Disparities in EK Remuneration Policy?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: end of the web
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disparities in EK Remuneration Policy?
In the height of economic gloom in Feb 2009, AS sent a letter to all pilots raising the productivity threshold for all pilots from 78 to 92 hours on the basis that everyone was doing more ULR flights and times were hard. This may have been justifiable if everyone was actually doing the same amount of ULR and non-ULR - but clearly this was not the case or likely to be. What was omitted was any comment on those who could seldom or never do ULR. A sweeping change based on an erroneous assumption hitting pay packets squarely in the jaw. Given the opening paragraph it was also reasonable to expect these "difficult decisions" to be reviewed when the situation improved. Later all were told this would never happen
Naturally those who were working hard and achieving relatively high hours despite doing no ULR trips were now going to work hard with much less financial reward, if any.
This was not well received by anyone particularly those unable/unlikely to do ULR at all. Now they could be made to work extensive duties on regional and subcontinent turnarounds often at night with minimum days off at no productivity cost to the company or reward to the crews. The 92 hours productivity threshold became the new rostering target - sometimes even higher.
The fundamental problem was this: With ULR making up some portion of the roster it was possible to still achieve the threshold 92 Block hours without particularly high Duty Hours. However those condemned to short and medium haul found they had to do many more Duty hours to get to the targeted 92 (or higher) Block hours that was the measure of productivity.
With Airbus 330 pilots (and trainers) unlikely to do ULR, it became common to see duty times of 140 hours (and often higher) to achieve the target 92 hours block. On the other fleets this was more likely to be around 105 duty hours to get to the 92 block hours .
In effect they were working harder, spending more time at work and having less time off for the same pay. The general perception was this was grossly unfair. This did not even take into account the extra duty spent at work that is never officially recognised and obviously ramped up with increased number of duties conducted.
In February 2011 the crescendo of complaints was such that Duty Time was removed from the published rosters leaving only Block Time for comparison. Out of sight for comparison then hopefully out of mind... Some excuse was given for this removal but most pilots remained cynical. It reinforced the perception of unfair work distribution being recognised but not addressed. It also begged the question as to whether Duty time was going to be monitored at all.
All hope that this was a temporary sacrifice to get the company through lean times was now gone. It went on to making massive profits and there was no suggestion that the productivity threshold would be reviewed to "spread the joy" to the workers. Bigger profits meant bigger bonus especially higher up the food chain so as some pilots became more haggard by the day or aged visibly, some managers collected multiples of the "profit share" declared.
Given the endless horizon of high duty hours with minimal time off and no respite, arguments were made for some recognition of the extra duty time (that also resulted in less days off) associated with short haul flying to achieve the target block hours because rosters were published to simply balance block time and not duty time or even number of duties.
The company argued that one could not make comparisons on Duty Hours as duties were very different and could not be compared. The strains of ULR could not be compared to those of multiple sectors short haul for example. Block Hours was unilaterally decided to be the only valid measurement for work/productivity.
However this reasoning now appears lacks consistency in both policy and remuneration application with recent developments
Pilots can not change fleets at a whim. However trainers can resign their post and this began to happen. The multiple duties and minimal days off often forced some to sacrifice training pay for lifestyle and return to the line as the number of training duties were increasing to the range of 15 to 20 per month, mostly multiple sector short haul or simulator.
Clearly the solution was to offer more financial incentive to keep them. This was pushed hard by the Training Department, to their credit.
Initially the target number of training duties envisaged was 12 per month the rest of the roster would be a break from training. There was a marginal reward for duties above 12 which previously had seldom occurred enough to have significant financial impact. But as the The Training Dept was pressured to deliver more and more from trainers, they, again to their credit, have pushed this allowance higher so now any duty above the requisite 12 now earns a Dhs 1000 reward. This is logical, reasonable and incentivises the rostering folk to spread the load and possibly entice more into training therefore improving lifestyle for all. While it does not recognise Duty Time per-se, it certainly rewards for multiple duties often with limited recovery time in between, and makes up for the loss of days off.
Kudos to the training managers for achieving "the right thing to do". Not perfect but a healthy step in the right direction.
Now a hardworking Instructor gets his salary, his training pay, his hourly pay, possibly overtime, and 1000 Dhs for any training duty above 12. (Nearly every duty they do is a training duty anyway). He may only get the minimum days off but this has been compensated for financially. A happy balance in recognising not only Block Time but acknowledging Duties worked as relevant.
