RP04 extention!? Who asked for this?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: in the air
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP04 extention!? Who asked for this?
I just read the latest letter from the AOA. The one that says, "hey guys, I know you just voted, with 75% turn out for the fall back rather than RP07, but we know whats best so without talking to any of you, we are just going to offer an extension of the RP04 trial to the company for a few more months."
..oh did you think your voteing process counted for something? you must be confused.
Is anyone else thinking this is rediculous?!
Is it not enough that the AOA GC gave a HUGE one sided sales pitch for this? No, now they didn't get what they wanted and they decide to try and circumvent the entire voting process. This sort of decision should be put to the membership for a vote. Whether or not you voted for RP07, is immaterial. This is a matter of principle. The GC is trying to do the companies bidding and reverse something WE all voted on. Are they not supposed to be pushing our agenda with the company, not the other way around?
I am thoroughly unimpressed.
..oh did you think your voteing process counted for something? you must be confused.
Is anyone else thinking this is rediculous?!
Is it not enough that the AOA GC gave a HUGE one sided sales pitch for this? No, now they didn't get what they wanted and they decide to try and circumvent the entire voting process. This sort of decision should be put to the membership for a vote. Whether or not you voted for RP07, is immaterial. This is a matter of principle. The GC is trying to do the companies bidding and reverse something WE all voted on. Are they not supposed to be pushing our agenda with the company, not the other way around?
I am thoroughly unimpressed.
Where did the 4 month extension come from!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don’t like it?
Propose the motion, get a friend to seconded it, get 100 blokes or so to sign it, present it to the AOA on whether or not it should be extended. Not sure how the AOA is going against the rules on this one.
Anyone care to contact the Trade Union Director in Hong Kong to see if it is legal? Is the AOA breaching AOA rules?
Oh yes, the parapet thing again.
Propose the motion, get a friend to seconded it, get 100 blokes or so to sign it, present it to the AOA on whether or not it should be extended. Not sure how the AOA is going against the rules on this one.
Anyone care to contact the Trade Union Director in Hong Kong to see if it is legal? Is the AOA breaching AOA rules?
Oh yes, the parapet thing again.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 months extension
RP04 was keenly negotiated and then ratified by the members.
Nowhere in it is there the provision for an extension or alteration without member consent.
The GC is on sticky ground here.
Of course a vote of no confidence in the GC would stop all this in it's tracks.http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Nowhere in it is there the provision for an extension or alteration without member consent.
The GC is on sticky ground here.
Of course a vote of no confidence in the GC would stop all this in it's tracks.http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So shut yourself up FCUX!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: anywhere but the 3rd floor
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cpdude..., your not really as thick as you seem...are you? It doesn't matter what the 'majority' of voters want (a constituency of seemingly great importance...according to you). Everyone had their chance to vote, the motion did not pass. Therefore the motion has failed. We now revert to the Fallback. What part of 'approved voting methods' don't you understand...? 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cpdude.
Lets not forget the reason why this vote failed. Only 43% of the entire AOA membership voted for RP07. I'm sure we can all do the maths but that means that 57% of the AOA membership either don't want or are unsure about RP07.
If our COS is to be changed from the one I joined the company under, I want more than 43% of the membership agreeing that its for my benefit.
If I may digress;
cpdude, in 2004 how did you vote for the initial inferior 2004 housing policy proposal? Were you one of the majority on that occasion who decided to ratify the agreement? Or were you one of the minority who voted it down and ultimately negotiated a far better package for us all?
If its the former, you have have been very quiet over the last few years over having had the majority overuled by the minority.
If its the latter, you are a hypocrite.
Lets not forget the reason why this vote failed. Only 43% of the entire AOA membership voted for RP07. I'm sure we can all do the maths but that means that 57% of the AOA membership either don't want or are unsure about RP07.
If our COS is to be changed from the one I joined the company under, I want more than 43% of the membership agreeing that its for my benefit.
If I may digress;
cpdude, in 2004 how did you vote for the initial inferior 2004 housing policy proposal? Were you one of the majority on that occasion who decided to ratify the agreement? Or were you one of the minority who voted it down and ultimately negotiated a far better package for us all?
