos now come with a plea for pilots to recommend potential pilots, as the continual advertisements aren't working) and their relationship with CASA is not what it has been in the past.
Until the management of Pearl/Paspaley realise that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable and that Pearl isn't at the top of pilot's wish lists for employment and conditions anymore(if it ever was), then the situation won't improve.
It's amazing that the management of Pearl/Paspaley think that they can negoiate an agreement and have it signed off by the AFAP so it can go out to a vote; then change the body of the agreement(to their advantage, and with disregard to the legal implications of some of the clause changes) and expect that the pilots will accept the deal. As an example, would you buy a car for an agreed price with agreed options, only to find that when you went to take delivery that it now didn't come with wheels or a radio as the dealer wanted more profit? Who's going to be stupid enough to agree to get shafted in this manner?
Pearl has gone from a company that had people knocking on the door wanting a job and with a good relationship with CASA,to a basket case in the regards to recruiting( the CP's memos now come with a plea for pilots to recommend potential pilots, as the continual advertisements aren't working) and their relationship with CASA is not what it has been in the past.
Until the management of Pearl/Paspaley realise that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable and that Pearl isn't at the top of pilot's wish lists for employment and conditions anymore(if it ever was), then the situation won't improve.
Last edited by CaptCaveman; 17th Jun 2007 at 11:45. Reason: Paragraphs
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a Pearl Aviation pilot and an AFAP member.
From discussions with other pilots, and from what I have heard on the grapevine, there is quite some angst over what has been raised in the AFAP-produced document that was emailed to us all recently.
Contributing to that angst is a perception that the company has underhandedly and quietly made a number of changes to the draft CA document that was presented to the pilots in February.
My motivation for this post is because I feel that, 1, the AFAP document has presented a deliberately biased and unfair analysis of details in the proposed CA, and that 2, the perception that the company has been underhanded cannot be justified. My reasoning for these opinions is below.
Please note that this post is concerned only with the AFAP document and our perception of the company’s conduct. My views on the proposed CA may follow in a subsequent post.
Firstly, my thoughts on the AFAP document.
The document is titled “Negotiation objectives” and contains a section that lists the changes (made by the company) between the draft CA and the CA document that we will be voting on. I will withhold my comments on the way the changes were made till later in this post.
The AFAP document gives the impression it is a full account of all the changes, and that all these changes are bad for the pilots. In fact, it is not a full account as those changes that are beneficial to the pilots are not mentioned (e.g. the increase in area allowance). And, several of the changes that are listed (and claimed to be bad) are actually beneficial to the pilots.
Also, several of the supposed changes were not actually changed. There are 5 such items and their wording in the proposed CA is identical to that of the draft.
After noticing that the area allowance changes weren’t included in the AFAP list, I wondered what other changes (beneficial to the pilots) there may have been. I hope to get time to go through both documents searching for more.
There are 23 “change” items (including the 5 that weren’t actually changed). 22 of these items have AFAP comments printed alongside. I have categorised the 22 items into groups according to the AFAP comments or the effect of the change. At the end of this post I will list each item, its category and give a short explanation for its categorisation.
Here follows a list of my categories with a few comments and a count of the items in that category. I start with the category of most concern to us:
Definitely detrimental to pilots (1 item)
A clear cut case. No ambiguity. The item in question concerns the reduction from 8 weeks to 2 weeks of the period during training that the company will pay for accommodation when a new pilot is receiving training at their designated base.
Possibly detrimental to pilots (2 items)
I say “possibly” because it can be argued that, for both of these items, the pilots are no worse off, and could actually be better off. For example, consider the clause re rostering to achieve a weekend off. The new wording appears to make it less likely we will get weekends off, when in fact it actually brings a certainty to getting one of the days off.
There is no such certainty contained in the wording being replaced, however. See what I mean? Is this change of detriment or benefit? I look closer at the two wordings in the item by item treatment later.
The other item in this category is to do with the meal allowances. See later.
Improvement for pilots (3 items)
Clear cut, unambiguous improvements such as the increases to training salary and remuneration for calibration contract pilots. That the AFAP comment alongside each of these items seeks to portray the improvement as somehow “negative” is the reason why I have described this whole document as “deliberately biased and unfair”.
Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion (9)
Almost half the document is in this category. It is quite clear that the AFAP staff member making the comment did not understand what the original clause meant, or why the clause was changed. It is also obvious that no consultation occurred between the AFAP and our pilot reps on each of these changes, and I will be asking our pilot reps why they have allowed this to happen, and why they have taken no action to correct these misunderstandings.
In all 9 instances, the change to the clause was to effect a wording change for the purpose of improving and/or clarifying the clause.
For example, consider the “Schedule A 3.5” change. The change to the wording was the addition of some words to clarify when overtime meal allowance can be claimed. The extra words simply say that you can’t claim it for sitting at home watching TV with the girlfriend.
The AFAP analysis of this change is that “the company is trying to remove this right from Airmed pilots” (!). How’s that for a jump to a false conclusion?
Three of these wording changes involve the addition of a single word into the clause. Here is another example, with a similarly wild leap to conclusion by the AFAP:
“Schedule A 3.9”. The word “late” has been inserted into the clause so as to clarify when the reimbursement can be claimed. The wording now reads “pilots who are rostered for more than 8 late night operations … will be reimbursed …”. The AFAP analysis of this change: “inserting this word removes all entitlements you previously had” (!).
The other 7 instances, substantially similar to these, are detailed below.
Barking at shadows (2)
Very minor changes that would only be of concern to someone suffering from paranoid delusions. One of these changes is so minor that its inclusion in this list by the AFAP, along with this comment by them “let your mind run wild with this one” leads me to suspect that they are simply trying to scare us, which further supports my “biased and unfair” opinion of their document.
No big deal (3)
Self explanatory. One of the items in this category is about split duty (definition 3.46). Of course it should not be in the CA as this matter is governed by CASA flight and duty time legislation. This means that it doesn’t matter what it says in the CA about flight and duty time issues as the government legislation will always override the CA. So why bring it up?
What are they on about? (1)
See below.
No comment (1)
This item involves check & training captain salaries. Being a mere line pilot, I am not qualified to comment.
Now, on to the question of how the changes between the draft and proposed CA were made and handled.
It was clearly wrong of the company to have made changes to the document they claimed would be the one we would be voting on. The company should have known that there was no way the differences would go unnoticed and should have advised us, and the AFAP, that these changes had occurred.
Was this a dishonest and underhanded attempt to steal some conditions from the pilots?
I don’t think so. If that was the case, all the changes would have been to the detriment of the pilots. As I have shown above, only one of the changes is definitely detrimental (two are possibly detrimental) whilst three are definitely beneficial.
Further evidence against the conspiracy theory, albeit circumstantial, is that the management of the company are nowhere near stupid enough to think they could make some secret changes without those changes being detected.
I rang the General Manager of Pearl Aviation to get his explanation for how the changes were made. He assured me that there was “nothing sinister, just a standard clerical error”. He went on to describe how the document, since evolving in December has travelled widely, been copied and distributed to many and been worked on by many.
Given the administrative shortcomings we so often see elsewhere throughout the company, I rather tend to believe him!
Now, the item by item list of the changes that were detailed in the AFAP document. The category I have placed them in is in italics:
Definition 3.29: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The company is merely seeking to clarify the definition of “grey day”. I believe it is an NTAMS contractual requirement that pilots be contactable on their grey day – if so, this would help to explain the company’s intention to clarify this. The new wording does not say what the AFAP alleges. CASA flight and duty time regulations prevent us from being on 24 hour callout.
Definition 3.41: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). Gross misunderstanding by the AFAP with gross leap to a false conclusion. The new wording of the clause is considerably tidied up from the original – it is now actually understandable. The AFAP say “you will not be entitled to a day off …” but that statement is false.
Definition 3.46: (No big deal). There is no point expressing flight and duty limit related conditions in a CA (unless the condition is more restrictive than those legislated by CASA – in which case they are beneficial to the pilot, not the company). Similarly, there is no point bringing our attention to this clause. This clause is one of the five that were not actually changed.
Definition 3.50: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The wording change by the company is to clarify the definition of “standby at home”. The AFAP, in their false conclusion, are implying that the company is trying to redefine “standby at home”, when in fact, the new definition now matches exactly the definition given in the CAO 48 Standard Industry Exemption.
Clause 4.3.1: (No big deal). The wording of the clause has been improved by the removal of the redundant words. The clause is now less wordy and easier to understand. Who gives a?
Clause 6.7: (What are they on about?). Not really sure what the AFAP is getting at, but the company has modified this clause to make it more easy to recover money from those trainees that renege on their obligations to repay training costs should they leave the company early.
Clause 7.3: (Barking at shadows). The company has inserted the word “required”. This was a simple change that results in the sentence being “better english”. The AFAP comment seeks to conjure up all manner of fears over how this sentence now reads.
Read it yourself. Here it is: “Pilot duties will include … completion of statutory and company required documentation in connection with a flight”.