So...
Why the double standard? Why are line pilots doing more than 12 duties not likewise being remunerated? It is one obvious way to balance the blatant work differential that can exist and also make up for the loss of days off. The precedent has been set and acknowledged within the training sphere. Arguments that duties are not comparable are dead in the water. A line pilot can only do ULR or Non-ULR duties; a trainer, however, can do those and even more - like simulator, classroom instruction, office days etc.
Duty it seems is duty and it is irrelevant as to what it is. This should not be surprising as it is in any other industry. Time at work is what counts - so much so that workers clock in and out. Temp secretaries submit time sheets despite typing or being on the phone.
The train driver or bus driver does not only get paid when the vehicle moves, he gets paid for the time it stops too! He still maintains responsibilities at work. The block hours used in aviation remuneration is an aberration introduced by the aviation industry to cut pay based on regulation that was designed and intended to account accurately for hours logged to a pilot or aircraft. It does not pretend to make any recognition of work being done. The time the crew spend in setting up the cockpit is acknowledged as a high pressure, work intensive, error prone time. To pretend its not work or should not be financially recognised is preposterous. Airlines will certainly take a dim view of it being badly conducted and constantly reiterate the attendant risks. It is here where potentially catastrophic mistakes can and have been made but those who do it more often are paid less! Likewise a crew reviewing the route and weather are conducting their duties for which they are employed, trained and entrusted. No rational man can claim this is not work.
It seems our industry has been distorted by cost cutting. But there is no need for companies to abandon common sense. It seems that this has prevailed in the Training Department but why not throughout the company?
Nobody likes an unbalanced system or distorted remuneration for their labours. But we seem to have a double standard here. Can anyone enlighten me or perhaps demonstrate why the system is in fact fair because it sure does not look that way?
Naturally those who were working hard and achieving relatively high hours despite doing no ULR trips were now going to work hard with much less financial reward, if any.
This was not well received by anyone particularly those unable/unlikely to do ULR at all. Now they could be made to work extensive duties on regional and subcontinent turnarounds often at night with minimum days off at no productivity cost to the company or reward to the crews. The 92 hours productivity threshold became the new rostering target - sometimes even higher.
The fundamental problem was this: With ULR making up some portion of the roster it was possible to still achieve the threshold 92 Block hours without particularly high Duty Hours. However those condemned to short and medium haul found they had to do many more Duty hours to get to the targeted 92 (or higher) Block hours that was the measure of productivity.
With Airbus 330 pilots (and trainers) unlikely to do ULR, it became common to see duty times of 140 hours (and often higher) to achieve the target 92 hours block. On the other fleets this was more likely to be around 105 duty hours to get to the 92 block hours .
In effect they were working harder, spending more time at work and having less time off for the same pay. The general perception was this was grossly unfair. This did not even take into account the extra duty spent at work that is never officially recognised and obviously ramped up with increased number of duties conducted.
In February 2011 the crescendo of complaints was such that Duty Time was removed from the published rosters leaving only Block Time for comparison. Out of sight for comparison then hopefully out of mind... Some excuse was given for this removal but most pilots remained cynical. It reinforced the perception of unfair work distribution being recognised but not addressed. It also begged the question as to whether Duty time was going to be monitored at all.
All hope that this was a temporary sacrifice to get the company through lean times was now gone. It went on to making massive profits and there was no suggestion that the productivity threshold would be reviewed to "spread the joy" to the workers. Bigger profits meant bigger bonus especially higher up the food chain so as some pilots became more haggard by the day or aged visibly, some managers collected multiples of the "profit share" declared.
Given the endless horizon of high duty hours with minimal time off and no respite, arguments were made for some recognition of the extra duty time (that also resulted in less days off) associated with short haul flying to achieve the target block hours because rosters were published to simply balance block time and not duty time or even number of duties.
The company argued that one could not make comparisons on Duty Hours as duties were very different and could not be compared. The strains of ULR could not be compared to those of multiple sectors short haul for example. Block Hours was unilaterally decided to be the only valid measurement for work/productivity.
However this reasoning now appears lacks consistency in both policy and remuneration application with recent developments
Pilots can not change fleets at a whim. However trainers can resign their post and this began to happen. The multiple duties and minimal days off often forced some to sacrifice training pay for lifestyle and return to the line as the number of training duties were increasing to the range of 15 to 20 per month, mostly multiple sector short haul or simulator.
