Cargolux

Another year comes to an end where we as Cargolux pilots had to operate under difficult COVID-19 conditions. We would like to thank you for your continued support, while your ALPL Board was busy representing your interests!
 
Obviously, the pandemic also meant additional work for us.
 
Whilst we were able to fine-tune the CWA by signing 3 agreements with the Company in the year 2021, we were also confronted with issues, which required a quick response from our side. The most recent ones for example being the reintroduction of the CGO layovers or the request by management for a deviation for scheduled operations as per CWA 36.6.4.3 to operate the PVG shuttles with 1 Captain and 3 First Officers. The outcome of the latter was decided by the majority of our members in a vote that led to the refusal of the negotiated deviation.
 
At the same time the implementation of the new crew scheduling software by the Company as well as the BKK layovers required and still require the constant attention of the Pilot Representatives. Additionally, the Hotel Committee is busy to maintain the quality of the hotels in our network.
 
These are a few examples of the work that occupied us during this year, and we hope that through communication channels such as the regular member updates, private chats and emails our efforts did not go unnoticed by you. 
 
The continued high ALPL membership rate paired with many discussions and numerous inputs from our fellow colleagues is a clear sign that, although the interests and opinions amongst the pilot group vary, our union culture is intact and alive and the willingness of our fellow members to ultimately get engaged and stay united is strong.
 
We also hope that you are aware that every member has an impact and can make a difference when it comes to maintaining our working conditions and supporting our representative work.
 
This will be vital in the future, as it looks like the challenges in connection with the pandemic are not going to disappear any time soon and on top of that the negotiations for a new CWA will commence again next year.
 
The entire ALPL Cargolux Divisional Board would like to wish you all happy holidays and time to spend with your families and friends during the festive season!

As communicated in the update on the same subject published on 05 November 2021, the issues related to the non-compliance of the crew rest onboard an aircraft during COVID-19 procedure with the CWA was addressed in a letter. Following this letter, we met with Senior Management on Friday, 12 November 2021, to discuss the topic.

We can confirm that the issue has been solved!

In that meeting it was confirmed by the CEO and the EVP Flight Operation, that:

• The authorization issued by the DAC will be published in a Flight Crew Advisory.

• For the crew that does have access to the bunks, the entire time spent onboard including the time on ground during the “unplanned onboard layover“ will be considered as “credit hours” for the purpose of calculating supplements for night, Sunday and legal holidays and Duty Period Overtime as per CWA Art. 38.5.1.

• For the crew that does not have access to the bunks during the “unplanned onboard layover“ and positions on the subsequent sector, all time spent onboard is considered as Duty Time and consequently counts towards all Duty Time Limits and the calculation of the supplements for night, Sunday and legal holidays and Duty Period Overtime as per CWA Art. 38.5.1.

  Additionally, the Minimum Rest Period following such an “unplanned onboard layover” shall be as long as the previous Duty Period, counting from the Reporting Time for the Flight Duty Period immediately preceding the “unplanned on board layover” until the end of the Duty Period immediately following the “unplanned on board layover”.

  This is fully in line with thereply we received from the DAC [link].

Management confirmed in this meeting that for all previous duties during which the “unplanned onboard layover” was applied, the Duty Hours would be corrected and payments of supplements and/or overtime if applicable would be adjusted accordingly. Please note that for a pilot who had access to a bunk the time spent resting while applying the procedure will not be reflected as Duty Time on the Crew Duty Sheet as such but will be considered in full by the Payroll Department.

At this time Management could not confirm until when the required correction would be done and reflected on the payslip of the pilots concerned. We recommend that you check your future pay slips and Duty Sheets.

We welcome Management´s decision to discontinue CGO layovers with immediate effect!

After having commenced these layovers in early November, it became apparent that Chinese authorities demanded additional requirements and did not follow the initially agreed procedures with the Company.
 
In this context, we would like to thank those crewmembers for their effort in writing safety reports and to provide us with detailed and valuable information about the deficiencies in the immigration procedure and hotel standard. In addition, there were many unanswered questions about the lack of emergency plans in the event a crewmember would become sick or show Covid symptoms during a layover in CGO.
 
All this useful information from the involved crewmembers formed the basis of a letter that was sent to management on Monday, 8 November 2021. Please click here to read this letter.
 
We consider the decision to discontinue the layovers in CGO as a strong signal by Management that safety and health of the pilots have top priority.

