Wall Street Journal article on EK crewing problem.

[kirungi1]

She has spoken with a reporter from the WSJ. Have you?

Snake man; WSJ would be another forum just as Bymonek has chosen to address via Pprune (without drawing contrasts between the two). However, going to WSJ alone wouldn't be enough because they don't manage this company.
I think what Bymonek & others are seeking is momentum through word of mouth and via Pprune etcetera appealing to like minded people for this specific issue.

You don't have to contribute if you don't want to and posting otherwise would seem venting ones frustration for reasons not of their own making.

[Nikita81]

And PPRuNe is an official channel to address EK management? Better send anonymous letter addressed to HQ. Managers are not reading their own procedures and policies let alone this forum.

[kirungi1]

Nikita81; I'm sure you will agree that this thread seeks process to address Management but not what you suggest above. You will also perhaps accept that Bymonek & others are merely making an effort without dictating the results which option you've had in your plight. I find nothing wrong with this. They deserve our support as they've done!

[Snake man]

Kirungi:
Read the title of this thread. It's "Wall Street Journal Article etc".
Clearly Nikita has a valuable contribution to make in this regard, having actually dealt with a reporter.
I find it remarkable that BYMONEK then accuses Nikita of hijacking the thread, whist doing exactly that himself, turning it into a discussion about the Confidential Reporting System and insulting the lady in the process. That's unacceptable.
Personally, I don't mind which vehicle we use to highlight our management issues, but let's keep it clean, let's listen to every viewpoint without discrimination, and let's remember that we're all on the same team.

Carry on, Nikita

[kirungi1]

That's unacceptable.

...and let's remember that we're all on the same team.

Snake man; good point thank you. Could Nikita81 & Bymonek agree to disagree on the margins only? Maybe the answer to this is not for today. Its easy to assume that Nikita81's vantage is spilled with grapes (without suggesting that her principle is not as strongly valid as Bymonek's).

[BYMONEK]

My remark about being gainfully employed was in the context of actually being in a position to effect change within this Company so please stop with the sensitivity. I've already acknowledged how unfairly Nikita was treated so your remarks are way off.

As for WSJ, why would I want to write to them? I have a means of voicing my Safety concerns within this Company. Terms and conditions on the other hand I have little say in and will be dictated by market forces. If I don't like them, I'll leave so writing to the press complaining about employment issues in EK is downright stupidity. Suggesting it is equally so.

[Nikita81]

I will tell why I have decided to post here.

It was only after I saw your comments on WSJ articles. So I had no previous intentions to involve myself here.

Seems that some of you think you are so important and it is enough to write about your issues here in order to attract journalists' attention and have articles published. It also seems that you think that your writings on PPRuNe have contributed to making your issues public. Indeed, it may be so.

But.

Somebody told me that I would never hear about PPRuNe if I didn't have a problem with EK. True. But it is also true that I have linked your threads on my blog in several occasions. Several hundreds of thousands of people have read those articles.

We are in the same team, but it seems that you are not aware that you didn't contribute as much as you could or you think you have. Mr.Rory was asking me to help him couple of times. I couldn't help him much because my sources had to remain confidential. He was trying to publish these stories for 6 months and he couldn't because nobody was willing to speak under their real names? How is that a contribution? Journalists actually need a real source and a full name and a face, otherwise everything remains a rumor, not useful to them.

Tell me what would you think if nobody wants to talk about their problems with you? Would you think that their problems are not so big as they say? Would you know how to prove that somebody has a problem if they don't want to talk about it?

Mr.Rory had a hell of a difficult job here. And your contribution was not so big as you think it was. Except Emirates Illuminati. But they have a real reason to stay anonymous.

I already wrote about the fact that I only got support emails from present and former pilots but not even one story to publish.

So, don't be so cocky when discussing these WSJ articles. Most of you don't have a real reason to be.

You have safety issues? Bring it to the right address. Now you know that there is somebody listening. Or try out the company's system. PPRuNe is an anonymous joke.