Clause 20.8: (Barking at shadows). The company has made this change, I would say, to give them a little more breathing space when it comes to getting your salary payments to you (4 days instead of 2). Perhaps an acknowledgement of the inefficiencies that exist throughout the administration of Pearl Aviation!
The AFAP comment here is “read in conjunction with debt collection!”. What do they mean by this? I tried to read up on the debt collection, but there is nothing about it anywhere (that I could find).
Clause 36.1: (Improvement for pilots). The only change in the wording is the change from $980 to $1100.00. This is an amount the company pays, on behalf of the pilot, for loss-of-licence insurance. The AFAP comment seeks to put a negative spin on this.
Clause 42.4: Not categorised by me, as the AFAP made no comment about this. The change, anyway, was a clarification to the conditions under which the company would pay casual pilots.
Schedule A 1.1: (Improvement for pilots). This change is the announcement that pilots on the calibration contract would be paid a special premium. The final sentence of the AFAP comment is “put it in the ‘trying to buy us off’ column”, which language I think is adversarial and inappropriate.
Schedule A 2: (Improvement for pilots). This change announces two improvements to the training salary. The amount has gone up to $31K from $26K, and the maximum period under this salary before reversion to the full salary has come down to 3 months from 6.
The AFAP comment is as per the previous paragraph.
Schedule A 2: (Definitely detrimental to pilots). This change reduces the period from 8 weeks to 2 weeks throughout which the company will pay for the trainee’s accommodation costs whilst the trainee is at their assigned base.
Schedule A 3.2.1: (No comment). This item is not about a change, but an alleged omission on the part of the company to detail check and training captain salaries. I am not qualified to comment.
Schedule A 3.5: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This change was to clarify that overtime meal allowance cannot be claimed whilst at home on standby. As if! The AFAP’s claim is that “the company is trying to remove this right from Airmed pilots”.
Schedule A 3.9: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This change was to clarify when pilots could claim for the late night roster reimbursement and involved the insertion of the single word “late”.
The AFAP analysis of this change: “By inserting the word ‘late’ into this clause removes all entitlements you previously had”. I think the AFAP have gotten a little carried away there!
Judge for yourself; here is how the clause now reads: “Pilots who are rostered for more than 8 late night operations … will be reimbursed $9.59 for each night rostered as a personal inconvenience allowance.”
Schedule A 3.8.2: (No big deal). The change was to further clarify when the maintenance allowance could be claimed. The new wording rules out seat removal as a reason. I believe the company did not pay out for this anyway, so this change only brings the clause into line with current practice.
Schedule A 3.10: (Possibly detrimental to pilots). This item did not actually undergo any change between the draft and the proposed CA. The item is to do with meal allowances and the AFAP comment claims that these will somehow go down by 30%.
The comment mentions the ATO “reasonable benefit allowance” which I know nothing about, but because the amounts can only change by a few dollars I won’t be spending any time researching it. I have categorised this as “possibly detrimental” because it is arguable that the new terms are better than those of the (existing) 1999 CA.
Under the old CA, the amounts were not linked to anything. Under this clause, they are.
Schedule C 1.2.1: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The wording change to this clause is to emphasise the fact that NTAMS pilot pre and post flight duties can be different to those of a “normal” flight so the pre and post flight duty time allowances for NTAMS, when factoring these in for the purposes of rostering, should be considered differently.
A glaringly obvious misunderstanding by the AFAP. The purpose of the clause, headed “maximum duty time”, is to remind pilots and operational staff that when considering a duty period, such consideration must include certain time allowances for pre and post flight duties. Big deal!
The wording change has the simple effect of saying that the NTAMS pre and post allowances may not be the same as those for a “normal” Pearl Aviation flight.
The AFAP analysis: “By accepting this condition any duty pre or post flight would be considered not to be duty”. This is a spectacularly wild conclusion. Once again, when it comes to issues of flight and duty time, the governing terms and conditions are as laid out in the CASA legislation.
Schedule C 1.8.3: (Possibly detrimental to pilots). This is the clause about getting weekends off. My impression, having briefly discussed this with other pilots, is that this particular change has been seriously misunderstood and is causing great concern and fear amongst pilots.
The AFAP comment on this, which is misleading (or should that be mischievous?) has done much to foster that fear and concern. The AFAP comment was “this removes any right to having a weekend off”.
In fact, we never had any right to weekends off to start with. As I said earlier, the new wording brings some certainty where there was none under the existing agreement – this is why I have categorised this change as “possibly detrimental”. Let’s look at the exact wording of both the old and new clauses.
The clause as it appeared in the draft CA document (which is also how it is worded in the 1999 CA document):
“Over a 28 day roster cycle pilots will be entitled to 8 designated days off which a minimum of 2 sets will be of 2 or more consecutive days, one of which shall incorporate a Saturday and Sunday where practical.”
How it is worded in the proposed CA:
“Over a 28 day roster cycle pilots will be entitled to 8 designated days off which a minimum of 2 sets will be of 2 or more consecutive days, one of which shall incorporate a Saturday or Sunday unless another arrangement is mutually agreed.”
So, the original wording says “Saturday and Sunday where practical” whilst the new wording says a definite “Saturday or Sunday”.
In my opinion, the only effect that this wording change should be having on pilots is a slight lowering of their expectations in regard to getting weekends off.
It most certainly is not saying that pilots will never again get a weekend off.
I believe the intent of the wording change was to bring the wording into line with both the current rostering practices and the current pilot expectations.
Possibly detrimental, definitely detrimental or beneficial to the pilots?
Schedule C 1.8.9: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This is another item that was not actually changed between the two CA documents. The “change” is actually between the 1999 CA and the draft/proposed CAs.
The clause in question relates to the payment of RDO payments and the thing that has changed is … wait for it … “rostered duty free day” is now called “designated day off”.
The AFAP comment on this reveals another obvious misunderstanding with consequent leap to spectacularly false conclusion. The AFAP “analysis” of this change is that it “removes that entitlement. The implication is evident”.
How can the AFAP come to such a conclusion? Judge for yourself. Here is the entire clause (the new form):
“A pilot shall not be required to work on a designated day off, provided that the company may request a pilot to work and where the pilot so agrees, they shall receive 2.5 times the pilot’s day rate of pay for each day so worked.”
Schedule C 1.8.11: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The change to this clause was the insertion of the word “designated” before “day off”. That part of the sentence now reads “designated day off”. The AFAP comment against this is “same as above”. Their “above” comment was about “entitlements being removed – the implication is evident”.
This was just a simple little wording change by the company. They changed “day off” to “designated day off”.
Schedule C 1.9.3: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This clause is another of those that did not actually change between the draft and proposed CA documents. My guess for why the AFAP have listed this clause is because it contains the phrase “designated day off”.
So just why have the AFAP listed this clause? If you change “designated day off” to “rostered duty free days” in this clause the result is then identical to clause 10.2.3 of the 1999 CA document!
From discussions with other pilots, and from what I have heard on the grapevine, there is quite some angst over what has been raised in the AFAP-produced document that was emailed to us all recently.
Contributing to that angst is a perception that the company has underhandedly and quietly made a number of changes to the draft CA document that was presented to the pilots in February.
My motivation for this post is because I feel that, 1, the AFAP document has presented a deliberately biased and unfair analysis of details in the proposed CA, and that 2, the perception that the company has been underhanded cannot be justified. My reasoning for these opinions is below.
Please note that this post is concerned only with the AFAP document and our perception of the company’s conduct. My views on the proposed CA may follow in a subsequent post.
Firstly, my thoughts on the AFAP document.
The document is titled “Negotiation objectives” and contains a section that lists the changes (made by the company) between the draft CA and the CA document that we will be voting on. I will withhold my comments on the way the changes were made till later in this post.
The AFAP document gives the impression it is a full account of all the changes, and that all these changes are bad for the pilots. In fact, it is not a full account as those changes that are beneficial to the pilots are not mentioned (e.g. the increase in area allowance). And, several of the changes that are listed (and claimed to be bad) are actually beneficial to the pilots.
Also, several of the supposed changes were not actually changed. There are 5 such items and their wording in the proposed CA is identical to that of the draft.
After noticing that the area allowance changes weren’t included in the AFAP list, I wondered what other changes (beneficial to the pilots) there may have been. I hope to get time to go through both documents searching for more.
There are 23 “change” items (including the 5 that weren’t actually changed). 22 of these items have AFAP comments printed alongside. I have categorised the 22 items into groups according to the AFAP comments or the effect of the change. At the end of this post I will list each item, its category and give a short explanation for its categorisation.
Here follows a list of my categories with a few comments and a count of the items in that category. I start with the category of most concern to us:
Definitely detrimental to pilots (1 item)
A clear cut case. No ambiguity. The item in question concerns the reduction from 8 weeks to 2 weeks of the period during training that the company will pay for accommodation when a new pilot is receiving training at their designated base.
Possibly detrimental to pilots (2 items)
I say “possibly” because it can be argued that, for both of these items, the pilots are no worse off, and could actually be better off. For example, consider the clause re rostering to achieve a weekend off. The new wording appears to make it less likely we will get weekends off, when in fact it actually brings a certainty to getting one of the days off.
