Virgin Blue Cabin Crew EBA
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are they still proposing 140 hours in 28 days? It should be brought down to 130, with overtime from 130 hours AT LEAST in my opinion. That's meeting them half way. 28 day rosters are coming regardless.
With a 28 day roster, at 140 hours, that's (at the proposed 10.15hours per day maximum duty) = 18 days work (10 off), meaning 7.40hours a day to get to 140 hours. How on earth are you going to receive 'overtime' after 140 hours? The only way is to do 7.40hours + a day, for 18 days. Impossible (schedule wise and physically). Big days everyday. Therefore available rates are disappearing, and nothing to compensate - as overtime will be too fatiguing and in my opinion, rare and near impossible to get more than 5 hours of.
I don't care about part time, maternity leave, sick days and other incentives they're proposing to improve. Obviously the MAJORITY of crew do NOT want part time, I think maternity leavers should be offered permament part time automatically once they've had their baby, and have a separate list as per the current conditions. And the MAJORITY of crew do not abuse sick leave. Tired of hearing incentives that don't affect most of us.
I understand the company has to save money to survive (probably a lot has to do with V starting in these troubled times and eating over $70million). But surely by having new crew start off on cheaper salaries (but build to our higher salaries after 5 years of service) should be a huge saving, as there will always be new crew. And as well as the productivity of a 28 day roster should be enough.
10.15hours daily will reduce overnights by only a couple a year per crew member, but when other bases start, overnights will drop a little bit more, but will ALWAYS be there. Therefore I agree with DTA, but it should be more. Proposed DTA is $3 to $3.30. Anything more was said to be unviable. Although a reasonable idea, (but behind compared to other airlines/contracts), we WILL lose money! Don't let other crews' caculations fool you - you WILL lose money this way when doing red eyes, or trips that start late or finish early in your home port. The crew that do calculations are basing it on their OWN rosters over the last few months and probably do NOT include these kind of trips.
Perhaps this is a good idea - as you can make money this way, giving us a bit more realistic and acheivable extra money yet not taking too much money away from the company - good compromise.
Why is there a proposed bid option to reduce at home port rest down from 15 hours to 12 hours? What is the incentive there to do so? Who would do so?
Once again, we're aware the company needs to save money to keep its head above water, and that's what we all want, but perhaps some unnecessary jobs we have within the company should go? No one would dare bring that up in the roadshow!Also management are comparing us to new airlines' contracts as they know we are on the sweeter deal out there today, but we cannot give too much and receive too little.
To the crew who haven't been to a roadshow yet, talk about what you're reading in these posts and speak up instead of sitting there like stunned mullets.
If a NO vote is acheived, they are bullying by implying they'll bring in the proposed EBA anyway. And that is a tactic that I believe is not allowed. Otherwise what is THE POINT OF VOTING?
With a 28 day roster, at 140 hours, that's (at the proposed 10.15hours per day maximum duty) = 18 days work (10 off), meaning 7.40hours a day to get to 140 hours. How on earth are you going to receive 'overtime' after 140 hours? The only way is to do 7.40hours + a day, for 18 days. Impossible (schedule wise and physically). Big days everyday. Therefore available rates are disappearing, and nothing to compensate - as overtime will be too fatiguing and in my opinion, rare and near impossible to get more than 5 hours of.
I don't care about part time, maternity leave, sick days and other incentives they're proposing to improve. Obviously the MAJORITY of crew do NOT want part time, I think maternity leavers should be offered permament part time automatically once they've had their baby, and have a separate list as per the current conditions. And the MAJORITY of crew do not abuse sick leave. Tired of hearing incentives that don't affect most of us.
I understand the company has to save money to survive (probably a lot has to do with V starting in these troubled times and eating over $70million). But surely by having new crew start off on cheaper salaries (but build to our higher salaries after 5 years of service) should be a huge saving, as there will always be new crew. And as well as the productivity of a 28 day roster should be enough.
10.15hours daily will reduce overnights by only a couple a year per crew member, but when other bases start, overnights will drop a little bit more, but will ALWAYS be there. Therefore I agree with DTA, but it should be more. Proposed DTA is $3 to $3.30. Anything more was said to be unviable. Although a reasonable idea, (but behind compared to other airlines/contracts), we WILL lose money! Don't let other crews' caculations fool you - you WILL lose money this way when doing red eyes, or trips that start late or finish early in your home port. The crew that do calculations are basing it on their OWN rosters over the last few months and probably do NOT include these kind of trips.
Scrapping of AVL days - they could NEVER not have reserve crew. An airline couldn't run without reserve crews. There will always be AVL days in some capacity. Fine if they don't want to pay me for them, but the hours I do count toward my monthly hours & if I work outside my original rostered AVL hours then they pay me an hourly rate (such as QF's IPD) But they're not getting them for nothing!!
For those that don't understand IPD... If I was on an available starting at 0500 and finishing at 1600, and I got called out at 1200 and finished work at 1900, I would get 3 hours of IPD rates (1600 - 1900 gap). At least here, in this one example of many examples of IPD you can get, there's money crew can make and money the company will save - a terrific compromise of conditions from both parties.
A month long line of reserves? Sounds okay and is more efficient for the company... but our competitiors receive an EXTRA DAY OFF for bidding so... There is no incentive with us.Why is there a proposed bid option to reduce at home port rest down from 15 hours to 12 hours? What is the incentive there to do so? Who would do so?
Once again, we're aware the company needs to save money to keep its head above water, and that's what we all want, but perhaps some unnecessary jobs we have within the company should go? No one would dare bring that up in the roadshow!Also management are comparing us to new airlines' contracts as they know we are on the sweeter deal out there today, but we cannot give too much and receive too little.
To the crew who haven't been to a roadshow yet, talk about what you're reading in these posts and speak up instead of sitting there like stunned mullets.
If a NO vote is acheived, they are bullying by implying they'll bring in the proposed EBA anyway. And that is a tactic that I believe is not allowed. Otherwise what is THE POINT OF VOTING?
Last edited by skyshow; 27th Jan 2009 at 00:07.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, just wanted to point out, when doing your calculations remember that DTA is taxed on a day trip, untaxed on multi day trips or international flights. Hope this helps!