If its the former, you have have been very quiet over the last few years over having had the majority overuled by the minority.
If its the latter, you are a hypocrite.
Last edited by Progress Wanchai; 2nd Oct 2006 at 17:04.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is with you guys? CR look at the forest not the tree!
The AOA is NOT reversing a vote but just trying to get a better deal. Give them a few months to do this.
DO YOU REALLY WANT THE FALLBACK RP?
I know you're going to say you want 5-4-3 but when will you understand that 5-4-3 can easily be manipulated to favour the company if they wish and if that's what you want then get ready for a real bad lifestyle to come!
The AOA is NOT reversing a vote but just trying to get a better deal. Give them a few months to do this.
DO YOU REALLY WANT THE FALLBACK RP?
I know you're going to say you want 5-4-3 but when will you understand that 5-4-3 can easily be manipulated to favour the company if they wish and if that's what you want then get ready for a real bad lifestyle to come!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey cpdud, the AOA is reversing the vote, which was for the fallback with no allowance for an extension. According to your logic, or lack there of, why not just extend the fallback 10 years in hope for a better deal then?
They should have stuck to the decision the members voted for, and then let the company offer something better if they were not happy with it.
So quit wasting bandwidth and SIT!
They should have stuck to the decision the members voted for, and then let the company offer something better if they were not happy with it.
So quit wasting bandwidth and SIT!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny figures
So, Progress Wanchai, using your reasoning, would it be fair to say that only 32% of the membership voted for the fallback which means that 68% of the AOA membership either don't want or are unsure about the fallback?
We can all make the figures sound good for our own causes, ably demonstrated by NR just a few days ago so Lets not let ourselves be dragged down to his level on such an important issue.
I don't think that many would disagree that those who didn't vote didn't really care. This leaves us with a majority of those who do care in favour of RP07.......but it was close, and certainly doesn't have a ringing endorsement by the membership.
The AOA has decided on a fairly sensible and pragmatic approach to the problem, given these figures. If they can negotiate some improvements to RP07 such that it does get the required "ringing endorsement" from the membership then we'll all be better off for it.
We can all make the figures sound good for our own causes, ably demonstrated by NR just a few days ago so Lets not let ourselves be dragged down to his level on such an important issue.
I don't think that many would disagree that those who didn't vote didn't really care. This leaves us with a majority of those who do care in favour of RP07.......but it was close, and certainly doesn't have a ringing endorsement by the membership.
The AOA has decided on a fairly sensible and pragmatic approach to the problem, given these figures. If they can negotiate some improvements to RP07 such that it does get the required "ringing endorsement" from the membership then we'll all be better off for it.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pro vote was about 30% of all members, taking the 25% of members who failed to vote as a 'no', otherwise they would have had their say, which makes the 'no' vote now 70%. Doesn't look like a reason for an extension to me.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just explain why the fallback is so good for the crew and bad for CX. I am on a fleet that does not get much benefit from 543. All I can see is no requests and loads more reserve.
CX imposed RP01 and they will manage fine with it for 4 years and then all they need is the FTL's to work with after that expires.
RP04 has its limitations however I am with the President on this one, a review and an extension in an attempt to resolve the area of concern is a logical way to go.
I have not seen many constructive comments on what is wrong with RP04 and what would you do to improve it. I would start with a proper credit for leave that would only mean half a months work in a month of half a months work
CX imposed RP01 and they will manage fine with it for 4 years and then all they need is the FTL's to work with after that expires.
RP04 has its limitations however I am with the President on this one, a review and an extension in an attempt to resolve the area of concern is a logical way to go.
I have not seen many constructive comments on what is wrong with RP04 and what would you do to improve it. I would start with a proper credit for leave that would only mean half a months work in a month of half a months work
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the work stacking during a month with leave was my biggest gripe, and being regularly rostered into o/t only to have roster change later to avoid o/t and get stuffed on reserve, wasn't much chop either.
The stats on request success was also misleading because if the flight you requested later gets taken from you (as often happens), it still showed as a successful request.
No more 'we intend', it must say 'we will' or 'we will not'.