There is no such certainty contained in the wording being replaced, however. See what I mean? Is this change of detriment or benefit? I look closer at the two wordings in the item by item treatment later.
The other item in this category is to do with the meal allowances. See later.
Improvement for pilots (3 items)
Clear cut, unambiguous improvements such as the increases to training salary and remuneration for calibration contract pilots. That the AFAP comment alongside each of these items seeks to portray the improvement as somehow “negative” is the reason why I have described this whole document as “deliberately biased and unfair”.
Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion (9)
Almost half the document is in this category. It is quite clear that the AFAP staff member making the comment did not understand what the original clause meant, or why the clause was changed. It is also obvious that no consultation occurred between the AFAP and our pilot reps on each of these changes, and I will be asking our pilot reps why they have allowed this to happen, and why they have taken no action to correct these misunderstandings.
In all 9 instances, the change to the clause was to effect a wording change for the purpose of improving and/or clarifying the clause.
For example, consider the “Schedule A 3.5” change. The change to the wording was the addition of some words to clarify when overtime meal allowance can be claimed. The extra words simply say that you can’t claim it for sitting at home watching TV with the girlfriend.
The AFAP analysis of this change is that “the company is trying to remove this right from Airmed pilots” (!). How’s that for a jump to a false conclusion?
Three of these wording changes involve the addition of a single word into the clause. Here is another example, with a similarly wild leap to conclusion by the AFAP:
“Schedule A 3.9”. The word “late” has been inserted into the clause so as to clarify when the reimbursement can be claimed. The wording now reads “pilots who are rostered for more than 8 late night operations … will be reimbursed …”. The AFAP analysis of this change: “inserting this word removes all entitlements you previously had” (!).
The other 7 instances, substantially similar to these, are detailed below.
Barking at shadows (2)
Very minor changes that would only be of concern to someone suffering from paranoid delusions. One of these changes is so minor that its inclusion in this list by the AFAP, along with this comment by them “let your mind run wild with this one” leads me to suspect that they are simply trying to scare us, which further supports my “biased and unfair” opinion of their document.
No big deal (3)
Self explanatory. One of the items in this category is about split duty (definition 3.46). Of course it should not be in the CA as this matter is governed by CASA flight and duty time legislation. This means that it doesn’t matter what it says in the CA about flight and duty time issues as the government legislation will always override the CA. So why bring it up?
What are they on about? (1)
See below.
No comment (1)
This item involves check & training captain salaries. Being a mere line pilot, I am not qualified to comment.
Now, on to the question of how the changes between the draft and proposed CA were made and handled.
It was clearly wrong of the company to have made changes to the document they claimed would be the one we would be voting on. The company should have known that there was no way the differences would go unnoticed and should have advised us, and the AFAP, that these changes had occurred.
Was this a dishonest and underhanded attempt to steal some conditions from the pilots?
I don’t think so. If that was the case, all the changes would have been to the detriment of the pilots. As I have shown above, only one of the changes is definitely detrimental (two are possibly detrimental) whilst three are definitely beneficial.
Further evidence against the conspiracy theory, albeit circumstantial, is that the management of the company are nowhere near stupid enough to think they could make some secret changes without those changes being detected.
I rang the General Manager of Pearl Aviation to get his explanation for how the changes were made. He assured me that there was “nothing sinister, just a standard clerical error”. He went on to describe how the document, since evolving in December has travelled widely, been copied and distributed to many and been worked on by many.
Given the administrative shortcomings we so often see elsewhere throughout the company, I rather tend to believe him!
Now, the item by item list of the changes that were detailed in the AFAP document. The category I have placed them in is in italics:
Definition 3.29: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The company is merely seeking to clarify the definition of “grey day”. I believe it is an NTAMS contractual requirement that pilots be contactable on their grey day – if so, this would help to explain the company’s intention to clarify this. The new wording does not say what the AFAP alleges. CASA flight and duty time regulations prevent us from being on 24 hour callout.
Definition 3.41: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). Gross misunderstanding by the AFAP with gross leap to a false conclusion. The new wording of the clause is considerably tidied up from the original – it is now actually understandable. The AFAP say “you will not be entitled to a day off …” but that statement is false.
Definition 3.46: (No big deal). There is no point expressing flight and duty limit related conditions in a CA (unless the condition is more restrictive than those legislated by CASA – in which case they are beneficial to the pilot, not the company). Similarly, there is no point bringing our attention to this clause. This clause is one of the five that were not actually changed.
Definition 3.50: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The wording change by the company is to clarify the definition of “standby at home”. The AFAP, in their false conclusion, are implying that the company is trying to redefine “standby at home”, when in fact, the new definition now matches exactly the definition given in the CAO 48 Standard Industry Exemption.
Clause 4.3.1: (No big deal). The wording of the clause has been improved by the removal of the redundant words. The clause is now less wordy and easier to understand. Who gives a?
Clause 6.7: (What are they on about?). Not really sure what the AFAP is getting at, but the company has modified this clause to make it more easy to recover money from those trainees that renege on their obligations to repay training costs should they leave the company early.
Clause 7.3: (Barking at shadows). The company has inserted the word “required”. This was a simple change that results in the sentence being “better english”. The AFAP comment seeks to conjure up all manner of fears over how this sentence now reads.
Read it yourself. Here it is: “Pilot duties will include … completion of statutory and company required documentation in connection with a flight”.
Clause 20.8: (Barking at shadows). The company has made this change, I would say, to give them a little more breathing space when it comes to getting your salary payments to you (4 days instead of 2). Perhaps an acknowledgement of the inefficiencies that exist throughout the administration of Pearl Aviation!
The AFAP comment here is “read in conjunction with debt collection!”. What do they mean by this? I tried to read up on the debt collection, but there is nothing about it anywhere (that I could find).
Clause 36.1: (Improvement for pilots). The only change in the wording is the change from $980 to $1100.00. This is an amount the company pays, on behalf of the pilot, for loss-of-licence insurance. The AFAP comment seeks to put a negative spin on this.
Clause 42.4: Not categorised by me, as the AFAP made no comment about this. The change, anyway, was a clarification to the conditions under which the company would pay casual pilots.
Schedule A 1.1: (Improvement for pilots). This change is the announcement that pilots on the calibration contract would be paid a special premium. The final sentence of the AFAP comment is “put it in the ‘trying to buy us off’ column”, which language I think is adversarial and inappropriate.
Schedule A 2: (Improvement for pilots). This change announces two improvements to the training salary. The amount has gone up to $31K from $26K, and the maximum period under this salary before reversion to the full salary has come down to 3 months from 6.
The AFAP comment is as per the previous paragraph.
Schedule A 2: (Definitely detrimental to pilots). This change reduces the period from 8 weeks to 2 weeks throughout which the company will pay for the trainee’s accommodation costs whilst the trainee is at their assigned base.
Schedule A 3.2.1: (No comment). This item is not about a change, but an alleged omission on the part of the company to detail check and training captain salaries. I am not qualified to comment.
Schedule A 3.5: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This change was to clarify that overtime meal allowance cannot be claimed whilst at home on standby. As if! The AFAP’s claim is that “the company is trying to remove this right from Airmed pilots”.
Schedule A 3.9: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This change was to clarify when pilots could claim for the late night roster reimbursement and involved the insertion of the single word “late”.
The AFAP analysis of this change: “By inserting the word ‘late’ into this clause removes all entitlements you previously had”. I think the AFAP have gotten a little carried away there!
Judge for yourself; here is how the clause now reads: “Pilots who are rostered for more than 8 late night operations … will be reimbursed $9.59 for each night rostered as a personal inconvenience allowance.”
Schedule A 3.8.2: (No big deal). The change was to further clarify when the maintenance allowance could be claimed. The new wording rules out seat removal as a reason. I believe the company did not pay out for this anyway, so this change only brings the clause into line with current practice.
Schedule A 3.10: (Possibly detrimental to pilots). This item did not actually undergo any change between the draft and the proposed CA. The item is to do with meal allowances and the AFAP comment claims that these will somehow go down by 30%.
The comment mentions the ATO “reasonable benefit allowance” which I know nothing about, but because the amounts can only change by a few dollars I won’t be spending any time researching it. I have categorised this as “possibly detrimental” because it is arguable that the new terms are better than those of the (existing) 1999 CA.
Under the old CA, the amounts were not linked to anything. Under this clause, they are.
Schedule C 1.2.1: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The wording change to this clause is to emphasise the fact that NTAMS pilot pre and post flight duties can be different to those of a “normal” flight so the pre and post flight duty time allowances for NTAMS, when factoring these in for the purposes of rostering, should be considered differently.
A glaringly obvious misunderstanding by the AFAP. The purpose of the clause, headed “maximum duty time”, is to remind pilots and operational staff that when considering a duty period, such consideration must include certain time allowances for pre and post flight duties. Big deal!
The wording change has the simple effect of saying that the NTAMS pre and post allowances may not be the same as those for a “normal” Pearl Aviation flight.
The AFAP analysis: “By accepting this condition any duty pre or post flight would be considered not to be duty”. This is a spectacularly wild conclusion. Once again, when it comes to issues of flight and duty time, the governing terms and conditions are as laid out in the CASA legislation.