And yes, airlines such as QF and even certain regional airlines are around the $4-5 mark for DTA... DTA is also good if you get delayed or unexpectedly overnighted, you earn for as long as you're away from base, (if that's how DJ are going to do it) so say if you got a one off overnight payment (was it 65?) or 5 per hour... you;d need 13 hours to get $65 if your DTA was $5/hr...
good luck guys, be prpared to compromise but not too much!
And- 15 hours rest at home port???? Awesome! Q don't even get that much... it's 12...
And yes, airlines such as QF and even certain regional airlines are around the $4-5 mark for DTA... DTA is also good if you get delayed or unexpectedly overnighted, you earn for as long as you're away from base, (if that's how DJ are going to do it) so say if you got a one off overnight payment (was it 65?) or 5 per hour... you;d need 13 hours to get $65 if your DTA was $5/hr...
good luck guys, be prpared to compromise but not too much!
And- 15 hours rest at home port???? Awesome! Q don't even get that much... it's 12...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes red hat, I know about DTA (I've flown before with this). Thank you for your in-sight. Proposed DTA $3-$3.30. Current agreement: Flat rate of $98 for every night away when you do not return before 2am (so for a red-eye from Perth or Darwin, you will receive another payment of $98 as you finish past 2am. At $3 DTA per hour, 24 hours is $72. But yes, with trips it can be more than our current $98, but you lose when doing certain shifts. You ONLY GAIN THROUGH THIS when you start early in your home port, and finish late in your home port - in other words, through this DISGUISE, making us work HARDER for similar pay (you need to be away longer from home to come ahead. As I said, the calculations of crew at the roadshows are of THEIR ROSTERS over 3 months, and are likely to be calculated from long TRIPS hence of course DTA would be better, but not when you have other shifts as you don't just come ahead. Not only are they trying to make it harder for us to earn a buck by doing this through our hours but also through payments such as DTA. See how this is not better for payments currently? Have I lost anyone in this?!? Think about it.
For those that are getting conned, LOOK:
I took these two trips at random from my February roster (a calculation to prove my point and they work in the favour of $98 flat rate).
Example 1. I have a 3 day trip, signing on at 1030 day one, finishing at 1830 day three.
option1: flat rate $98 = 2x$98 = $196
option2: $3 DTA = 56 total hours = $168
$3.30 DTA = 56 total hours = $184.80
Example 2. I have a 4 day trip, signing on at 0605 day one, finishing at 1145 day four.
option1: flat rate $98 = 3x$98 = $294
option2: $3 DTA = 70.40 total hours = $211
$3.30 DTA = 70.40 total hours = $232
STILL NOT CONVINCED??? WATCH THIS:
for the BEST BEST BEST case scenario, lets say we started a 4 day trip trip. signing on at 0100 day one, returning at 2300 day four.
Thats a total of 95 hours DTA. (day 1 23hrs, day 2 24hrs, day 3 24hrs, day 4 23hrs). YOU CANNOT get a trip BIGGER than this. Ready for it? Here it comes...
option1: flat rate $98 = 3x$98 = $294
option2: $3 DTA = 95 total hours = $285 - (close, but no cigar)
$3.30 DTA = 95 total hours = $313.50 (better, but not by much)
THE PROOF IS HERE!!! Yes your're better OFF, but not by much and only by unrealistic trips. DO NOT listen to people telling you their calculations are good. Write these figures down and bring it up.
Even with the highest proposal, $3.30, its still likely not going to work, unless, as I said, you start EARLY and finish LATE (more hours away). In other words, working away more for same pay. My point is done. Do your own maths on your own trips guys.
Let's talk DAY TRIPS. On the other hand, for a day trip of, let's say 8 hours, that's around $24 DTA which is great news! However, through using DTA losses throughout your trips, you will lose money by the end of the month. DTA only benefits those who bid for full or mostly day trip rosters.
I DO NOT APPRECIATE CREW EBA DELAGATES WHO ARE TELLING ME AT ROADSHOWS I AM BETTER OFF WHEN CLEARLY I AM NOT, AND I'VE HONESTLY CHOSEN TWO RANDOM TRIPS. The company's laughing at you.
Also red hat, yes minimum rest in a home port is 15 hours currently. With 10 days off a month.
MY IDEA TO MANAGEMENT:
Since these are difficult times for the airline, negotiations should be give and take and negotiated.
Keep all the same but:
That'll proabably get a few yes votes, and its a bit of give and take from both parts WITH savings. Anyone got any more suggestions? I understand we have to help the airline but from what I can see enough is enough. We all work SO HARD as it is.
For those that are getting conned, LOOK:
I took these two trips at random from my February roster (a calculation to prove my point and they work in the favour of $98 flat rate).
Example 1. I have a 3 day trip, signing on at 1030 day one, finishing at 1830 day three.
option1: flat rate $98 = 2x$98 = $196
option2: $3 DTA = 56 total hours = $168
$3.30 DTA = 56 total hours = $184.80
Example 2. I have a 4 day trip, signing on at 0605 day one, finishing at 1145 day four.
option1: flat rate $98 = 3x$98 = $294
option2: $3 DTA = 70.40 total hours = $211
$3.30 DTA = 70.40 total hours = $232
STILL NOT CONVINCED??? WATCH THIS:
for the BEST BEST BEST case scenario, lets say we started a 4 day trip trip. signing on at 0100 day one, returning at 2300 day four.
Thats a total of 95 hours DTA. (day 1 23hrs, day 2 24hrs, day 3 24hrs, day 4 23hrs). YOU CANNOT get a trip BIGGER than this. Ready for it? Here it comes...
option1: flat rate $98 = 3x$98 = $294
option2: $3 DTA = 95 total hours = $285 - (close, but no cigar)
$3.30 DTA = 95 total hours = $313.50 (better, but not by much)
THE PROOF IS HERE!!! Yes your're better OFF, but not by much and only by unrealistic trips. DO NOT listen to people telling you their calculations are good. Write these figures down and bring it up.
Even with the highest proposal, $3.30, its still likely not going to work, unless, as I said, you start EARLY and finish LATE (more hours away). In other words, working away more for same pay. My point is done. Do your own maths on your own trips guys.
Let's talk DAY TRIPS. On the other hand, for a day trip of, let's say 8 hours, that's around $24 DTA which is great news! However, through using DTA losses throughout your trips, you will lose money by the end of the month. DTA only benefits those who bid for full or mostly day trip rosters.