The layovers in CGO have commenced a few days ago and meanwhile it became obvious that the reality does not reflect what has been communicated to us as Pilot Representatives and to all pilots in the latest Flight Crew Advisory. Many colleagues have already filed a report mentioning in particular the following deficiencies:

• Significant waiting times of up to 3 hours for the immigration process
• PCR testing of a crew member who recovered from COVID-19 already in 2020
• Medical interrogation via Google Translate, subject to potential translation errors
• Lack of a procedure in case somebody is tested positive
• Significantly reduced rest quality due to high temperature in the room and unreliable times for room service and empty minibar

The mismatch between what has been communicated from Management and what actually happens in reality is unprecedented and unacceptable.

We urge you to continue filing Voyage and Air Safety Reports and to report it to the company. Please also send a copy of these reports to cvboard@alpl.lu.

As already communicated in our October Members Update, the DAC approved a derogation from ORO.FTL.235(b) regarding the use of aircraft onboard rest under certain conditions during COVID-19. The DAC refers to this as “unplanned on board layover”.
 
Recently one of our members informed us, that the Duty and Rest times for the part of the crew that didn’t operate the sector immediately following such an “unplanned on board layover” and therefore had no access to the class 1 rest facility of the aircraft during the “unplanned on board layover”, were applied in an unsatisfactory way.
 
In order to get clarification from the competent authority we contacted the DAC asking how the Duty Time and the Minimum Rest Period are to be calculated. Please click here to view the letter sent to the DAC.
 
In its reply the DAC clearly states that for the part of the crew that does not have access to class 1 rest facilities and positions on the subsequent sector, all time spent onboard is considered as Duty Time and consequently counts towards all Duty Time Limits. The Duty Time for a pilot who positions immediately following the application of the “unplanned on board layover” can therefore easily exceed 24 hours (in our example close to 30 hours) and could have a considerable impact on the Duty Time limit of 60 hours within any seven consecutive days.
 
Consequently, and as confirmed by the DAC, the Minimum Rest Period following such an “unplanned on board layover” shall be as long as the previous Duty Period, counting from the Reporting Time for the Flight Duty Period immediately preceding the “unplanned on board layover” until the end of the Duty Period immediately following the “unplanned on board layover”.
 
Please note that this does NOT apply to the operating crew of the “second” sector who have access to the class 1 rest facility while on the ground duringthe “unplanned on board layover”. As per the derogation granted by the DAC, this time is considered as rest period.
 
The authorization granted by the DAC allows Cargolux to derogate from ORO.FTL.235 (b) but it does not exempt Cargolux from calculating the Duty Times and Minimum Rest Periods as per the CWA!
 
Consequently, these Duty hours must be taken into consideration when calculating the Duty Period limits as per CWA Art. 36.4.1, the minimum Rest Periods as per CWA Art. 36.10.1 and the overtime calculation as per CWA Art. 38.5. As it seems that this was not the case, a letter was sent to Senior Management regarding this non-compliance with the CWA.
 
In the meantime, we ask you to please refer to the reply by the DAC or contact us at cvboard@alpl.lu if you encounter any further discrepancy or have any questions.

On Wednesday 03 November 2021 an amendment to the CWA was signed by the Company and both Unions. 

Since the Company implemented the Jeppesen Roster Planning Tool many of our members complained about their published rosters and in particular that the success rate of Off- Day requests changed dramatically compared to the times before this new software was used.

Unfortunately, the present CWA, like all previous ones, does not include much about requests for Off- Days, other than what is mentioned in Art. 36.16.1 j). Requesting trips or specific destinations is not covered at all and the “PBS” is nothing more than what these three letters stand for, a Preferential Bidding System. The missing details of how rosters are being built applying a seniority based Preferential Bidding System is certainly an important topic, which should be included in a CWA.

Also, in the context of rostering, a few members reported that the Company unilaterally decided to implement a dead-line until which a pilot could request to have the “2 for 1” compensation for A- and B- Days or the “1 for 1” compensation for C- Days in the next unpublished roster period. The CWA did not include any deadline for these requests in the past and a pilot could request the “2 for 1” and “1 for 1” compensation until the minute before the next roster period was published. 