The stats on request success was also misleading because if the flight you requested later gets taken from you (as often happens), it still showed as a successful request.
No more 'we intend', it must say 'we will' or 'we will not'.
Last edited by The Messiah; 4th Oct 2006 at 11:43. Reason: sentence added
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: in the air
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time to re-focus
Ok guys, ST's unilateral imposition of this extension, coupled with his monumental efforts to sell this RP07 proposal to us, despite its obvious faults, can be dealt with later. At the next election of GC members.
What is vitally important now is that we stop focusing on all these small points and begin to pull in the SAME direction.
Inevitably, due to ST's actions, there WILL be a re-vote on RP07. I don't like it, but we need to face that reality.
What we must do as a group is come up with what we
want in the new RP07 to make it acceptable. If as a group we can come to a consensus as to what MUST be in place before we will vote for RP07, we have a much better chance of preventing RP07 being passed with a minor massaging of terms and no real improvement.
I would like to see the following fixed,
-Credit free reserve. This is simply not acceptable. We have a credit pay system and reserve must be paid. The argument that " you almost always get called out so you dont give much away is laughable. The same argument cuts against not paying for reserve. If they are going to call me out, then they should have no issue paying me at least 1/4 credit to be available.
-free reserve when duty is changed. Not acceptable. Extra reserve should be credited as MORE than normal reserve. perhaps 50%? There must be something to make them seriously look at needs for reserve before they drop it on your line automatically. Here is shown, beyond any question, that soft language has no place in a contract. "We will try not to give you reserve if a duty is changed".....has ANYBODY had a duty change and NOT gotten reserve? Not me.
-Work stacking. We need a better system because this is rediculous. 84hrs/month devided by 31 = 2.71, or 2.8 in a 30 day month. You can see the extent of the value of soft language in the RP04 document here. It has NO value. We have all seen that despite the statement that they won't stack, they obviously do.
-Soft wording like 3days off between same direction ULR trips. It has been repeatedly shown that this, and any other, try to, should do, etc... will never be implemented. There need to be sollid, wording as to what can and can not be done. There also need to be monetary penalties in place, IN THE CONTRACT for when the company needs to crew a plane. ie., if you need to drop an extra reserve on my line, then you can do it, but it costs more. The only thing that will keep them in line is financial penalty.
-I want to see some protection for our regional flying pilots. maybe a maximum number of duty hours in a given week or 3 week period. Night hours count 1.5? We need to make things more reasonable for the 777 pilots. Every major airline has rules in there rostering to prevent against fatigue AND to preserve the work vs pay balance.
Lets try and see things as a group and not as a bunch of tiny special interest groups. If sometinh is ok for me, but crap for somebody else, I wont vote for it. Neither should you.
Lets get a good list going and some healthy discussion so we can clearly define the exact issues, not only for ourselves, but for the AOA and the company.
This is how we build a union that is not a laughing stock. This is how we actually get 90%+ membership.
This is how we actually accomplish the protection of our CofS.
This is how we get our overdue, and often promised, pay rise.
Hoolio
What is vitally important now is that we stop focusing on all these small points and begin to pull in the SAME direction.
Inevitably, due to ST's actions, there WILL be a re-vote on RP07. I don't like it, but we need to face that reality.
What we must do as a group is come up with what we
want in the new RP07 to make it acceptable. If as a group we can come to a consensus as to what MUST be in place before we will vote for RP07, we have a much better chance of preventing RP07 being passed with a minor massaging of terms and no real improvement.
I would like to see the following fixed,
-Credit free reserve. This is simply not acceptable. We have a credit pay system and reserve must be paid. The argument that " you almost always get called out so you dont give much away is laughable. The same argument cuts against not paying for reserve. If they are going to call me out, then they should have no issue paying me at least 1/4 credit to be available.
-free reserve when duty is changed. Not acceptable. Extra reserve should be credited as MORE than normal reserve. perhaps 50%? There must be something to make them seriously look at needs for reserve before they drop it on your line automatically. Here is shown, beyond any question, that soft language has no place in a contract. "We will try not to give you reserve if a duty is changed".....has ANYBODY had a duty change and NOT gotten reserve? Not me.