Schedule C 1.8.3: (Possibly detrimental to pilots). This is the clause about getting weekends off. My impression, having briefly discussed this with other pilots, is that this particular change has been seriously misunderstood and is causing great concern and fear amongst pilots.
The AFAP comment on this, which is misleading (or should that be mischievous?) has done much to foster that fear and concern. The AFAP comment was “this removes any right to having a weekend off”.
In fact, we never had any right to weekends off to start with. As I said earlier, the new wording brings some certainty where there was none under the existing agreement – this is why I have categorised this change as “possibly detrimental”. Let’s look at the exact wording of both the old and new clauses.
The clause as it appeared in the draft CA document (which is also how it is worded in the 1999 CA document):
“Over a 28 day roster cycle pilots will be entitled to 8 designated days off which a minimum of 2 sets will be of 2 or more consecutive days, one of which shall incorporate a Saturday and Sunday where practical.”
How it is worded in the proposed CA:
“Over a 28 day roster cycle pilots will be entitled to 8 designated days off which a minimum of 2 sets will be of 2 or more consecutive days, one of which shall incorporate a Saturday or Sunday unless another arrangement is mutually agreed.”
So, the original wording says “Saturday and Sunday where practical” whilst the new wording says a definite “Saturday or Sunday”.
In my opinion, the only effect that this wording change should be having on pilots is a slight lowering of their expectations in regard to getting weekends off.
It most certainly is not saying that pilots will never again get a weekend off.
I believe the intent of the wording change was to bring the wording into line with both the current rostering practices and the current pilot expectations.
Possibly detrimental, definitely detrimental or beneficial to the pilots?
Schedule C 1.8.9: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This is another item that was not actually changed between the two CA documents. The “change” is actually between the 1999 CA and the draft/proposed CAs.
The clause in question relates to the payment of RDO payments and the thing that has changed is … wait for it … “rostered duty free day” is now called “designated day off”.
The AFAP comment on this reveals another obvious misunderstanding with consequent leap to spectacularly false conclusion. The AFAP “analysis” of this change is that it “removes that entitlement. The implication is evident”.
How can the AFAP come to such a conclusion? Judge for yourself. Here is the entire clause (the new form):
“A pilot shall not be required to work on a designated day off, provided that the company may request a pilot to work and where the pilot so agrees, they shall receive 2.5 times the pilot’s day rate of pay for each day so worked.”
Schedule C 1.8.11: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). The change to this clause was the insertion of the word “designated” before “day off”. That part of the sentence now reads “designated day off”. The AFAP comment against this is “same as above”. Their “above” comment was about “entitlements being removed – the implication is evident”.
This was just a simple little wording change by the company. They changed “day off” to “designated day off”.
Schedule C 1.9.3: (Misunderstanding by AFAP, with consequent jump to a false conclusion). This clause is another of those that did not actually change between the draft and proposed CA documents. My guess for why the AFAP have listed this clause is because it contains the phrase “designated day off”.
So just why have the AFAP listed this clause? If you change “designated day off” to “rostered duty free days” in this clause the result is then identical to clause 10.2.3 of the 1999 CA document!
Last edited by APMR; 19th Jun 2007 at 10:50.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pearl Aviation pilots - towards a new CA (Merged)
Dearest fellow Pearl pilots,
There is a thread running re the proposed CA. It is called "4 years on..." and you can get to it by clicking on the following:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=279994
If the creator of that thread hadn't chosen such an obscure title I wouldn't be making this post. Perhaps a mod can merge these two threads...
There is a thread running re the proposed CA. It is called "4 years on..." and you can get to it by clicking on the following:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=279994
If the creator of that thread hadn't chosen such an obscure title I wouldn't be making this post. Perhaps a mod can merge these two threads...
Pearl Pilot and AFAP member...
APMR - Congrats on the longest post I have read on PPRuNe in years (ever?)!!!
It has been said to me that some are considering voting for this proposed CA just "to be done with it". That is the worst reason to do, or not do, anything in my book.
Personally, I don't think it will get up. Time will tell. But surely if there was any sense of real negotiation and a desire to reach agreement (from both sides), the thing would have gone to a vote long before the four year mark, yes?
I think in light of the current aviation climate, the agreement does not give enough, for what it seeks to remove. Simple as that.
Do some figures on CPI, versus 2% a year, compounded over the last 4-5 years, to see how far backward Pearl Aviation's T&C has gone. That is the first thing that must be addressed, before even considering:
1) that situation is not to be repeated over the course of this CA
2) all allowances should be indexed per annum to CPI too (not ATO XXX)
3) experienced pilots are generally (or should be!) worth more in the labour market in general, due supply/demand - just as they will be worth less when the market swings back (don't worry it will...)
4) if appreciation is not shown for existing crew (yeah increase the training wage 20%, but give existing crew basically a CPI base rate increase) then you can all expect to read plenty of ads for Pearl crew. Pearl will continue to train pilots (very inefficiently wrt $$$ I might add) who leave and take their training to another operator. It has happened many times now...
Well as I said time will tell - in two weeks we'll know.
CR.
APMR - Congrats on the longest post I have read on PPRuNe in years (ever?)!!!
It has been said to me that some are considering voting for this proposed CA just "to be done with it". That is the worst reason to do, or not do, anything in my book.
Personally, I don't think it will get up. Time will tell. But surely if there was any sense of real negotiation and a desire to reach agreement (from both sides), the thing would have gone to a vote long before the four year mark, yes?
I think in light of the current aviation climate, the agreement does not give enough, for what it seeks to remove. Simple as that.
Do some figures on CPI, versus 2% a year, compounded over the last 4-5 years, to see how far backward Pearl Aviation's T&C has gone. That is the first thing that must be addressed, before even considering:
1) that situation is not to be repeated over the course of this CA
2) all allowances should be indexed per annum to CPI too (not ATO XXX)
3) experienced pilots are generally (or should be!) worth more in the labour market in general, due supply/demand - just as they will be worth less when the market swings back (don't worry it will...)
4) if appreciation is not shown for existing crew (yeah increase the training wage 20%, but give existing crew basically a CPI base rate increase) then you can all expect to read plenty of ads for Pearl crew. Pearl will continue to train pilots (very inefficiently wrt $$$ I might add) who leave and take their training to another operator. It has happened many times now...
Well as I said time will tell - in two weeks we'll know.
CR.
OK APMR, I will bite.
First off, it is my impression the the reps were working with the Feds on this deal, not just the Feds on behalf of the pilots.
Might I suggest it may have been wiser to ask the pilot reps before you made your assumptions and this post. But no, instead you chose to
and then made your post.
You say you are an AFAP member. Did you bother to ring them? Probably not.
And having read the rest of your post it is quite evident you do not fully understand the implications.
Three very simple examples:
1. Grey Day.
By being available/contactable on a grey day is actually considered to be "on call" or "reserve". Currently you are not permitted to be on reserve prior to or after a rostered tour of duty. And if you were then it would count towards your rostered tour of duty.
If you had any understanding of what is in each document you would have understood this.
2. Allowances.
All our allowance rates were negotiated in 1984 based on actual costs at a number of hotels around Australia. These rates have then been increased by the yearly CPI ever since. Having them now linked directly to the ATO Reasonable Benefit Allowances (and maybe you should do some research!) would reduce our current amounts down to the RBA rates. That's the tax free bit you claim on your claim form, just in case you didn't research this also.
3. Designated days off
You really do need to do some research on thois one! Read the definitions and the related clauses in conjunction with each other. Under the new document a day off away from home base etc is not considered to be a designated day off. What does this mean? If you are away from home base on temp transfer, leave relief or rostered away then on any "day off" the roster can be changed without consultation nor agreement and you are not entitled to the penalty payment.
As I said, three simple examples.
So may I suggest you re-read everthing properley, try and understand everything you read, ring everyone and then, when you are fully informed, repost.
Have a nice Metro day.
OAH
First off, it is my impression the the reps were working with the Feds on this deal, not just the Feds on behalf of the pilots.
It is also obvious that no consultation occurred between the AFAP and our pilot reps on each of these changes, and I will be asking our pilot reps why they have allowed this to happen, and why they have taken no action to correct these misunderstandings.
I rang the General Manager of Pearl Aviation to get his explanation for how the changes were made.
You say you are an AFAP member. Did you bother to ring them? Probably not.
And having read the rest of your post it is quite evident you do not fully understand the implications.
Three very simple examples:
1. Grey Day.
By being available/contactable on a grey day is actually considered to be "on call" or "reserve". Currently you are not permitted to be on reserve prior to or after a rostered tour of duty. And if you were then it would count towards your rostered tour of duty.
If you had any understanding of what is in each document you would have understood this.
2. Allowances.
All our allowance rates were negotiated in 1984 based on actual costs at a number of hotels around Australia. These rates have then been increased by the yearly CPI ever since. Having them now linked directly to the ATO Reasonable Benefit Allowances (and maybe you should do some research!) would reduce our current amounts down to the RBA rates. That's the tax free bit you claim on your claim form, just in case you didn't research this also.