[kirungi1]

PPRuNe is an anonymous joke

Nikita81; No it's not a joke! There is something extraordinary about this anonymity that allows genuine views and ideas to be shared without fear or favour which might be difficult with other fora.
The thing I can't get over is why you see to have such an anger against "same team" member for trespassing your thread while advocating for a value(s) principle to all of us.
Which is the "right address" or less or more address for a safety issue. For some of us It's safety first and it takes it's place unconditionally between threads and posts et cetra and please allow it some room.

[Nikita81]

The thing I can't get over is why you see to have such an anger against "same team" member for trespassing your thread while advocating for a value(s) principle to all of us.

Ok, I was maybe harsh when I called PPRuNe a joke (except when Dropp and vfnext are trolling, then it really looks funny), but still - this is just a forum. Nobody is reading it except you. Good source of information, but that's it.

The right address would be that system you are talking about. Or HQ. Or Rory.

No, I am not angry at all. Remember, you've started it first. That's never a good idea with me. I like you all (even those two trolls and wish you safe flights.

[TheDarkHorse]

Ladies and Gents,

After a page or so of thread drift despite it being an issue in itself may I willfully suggest that we return onto topic as its quite a pressing issue that the thread originally started is about...

[MosEisley]

This is why we can't have nice things and it's also how you get ants.

[lowstandard]

I am trying to figure out how they can possibly crew 2 more ULR flights (SEA, MCO) and DPS by the beginning of September. I am pushing 96hrs this month and I do not see any significant numbers coming down the pipeline to keep me from hitting my absolute limit a few months short of the year.

I've brought it up at my last wash up and the only response is that its going to be a busy year. I guess its more important to find people to blame after the fact than try to solve the problem.

[TheDarkHorse]

LS - I think you'll find they will continue to "optimise" on the staffing situations as per the email from way up high to "use resources better" i.e. squeeze more, the problem therein lies when you have squeezed so much you will have no resources to squeeze at all but then that will be the day after and so will be considered only on the next day because its not important today...

[Kamelchaser]

The thing our managers don't seem to be able to comprehend is that raising the max hours to 1,000 hours a year is not the solution to the problem...it's the CAUSE of the problem.

[delorean79]

I am pushing 96hrs this month and I do not see any significant numbers coming down the pipeline to keep me from hitting my absolute limit a few months short of the year.

I've brought it up at my last wash up and the only response is that its going to be a busy year.

If they get the new limitations from the GCAA, will it be retroactive?

I mean, right now you are on 96hr every month. Which will be the number, if the new limitations come into force? What will be your flight time on the last 12 months?

[Trader]

Management pilots will be flying a half roster next month! More calls to piltos on days off coming I am sure.

[TCU LUX]

On the matter of days off could someone please help to explain something.

So, the OMA states that a crew member shall not be on duty more than 7 consecutive days before a minimum of one day off is assigned.

The OMA also states that a day off is a period from from all duties. It shall consist of 2 local nights, and will last at least 34 hours.

A definition of a local night is provided as a period of 8 hours falling between 2200 and 0800 local time.

If you arrive back from a trip and set the break at 22:15 - how is it possible for your roster to still show a day off the next day? Does the 15 mins not encroach on the definition of a local night...free of duties? Should the roster not change to a rest day?

My understanding is that one would have to be free from duties for 34 hours from 2200 until 0800 the day after the next.....to get a day off?

Thanks for info

[flareflyer]

It's going to be a hot summer.......and not only because of the usual weather........
it seems that we will all meet on the 20 and 21 at the meridian........
:-)

[Man Flex 37.5]

A definition of a local night is provided as a period of 8 hours falling between 2200 and 0800 local time.

The answer is in the definition, to achieve a local night you need to have 8 hours between these 2 times, so if you are off duty at 22:45 you would have achieved a local night by 06:45 the following day, in this scenario if you finished duty at 22:45 on a Monday, you could have achieved a legal day off (34 hours and 2 local nights) by 08:45 on the Wednesday.

[TCU LUX]

Thanks Man Flex. Got it now.

Need to sharpen up on Chapter 7 --- as I’ve got a feeling that crew controllers are going to be trying every trick in the book in the months ahead.