Clearly the solution was to offer more financial incentive to keep them. This was pushed hard by the Training Department, to their credit.
Initially the target number of training duties envisaged was 12 per month the rest of the roster would be a break from training. There was a marginal reward for duties above 12 which previously had seldom occurred enough to have significant financial impact. But as the The Training Dept was pressured to deliver more and more from trainers, they, again to their credit, have pushed this allowance higher so now any duty above the requisite 12 now earns a Dhs 1000 reward. This is logical, reasonable and incentivises the rostering folk to spread the load and possibly entice more into training therefore improving lifestyle for all. While it does not recognise Duty Time per-se, it certainly rewards for multiple duties often with limited recovery time in between, and makes up for the loss of days off.
Kudos to the training managers for achieving "the right thing to do". Not perfect but a healthy step in the right direction.
Now a hardworking Instructor gets his salary, his training pay, his hourly pay, possibly overtime, and 1000 Dhs for any training duty above 12. (Nearly every duty they do is a training duty anyway). He may only get the minimum days off but this has been compensated for financially. A happy balance in recognising not only Block Time but acknowledging Duties worked as relevant.
So...
Why the double standard? Why are line pilots doing more than 12 duties not likewise being remunerated? It is one obvious way to balance the blatant work differential that can exist and also make up for the loss of days off. The precedent has been set and acknowledged within the training sphere. Arguments that duties are not comparable are dead in the water. A line pilot can only do ULR or Non-ULR duties; a trainer, however, can do those and even more - like simulator, classroom instruction, office days etc.
Duty it seems is duty and it is irrelevant as to what it is. This should not be surprising as it is in any other industry. Time at work is what counts - so much so that workers clock in and out. Temp secretaries submit time sheets despite typing or being on the phone.
The train driver or bus driver does not only get paid when the vehicle moves, he gets paid for the time it stops too! He still maintains responsibilities at work. The block hours used in aviation remuneration is an aberration introduced by the aviation industry to cut pay based on regulation that was designed and intended to account accurately for hours logged to a pilot or aircraft. It does not pretend to make any recognition of work being done. The time the crew spend in setting up the cockpit is acknowledged as a high pressure, work intensive, error prone time. To pretend its not work or should not be financially recognised is preposterous. Airlines will certainly take a dim view of it being badly conducted and constantly reiterate the attendant risks. It is here where potentially catastrophic mistakes can and have been made but those who do it more often are paid less! Likewise a crew reviewing the route and weather are conducting their duties for which they are employed, trained and entrusted. No rational man can claim this is not work.
It seems our industry has been distorted by cost cutting. But there is no need for companies to abandon common sense. It seems that this has prevailed in the Training Department but why not throughout the company?
Nobody likes an unbalanced system or distorted remuneration for their labours. But we seem to have a double standard here. Can anyone enlighten me or perhaps demonstrate why the system is in fact fair because it sure does not look that way?
Last edited by Your Proxy; 1st Aug 2011 at 13:02.
TCAS letter stated it was because of a higher percentage of ULR flying, meanwhile back on planet earth - it was simply an excuse to increase his bonus, so don't expect a change.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Pub
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well written, accurate post. Unfortunately, it all falls on deaf ears. The uneven spread of the work load beggars belief. In each washup meeting it comes up, yet absolutely nothing is done to put the situation right. The situation is unsustainable, just look at the sick list on a daily basis. I only hope the result is not calamitous.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely spot on. Accurate and well reasoned.
We all know it, talk about it, even ask about it in the ever reducing forums where we actually get to speak to our lords and masters.
No clear answers, dithering and stock platitudes are all we get because there is no rational explanation other than pure greed.
We all know it, talk about it, even ask about it in the ever reducing forums where we actually get to speak to our lords and masters.