3. Designated days off
You really do need to do some research on thois one! Read the definitions and the related clauses in conjunction with each other. Under the new document a day off away from home base etc is not considered to be a designated day off. What does this mean? If you are away from home base on temp transfer, leave relief or rostered away then on any "day off" the roster can be changed without consultation nor agreement and you are not entitled to the penalty payment.
As I said, three simple examples.
So may I suggest you re-read everthing properley, try and understand everything you read, ring everyone and then, when you are fully informed, repost.
Have a nice Metro day.
OAH
In response to APMR's post;
Clause 3.29 Grey Day
Obviously, you haven't considered to effect this will have on some of Pearl/Aeropearl's operations, eg with the Aeropearl(Pearl pilots) operations in Singapore, being contactable on a grey day is not a contractural requirement for this operation. If the pilots are to be contactable then any contact( as it can be subsequently classed as duty according to the CAO) would be detrimental to the operation as there is no spare crew to complete the flight/s. You might ask how would that be duty, well as the aircraft is often unreliable due to the conditions and the customer/ Aeropearl management & engineering staff have a habit of wanting information or changing requirements on the day preceding the operation, they like to try and call the pilots when they're actually sleeping; at present we can block the calls and deal with the changes via emails/SMS when we start duty or have the Flight Inspector handle the contact as they're not legally covered by the CAO's( wrong but there it is). If they(the customer) or management have the right/ability to call, they will( I deal with these people ). Yes, I know that you'll say well they should realise the impact this will have on the operation and shouldn't call, but guess what ,they're human, and like most of us reckon that their little request won't make much difference and is so important to them,etc; so, why should the pilots have a problem with it. This will be a big, big problem for the pilots on the Flight Calibration contract.
Clause 7.3 Duties of pilots.
You can't see a problem, well I can. Obviously you're not being asked to sign the "Flyability" reports required on the Flight Inspection contract. At present the pilots are refusing to sign these(this has been the case for several years) and a few other documents as they are only approved to sign lighting reports( both routine and commissioning). The reason for the refusal? Well, if you sign a document that you're not qualified to sign and a legal problem arises(eg a crash involving a radio aid or procedure and you've signed saying the approach is flyable by any Tom, Dick or Harry and it isn't) then were do you stand legally. The answer, all by yourself probably as ASA and the company won't want any part of it as the pilot has signed previously that it's all OK. The company and ASA won't give the pilots certification, this has been requested for several years.
Clause 36.1 Loss of Licence insurance
Yes, the monetary value has increased. However, the point that the Negotiators and AFAP were trying to make was that it would be better, not necessarily fairer depending on you age, if the company paid the full amount of the LoL insurance bill. The younger pilots don't need all the amount( company saves) and the older pilots need more( pilots out of pocket) than the amount paid. Without having access to the amount that each pilot requires to gain LoL, it's abit hard to do the figures; but if the total amount is revenue neutral or close enough then what's the problem with a sliding scale? You may say that we're all entitled to the same amount, fair point; however we already have sliding scales for years of service/experience, so why not when age effects the cost of LoL?
Schedule A 1.1 Flight Inspection allowance
As noted in the negotiators/AFAP document, not on parity with world standard, especially if read in conjunction with clause 7.3, signing of documentation.
Schedule A 3.10 Allowances
As APMR isn't interested enough in these amounts then it's probably a fair bet that you don't do any/many overnights, others do.
Schedule C 1.2.1
NTAMs isn't the only contract that has duties before and after flight that can take up quite a deal of the crew's time. The captains on the Flight Inspection contract start duty in the hotel when on deployment(which is about 120-150 days pa) as there usually isn't an office or FBO they can use at the airport. The crew is usually required to liase extensively with the customers(ATC, ASA technical staff, military personnel, airport operations/security/safety officers, the list goes on) who either need briefings before and after flight, reports(signed or otherwise), operational discussions with Aeropearl management, etc. So, the allowance for 45min prior and 15 min post flight gives no consideration to these requirements for Flight Inspection operations.
APMR, with regard to your discussion with the General Manager about the changes after the negoiations being slipups. Bulls*it!! MB is a smart guy, he doesn't make errors like that when it comes to contracts and conditions; I watched him at close range for several years and the changes are to the company's advantage. Were there any clerical error/s in favour of the pilots?
We all are entitled to our opinions as to the merits of the offer and that is fine, but with regard to the changes to the document after the negoiations and with refence to the last paragragh I believe the companies actions in the time between negoiations and the issuing of the offer are unprincipled.
Therefore, thanks but no thanks.
Clause 3.29 Grey Day
Obviously, you haven't considered to effect this will have on some of Pearl/Aeropearl's operations, eg with the Aeropearl(Pearl pilots) operations in Singapore, being contactable on a grey day is not a contractural requirement for this operation. If the pilots are to be contactable then any contact( as it can be subsequently classed as duty according to the CAO) would be detrimental to the operation as there is no spare crew to complete the flight/s. You might ask how would that be duty, well as the aircraft is often unreliable due to the conditions and the customer/ Aeropearl management & engineering staff have a habit of wanting information or changing requirements on the day preceding the operation, they like to try and call the pilots when they're actually sleeping; at present we can block the calls and deal with the changes via emails/SMS when we start duty or have the Flight Inspector handle the contact as they're not legally covered by the CAO's( wrong but there it is). If they(the customer) or management have the right/ability to call, they will( I deal with these people ). Yes, I know that you'll say well they should realise the impact this will have on the operation and shouldn't call, but guess what ,they're human, and like most of us reckon that their little request won't make much difference and is so important to them,etc; so, why should the pilots have a problem with it. This will be a big, big problem for the pilots on the Flight Calibration contract.
Clause 7.3 Duties of pilots.
You can't see a problem, well I can. Obviously you're not being asked to sign the "Flyability" reports required on the Flight Inspection contract. At present the pilots are refusing to sign these(this has been the case for several years) and a few other documents as they are only approved to sign lighting reports( both routine and commissioning). The reason for the refusal? Well, if you sign a document that you're not qualified to sign and a legal problem arises(eg a crash involving a radio aid or procedure and you've signed saying the approach is flyable by any Tom, Dick or Harry and it isn't) then were do you stand legally. The answer, all by yourself probably as ASA and the company won't want any part of it as the pilot has signed previously that it's all OK. The company and ASA won't give the pilots certification, this has been requested for several years.
Clause 36.1 Loss of Licence insurance
Yes, the monetary value has increased. However, the point that the Negotiators and AFAP were trying to make was that it would be better, not necessarily fairer depending on you age, if the company paid the full amount of the LoL insurance bill. The younger pilots don't need all the amount( company saves) and the older pilots need more( pilots out of pocket) than the amount paid. Without having access to the amount that each pilot requires to gain LoL, it's abit hard to do the figures; but if the total amount is revenue neutral or close enough then what's the problem with a sliding scale? You may say that we're all entitled to the same amount, fair point; however we already have sliding scales for years of service/experience, so why not when age effects the cost of LoL?
Schedule A 1.1 Flight Inspection allowance
As noted in the negotiators/AFAP document, not on parity with world standard, especially if read in conjunction with clause 7.3, signing of documentation.
Schedule A 3.10 Allowances
As APMR isn't interested enough in these amounts then it's probably a fair bet that you don't do any/many overnights, others do.
Schedule C 1.2.1
NTAMs isn't the only contract that has duties before and after flight that can take up quite a deal of the crew's time. The captains on the Flight Inspection contract start duty in the hotel when on deployment(which is about 120-150 days pa) as there usually isn't an office or FBO they can use at the airport. The crew is usually required to liase extensively with the customers(ATC, ASA technical staff, military personnel, airport operations/security/safety officers, the list goes on) who either need briefings before and after flight, reports(signed or otherwise), operational discussions with Aeropearl management, etc. So, the allowance for 45min prior and 15 min post flight gives no consideration to these requirements for Flight Inspection operations.
APMR, with regard to your discussion with the General Manager about the changes after the negoiations being slipups. Bulls*it!! MB is a smart guy, he doesn't make errors like that when it comes to contracts and conditions; I watched him at close range for several years and the changes are to the company's advantage. Were there any clerical error/s in favour of the pilots?
We all are entitled to our opinions as to the merits of the offer and that is fine, but with regard to the changes to the document after the negoiations and with refence to the last paragragh I believe the companies actions in the time between negoiations and the issuing of the offer are unprincipled.
Therefore, thanks but no thanks.
Last edited by Seaeagle109; 20th Jun 2007 at 22:54. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See, this is one of the reasons I left Pearl, used to be a good company to work for, gone down the sh*tter since management went to Darwin. I feel for you pilots, all I can say is stick to your guns, Take in the whole picture of what is going on throughout Australia, and dont be too quick to sign. Management realise that the shoe is now on the other foot, and of course want an EBA signed. Your not alone, consider other unions for advice, as I believe that the AFAP has lost alot of it's bite(or isnt willing too), talk to other pilot bodies(if you havn't already).
Good luck with it all.
JarJar
Good luck with it all.
JarJar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well excuse me for being so obscure APMR! Next time I will be sure to consult with you before I post, that's if it's ok with you.