-Work stacking. We need a better system because this is rediculous. 84hrs/month devided by 31 = 2.71, or 2.8 in a 30 day month. You can see the extent of the value of soft language in the RP04 document here. It has NO value. We have all seen that despite the statement that they won't stack, they obviously do.
-Soft wording like 3days off between same direction ULR trips. It has been repeatedly shown that this, and any other, try to, should do, etc... will never be implemented. There need to be sollid, wording as to what can and can not be done. There also need to be monetary penalties in place, IN THE CONTRACT for when the company needs to crew a plane. ie., if you need to drop an extra reserve on my line, then you can do it, but it costs more. The only thing that will keep them in line is financial penalty.
-I want to see some protection for our regional flying pilots. maybe a maximum number of duty hours in a given week or 3 week period. Night hours count 1.5? We need to make things more reasonable for the 777 pilots. Every major airline has rules in there rostering to prevent against fatigue AND to preserve the work vs pay balance.
Lets try and see things as a group and not as a bunch of tiny special interest groups. If sometinh is ok for me, but crap for somebody else, I wont vote for it. Neither should you.
Lets get a good list going and some healthy discussion so we can clearly define the exact issues, not only for ourselves, but for the AOA and the company.
This is how we build a union that is not a laughing stock. This is how we actually get 90%+ membership.
This is how we actually accomplish the protection of our CofS.
This is how we get our overdue, and often promised, pay rise.
Hoolio
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THIS WAS POSTED IN ANOTHER FORUM BUT IS PROBABLY MORE TOPICAL IN THIS THREAD
Dear B scaler, I cannot agree with your thoughts on the fallback and I further believe that a significant (but not majority) number of the HKAOA membership has not fully understood the ramifications of the rejection of RP07 and the poor rosters which will most likely result if the fallback position is implemented. The rosters will be far more biased to what the company wants rather than what the pilot wants because simply put, we will have agreed to forfeit all of the lifestyle provisions in RP07 in exchange for one re-inclusion namely the 543 rule, which only benefits those undertaking exclusive ULR flights. The old reserve system to be implemented with the fallback is unlimited in the number of days that will be rostered and for example a 6 hour reserve period you will get only 1.25 hours credit if not called out.
Whilst RP 04/07 is far from perfect it does have the basis of a system that delivers considerable lifestyle and roster choices that a minority of the membership may have thoughtlessly jettisoned forever if the AOA leadership did not take the recent sensible approach it has . The situation is…. The President has delivered the letter terminating RP07/07 however he has asked, and the company has agreed to extend RP04 for a few months with a view to reviewing the contentious issues with the company.
There are certainly areas RP07 can be improved upon and leave credits is one of them. The company were just plain greedy by not agreeing to a credit value for leave which prevented work stacking. The correct value is in the order of 2.7 – 2.8 hours per day a figure that would give 42 hours work and 42 hours leave credits for a month in which half the month was leave, totalling 84 for the month.
My own experience with the new reserve system was that it was much better than previous year’s system and I only did 18 days each year of the trial. I was nearly 100% called out well in advance and never sat 12 hours of reserve with ULR callouts late in the duty. I know this was not universal and did not apply to 744 Captains who are well under the required manning levels and they do have a genuine reason to complain about the amount of reserve, regrettably the re introduction of the old system will not reduce the amount of reserve it will increase the number of days on reserve significantly due to the 4 hour FDP clock limiting the use of the pilot. The company are also greedy when cancelling a split duty and replacing it with 2 days of 12 hours reserve and I do not know of anyone who had a cancelled duty replaced with O days. They (CX) need to take some responsibility for the motion failing.
I fail to grasp the view of some…. that by rejecting RP 04/07 and enforcing the fallback with the 543 rule is going to hurt the company to such an extent and force them to negotiate a better deal because it will leave aeroplanes on the ground in the interim. RP01 is their imposed system and they lived with it for several years. Without all of the lifestyle requests, Jokers, W patterns, unlimited reserve and O days they will be easily able to schedule the task and our rosters will be poor to say the least. In fact the company may argue that it may be better placed to expand without the restrictions of lifestyle components of the rostering request system. There could however be mass discontentment throughout the pilot body for whatever impact that may have.