No clear answers, dithering and stock platitudes are all we get because there is no rational explanation other than pure greed.
short flights long nights
We all know that the "more ULR flying story" meant nothing..it was just lies to justify greed
EK Pay / Rostering
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: hearth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A n increasingly structured system of self serving price tagged individuals living in a moral and ethical vacuum are empoverishing and lowering the life standard of masses of workers under their control to their exclusive and personal material benefit and the one of their masters.This is happening in all economical sectors in civilized countries. Imagine in the Middle East!!!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Retired
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The often used excuse that there is resistance from above to any changes is just a cop out. There is a duty by theses so called managers to effectively, and safely manage flight operations on behalf of the pilots. Their failure to represent our best interests is due to not having the balls to speak out on the inequities in rostering, the uneven workload and many other issues, particularly where the smallbus fleet is concerned. When the inevitable incident/ accident occurs, they will all go scurrying to their desks to hide behind, and find any excuse to pass the blame on to the pilots. To effectively manage one needs executive ability, clear direction, and the assertiveness to enforce decisions, so clearly lacking. Those with any such ability left the building years ago.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had given up on reading Pprune as many of the threads had little relevance or purpose. If they were any good, they were then hijacked and often broke down into slagging matches between pilots and drifted off topic so did nothing but portray the worst of our profession.
I had pause to rethink when someone emailed me this threat. It seems to be doing the rounds. It gets right to the heart of the matter without offence but raises some good points that I had not given a much thought.
Is does seem unfair when laid out like this. Why the differences? Good question - We must keep asking until we get a credible answer.
Dirigible makes another good point. We often get told that there is nothing our bosses can do. It all comes from above. I think those above hardly know about it and actually trust those below to sort out these problems. Maybe that trust is misplaced.
I had pause to rethink when someone emailed me this threat. It seems to be doing the rounds. It gets right to the heart of the matter without offence but raises some good points that I had not given a much thought.
Is does seem unfair when laid out like this. Why the differences? Good question - We must keep asking until we get a credible answer.
Dirigible makes another good point. We often get told that there is nothing our bosses can do. It all comes from above. I think those above hardly know about it and actually trust those below to sort out these problems. Maybe that trust is misplaced.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DXB
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot of the Flight Ops managers especially JA worked enthusiastically towards reducing the hours. I have been told that AS and even ED objected to the hour threshold being pushed up to 92 in the first place. Unfortunately, all these guys are being dictated to by AAR from above. He seems to meddle with everything, including our rosters, on a day to day basis. A very spiteful, malicious and destructive force indeed.
We all tend to focus on AS, MM and JA as the bad apples because they undersign all the FCI's an memo's but they all have one hand tied behind their backs and have to conform to what that little man above them wants. Thats what happens when you put a non-flyer in charge of Flight Ops.
We all tend to focus on AS, MM and JA as the bad apples because they undersign all the FCI's an memo's but they all have one hand tied behind their backs and have to conform to what that little man above them wants. Thats what happens when you put a non-flyer in charge of Flight Ops.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the pale Blue Dot
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This maybe???
. AeroPersonnel Global
Wide body Captains* (Non Rated)
Middle East
Our Client, a renowned airline operating in the Middle East, offers a unique career opportunity to step up to the B777 as Captain in world-wide operations. Immediate employment is offered.
Rapid fleet growth offers excellent potential to upgrade to captain within the first three years for candidates who qualify.
Candidates must:
- hold a current and valid ICAO ATPL;
- hold a valid instrument rating;
- hold a valid Class 1 Medical Certificate issued by an ICAO member state;
- have a minimum 7,000 hours total time;
- have a minimum 2,000 hours flying time in one the following categories: Multi Crew, Multi Engine Jet Aircraft above 100,000 kg MTOW;
- valid Class 1 medical;
- must be below age 60 on joining date;
- be fluent in English (minimum ICAO Level 4) with endorsement on license;
- currently flying as a Captain (if not currently flying as captain, last position must have been as Captain).
All non-type rated pilots are required to sign a two year (USD 50,000) bond prior to proceeding for a full type rating conversion course. (USD 30,000 for a short transition course).
Preference will be given to candidates with prior wide body aircraft experience.
Our client offers a comprehensive benefit package including:
- a monthly remuneration equivalent to approximately 10,000 US $ net of taxes based on 70 roster hours per* month;
- fully furnished housing provided by airline;
- loss of license, medical and life insurance;
- education allowance for children;
- forty two days of annual paid leave including Public Holidays;
- full world-wide medical coverage for self and family;
- comprehensive life insurance;
- travel benefits as per airline rules.
Permanent employment is offered.
To apply candidates must e-mail their resume as a MS Word (.doc) or Rich Text (.rtf) attachments at [email protected]. Alternatively, candidates can apply by registering and uploading their resume through our Web site at AeroPersonnel Global
Please indicate reference B777PIC/AZL. Only candidates meeting the above requirements will be contacted.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Resumes in PDF file format are not acceptable as they are not compatible with our computerized recruitment management system.