Also notice you are copping a bit of flack today matey.
Maybe tell Michael, that might make you feel better.
Also notice you are copping a bit of flack today matey.
Maybe tell Michael, that might make you feel better.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great that we are discussing some of these things. Let's keep it up.
Ringin, My apologies for using those words. No offence was intended.
Counter-rotation, good post and some good points raised. I don't agree with some of them and hope to get time to address them soon.
olderairhead, you said:
Nobody is suggesting anything about being on call immediately after a period of duty or standby. There must be a rest period between the period of duty or standby before you go back on call. The CASA legislation says this (I think), and the company says this. Here is the "new" definition of grey day (the part relevent to this discussion), copied from the proposed CA document:
3.29 GREY DAY ... 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 ...
I have read, read and reread all the relevent clauses on this one and cannot see how you can have this interpretation. You will have to spell it out to me.
Schedule C 1.8.9 says "A pilot shall not be required to work on a designated day off, provided that the company may request a pilot to work and where the pilot so agrees, they shall receive 2.5 times the pilot's day rate of pay for each day so worked".
Nothing in that about which base you are at. So, what about the definition for "designated day off"? Here it is:
3.18 DESIGNATED DAY OFF means the period that a pilot shall be free of all duty in their home base or base to which they have been temporarily transferred or during leave relief, from 2200 hours preceeding until 0600 hours after such calendar day.
So how, from the above two definitions, can you arrive at your conclusion?
You also said something about the meal allowances, but I still can't really make any comment about those at this stage, other than that regardless of what the changes to those are, the amounts will vary by only a few dollars (at the absolute most).
Seaeagle109, thanks for the post. I am running a bit short of time now so will address some of your points now and hopefully, some more later.
Regarding signing documentation that may expose you to legal liability - just continue refusing to sign it! The company will have no more recourse against you under the new CA than they currently do - do you think the inclusion of the word "required" makes that much difference? If they can sack you under the new wording, then they could have sacked you under the old wording - there really is virtually no difference.
There is a contradiction in your assertion re MB. You are saying he is a "smart guy" but also that he tried to sneak the changes through. A smart guy would not have tried to do that. Even someone of lesser intelligence would not have been that stupid.
With 18 changes, some quite wordy, and 1 that sticks out like a sore thumb (the calibration contract premium), it would have been extremely unlikely that someone, sometime in the future would not have noticed the changes.
Have you considered the risk he would have been taking? Again, only someone very stupid would take that risk. The risk is that the changes be discovered at a time in the future after the agreement has got up. Such a discovery would probably mean the OWS would investigate, declare the agreement void and levy financial penalties against PAA.
There would follow bad press for Pearl and Paspaley and the whole thing would be back to square 1. With the amount of wasted time and money, MB would probably be shown the door. Do you seriously thing "a smart guy" would take such a risk?
As to your question:
Yes, I believe there were. In the little analysis I did of the changes, I identified 3 clear cut improvements for the pilots but could only find 1 change that was a clear disadvantage to the pilots. There were 2 "possibly detrimental" changes for the pilots. I suggest you read my previous post for a full and detailed run down on each of those changes.
Ringin, My apologies for using those words. No offence was intended.
Counter-rotation, good post and some good points raised. I don't agree with some of them and hope to get time to address them soon.
olderairhead, you said:
1. Grey Day.
By being available/contactable on a grey day is actually considered to be "on call" or "reserve". Currently you are not permitted to be on reserve prior to or after a rostered tour of duty. And if you were then it would count towards your rostered tour of duty.
If you had any understanding of what is in each document you would have understood this.
By being available/contactable on a grey day is actually considered to be "on call" or "reserve". Currently you are not permitted to be on reserve prior to or after a rostered tour of duty. And if you were then it would count towards your rostered tour of duty.
If you had any understanding of what is in each document you would have understood this.
3.29 GREY DAY ... 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 ...
3. Designated days off
You really do need to do some research on thois one! Read the definitions and the related clauses in conjunction with each other. Under the new document a day off away from home base etc is not considered to be a designated day off. What does this mean? If you are away from home base on temp transfer, leave relief or rostered away then on any "day off" the roster can be changed without consultation nor agreement and you are not entitled to the penalty payment.
You really do need to do some research on thois one! Read the definitions and the related clauses in conjunction with each other. Under the new document a day off away from home base etc is not considered to be a designated day off. What does this mean? If you are away from home base on temp transfer, leave relief or rostered away then on any "day off" the roster can be changed without consultation nor agreement and you are not entitled to the penalty payment.
Schedule C 1.8.9 says "A pilot shall not be required to work on a designated day off, provided that the company may request a pilot to work and where the pilot so agrees, they shall receive 2.5 times the pilot's day rate of pay for each day so worked".
Nothing in that about which base you are at. So, what about the definition for "designated day off"? Here it is:
3.18 DESIGNATED DAY OFF means the period that a pilot shall be free of all duty in their home base or base to which they have been temporarily transferred or during leave relief, from 2200 hours preceeding until 0600 hours after such calendar day.
So how, from the above two definitions, can you arrive at your conclusion?
You also said something about the meal allowances, but I still can't really make any comment about those at this stage, other than that regardless of what the changes to those are, the amounts will vary by only a few dollars (at the absolute most).
Seaeagle109, thanks for the post. I am running a bit short of time now so will address some of your points now and hopefully, some more later.
Regarding signing documentation that may expose you to legal liability - just continue refusing to sign it! The company will have no more recourse against you under the new CA than they currently do - do you think the inclusion of the word "required" makes that much difference? If they can sack you under the new wording, then they could have sacked you under the old wording - there really is virtually no difference.
APMR, with regard to your discussion with the General Manager about the changes after the negoiations being slipups. Bulls*it!! MB is a smart guy, he doesn't make errors like that when it comes to contracts and conditions; I watched him at close range for several years and the changes are to the company's advantage. Were there any clerical error/s in favour of the pilots?
With 18 changes, some quite wordy, and 1 that sticks out like a sore thumb (the calibration contract premium), it would have been extremely unlikely that someone, sometime in the future would not have noticed the changes.
Have you considered the risk he would have been taking? Again, only someone very stupid would take that risk. The risk is that the changes be discovered at a time in the future after the agreement has got up. Such a discovery would probably mean the OWS would investigate, declare the agreement void and levy financial penalties against PAA.
There would follow bad press for Pearl and Paspaley and the whole thing would be back to square 1. With the amount of wasted time and money, MB would probably be shown the door. Do you seriously thing "a smart guy" would take such a risk?
As to your question:
Were there any clerical error/s in favour of the pilots?
1. A Grey day after a rest period is a reserve period prior to duty.
As Seaeagle109 says, when he does calibration in Singapore it is preceded by a grey day. That grey day is after a rest period and before a rostered tour of duty. At the moment he does not have to be contactable. If he is however, the duty clock starts. There goes the calibration flight out the window. And as I already said a tour of duty is not to be preceeded by a reserve period.
That change obviously has an impact.
2. If you agree to work on a Designated day off you get a penalty payment. Under the new agreement, if you work on a day off (day free of duty) you don't. Also it is not by mutual consent. It is that simple.
3. Something about meal allowances is up to $35 per day. This is not a few dollars to some. As I said it equates to a 30% reduction. Maybe do the maths. And If you were Seaeagle109 doing 120 - 150 days away that is between $4200 and $5600 saving to the company. This is not small dollars.
And if I do the maths another way, lets take away $5000 in allowances and then get a pay rise of $5000 for being a calibration pilot. Very subtle change isn't it. Like I said, read it and understand the changes.
Really, you don't have to be too smart and preferably just a line pilot without management influence.
As Seaeagle109 says, when he does calibration in Singapore it is preceded by a grey day. That grey day is after a rest period and before a rostered tour of duty. At the moment he does not have to be contactable. If he is however, the duty clock starts. There goes the calibration flight out the window. And as I already said a tour of duty is not to be preceeded by a reserve period.
That change obviously has an impact.
2. If you agree to work on a Designated day off you get a penalty payment. Under the new agreement, if you work on a day off (day free of duty) you don't. Also it is not by mutual consent. It is that simple.
3. Something about meal allowances is up to $35 per day. This is not a few dollars to some. As I said it equates to a 30% reduction. Maybe do the maths. And If you were Seaeagle109 doing 120 - 150 days away that is between $4200 and $5600 saving to the company. This is not small dollars.
And if I do the maths another way, lets take away $5000 in allowances and then get a pay rise of $5000 for being a calibration pilot. Very subtle change isn't it. Like I said, read it and understand the changes.
Really, you don't have to be too smart and preferably just a line pilot without management influence.
Last edited by olderairhead; 20th Jun 2007 at 05:46. Reason: spelling
APMR,
With regard to your original post I did read it, twice in fact before I posted.
You mention that you "identified 3 clear cut improvements for the pilots but could only find 1 change that was a clear disadvantage to the pilots." The 3 clear cut improvements were negotiated changes not clerical errors; these being identified as Clause 36.1( Loss of Licence), Schedule A 1.1 (Calibration allowance) and Schedule A 2 ( training salary); the disadvantage re the cut from 8 to 2 weeks,yes I agree a disadvantage but was this negotiated downwards? I don't know the answer to that.