I am content that logical heads prevailed with both our AOA leadership and the company in extending RP04 for a short while.
This is my understanding of the process of the fallback following the failure of the RP04 vote or any renegotiated proposal.
From May 07 we will go back to an interim fallback position which is basically RP01 with a version (there were several) of 543 for pax fleet, the old “unlimited reserve” system with 3 man ULR with a reduction of 7% credit. The lifestyle inclusions of RP 04/07 may or may not be included as policy as the company sees fit, there is no agreement to do so.
Should the AOA decide to activate a court case and we had a total victory we could expect to return to RP94 a system which was unilaterally imposed by the company and a system the AOA has been attempting to dismantle for well over a decade. The fallback of RP01 will run for a maximum of 4 years with the only protection the AFTL’s thereafter, failing an agreement or win for the AOA in court.
RP01 was also imposed by the company and it lacks all of the lifestyle features incorporated into RP 04/07. None of the credit factors will be included in our COS. At the end of 4 years the credit values could be unilaterally changed adversely. RP07 was going to have all the credit values in the COS.
The 3 man ULR factor will reduce from 1.14 to 1.07 adding a 7% workload increase to those on an AKL base and those undertaking those duties.
There will be no credit if you change your positioning duty.
There is no agreement/requirement to roster A days a feature that many crew on a base voluntarily choose to do.
There is no agreement to have JRC involvement in rostering issues. In fact there will be no need to monitor anything because there is nothing to monitor, only a set of previously imposed credit values and 543 for those on ULR pax fleets.
There is no requirement to give 6 jokers per year. At best it would be “Policy” a very distant second fiddle to manning the task.
There is no provision for lifestyle rostering i.e. W patterns for those who choose them and if the company did elect to allow them there is no agreement to limit them if they are adversely affecting other rosters by taking all of the ULR flights for those on W patterns.
There are no protections (even the wishy washy ones in RP04) to prevent work stacking under the fallback agreement.
There is no requirement to give any seniority or any other consideration to flight/days off requests; it will be at total company convenience, if at all.
There are no limits on the number or placement of O days in the roster; likewise there are no limits on the placement or amount of reserve days in a roster. Expect more of both due to the reintroduction of 543 and just because “they can do it”.
The minimum G day count will reduce by 10, and this is probably what you would get after the roster is filled with reserve and O days. Most of us will have 92 G days and 42 leave days and that will be it.
Regards
Cyril
Dear B scaler, I cannot agree with your thoughts on the fallback and I further believe that a significant (but not majority) number of the HKAOA membership has not fully understood the ramifications of the rejection of RP07 and the poor rosters which will most likely result if the fallback position is implemented. The rosters will be far more biased to what the company wants rather than what the pilot wants because simply put, we will have agreed to forfeit all of the lifestyle provisions in RP07 in exchange for one re-inclusion namely the 543 rule, which only benefits those undertaking exclusive ULR flights. The old reserve system to be implemented with the fallback is unlimited in the number of days that will be rostered and for example a 6 hour reserve period you will get only 1.25 hours credit if not called out.
Whilst RP 04/07 is far from perfect it does have the basis of a system that delivers considerable lifestyle and roster choices that a minority of the membership may have thoughtlessly jettisoned forever if the AOA leadership did not take the recent sensible approach it has . The situation is…. The President has delivered the letter terminating RP07/07 however he has asked, and the company has agreed to extend RP04 for a few months with a view to reviewing the contentious issues with the company.
There are certainly areas RP07 can be improved upon and leave credits is one of them. The company were just plain greedy by not agreeing to a credit value for leave which prevented work stacking. The correct value is in the order of 2.7 – 2.8 hours per day a figure that would give 42 hours work and 42 hours leave credits for a month in which half the month was leave, totalling 84 for the month.