Wide body Captains* (Non Rated)
Middle East
Our Client, a renowned airline operating in the Middle East, offers a unique career opportunity to step up to the B777 as Captain in world-wide operations. Immediate employment is offered.
Rapid fleet growth offers excellent potential to upgrade to captain within the first three years for candidates who qualify.
Candidates must:
- hold a current and valid ICAO ATPL;
- hold a valid instrument rating;
- hold a valid Class 1 Medical Certificate issued by an ICAO member state;
- have a minimum 7,000 hours total time;
- have a minimum 2,000 hours flying time in one the following categories: Multi Crew, Multi Engine Jet Aircraft above 100,000 kg MTOW;
- valid Class 1 medical;
- must be below age 60 on joining date;
- be fluent in English (minimum ICAO Level 4) with endorsement on license;
- currently flying as a Captain (if not currently flying as captain, last position must have been as Captain).
All non-type rated pilots are required to sign a two year (USD 50,000) bond prior to proceeding for a full type rating conversion course. (USD 30,000 for a short transition course).
Preference will be given to candidates with prior wide body aircraft experience.
Our client offers a comprehensive benefit package including:
- a monthly remuneration equivalent to approximately 10,000 US $ net of taxes based on 70 roster hours per* month;
- fully furnished housing provided by airline;
- loss of license, medical and life insurance;
- education allowance for children;
- forty two days of annual paid leave including Public Holidays;
- full world-wide medical coverage for self and family;
- comprehensive life insurance;
- travel benefits as per airline rules.
Permanent employment is offered.
To apply candidates must e-mail their resume as a MS Word (.doc) or Rich Text (.rtf) attachments at [email protected]. Alternatively, candidates can apply by registering and uploading their resume through our Web site at AeroPersonnel Global
Please indicate reference B777PIC/AZL. Only candidates meeting the above requirements will be contacted.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Resumes in PDF file format are not acceptable as they are not compatible with our computerized recruitment management system.
short flights long nights
That ad does not make sense..is it for DECs, or as it says in the first few lines..rapid fleet growth offers excellent potential to upgrade to captain in the first 3 years.....so do you start as a FO or come as as a DEC?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm..... it's all in the wording my friend, something that this Company is very good at. Before I applied to EK, they stated in their Flight advert that you get an End Of Service Benefit and there is a Provident fund. Well, yes, but you don't get both, at least not in the way it was presented. And as for the ERP, What a confusing and misleading crock of ****. Anyway, I doubt it's EK as the advert refers to salary based on 70hours? I don't know of anyone who's working less than 90 EVERY month right now and has been for over a year at least. Left seat for sure, right maybe less......but not by much.
Whoever it is, it makes you laugh that they want fluent English (min ICAO 4). Fluent is a 6. You can't be a 4 and be fluent!
Whoever it is, it makes you laugh that they want fluent English (min ICAO 4). Fluent is a 6. You can't be a 4 and be fluent!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: end of the web
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm. Thread drifting a bit folks. Keep it on track.
Here is another issue that I would like explained. It is both illogical and (I would imagine) boardering on the illegal.
This is one of simulator time not counting towards block time and therefore irrelevant to fatigue.
When a pilot has done his legal maximum of 900 hours he is then put in a silulator (I assume while he rests to be legal to fly again)
This however does not count as either payable work or hours towards his legal limits. (whose very raison d'etre to prevent overtired pilots from being a saftey hazzard.
Where is the logic in this? The simulator is a Zero Flight Time Sim. It is apparently so realistic that we can take a pilot from the sim and put him with fare paying passengers without even experiencing the real aircraft as this has simulated the sights, sounds, noise levels and motions of a real aircraft.
The premise of course being it replicates all the work actions and skill required to fly an aircraft with high fidelity. This aside, the simulator is far more challenging in many cases as the time is spent filled with difficult non-normal situations.
But apparently this has no bearing on your fatigue. You could do a many hours and then go and fly to the legal limit on flying hours and this is considered within reason.
Its ridiculous and I imagine verging on illegal. Certainly not a corner I think any company would want to fight, if it came up in a legal dispute.
And to crown this distorted logic, you would not get paid for the time or overtime in the sim. Its not block hours.
You could be wrung out for 8 grueling hours in a sim but apparently you remain as fresh as if resting at home, and have not lifted a finger in work.
Who supports this, who justifies this, and more worryingly who legitimises this?