As to MB being a smart guy, he is; he increased the profit to the Paspaley Group and Aerodata GmBH( collectively Aeropearl)on the Flight Calibration contract as well as expanding the client base and was rewarded with the leg up to Managing Director of Pearl. With regard to the changes/clerical errors and whether they could be challenged after the event; well, the company's argument in court would be that the pilots voted "yes" to the document as presented, so they must agree with it.
The changes are often subtle as Olderairhead has alluded too, and as MB knows how the changes will particularly effect the Flight Calibration contract, yes knowing MB,I think he might just try it on to see how they go and whether other pilots not familiar with the contract would notice the wording changes regarding paperwork.
In regard to our continuing to not sign the Flyability reports even if this new EBA gets up; the insertion of the word "required" does, I believe, change the obligation on the pilots. As this is now an expansion of the duties required and an expectation by the company and client of what will be signed by the pilots after a Flight Inspection operation(ASA requires in the contract for these reports to be signed). Previously, when the original EBA was written, all you were expected to complete was the company Maintaince releases and Flight and Duty times, not client(and therefore Company) required documents that place you in a precarious legal position, should you happen to sign. So, not signing them may lead to termination, but it would be a good argument for the Courts, as that's were it would lead too.
Let's keep the discussion flowing, as hopefully, people are fully reading the document and becoming aware of the changes and implications.
With regard to your original post I did read it, twice in fact before I posted.
You mention that you "identified 3 clear cut improvements for the pilots but could only find 1 change that was a clear disadvantage to the pilots." The 3 clear cut improvements were negotiated changes not clerical errors; these being identified as Clause 36.1( Loss of Licence), Schedule A 1.1 (Calibration allowance) and Schedule A 2 ( training salary); the disadvantage re the cut from 8 to 2 weeks,yes I agree a disadvantage but was this negotiated downwards? I don't know the answer to that.
As to MB being a smart guy, he is; he increased the profit to the Paspaley Group and Aerodata GmBH( collectively Aeropearl)on the Flight Calibration contract as well as expanding the client base and was rewarded with the leg up to Managing Director of Pearl. With regard to the changes/clerical errors and whether they could be challenged after the event; well, the company's argument in court would be that the pilots voted "yes" to the document as presented, so they must agree with it.
The changes are often subtle as Olderairhead has alluded too, and as MB knows how the changes will particularly effect the Flight Calibration contract, yes knowing MB,I think he might just try it on to see how they go and whether other pilots not familiar with the contract would notice the wording changes regarding paperwork.
In regard to our continuing to not sign the Flyability reports even if this new EBA gets up; the insertion of the word "required" does, I believe, change the obligation on the pilots. As this is now an expansion of the duties required and an expectation by the company and client of what will be signed by the pilots after a Flight Inspection operation(ASA requires in the contract for these reports to be signed). Previously, when the original EBA was written, all you were expected to complete was the company Maintaince releases and Flight and Duty times, not client(and therefore Company) required documents that place you in a precarious legal position, should you happen to sign. So, not signing them may lead to termination, but it would be a good argument for the Courts, as that's were it would lead too.
Let's keep the discussion flowing, as hopefully, people are fully reading the document and becoming aware of the changes and implications.
Last edited by Seaeagle109; 20th Jun 2007 at 22:56. Reason: Spelling, can't spell negotiate consistently
APMR
You made the comment that you had not yet talked to the pilot reps, so does this obviously mean that you decided not to attend the pilot meeting held in Darwin last Friday at 5 pm which was publicised to everyone.
Pity, because you could have had the implications of the changes explained to you then. You could also have asked questions on representation and the relationship between the AFAP and the negotiators. You could also had the opportunity to express your opinions to your representative in front of your peers.
I am suggesting that if you had done so then that maybe we would not be going through this process of education.
But as is usual in any negotiation process with any aviation company, it is usually after the fact that pilots start to voice their opinions. Pity it is not done during the process.
OAH
You made the comment that you had not yet talked to the pilot reps, so does this obviously mean that you decided not to attend the pilot meeting held in Darwin last Friday at 5 pm which was publicised to everyone.
Pity, because you could have had the implications of the changes explained to you then. You could also have asked questions on representation and the relationship between the AFAP and the negotiators. You could also had the opportunity to express your opinions to your representative in front of your peers.
I am suggesting that if you had done so then that maybe we would not be going through this process of education.
But as is usual in any negotiation process with any aviation company, it is usually after the fact that pilots start to voice their opinions. Pity it is not done during the process.
OAH
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
olderairhead,
You are still claiming that, if called to do duty on a "day off", you don't receive an RDO payment and cannot decline the request to work.
You said:
I still cannot see how you can hold this view. I did ask you to "spell it out" to me, but you have not done this. So, I will have to try to guess my way there.
From the above quote, it seems you think "designated day off" is a different animal to "day off", and that if on the latter, you can't claim the RDO payment if called onto duty. If this is what you think, please explain what a "day off" is, and how you can come to be on one.
If the day in question has an "O" shown on the roster against your name, then the day is clearly a "designated day off" and as the two clauses I quoted in my previous post clearly show, you can decline the request to come on duty, but if you do come on, you can claim the RDO payment, irrespective of which base you are at (Schedule C 1.8.9 & clause 3.18).
So if there is not an "O" on the roster, what could there be? If you answer "R" (for reserve) or some other letter that denotes duty, then I have to guess you are talking about what it says in Schedule C 1.8.11.
Schedule C 1.8.11:
If a pilot on a tour away from home base is not required for duty on any rostered duty day, such a day shall be considered a day free of duty for rostering purposes but not a designated day off at home base.
The words "home base" at the end of this clause are redundant and are perhaps what is causing the confusion - you can ignore those two words because they don't have any effect - the two clauses I quoted earlier prevent these words having any effect.
What this clause is saying, in effect, is that if on a day other than "O", if you don't do any duty then the day may be considered a "day off" for the purposes of flight and duty time limits and subsequent rostering, but if you do do some duty, you can't claim the RDO payment!
And this makes perfect, logical sense. Clause 10.1.11 of the current agreement appears to say the same thing, but not as clearly.
Regarding the meal allowance "changes": You appear to know much more about this than I. To save me several hours researching this, could you please give a rundown on the pros and cons of them being linked to the RBA (e.g. what the RBA is all about, how much the allowances currently are, how much they will change when the linkage to the RBA occurs, and then how much they might change by over subsequent years).
Seaeagle109,
I understand now what you are saying about the loss of licence insurance. I became aware of the issue with this only upon reading the AFAP white paper recently. Even then, I couldn't understand what they were on about (because their explanation was too short and too hurried). I understand now and thank you for your explanation.
The way it was presented in the AFAP paper was as an "unnegotiated change" that was detrimental to pilots. My assessment of that change as being an "improvement for pilots" was made purely on the basis that the company's contribution had increased.
About the grey days, as they apply to calibration pilots:
The definition of grey day (clause 3.29 in the proposed CA), states that you have to be rostered to a grey day. Given that under the current agreement, rosters must cover a 28 day period and be issued at least 7 days prior to the commencement of the roster period, are you actually being rostered onto grey days?
I ask this because I expect that, given how calibration flights need to fit in with ATC, traffic flows and other variables, there is no way you could stick to a roster that was prepared 7 days earlier.
So, when you say "grey day" are you in fact referring to the period that comes after a duty period and associated rest but before the commencement of the next duty period? If you are, but don't have a roster saying "grey" for that day, then I don't see how you can consider that period to be "grey day".
The issues concerning being contacted by the client sound more to do with ordinary management issues than the definition of "grey days". Or am I missing something?
Given how different calibration work must be to the other PAA flying, I wonder why on earth we are trying to have the one CA that covers all the different roles/duties. I would have thought that it would have been far more simple to have different CAs for each of the different contracts, with clearly defined conditions for when a pilot temporarily transfers from one contract to another.
In practice, the different CAs would still have 90% commonality, and that common portion would be in a separate document. Then, you guys wouldn't have issues over things such as "grey days" which I think are really only about the NTAMS contract.
You are still claiming that, if called to do duty on a "day off", you don't receive an RDO payment and cannot decline the request to work.
You said:
If you agree to work on a Designated day off you get a penalty payment. Under the new agreement, if you work on a day off (day free of duty) you don't.
From the above quote, it seems you think "designated day off" is a different animal to "day off", and that if on the latter, you can't claim the RDO payment if called onto duty. If this is what you think, please explain what a "day off" is, and how you can come to be on one.
If the day in question has an "O" shown on the roster against your name, then the day is clearly a "designated day off" and as the two clauses I quoted in my previous post clearly show, you can decline the request to come on duty, but if you do come on, you can claim the RDO payment, irrespective of which base you are at (Schedule C 1.8.9 & clause 3.18).
So if there is not an "O" on the roster, what could there be? If you answer "R" (for reserve) or some other letter that denotes duty, then I have to guess you are talking about what it says in Schedule C 1.8.11.