I DO NOT APPRECIATE CREW EBA DELAGATES WHO ARE TELLING ME AT ROADSHOWS I AM BETTER OFF WHEN CLEARLY I AM NOT, AND I'VE HONESTLY CHOSEN TWO RANDOM TRIPS. The company's laughing at you.
Also red hat, yes minimum rest in a home port is 15 hours currently. With 10 days off a month.
MY IDEA TO MANAGEMENT:
Since these are difficult times for the airline, negotiations should be give and take and negotiated.
Keep all the same but:
- Increase daily limit to 10 hours
- DTA of $4-$5 or keep flat rate of $98
- 2-3% pay increase
- Newer entry crew lower salary < 5 years
- 28 day rosters to 130-140 hours maximum
- Rates for reserves/availables for every hour worked outside your reserve period.
That'll proabably get a few yes votes, and its a bit of give and take from both parts WITH savings. Anyone got any more suggestions? I understand we have to help the airline but from what I can see enough is enough. We all work SO HARD as it is.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should this be voted in we'll see another SH Q MEL base at DJ, with all day trips and paid on dta the sick leave is that high that it works out for the better to overnight other based crew there to do their work (ie: double cbr or double syd). The level of sick leave in MEL is too high, for the simple reason that after calculating fuel and tolls to get to work it you either just break even or lesser.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 38,000 ft
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skyshow I heard DTA is off the table and they are sticking to the $98 a night as most crew don't want the DTA as it ain't enough to compensate for the overnight and the small amount you would make from day trips is taxable making it even smaller. If you have day trips make sure you put in a sup payment form and you'll make more from that anyway. Time and half from 5 hours till sign off.
With the extension of hours alot more day trips will be out there. I have heard 6% in roadshow but I would be betting it will be more like 10-12% because the PER base can't be too far away and those overnights will disappear then. Also SYD will cut back more once the crew base is at capacity. The only overnights will eventually be min rest type nights at the airport like the BNE, SYD crew do in MEL. They will be the early morning starts that the local crew call in sick for.
Too many cons and not enough pro's imho.
Keep working management you will get it right sooner or later.
With the extension of hours alot more day trips will be out there. I have heard 6% in roadshow but I would be betting it will be more like 10-12% because the PER base can't be too far away and those overnights will disappear then. Also SYD will cut back more once the crew base is at capacity. The only overnights will eventually be min rest type nights at the airport like the BNE, SYD crew do in MEL. They will be the early morning starts that the local crew call in sick for.
Too many cons and not enough pro's imho.
Keep working management you will get it right sooner or later.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think carefully about the "new bases" scenario. If the average FA is costing the company say $40k then it doesn't take many crew to start rivalling the cost of overnights. It may make sense for them to open a Perth base for instance. But then if we go to 10hrs we will lose Perth overnights from everywhere except BNE anyway. We will start getting Perth returns. So where is the big deal?
Bases are very expensive, it's not only the cost of crew but the cost of proper facilities in that airport, management to run the place etc.. It's not financially viable to open a base for the sake of 30-50 crew there. They will not just be opening bases overnight nor will it make financial sense to do so in many ports. Will they want to hire new crew to do a few flights a week and having them otherwise sitting on reserve? The port has to be busy enough and cost the company enough in overnighting to even bother.
VB might be a major player in the Oz market but they have already stated the Oz market is over-serviced. How will they save money opening new bases and recruiting yet more crew when they already have a full compliment? They anticipate in the next few years for the market to retract not expand so again not a great incentive to go opening new bases.
We were presented that overnights would reduce by about 10% with an increase in daily hours. Has this changed now?
Bases are very expensive, it's not only the cost of crew but the cost of proper facilities in that airport, management to run the place etc.. It's not financially viable to open a base for the sake of 30-50 crew there. They will not just be opening bases overnight nor will it make financial sense to do so in many ports. Will they want to hire new crew to do a few flights a week and having them otherwise sitting on reserve? The port has to be busy enough and cost the company enough in overnighting to even bother.
VB might be a major player in the Oz market but they have already stated the Oz market is over-serviced. How will they save money opening new bases and recruiting yet more crew when they already have a full compliment? They anticipate in the next few years for the market to retract not expand so again not a great incentive to go opening new bases.
We were presented that overnights would reduce by about 10% with an increase in daily hours. Has this changed now?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone specifically asked at the roadshow due to an increase of 10.15hrs max a day from 9.45hrs, will layovers drop? Answer was layovers will drop to 0.3% per month (3 per year per crew member was said) which is minimal. Maybe your figure of 10% was if we went up to 11hrs max? Who knows how many layovers (in other words $$$) will be lost with new crew bases but some will obviously. Perth base is coming in 2009 (a lot of E-Jet flying makes it viable).
As for Perth returns – Can’t we actually technically do them now but the scheduling doesn’t do it? Or is it true we were out by about 10 minutes? Qantas do and they (currently) have the same duty hour limitations as us (9.45hrs) I think. Unless the B767 is quicker hence reduces flying time enough to make it a legal shift? Any information?
Also heard our 1 hour sign ons will be reduced to 50 minutes. Anyone heard the same? Maybe now that its just E-Jets to ADL and BME from PER this 10 minute saving is enough to quickly send the B737 crews home as a day trip! Think ahead guys... There's a smart reason for everything. B737 in Perth will only be for DPS, SYD, MEL, BNE so they wouldn’t need many crew overnighting there. Better to send them back east as a day trip.
As for opening up bases with a softening domestic aviation demand is a bad idea – I disagree. Virgin Blue are about to announce soon further international flying, are they not? So I think there’s still room for another base or two, as we will still have the aircraft we have but just redeploying to newer destinations away from domestic. Otherwise the aircraft just sit there. A Perth base for example will be great for Bali returns. Also was told at an unplugged session for a base to be efficient enough to open you need at least 5 aircraft parked there a night. As for having currently a full compliment of staff, they will let attrition take its course in due time so that wouldn’t be a problem. And as for those thinking Virgin Blue will employ crew on different contracts of employment (like Qantas has) they have specifically stated this is bad for morale and service standards and they will not go down this path. For an airline that relies a lot on its customer service to get business, its a smart idea to keep the staff happy.
Also, I haven't heard about DTA being brought down off the cards.... I had my roadshow recently and the DTA of a pathetic $3 - $3.30 was presented. Obviously they’re not going to offer a higher DTA than this because if they did then we will be getting more $$$. That’s why the cap’s on at $3.30, and they will tell you this at the roadshow.
