 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Chairman’s Message 09th April 2010 Comrades, The past year has been a tumultuous one. We faced some of the biggest crises to hit the company since its inception and though we have met the challenges bravely, we have not as yet crossed over to safety. The security of our livelihood could have been compromised if not for the collective and willing sacrifices made by you. With the SPUR and JOBS Credit scheme initiatives launched by the government playing a crucial role and with Management taking the lead in being the first to take pay cuts, we have collectively been able to avert the employment redundancies that has affected many other organizations. The Shorter Work Month measure of 01 day CNPL per month for Ground Staff ended on 31st March 2010 whereas the CNPL scheme of 01 day over 4 months for Cabin Crew ended last year. For the few Ground Staff that have not cleared their share of the mandatory No-pay leave, they would still need to clear them. Based on our 3rd quarter results, we have had a 25% restoration of our MVC cuts thus far and as for our regular Service Increment in October, we managed to secure an agreement with the Company to consider a Service Increment at the end of the Financial Year instead, before the NWC's recommendation not to pay a Service Increment for companies in January 2010. Rosters Since the implementation of the Carmen Rostering System in 1st August 2009, we have had a multitude of grievances and feedback from you on a number of issues. Management asked us to give the new rostering system 6 months to stabilize however it has been 9 months already and though certain issues have improved, new concerns have appeared or the same issues have resurfaced for different individuals. The most important concern has been the low allowance rosters that were generated at times for consecutive months for a number of us. We have been addressing the concerns from a number of crew who have been unjustifiably placed under unreasonable financial stress and to date the number of crew with such rosters have been reduced quite significantly, but not sufficiently. Comrades, we have followed up on every grievance and whenever the overall rostering patterns for the crew have been unjustifiable, we have corrected them. Nevertheless our objective is steadfast. There must be income stability for the crew on a monthly basis rather than over a 12-month period and we are striving to achieve this. Other issues have also surfaced reflecting the insensitivity of the system in other aspects. Station Separation for Australian COPs As in the past, any aircraft introduction places rostering constraints on the initial pool of crew trained for it. However as the A330 is primarily designed for short/medium haul routes, compounded with the Carmen Rostering System’s inability to ensure monthly income stability, the resultant rosters for quite a number of crew have been demanding. A number of our A330 crew have been rostered sometimes as much as 5 Australian COPs consecutively placing such crew under tremendous fatigue as the Australian COPs almost invariably entitle one off day. We took up this issue to Management and pressed for a fair station separation target for Australian stations. To achieve this and to mitigate the burden on the A330 fleeted crew, more 330 fleeted crew and 380 fleeted crew would be cross fleet trained to attain the necessary pool to achieve ideal station separation for Australian sectors. Eventually, with the increasing number of A330 aircrafts coming in, the majority, if not all, of the crew would be 330 fleeted. This would however take some time to accomplish and the first few conversion classes have started. Further stations such as MLE, AUH, ICN, DAC, CCU, CMB, and BKK would also be operated with the A330 aircraft with a few more stations being considered. This would make available a fairer mix of stations for the current pool of 330 fleeted crew. A345 crew rosters. Since the reduction in the 345 daily operations, quite a number of 345 fleeted crew have not been rostered any 345 flight over several months, sometimes as long as 8 months and it is primarily in the Ifs and Ls ranks. Though a call for a voluntary switch to the A380 fleet was done last year, the numbers who responded were insufficient to resolve this. Management is currently considering the options in how best to manage the situation as we emphasized to them that even though the crew are able to maintain recency of this fleet because of their 330 flights, they eventually compromise their proficiency in managing the fatigue experienced for such Ultra Long Range flight operations. A measured fleet re-alignment exercise may ultimately prove unavoidable to resolve this situation and if carried out, it would be done on a ‘last in, first out’ principle. Off-days. Apart from that, there has been an increase in the number of additional off days that have not been tagged as ATDO nor with any other roster code but rather left as undefined in the roster. There have been instances where crew, when inquiring of their previous owed off days, have been referred to such untagged off days in their rosters and have been told that it has been returned. This is unacceptable. Management has to understand that the cabin crew job nature already requires an irregular work schedule and we rely on definite, fair rosters to plan our personal and family commitments. All off days have to be clearly tagged without exception. Return off days have to be clearly indicated and stand by duties should never be assigned post roster publication on such untagged off days. Planning department is currently working on a solution to this and control centre has assured us that they would not assign duties to such days on their own initiative again. To exacerbate this situation further, we have had a few crew with planned rosters where their entitled off days after COP were not given in full. There were