Schedule C 1.8.11:
If a pilot on a tour away from home base is not required for duty on any rostered duty day, such a day shall be considered a day free of duty for rostering purposes but not a designated day off at home base.
The words "home base" at the end of this clause are redundant and are perhaps what is causing the confusion - you can ignore those two words because they don't have any effect - the two clauses I quoted earlier prevent these words having any effect.
What this clause is saying, in effect, is that if on a day other than "O", if you don't do any duty then the day may be considered a "day off" for the purposes of flight and duty time limits and subsequent rostering, but if you do do some duty, you can't claim the RDO payment!
And this makes perfect, logical sense. Clause 10.1.11 of the current agreement appears to say the same thing, but not as clearly.
Regarding the meal allowance "changes": You appear to know much more about this than I. To save me several hours researching this, could you please give a rundown on the pros and cons of them being linked to the RBA (e.g. what the RBA is all about, how much the allowances currently are, how much they will change when the linkage to the RBA occurs, and then how much they might change by over subsequent years).
Seaeagle109,
I understand now what you are saying about the loss of licence insurance. I became aware of the issue with this only upon reading the AFAP white paper recently. Even then, I couldn't understand what they were on about (because their explanation was too short and too hurried). I understand now and thank you for your explanation.
The way it was presented in the AFAP paper was as an "unnegotiated change" that was detrimental to pilots. My assessment of that change as being an "improvement for pilots" was made purely on the basis that the company's contribution had increased.
About the grey days, as they apply to calibration pilots:
The definition of grey day (clause 3.29 in the proposed CA), states that you have to be rostered to a grey day. Given that under the current agreement, rosters must cover a 28 day period and be issued at least 7 days prior to the commencement of the roster period, are you actually being rostered onto grey days?
I ask this because I expect that, given how calibration flights need to fit in with ATC, traffic flows and other variables, there is no way you could stick to a roster that was prepared 7 days earlier.
So, when you say "grey day" are you in fact referring to the period that comes after a duty period and associated rest but before the commencement of the next duty period? If you are, but don't have a roster saying "grey" for that day, then I don't see how you can consider that period to be "grey day".
The issues concerning being contacted by the client sound more to do with ordinary management issues than the definition of "grey days". Or am I missing something?
Given how different calibration work must be to the other PAA flying, I wonder why on earth we are trying to have the one CA that covers all the different roles/duties. I would have thought that it would have been far more simple to have different CAs for each of the different contracts, with clearly defined conditions for when a pilot temporarily transfers from one contract to another.
In practice, the different CAs would still have 90% commonality, and that common portion would be in a separate document. Then, you guys wouldn't have issues over things such as "grey days" which I think are really only about the NTAMS contract.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My vote is no.
APMR... With statements like;
Quote" I say “possibly” because it can be argued that, for both of these items, the pilots are no worse off, and could actually be better off. For example, consider the clause re rostering to achieve a weekend off. The new wording appears to make it less likely we will get weekends off, when in fact it actually brings a certainty to getting one of the days off."
This is a good example of why I vote no.
It was agreed that 1 (one) weekend off per 28 day roster was to be adhered to. Therefore your statement about definitely one of the days off is in error.
The Roadshow was bullsh#t and bluster, we will change this and amend that, statements of intention made to staff then reneged in the document.
APMR, please forgive me as I will speak quite frankly, I may not have the verbocity you do or the want to write war and peace.
The previous CA had statements Agreed upon that the company struggled with. Staff are now showing that they want clarification and reduced grey areas.
e.g words such as "where practical" were used in the previous CA. For all intents and purposes the end product was...."sorry not practical" were the standard.
The pilots will lose a hell of a lot more than they gain if this is passed. Actually they will loose a lot of what they have now too!
You seem to go to some length to reduce the AFAP in the eyes of the readers, The pilot Reps have done a good job at maintaining our desires. Yes they do talk to the pilots, yes they do listen and act on what they hear, then they get back to us to confirm that their actions are what we wanted. The AFAP doc. probably should go further into depth but what they have written is, I feel correct.
I'm tired
It is late
And I can't spell.
APMR... With statements like;
Quote" I say “possibly” because it can be argued that, for both of these items, the pilots are no worse off, and could actually be better off. For example, consider the clause re rostering to achieve a weekend off. The new wording appears to make it less likely we will get weekends off, when in fact it actually brings a certainty to getting one of the days off."
This is a good example of why I vote no.
It was agreed that 1 (one) weekend off per 28 day roster was to be adhered to. Therefore your statement about definitely one of the days off is in error.
The Roadshow was bullsh#t and bluster, we will change this and amend that, statements of intention made to staff then reneged in the document.
APMR, please forgive me as I will speak quite frankly, I may not have the verbocity you do or the want to write war and peace.
The previous CA had statements Agreed upon that the company struggled with. Staff are now showing that they want clarification and reduced grey areas.
e.g words such as "where practical" were used in the previous CA. For all intents and purposes the end product was...."sorry not practical" were the standard.
The pilots will lose a hell of a lot more than they gain if this is passed. Actually they will loose a lot of what they have now too!
You seem to go to some length to reduce the AFAP in the eyes of the readers, The pilot Reps have done a good job at maintaining our desires. Yes they do talk to the pilots, yes they do listen and act on what they hear, then they get back to us to confirm that their actions are what we wanted. The AFAP doc. probably should go further into depth but what they have written is, I feel correct.
I'm tired
It is late
And I can't spell.
APMR, the more I read your posts the more I think you are just winding us up.
For instance read this again.
Go away for 10 days, your "day off" is not a day off but a day free of duty.
A designated day off is only relevant at home base.
A penalty payment is only payable for working on a designated day off.
Therefore working on a day free of duty whilst away from home base gets you no penalty payment.
I cannot make it any simpler than that and I must say that if you cannot follow the implications from this then it must be a windup.
And if I cannot get you to understand this simple clause and it's implications why even bother with the rest of your dribble.
Called Lawrie yet have you? Spoken to your rep yet? Probably not.
And maybe you are not a pilot at all???
OAH
For instance read this again.
If a pilot on a tour away from home base is not required for duty on any rostered duty day, such a day shall be considered a day free of duty for rostering purposes but not a designated day off at home base.
A designated day off is only relevant at home base.
A penalty payment is only payable for working on a designated day off.
Therefore working on a day free of duty whilst away from home base gets you no penalty payment.
I cannot make it any simpler than that and I must say that if you cannot follow the implications from this then it must be a windup.
And if I cannot get you to understand this simple clause and it's implications why even bother with the rest of your dribble.
Called Lawrie yet have you? Spoken to your rep yet? Probably not.
And maybe you are not a pilot at all???
OAH
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
olderairhead,
By refusing to answer my questions, you make it almost impossible for me to reason with you.
You said:
Ok, please explain why you think that. It does not say that anywhere in the document. Just a pointer to the relevant clause(s) will do.
By refusing to answer my questions, you make it almost impossible for me to reason with you.
You said:
A designated day off is only relevant at home base.
It is such a shame I have to go to such lengths. If you bothered to read the document you would have found the following:
Definition 3.18 DESIGNATED DAY OFF means the period that a pilot shall be free of all Duty in their home base or base to which they have been temporarily transferred or during Leave Relief, from 2200 hours preceding until 0600 hours after such Calendar Day. Where there is a requirement for more than one Day off, a pilot shall be free of Duty in their home base or the base to which they have been temporarily transferred, from 2200 hours preceding until 0500 hours after such number of consecutive Calendar Days designated.
Clause 1.8.11 If a pilot on a tour away from home base is not required for Duty on any rostered Duty Day, such a Day shall be considered a day free of Duty for rostering purposes but not a Designated Day Off at home base.
Clause 1.9.3 A pilot's Designated Days Off may only be altered with the consent of both parties and in the case where Designated Days Off are varied then the conditions of subclause 1.1.8 of this Agreement apply except where an alternative day off is mutually agreed between the Company and the affected pilot.
The result - you are not entitled to any penalty payment nor do you have to be consulted whilst on deployment away from home base.
OAH
Definition 3.18 DESIGNATED DAY OFF means the period that a pilot shall be free of all Duty in their home base or base to which they have been temporarily transferred or during Leave Relief, from 2200 hours preceding until 0600 hours after such Calendar Day. Where there is a requirement for more than one Day off, a pilot shall be free of Duty in their home base or the base to which they have been temporarily transferred, from 2200 hours preceding until 0500 hours after such number of consecutive Calendar Days designated.
Clause 1.8.11 If a pilot on a tour away from home base is not required for Duty on any rostered Duty Day, such a Day shall be considered a day free of Duty for rostering purposes but not a Designated Day Off at home base.
Clause 1.9.3 A pilot's Designated Days Off may only be altered with the consent of both parties and in the case where Designated Days Off are varied then the conditions of subclause 1.1.8 of this Agreement apply except where an alternative day off is mutually agreed between the Company and the affected pilot.
The result - you are not entitled to any penalty payment nor do you have to be consulted whilst on deployment away from home base.
OAH
Last edited by olderairhead; 20th Jun 2007 at 22:39. Reason: spelling