As for Perth returns – Can’t we actually technically do them now but the scheduling doesn’t do it? Or is it true we were out by about 10 minutes? Qantas do and they (currently) have the same duty hour limitations as us (9.45hrs) I think. Unless the B767 is quicker hence reduces flying time enough to make it a legal shift? Any information?
Also heard our 1 hour sign ons will be reduced to 50 minutes. Anyone heard the same? Maybe now that its just E-Jets to ADL and BME from PER this 10 minute saving is enough to quickly send the B737 crews home as a day trip! Think ahead guys... There's a smart reason for everything. B737 in Perth will only be for DPS, SYD, MEL, BNE so they wouldn’t need many crew overnighting there. Better to send them back east as a day trip.
As for opening up bases with a softening domestic aviation demand is a bad idea – I disagree. Virgin Blue are about to announce soon further international flying, are they not? So I think there’s still room for another base or two, as we will still have the aircraft we have but just redeploying to newer destinations away from domestic. Otherwise the aircraft just sit there. A Perth base for example will be great for Bali returns. Also was told at an unplugged session for a base to be efficient enough to open you need at least 5 aircraft parked there a night. As for having currently a full compliment of staff, they will let attrition take its course in due time so that wouldn’t be a problem. And as for those thinking Virgin Blue will employ crew on different contracts of employment (like Qantas has) they have specifically stated this is bad for morale and service standards and they will not go down this path. For an airline that relies a lot on its customer service to get business, its a smart idea to keep the staff happy.
Also, I haven't heard about DTA being brought down off the cards.... I had my roadshow recently and the DTA of a pathetic $3 - $3.30 was presented. Obviously they’re not going to offer a higher DTA than this because if they did then we will be getting more $$$. That’s why the cap’s on at $3.30, and they will tell you this at the roadshow.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wth regards to opening new bases, in my EBA Roadshow, the head of Guest Services, when questioned regarding overnights and new bases, said 'we'll open bases everywhere we need to and you'll be getting no overnights eventually''
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re Pert return timing rtc.,
skyshow - a friend showed me your question - I'll answer from my perspective at the front end of a QF. (all data subject to a million differing opinions of course - no correspondence pls!!!)
As you mentioned, QF cruise speeds tend to be slightly higher - esp 767/A330 (and previously with the now retired 747 classic) - the other speed factor apart from the a/c differences is that as you don't carry liferafts etc., you are therefore limited to the 100nM ETOPS boundary and, DJ anecdotally appears to be on a slightly strict(er) fuel burn regime. On average this means that the relative difference in ground speed can be about 200km/ph.
that aside for what it's worth - please be really careful about the EBA presentation and don't overlook the detail. An EBA is so much more than a few powerpoint slides with some glossy spin and a couple of exported excel tables. Remember it's all the little 'nuts and bolts' clauses that end up making any incentive unobtainable. (ask a few of your Capts & F/O's about the downside of their agreement)
Do the maths behind the changes and get the union involved so that PROFESSIONAL, INDEPENDENT, EXPERT legal advice can be obtained. At the very least, run each of the options against your current roster and then reduce the rostered flying by around 18% and halve the number of overnights.
From what my friends showed me over dinner last night it seems it's the Virgin Cabin Crew who are being asked to underwrite the $35 odd million projected loss from V's start up and cover the losses from some badly planned management decisions.
Tanner & friends are not stupid and they are desperate for big numbers in the cost reductions - their Virgin flair style is to bully and bluff crew and make them feel that they being disloyal simply by asking reasonable, intelligent questions and seeking logical debate and negotiations.
Bat hard (you already work harder than other crews) so don't cave in.
AT
As you mentioned, QF cruise speeds tend to be slightly higher - esp 767/A330 (and previously with the now retired 747 classic) - the other speed factor apart from the a/c differences is that as you don't carry liferafts etc., you are therefore limited to the 100nM ETOPS boundary and, DJ anecdotally appears to be on a slightly strict(er) fuel burn regime. On average this means that the relative difference in ground speed can be about 200km/ph.
that aside for what it's worth - please be really careful about the EBA presentation and don't overlook the detail. An EBA is so much more than a few powerpoint slides with some glossy spin and a couple of exported excel tables. Remember it's all the little 'nuts and bolts' clauses that end up making any incentive unobtainable. (ask a few of your Capts & F/O's about the downside of their agreement)
Do the maths behind the changes and get the union involved so that PROFESSIONAL, INDEPENDENT, EXPERT legal advice can be obtained. At the very least, run each of the options against your current roster and then reduce the rostered flying by around 18% and halve the number of overnights.
From what my friends showed me over dinner last night it seems it's the Virgin Cabin Crew who are being asked to underwrite the $35 odd million projected loss from V's start up and cover the losses from some badly planned management decisions.
Tanner & friends are not stupid and they are desperate for big numbers in the cost reductions - their Virgin flair style is to bully and bluff crew and make them feel that they being disloyal simply by asking reasonable, intelligent questions and seeking logical debate and negotiations.
Bat hard (you already work harder than other crews) so don't cave in.
AT
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks airtags... I totally forgot about the liferaft situation and the flying limitations it involves, so perhaps that is a major reason too... good pickup.
As for us saving money for management's mistakes, (V Australia), I understand we have to do our part to help out, and some mistakes are not entirely their fault. But this should be about compromise and negotiation. To me it feels like a presentation. But I will be upset if the current options for the EBA will be offered to vote for, because as you can read, these are just some examples of how much worse off we'll be. Airtags, they can gloss it up with talks, cds, surveys and powerpoint presentations but at the end of it all I for one still see right through it to the nitty gritty details.
As for the bullying, its true. At the roadshows they tell us if we vote no, they can simply get the EBA they want voted in anyway as they can use the excuse we're holding them back (through the current laws I think).
Having said this, and with the understanding we have to do a little bit from our part, the following is a good compromise I think. Anyone else agree or disagree?
Its my understanding the F.A.A.A. is having a meeting on February 10 with Virgin Blue.
As for us saving money for management's mistakes, (V Australia), I understand we have to do our part to help out, and some mistakes are not entirely their fault. But this should be about compromise and negotiation. To me it feels like a presentation. But I will be upset if the current options for the EBA will be offered to vote for, because as you can read, these are just some examples of how much worse off we'll be. Airtags, they can gloss it up with talks, cds, surveys and powerpoint presentations but at the end of it all I for one still see right through it to the nitty gritty details.