also grievances from crew who have had rosters where after a COP they are immediately placed on leave and have rostered flights immediately after that leave period with their entitled off days being returned much later. Off days that are entitled under the Collective Agreement have to be returned at the end of the COP on a planned roster and the crew’s leave cannot be used to satisfy that requirement indiscriminately and without any justification. Comrades, our rosters directly affect our income, rest and life management and I assure you, we will strive to ensure that we have a fair and decent rostering system that is not as insensitive as the current one. Promotion of Flight Stewards. The number of Flight Stewards promoted to the Leading position has been a recurrent issue in the company as the vacancies for Leading Stewardess’s outnumber the vacancies for Leading Stewards. This has led to an increasing pool of Senior Flight Stewards and currently there are 125 flight Stewards who have been in the company for more than 10 years. We have been pushing Management to help this group understand where they can improve in the promotion exercise and equip them with the necessary skills to perform better. On-line courses. This is another issue that has generated an increasing amount of grievances with the increasing number of mandatory on line courses. We have emphasized with Management that such on line courses for Cabin Crew effectively affects their off days unlike Ground Staff who are able to complete their mandatory courses during working hours. We pressed for measures to be introduced for the most recent mandatory Safety Programme course such as a bypass feature and the ability to review test answers regardless of the score to mitigate as much as possible the time taken for the completion of the course. Currently Management is considering the possibility of tying up some of these courses with rostered courses to minimize the impact such courses have on the crew’s off days. Bar order service for flights below 2hrs 15mins. Given the accessibility to lounge facilities and the ground drink service that is currently in place, we have asked management to relook at the rationale for a Bar Order service for these flights. The short flight time constraints of these sectors further places an over emphasis on the drink service rather than the meal service. Considering these, and the potential cost savings, Management has agreed to remove the requirement for a Bar Order service done prior to the meal service. A380 HKG turns. In addition to the measures implemented to mitigate the fatigue experienced for this COP, the company has managed to reduce the transit time for this flight by 20 minutes thus far. Crew complement for JCL on A330. When the A330 aircrafts were introduced, we received consistent feedback on the high workload in JCL, especially for the Australian COPs, and managed to secure an additional crew for such flights when the JCL passenger load is 24 and above. The feedback on the demanding workload has also been on the increase for NGO. Concurrently Service Development is also trying to introduce an additional Japanese Service on these routes. Considering the developments, we have now managed to extend the requirement to activate an additional crew whenever the Jcl load is 24 and above for the A330 routes to Japan also. Hotels. MXP JNB Apart from this, there has been some continued discontented feedback on the issue of the removal of the clause ‘First Class Accommodation as determined by the company’ from our previous Collective Agreement 2004’. Comrades, considering the current economic times, considering the steep costs of securing our overseas accommodations, considering some of the hotels we were staying in under the previous Collective Agreements and considering the current hotels we are staying in, are we worse off than before? There is a difference between having unenforceable, undefined, fine sounding language and the levelheaded, real time practical ability to negotiate and convince management on why a certain hotel is better than the other. Contractual language is important, and our current definition incorporates a contractual consultation of the union whereas previous practice was based on convention. The current definition further emphasizes on safety and security. Comrades, if our former definition of hotel accommodations was as superior as what some are claiming, why have we ended up staying in sub standard hotels previously under that definition? Why has the former definition of our hotel accommodations been unsuccessful in shielding us from staying in hotels where the safety and security standards were unacceptable? Comrades I urge you not to be swayed by such ongoing conjecture and ascertain realistically the performance of your Union’s hotel selection committee. Every grievance has been followed up and we have been improving on other key features in our hotels as seen in the increasing number of hotels with free Internet access and accessibility to executive lounges. I urge those with who need further clarification to talk with your Union representatives and I urge those who still wish to conjecture on this issue to be responsible and realistic and not needlessly demoralize individuals. Taxi Transport issues at Singapore. Since the crossover to the new transport provider, we have also received feedback on the long waiting times, unwillingness of the taxi drivers to travel to certain destinations and other issues. More often than not, the feedback is given verbally and we need the members to detail the incidences accurately to convey the extent of the issue effectively. Management would only then be able to take up the issues with the Transport provider, as contractually there are penalties involved for such incidences and they would need to be documented. Nevertheless Comrades, we assure you we are pressing for answers and Management has been meeting very frequently