If any one of us made deductions and took actions using this claiber of logic while operating on the flight deck, I imagine the luckless individual might wind up seeing the phych dept or visiting the EK clinic while they prepared the terms of dismissal.
Here is another issue that I would like explained. It is both illogical and (I would imagine) boardering on the illegal.
This is one of simulator time not counting towards block time and therefore irrelevant to fatigue.
When a pilot has done his legal maximum of 900 hours he is then put in a silulator (I assume while he rests to be legal to fly again)
This however does not count as either payable work or hours towards his legal limits. (whose very raison d'etre to prevent overtired pilots from being a saftey hazzard.
Where is the logic in this? The simulator is a Zero Flight Time Sim. It is apparently so realistic that we can take a pilot from the sim and put him with fare paying passengers without even experiencing the real aircraft as this has simulated the sights, sounds, noise levels and motions of a real aircraft.
The premise of course being it replicates all the work actions and skill required to fly an aircraft with high fidelity. This aside, the simulator is far more challenging in many cases as the time is spent filled with difficult non-normal situations.
But apparently this has no bearing on your fatigue. You could do a many hours and then go and fly to the legal limit on flying hours and this is considered within reason.
Its ridiculous and I imagine verging on illegal. Certainly not a corner I think any company would want to fight, if it came up in a legal dispute.
And to crown this distorted logic, you would not get paid for the time or overtime in the sim. Its not block hours.
You could be wrung out for 8 grueling hours in a sim but apparently you remain as fresh as if resting at home, and have not lifted a finger in work.
Who supports this, who justifies this, and more worryingly who legitimises this?
If any one of us made deductions and took actions using this claiber of logic while operating on the flight deck, I imagine the luckless individual might wind up seeing the phych dept or visiting the EK clinic while they prepared the terms of dismissal.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sim time and fatigue relevance.......
Your Proxy,
The concerns you voice regarding sim time being relevant to fatigue issues are well phrased. Sadly the reality is EK are in denial on the issue of fatigue, as evidenced by a recent visit to the clinic.
The doctor there advised that all time off granted as a result of fatigue issues in excess of two days, is now to be reported as sickness, not fatigue. What does this mean? Simply that the company is not interested in collecting any real fatigue data, much less that there is even a real issue on this subject.
All this from a pilot workforce that frequently have rosters of 95 hours a month, in excess of 900 a year and a company scheme that allows factoring on augmented flights. Absolutely correct that simulator duties add to the problem.
Fatigue........? Like most of my colleagues who have given up reporting by ASR, I'm almost too tired to care.............
The concerns you voice regarding sim time being relevant to fatigue issues are well phrased. Sadly the reality is EK are in denial on the issue of fatigue, as evidenced by a recent visit to the clinic.
The doctor there advised that all time off granted as a result of fatigue issues in excess of two days, is now to be reported as sickness, not fatigue. What does this mean? Simply that the company is not interested in collecting any real fatigue data, much less that there is even a real issue on this subject.
All this from a pilot workforce that frequently have rosters of 95 hours a month, in excess of 900 a year and a company scheme that allows factoring on augmented flights. Absolutely correct that simulator duties add to the problem.
Fatigue........? Like most of my colleagues who have given up reporting by ASR, I'm almost too tired to care.............
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your Proxy,
You're right about the sim not counting for the fatigue issue, but you are paid for any sims that you operate as support (as opposed to your own bi-annual recurrent sim).
It's the support ones that you generally do to keep you busy while you're "resting" and getting your hours back under 900.
You're right about the sim not counting for the fatigue issue, but you are paid for any sims that you operate as support (as opposed to your own bi-annual recurrent sim).
It's the support ones that you generally do to keep you busy while you're "resting" and getting your hours back under 900.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Age: 54
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to talk about fair let's talk about the currency protection. How fair is it that some pilots make more money than others? My clasmates are making 2500 dhs or more than me. We all work for EK, we all live in Dubai but they make almost 30,000 dhs more a year because of where they come from. Aren't we all one team?
When the dollar is weak as it is now and will be for the foreseeable future some pilots get more money. When the dollar is strong and these same pilots send money home they get more money on their transaction. They are always making more money than me. Not fair at all McGee.
When the dollar is weak as it is now and will be for the foreseeable future some pilots get more money. When the dollar is strong and these same pilots send money home they get more money on their transaction. They are always making more money than me. Not fair at all McGee.