As for the bullying, its true. At the roadshows they tell us if we vote no, they can simply get the EBA they want voted in anyway as they can use the excuse we're holding them back (through the current laws I think).
Having said this, and with the understanding we have to do a little bit from our part, the following is a good compromise I think. Anyone else agree or disagree?
- Increase daily limit to 10 hours
- DTA of $4-$5 or keep flat rate of $98
- 2-3% pay increase
- Newer entry crew lower salary < 5 years
- 28 day rosters to 130-140 hours maximum
- Month long line of reserves
- Rates for reserves/availables for every hour worked outside your reserve period.
Its my understanding the F.A.A.A. is having a meeting on February 10 with Virgin Blue.
GET CRACKING F.A.A.A.
Otherwise for years I don't know what I've been paying unions fees for.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Return trips...
Hey guys, with regard to Q flying... aside from the point made earlier re: aircraft type and speed...
There's MEL returns done out of PER, I'm pretty sure these patterns have a dispensation, if I had the papers with me I could give the exact details. I was however told that a lot of the trips done as returns out of PER are not legal the other way (perhaps due to headwinds making flights longer??)
There's a few times I've seen crew doing SYD-PER-SYD but they deadhead over and operate back or vice versa... probably a condition of doing that particular trip... however I have once or twice done a PER-SYD -PER which is a back of the clock trip.
I heard that you guys (DJ) can't do a coast-to-coast return in the one day, only ADL-PER-ADL, is this the case? If so be very very glad, coast to coast is an absolute killer especially when we are talking midnight to 8am type hours!
I too have heard that a Perth base for DJ is a certainty, just not an exact date. It was meant to be Feb this year once the pilots were up and running (so I was told) but I can see with the flying reducing in WA why it might have been put off for awhile.
There's MEL returns done out of PER, I'm pretty sure these patterns have a dispensation, if I had the papers with me I could give the exact details. I was however told that a lot of the trips done as returns out of PER are not legal the other way (perhaps due to headwinds making flights longer??)
There's a few times I've seen crew doing SYD-PER-SYD but they deadhead over and operate back or vice versa... probably a condition of doing that particular trip... however I have once or twice done a PER-SYD -PER which is a back of the clock trip.
I heard that you guys (DJ) can't do a coast-to-coast return in the one day, only ADL-PER-ADL, is this the case? If so be very very glad, coast to coast is an absolute killer especially when we are talking midnight to 8am type hours!
I too have heard that a Perth base for DJ is a certainty, just not an exact date. It was meant to be Feb this year once the pilots were up and running (so I was told) but I can see with the flying reducing in WA why it might have been put off for awhile.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes PER returns from the east coast are not yet possible (unless a paxing sector is involved). Only ADL-PER-ADL. Yes PER base is a certainty, they're probably just concentrating on the SYD base moreso first. And now that cabin crew can 'cross-crew' on B737s and E-Jets in the same day/same trip, there's a quick efficiency in crewing hours there for the time being. Our pilots, however, can operate east coast returns due to their EBA, and often enough its the red eye too. Obviously the pilot PER base was to be set up ASAP as a priority, as pilots cannot cross crew, and paxing them over for shifts is both expensive and wasted hours.
In addition, have heard DTA is possibly out of the window - flat rate of $98 could be staying and is further being discussed. Let's ensure it stays for any sign-off past 2am as per the current agreement.
DTA isn't a bad idea or a bad thing, but for us at $3.30 it is. It will be stepping backwards. A higher amount would be forwards. But, be careful what most of us wish for... hopefully the calculated advantages of $98 outways the drop in layovers in the future - But, if this is significally going to happen, it will be time for the next EBA by then anyway and we can negotiate another compromise then, especially what's in our best interest at the end of the day. But at the moment, keeping the flat rate of $98 is best even with 'subtle' changes to our layovers.
I also want it to be clear that all of us really want Virgin Blue to be successful and really enjoy working here. The culture and its people are second to none. I also understand we are a business which needs to pull through these difficult times, but we have, as cabin crew, worked extremely hard not only at our day-to-day jobs, but also to acheive what we have with the current EBA. Therefore it is disappointing to see the current offers on the table but am thankful for this possible first compromise.
In addition, have heard DTA is possibly out of the window - flat rate of $98 could be staying and is further being discussed. Let's ensure it stays for any sign-off past 2am as per the current agreement.
DTA isn't a bad idea or a bad thing, but for us at $3.30 it is. It will be stepping backwards. A higher amount would be forwards. But, be careful what most of us wish for... hopefully the calculated advantages of $98 outways the drop in layovers in the future - But, if this is significally going to happen, it will be time for the next EBA by then anyway and we can negotiate another compromise then, especially what's in our best interest at the end of the day. But at the moment, keeping the flat rate of $98 is best even with 'subtle' changes to our layovers.I also want it to be clear that all of us really want Virgin Blue to be successful and really enjoy working here. The culture and its people are second to none. I also understand we are a business which needs to pull through these difficult times, but we have, as cabin crew, worked extremely hard not only at our day-to-day jobs, but also to acheive what we have with the current EBA. Therefore it is disappointing to see the current offers on the table but am thankful for this possible first compromise.
Guys, read your current EBA. You already get DTA as an annualised lump sum.
It's not like they are offering you anything new when they say DTA.
In fact, if the offer of about $3 per hour DTA was correct, thats about what you already get (from memory), so in effect, all they are doing is removing your overnight allowance. You are getting robbed!
Has anyone considered the other aspects like uniform and grooming allowance? What about all those other little allowances currently being paid, that they stand to just wipe out without being specific on the matter.
It's not like they are offering you anything new when they say DTA.
In fact, if the offer of about $3 per hour DTA was correct, thats about what you already get (from memory), so in effect, all they are doing is removing your overnight allowance. You are getting robbed!
Has anyone considered the other aspects like uniform and grooming allowance? What about all those other little allowances currently being paid, that they stand to just wipe out without being specific on the matter.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you ozangel but already onto that one! Yes we realise its an annualised lump sum with our salary, and at the roadshow I brought this up. Their answer was "Because when Virgin Blue first started the airline didn't have overnights (BNE-SYD-BNE was the first route) and its something that has remained and will remain in the EBA like it always has".