with the transport provider to work out the solutions. There has also been some discontent regarding the lack of notification of some of the new benefits and entitlements from the new Transport Provider. We urge members to be patient as the Transport Provider also provides transport to Ground Staff, Technical Crew and Sats and has still been unable to finalize on a working system with some of the external taxis who are called off the regular taxi queue to supplement our transport needs. In-flight Sales nil capture of submission. We recently had an issue where 75 Sales crew were asked to explain a Nil Submission of Sales situation for Sales that were transacted around 3 months prior to the notification of Nil Submission. This delay in the notification stemmed from a workflow problem at DFASS. We objected to this as the notification of the non-capture was long overdue from DFASS and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the crew as the long delay deprived KrisShop of the ability to verify submissions independently via the camera at the sales safe. DFASS has since agreed to absolve the charges. Nevertheless to prevent a recurrence of this issue and to better ensure sales submissions are collected without losses, we have been working with KrisShop on new procedures on submission of sales. Amendment to the effective date of application of the new gratuities payable under the Collective Agreement 2009. Prior to this update, we had published in our February 2009 Chairman’s message that the new rate of gratuities payable under CA 2009 would apply to crew who have had their contract renewed or who have been newly contracted as of 1st July 2008. This date had been pushed back to 1st November 2008 as there were concerns that it would be inequitable to the group of new employees who had joined the company but had their basic training course postponed due to the slow down caused by the global financial crisis. Comrades, apart from the effective date, there has also been some misunderstanding on the rationale of why we agreed to the reduction in the first quantum payable from $15,000 to $10,000. The following table illustrates the effect of the new CA2009.
As this mainly concerns the non-ranking contract crew, let me use the Fss gratuity terms to illustrate. Under the CA 2004, if a Flight Stewardess flew with the company for 15 years in the same rank, the total sum of gratuity payable to her would be: $15,000 + $15,000 + $2500 = $32,500. Under the new CA 2009, if a Flight Stewardess, who signed her first contract term with the company anytime during the 5 years before 1st November 2008, remained in the rank and flew with the company for 15 years she would get: $15,000 + $25,000 + $2500 = $42,500, She would get $15,000 for her first term as her first term gratuity conditions would operate under the CA 2004 terms. She would now also get $25,000 instead of $15,000 on her tenth year even if she does not get promoted to the LSS rank, which was a requirement under the previous CA. And for a Flight Stewardess joining the company on or after 1st November 2008, she would get: She would similarly now also get $25,000 on her tenth year even if she does not get promoted. Clearly it can be seen that the total nett amount payable is higher, even for the first 10 years. It is rationale that crew who make a longer term commitment to the company should get a higher gratuity as they are ones who have a vested interest in the company and we must have a start point somewhere that would give fair notice to the new crew also. Further, we have to recognize that with the maturity of the company causing slower promotion opportunities than previously, an increasing number of contracted non-ranking crew would struggle for promotion to the Leading rank and eventually be only entitled to $15,000 as their 2nd gratuity. We persuaded the company to remove that requirement and secured a higher quantum for the 2nd term gratuity. Further, we also considered about the Flight Stewardesses returning under the flying mother scheme, who would also be struggling to attain the Leading rank before their 10th year to qualify for the 2nd term gratuity payment of $25,000 under the previous CA. For the company, they were at that point facing a competitive job market with the Integrated Resorts and Marina Bay Front aggressively recruiting and the company wanted to increase its chances of hanging on to its work force for longer. Reducing the first term gratuity payment and increasing the subsequent gratuity payment was agreeable for them as it would encourage loyalty. Given the actuality of the situation and to ensure a more significant and discernable gratuity for the crew who invest longer with the company, this was the most reasonable approach. Comrades, some of the decisions we have to take are not simple and they should not be made based on the popularity of the decision but on the overall merits and the reality of the situations. I assure you; the decisions we make have gone through our conscience time and time again before we accept. Each time we ask ourselves if this is the fairest and the most advantageous decision for all members and for the long term. I urge you to be objective and realistic and not allow any politicizing of such matters by any individual confuse or mislead you. As I have mentioned to you before, contact your union representatives to clarify your queries anytime and they would willingly help. Comrades, there are still many issues that we are in the process of resolving and Your Union Committee representatives have been sacrificing a considerable amount of time in trying to press for fair and practical solutions. We do understand the grievances and we ask for your patience for some of the issues as they may need a longer time frame to resolve. Comrades, I assure you that our commitment to make cabin crew a fair place to work will never waiver.
Yours truly,
|
|
|
| Copyright © 2007 SIASU Cabin Crew Branch |