My own experience with the new reserve system was that it was much better than previous year’s system and I only did 18 days each year of the trial. I was nearly 100% called out well in advance and never sat 12 hours of reserve with ULR callouts late in the duty. I know this was not universal and did not apply to 744 Captains who are well under the required manning levels and they do have a genuine reason to complain about the amount of reserve, regrettably the re introduction of the old system will not reduce the amount of reserve it will increase the number of days on reserve significantly due to the 4 hour FDP clock limiting the use of the pilot. The company are also greedy when cancelling a split duty and replacing it with 2 days of 12 hours reserve and I do not know of anyone who had a cancelled duty replaced with O days. They (CX) need to take some responsibility for the motion failing.
I fail to grasp the view of some…. that by rejecting RP 04/07 and enforcing the fallback with the 543 rule is going to hurt the company to such an extent and force them to negotiate a better deal because it will leave aeroplanes on the ground in the interim. RP01 is their imposed system and they lived with it for several years. Without all of the lifestyle requests, Jokers, W patterns, unlimited reserve and O days they will be easily able to schedule the task and our rosters will be poor to say the least. In fact the company may argue that it may be better placed to expand without the restrictions of lifestyle components of the rostering request system. There could however be mass discontentment throughout the pilot body for whatever impact that may have.
I am content that logical heads prevailed with both our AOA leadership and the company in extending RP04 for a short while.
This is my understanding of the process of the fallback following the failure of the RP04 vote or any renegotiated proposal.
From May 07 we will go back to an interim fallback position which is basically RP01 with a version (there were several) of 543 for pax fleet, the old “unlimited reserve” system with 3 man ULR with a reduction of 7% credit. The lifestyle inclusions of RP 04/07 may or may not be included as policy as the company sees fit, there is no agreement to do so.
Should the AOA decide to activate a court case and we had a total victory we could expect to return to RP94 a system which was unilaterally imposed by the company and a system the AOA has been attempting to dismantle for well over a decade. The fallback of RP01 will run for a maximum of 4 years with the only protection the AFTL’s thereafter, failing an agreement or win for the AOA in court.
RP01 was also imposed by the company and it lacks all of the lifestyle features incorporated into RP 04/07. None of the credit factors will be included in our COS. At the end of 4 years the credit values could be unilaterally changed adversely. RP07 was going to have all the credit values in the COS.
The 3 man ULR factor will reduce from 1.14 to 1.07 adding a 7% workload increase to those on an AKL base and those undertaking those duties.
There will be no credit if you change your positioning duty.
There is no agreement/requirement to roster A days a feature that many crew on a base voluntarily choose to do.
There is no agreement to have JRC involvement in rostering issues. In fact there will be no need to monitor anything because there is nothing to monitor, only a set of previously imposed credit values and 543 for those on ULR pax fleets.
There is no requirement to give 6 jokers per year. At best it would be “Policy” a very distant second fiddle to manning the task.
There is no provision for lifestyle rostering i.e. W patterns for those who choose them and if the company did elect to allow them there is no agreement to limit them if they are adversely affecting other rosters by taking all of the ULR flights for those on W patterns.
There are no protections (even the wishy washy ones in RP04) to prevent work stacking under the fallback agreement.
There is no requirement to give any seniority or any other consideration to flight/days off requests; it will be at total company convenience, if at all.
There are no limits on the number or placement of O days in the roster; likewise there are no limits on the placement or amount of reserve days in a roster. Expect more of both due to the reintroduction of 543 and just because “they can do it”.
The minimum G day count will reduce by 10, and this is probably what you would get after the roster is filled with reserve and O days. Most of us will have 92 G days and 42 leave days and that will be it.
Regards
Cyril
Join Date: May 2002
Location: the fatigue curve
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negotiation
Prior to this, a group of you were saying, Vote NO and go back for a re-negotiate.
How much re-negotiaion do you thing the company will be interested in, if they have already adjusted back to RP 01.
Maybe the vote should have been a choice of
1. keep RP 04
2. bring in RP 07
3. go to the fallback.
Give them a chance.
(fire away all you ranters)
How much re-negotiaion do you thing the company will be interested in, if they have already adjusted back to RP 01.
Maybe the vote should have been a choice of
1. keep RP 04
2. bring in RP 07
3. go to the fallback.
Give them a chance.
(fire away all you ranters)
Last edited by Truckmasters; 5th Oct 2006 at 13:41.