It will NOT be removed as I asked this exact question at the roadshow. So if we did get DTA, the annualised lump sum will stay, and we will get a further $3 - $3.30 for every hour worked as well. Although a drop in $$$, its not a total loss, as I believe that's what you were referring to with your statement?
Haven't heard about these being cut out at all?
In fact, if the offer of about $3 per hour DTA was correct, thats about what you already get (from memory), so in effect, all they are doing is removing your overnight allowance. You are getting robbed!
Has anyone considered the other aspects like uniform and grooming allowance? What about all those other little allowances currently being paid, that they stand to just wipe out without being specific on the matter.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its a bit of give and take from both parts WITH savings
want to come shopping with me?
on your compromise we give and they take
incr to 10- no extra overtime for us on options A B or C
DTA- no extra money for us because $98 divided by 24 hours is $4 anyway
%- $1200 approx they give us
new crew lower- they can do this now but would cause a split
28day rosters- 130/140 extra hrs pa = $4500 approx they don't pay us for
reserve- they can do this now with rosters of a/port res or available
$ working outside reserve- they would never go for cause they want to reach 130/140 first before they pay any extra
increase of 10.15hrs max a day from 9.45hrs, will layovers drop
fact is they need crew at layovers to crew the current flights
if they want to cut down perth layovers they can do this now by setting up a base there or paxing us home or perth-melb-perth or melb-perth-melb
lets shop for a bargain not get ripped off.
Last edited by shoppingcart; 27th Jan 2009 at 23:45.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Y'all.
Just spent the last hour or so reading over this thread, and also refreshing myself on the previous (voted down) eba thread. Loving that everyone one here is on the same page I am. been a dj for many years, and certainly don't want my beloved company to fail now.
BUT lets face it I know my worth and we should be prepared to fight for it. I have to say, as one of the one's asking many q's at the roadshow, I felt options A, B and C were a matter of chosing the lesser evil, no real negotiations there. Seems our "consulting commitee" are perhaps being glossed in believing this is all they can "negotiate". It's not thier fault, they are doing the best job they can without any real medium to liase with crew, or any real legal background to neg a legal doc that we will all be bound by. VB on the other hand has a hefty legal team to assist in "consulting"...
I was however RATHER IMPRESSED with my FAAA rep on the day if my roadshow-she maintained composure (clearly angry and offended underneath it all tho, as one should be with these options) but delivered clear cut, to the point questions that undermined these options pointing out the real downfalls of these proposed conditions to the rest of the room. (I was less impressed last eba negs, but i've been a member since day dot)
Its understood the cc dept needs to contribute 4-6mill in savings, why are we taking this straight from cc pockets? There are many more that make up this dept. Someone mentioned already the saving from reduced tiered pay scales etc saving a big wad of cashola already, not to mention all the other points already said, but what about the reduced crew complement- happened on the b737-800, and there's talk of it reducing to 2 crew on the E-170 and even maybe down to 3 crew on the 737-700 like pac blue. the costs savings here are significant but vb not willing for us to use as a neg option even though we're the ones who take on the extra workload when that cc member dissapears, never to be seen again?! You can bet your bottom dollar it will happen, post eba implented, as a further cost saving to vb and nothing to crew for their ever increasing workload.
...what does every one make of the proposed reduced sick leave entitlements??
...AVL days a sore point for all, esp when they call it double dipping. Ha!!
...Many more CC should be contributers to this thread. Management aren't silly they're reading all this (last eba negs they were...) and hopefully taking some of this onboard. HAVE YOUR SAY... here, and go to more than one roadshow, sure it won't be part of your rostered hours, but go anyway- go armed with Q's, Q's, Q's!!! It's your worklife!
Just spent the last hour or so reading over this thread, and also refreshing myself on the previous (voted down) eba thread. Loving that everyone one here is on the same page I am. been a dj for many years, and certainly don't want my beloved company to fail now.
BUT lets face it I know my worth and we should be prepared to fight for it. I have to say, as one of the one's asking many q's at the roadshow, I felt options A, B and C were a matter of chosing the lesser evil, no real negotiations there. Seems our "consulting commitee" are perhaps being glossed in believing this is all they can "negotiate". It's not thier fault, they are doing the best job they can without any real medium to liase with crew, or any real legal background to neg a legal doc that we will all be bound by. VB on the other hand has a hefty legal team to assist in "consulting"...
I was however RATHER IMPRESSED with my FAAA rep on the day if my roadshow-she maintained composure (clearly angry and offended underneath it all tho, as one should be with these options) but delivered clear cut, to the point questions that undermined these options pointing out the real downfalls of these proposed conditions to the rest of the room. (I was less impressed last eba negs, but i've been a member since day dot)
Its understood the cc dept needs to contribute 4-6mill in savings, why are we taking this straight from cc pockets? There are many more that make up this dept. Someone mentioned already the saving from reduced tiered pay scales etc saving a big wad of cashola already, not to mention all the other points already said, but what about the reduced crew complement- happened on the b737-800, and there's talk of it reducing to 2 crew on the E-170 and even maybe down to 3 crew on the 737-700 like pac blue. the costs savings here are significant but vb not willing for us to use as a neg option even though we're the ones who take on the extra workload when that cc member dissapears, never to be seen again?! You can bet your bottom dollar it will happen, post eba implented, as a further cost saving to vb and nothing to crew for their ever increasing workload.
...what does every one make of the proposed reduced sick leave entitlements??
...AVL days a sore point for all, esp when they call it double dipping. Ha!!
...Many more CC should be contributers to this thread. Management aren't silly they're reading all this (last eba negs they were...) and hopefully taking some of this onboard. HAVE YOUR SAY... here, and go to more than one roadshow, sure it won't be part of your rostered hours, but go anyway- go armed with Q's, Q's, Q's!!! It's your worklife!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avl Days
I recieved this email today, it is spot on. posted for those not in the faaa, hope its readable:
Attention: All Virgin Blue Cabin Crew
AVAILABLE (AVL) DAYS
It is timely to remind members about the history of Available (AVL) Days and how this EBA provision was
negotiated between the FAAA and the Company:
AVL Days are days which are not a Designated Day Off. They are days on which no duty is
rostered but rather have an assigned contactability span where crew have no option but to be on-
call to receive duties as directed by the company and report within 2 hours of call out;
Originally there were very few AVL days per roster because daily duties were rarely rostered at
9:30 or for that matter over 8:30, so the spread of duty hours was across more days;
The requirement to be on-call on AVL days provided the company with flexibility and surety of
enough ‘back up’ resources to sustain the network’s flying commitments if Airport Reserve
coverage was depleted, by paying Cabin Crew AVL Day Rates when called-out, thereby saving
the cost of employing and paying additional Crew to be on-call for entire rosters of home reserve;
The AVL Day rate compensates for working over and above rostered workdays; it was an
agreed, fair and reasonable compensation given the nature of AVL days.
Members would be aware that the current full time base salary represents ordinary hours of 125 generally,
plus delay/creep on rostered duty days and call-out from Airport Reserve or Denominated AVL Days up to
140 hours monthly and 9 hours daily. (Daily overtime operates after 9hrs to recognise hours worked above
and beyond ordinary daily hours.)
AVL Day Rates represent a form of ‘overtime’ received for working on Nominated Available Days and is
compensation for working on days in addition to ordinary hours of work. It is not double-dipping. If the
company chooses to roster Crew well below or consistently below 125 hours, then this is the company’s
choice.
Sinc
the current Available Day provisions have to form part of a fair negotiated outcome in order to be accepted.
Any deficiencies in the rostering system to optimise crew to 125hrs per month prior to nominated AVL days
should not be entirely borne by crew.
When negotiations commence in good faith, AVL Days will continue to be a main focal point to ensure the
integrity of what an AVL Day is. Your FAAA Reps not only understand the intent of the current AVL Day
provisions, they are also aware the provisions which exist to ensure crew’s interests are protected, and not
disadvantaged on this very important issue.
Attention: All Virgin Blue Cabin Crew
AVAILABLE (AVL) DAYS
It is timely to remind members about the history of Available (AVL) Days and how this EBA provision was
negotiated between the FAAA and the Company:
AVL Days are days which are not a Designated Day Off. They are days on which no duty is
rostered but rather have an assigned contactability span where crew have no option but to be on-
call to receive duties as directed by the company and report within 2 hours of call out;
Originally there were very few AVL days per roster because daily duties were rarely rostered at
9:30 or for that matter over 8:30, so the spread of duty hours was across more days;
The requirement to be on-call on AVL days provided the company with flexibility and surety of
enough ‘back up’ resources to sustain the network’s flying commitments if Airport Reserve
coverage was depleted, by paying Cabin Crew AVL Day Rates when called-out, thereby saving
the cost of employing and paying additional Crew to be on-call for entire rosters of home reserve;
The AVL Day rate compensates for working over and above rostered workdays; it was an
agreed, fair and reasonable compensation given the nature of AVL days.
Members would be aware that the current full time base salary represents ordinary hours of 125 generally,
plus delay/creep on rostered duty days and call-out from Airport Reserve or Denominated AVL Days up to
140 hours monthly and 9 hours daily. (Daily overtime operates after 9hrs to recognise hours worked above
and beyond ordinary daily hours.)
AVL Day Rates represent a form of ‘overtime’ received for working on Nominated Available Days and is
compensation for working on days in addition to ordinary hours of work. It is not double-dipping. If the
company chooses to roster Crew well below or consistently below 125 hours, then this is the company’s
choice.
Sinc
the current Available Day provisions have to form part of a fair negotiated outcome in order to be accepted.
Any deficiencies in the rostering system to optimise crew to 125hrs per month prior to nominated AVL days
should not be entirely borne by crew.
When negotiations commence in good faith, AVL Days will continue to be a main focal point to ensure the
integrity of what an AVL Day is. Your FAAA Reps not only understand the intent of the current AVL Day
provisions, they are also aware the provisions which exist to ensure crew’s interests are protected, and not
disadvantaged on this very important issue.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: QLD
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great newsletter published by the FAAA re: AVL days!!! Timely reminder that we certainly are NOT double dipping and when we are on call we are restricted in what we can do so the rate that we are paid, when called out, is a reasonable monetry compensation.
How can we ensure everyone is a FAAA member and growth collectively in strength???
How can we ensure everyone is a FAAA member and growth collectively in strength???
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some really good pick-ups there everyone...
The compromise was an idea as it was clear the company wanted to save heaps of money, with $5 million ordered to be saved from the Cabin Crew Department alone, along with other departments more money. My ideas were realistic in what we were dealing and was an idea of what was a good compromise IF we had to change our work rules excessively.
Who knows what deal is going to be offered. But it isn't going to be pretty (in other words a big change) and my 'ideas' were, I think, a good compromise. Would I rather keep things and hours as is? Absolutely. Would I vote to do so if it was a choice? Absolutely. But by no means would I want to lower what I think I'm currently worth because that's what the current offers are. But I just hope the company knows that we want things to remain or only have subtle changes. But obviously, once again, this is not going to be the case.
Your thought on DTA was correct, as was mine, meaning $3.30 was way off the mark. The extra hours a year due to 28 day rosters is a con, but we should get a real pay rise to compensate. But in their view, it defeats the idea of the efficiency they want to save. But are they the ones working harder, signing on at 4am, NO? We should be compensated.
They would never pax us over and operate back (or visa versa) to minimise overnights to PER (unless there's a sickness) as its a loss of passenger seats (revenue) plus a loss of HOURS in a roster (inefficiency).
The new crew being paid a lower amount is a good idea as they can receive the normal amount after a few years, plus there's no outsourcing or casualisation like our competition. Work there and you'll see a real split. But we all do the same job, so of course I would rather see us all on the same pay.
Once again would I rather keep things and hours as is? Absolutely. Would I vote for this. Absolutely. What would your REALISTIC ideas be, providing what we're being offered and there had to be changes?
Was just trying to throw around some realistic ideas that are NOT as ideal as we'd all like, but would soften the blow we're currently dealing with. I'm sure you understand.
Hopefully now the union's involved more perhaps there won't be many changes???
But I'll tell you one thing... News of reduced crew on B737s and E-Jets has just got me thinking they can save enough from that, and we should be compensated further. I'd hate to see it happen though. Any ideas when they want to bring these changes into effect anyone? I've never heard of this yet.
The compromise was an idea as it was clear the company wanted to save heaps of money, with $5 million ordered to be saved from the Cabin Crew Department alone, along with other departments more money. My ideas were realistic in what we were dealing and was an idea of what was a good compromise IF we had to change our work rules excessively.
Who knows what deal is going to be offered. But it isn't going to be pretty (in other words a big change) and my 'ideas' were, I think, a good compromise. Would I rather keep things and hours as is? Absolutely. Would I vote to do so if it was a choice? Absolutely. But by no means would I want to lower what I think I'm currently worth because that's what the current offers are. But I just hope the company knows that we want things to remain or only have subtle changes. But obviously, once again, this is not going to be the case.
Your thought on DTA was correct, as was mine, meaning $3.30 was way off the mark. The extra hours a year due to 28 day rosters is a con, but we should get a real pay rise to compensate. But in their view, it defeats the idea of the efficiency they want to save. But are they the ones working harder, signing on at 4am, NO? We should be compensated.
They would never pax us over and operate back (or visa versa) to minimise overnights to PER (unless there's a sickness) as its a loss of passenger seats (revenue) plus a loss of HOURS in a roster (inefficiency).
The new crew being paid a lower amount is a good idea as they can receive the normal amount after a few years, plus there's no outsourcing or casualisation like our competition. Work there and you'll see a real split. But we all do the same job, so of course I would rather see us all on the same pay.
Once again would I rather keep things and hours as is? Absolutely. Would I vote for this. Absolutely. What would your REALISTIC ideas be, providing what we're being offered and there had to be changes?
Was just trying to throw around some realistic ideas that are NOT as ideal as we'd all like, but would soften the blow we're currently dealing with. I'm sure you understand.
Hopefully now the union's involved more perhaps there won't be many changes???
But I'll tell you one thing... News of reduced crew on B737s and E-Jets has just got me thinking they can save enough from that, and we should be compensated further. I'd hate to see it happen though. Any ideas when they want to bring these changes into effect anyone? I've never heard of this yet.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Coogee
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read through the whole thread but this is what I took away from the roadshow after doing some quick calculations based on the figures they provided.
Base Salary
For a CC2:
Current base salary = $35,611
35,611 / 1680hrs = 21.19
New base salary = $36,900
36,900 / 1820hrs = 20.27
This means that we will be getting paid LESS per hour as our hourly rate will actually DROP. The only reason the base salary is higher under the proposed changes is because we will be working more hours!
(The calculations for CC1 and CS present the same results - lower hourly rates.)
DTA - Worse Case Scenarios
A 10.25hr day (12hrs with pax) with 11hr minimum rest away from home could potentially result in the following types of pairings and DTA. These are worse-case scenarios but if it's in the document, then it is considered legal and CAN be rostered anytime the company sees fit.
Currently, we can legally be rostered these pairings BUT we would also get paid daily overtime after 9hrs - which would cost the company a significant amount. However, the proposed changes would remove daily overtime and replace it with overtime once 140hrs has been reached.
Day trips
Any DTA received for a day-trip would be taxed. If we were only rostered day-trips for the whole year:
13 rosters * 140hrs = 1820 * 3.30 = $6,006
$6,000 less tax of approx. 30% = $4,000 / 26 pay periods = Approx. $77 p/week Nett (currently, we get no extra allowance for day trips)
2 day trips
A 2 day trip would require a span of 30hrs from sign on to sign off to pay more in DTA than our current overnight allowance structure. With 11 hours minimum rest, worst case could look like this:
Day 1 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 2 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax = 36hrs DTA $119 (current $98 o/night + $116.56 overtime)
3 day trips
A 3 day trip would require a span of 60hrs to pay more in DTA. We could end up with a 3 day trip like this and still earn less in DTA:
Day 1 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 2 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 3 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax = 60hrs DTA $198 (current $196 o/night + $174.84 overtime)
4 day trips
A 4 day trip would require a span of 89 hours.
Day 1 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 2 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 3 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 4 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax = 84hrs DTA $277.20 (current $294 o/night + $233.12 overtime)
Good Points
They are offering us an extra 10 days off per year but they're reducing our sick days by 24% (5 days), increasing productivity by 8.3% (140hrs * 13 rosters), restructuring AVL days (which I can understand) but only giving us a 3.6% increase in base salary.
Considering all the above and the fact that our superannuation is calculated from our base salary and not our total income, do the 10 extra days off per year really warrant a 'yes' vote??
Base Salary
For a CC2:
Current base salary = $35,611
35,611 / 1680hrs = 21.19
New base salary = $36,900
36,900 / 1820hrs = 20.27
This means that we will be getting paid LESS per hour as our hourly rate will actually DROP. The only reason the base salary is higher under the proposed changes is because we will be working more hours!
(The calculations for CC1 and CS present the same results - lower hourly rates.)
DTA - Worse Case Scenarios
A 10.25hr day (12hrs with pax) with 11hr minimum rest away from home could potentially result in the following types of pairings and DTA. These are worse-case scenarios but if it's in the document, then it is considered legal and CAN be rostered anytime the company sees fit.
Currently, we can legally be rostered these pairings BUT we would also get paid daily overtime after 9hrs - which would cost the company a significant amount. However, the proposed changes would remove daily overtime and replace it with overtime once 140hrs has been reached.
Day trips
Any DTA received for a day-trip would be taxed. If we were only rostered day-trips for the whole year:
13 rosters * 140hrs = 1820 * 3.30 = $6,006
$6,000 less tax of approx. 30% = $4,000 / 26 pay periods = Approx. $77 p/week Nett (currently, we get no extra allowance for day trips)
2 day trips
A 2 day trip would require a span of 30hrs from sign on to sign off to pay more in DTA than our current overnight allowance structure. With 11 hours minimum rest, worst case could look like this:
Day 1 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 2 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax = 36hrs DTA $119 (current $98 o/night + $116.56 overtime)
3 day trips
A 3 day trip would require a span of 60hrs to pay more in DTA. We could end up with a 3 day trip like this and still earn less in DTA:
Day 1 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 2 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 3 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax = 60hrs DTA $198 (current $196 o/night + $174.84 overtime)
4 day trips
A 4 day trip would require a span of 89 hours.
Day 1 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 2 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 3 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax
Day 4 05:00-17:00 12hrs with pax = 84hrs DTA $277.20 (current $294 o/night + $233.12 overtime)
Good Points
They are offering us an extra 10 days off per year but they're reducing our sick days by 24% (5 days), increasing productivity by 8.3% (140hrs * 13 rosters), restructuring AVL days (which I can understand) but only giving us a 3.6% increase in base salary.
Considering all the above and the fact that our superannuation is calculated from our base salary and not our total income, do the 10 extra days off per year really warrant a 'yes' vote??