Considering the importance to address the problems which surfaced with the implementation of the Jeppesen Roster Planning Tool and that having a dead-line for the “2 for 1” and “1 for 1” compensation requests might be in our interest as well to prevent subsequent roster disruptions of other pilots  after initial roster publication, we suggested to the Company to bundle both issues in an amendment of the CWA, the one which was signed today.

The amendment of Art. 36.16.2 and 36.16.3 includes now clear rules until when a pilot must inform the company about his or her choice to compensate for Off- Days, the communication method and to which department the request shall be sent to (Crew Control). It also includes additional text to reflect the changes of the Duty Sheets, which were implemented earlier this year after consultation of the Delegation. This was necessary to be in line with Luxembourgish Labour Law and to avoid double compensation in certain cases.

At the same time Art. 36.20 Preferential Bidding System was added to the CWA. This article gives us as your Representatives the ability to engage in discussions with the Crew Planning Department to jointly define and review PBS key performance indicators with the focus on balancing the quality of life for the Pilots. These discussions include the following important topics:

• how the existing request options for Off-Days could be expanded and if options to request layover destinations and/or Rotations could be made available,
• how pilot seniority is considered when awarding requests for Off-Days, layover destinations and/or Rotations,
• an acceptable request award rate,
• how and over which time-period the workload is distributed evenly and fairly between the Pilots while always managing fatigue,
• how roster stability can be increased.

The Amendment to the Collective Work Agreement can be viewed here. A consolidated online version of the CWA reflecting these amendments is available for download here.

As communicated earlier, until now we had no influence on the rostering process, since it was simply not covered by the CWA. This amendment is a big achievement towards a permanent involvement of Pilot Representatives in defining the parameters of the PBS in the future.

Given the importance rostering has for each pilot, we concluded finding an agreement with the Company sooner than later would be the only reliable way to have your interests in this important topic represented. The other option would have been to address this issue in the next CWA negotiations, which would most likely not be concluded before the end of next year.

Keep in mind that this article does not provide an instant solution for the current rostering issues, as it is a very complex matter. We need to collect solid data to identify the exact areas where improvement is needed before we can start working on an actual solution. To get the most accurate data, we urge all of you to fill out the PBS survey, which we publish each month after roster publication. This will help us to act in your best interest.

Recently the company has announced in a Chief Pilot Office update as well as in a Flight Crew Advisory the reintroduction of layovers in CGO, where in-room confinement will be mandated.
 
In recent weeks and months, we have received many complaints regarding the OVB-CGO-ANC flights, where crews felt that they were pushed into commander’s discretion due to the long turnaround times in CGO and unrealistically planned flight times, as well as the OVB-CGO-OVB shuttles. These problems should disappear with the introduction of layovers in CGO.
 
In a meeting with Pilot Representatives, it was mentioned by the CEO, that the company only considered introducing layovers in CGO, after the problems related to the unpredictable turnaround times in PVG and CGO became apparent, which may be further aggravated by the upcoming winter operations.
 
At the same time, we acknowledge that the return flight from the PVG shuttles will now be scheduled to KUL, eliminating some layovers in BKK.
 
According to Luxemburgish law, it is the obligation of an employer to guarantee the health and safety of all employees, and it is fact that excessive time spent in in-room confinement poses a risk to a pilot’s physical and mental health.
 
We sent a separate letter to the CEO to address these issues, mentioning among other things that we expect management to keep up to its commitment to plan layovers in CGO for not longer than 28 hours. We also expect that the company continues to work together with the Chinese authorities to organize the previously mentioned blocked floors as well as a gym usable for crews. You can read this letter here.
 
As the currently planned hotel for the layovers in CGO is not the same, which we used before the pandemic, it goes without saying that the quality of rest in the new hotel must be such that the crews are able to recover well enough from the previous duty in order to be sufficiently rested before the next FDP. Should this not be the case, please file a Voyage Report or even an ASR and send a copy to cvhotels@alpl.lu.
 
In the aforementioned letter we clearly expressed that we expect management to review the CGO layovers together with Pilot Representatives after a trial period of 4 weeks and to discuss actual layover times, the quality of the hotel as well as other possible problems regarding layovers in CGO.

Faced with fierce in-room confinement in Bangkok for such a long time, we all are craving for more freedom and normality while on a layover there. In recent months rumours of other airline crews being exempted from the restrictions in Bangkok arose regularly and led to a certain frustration amongst all Cargolux pilots, simply because everyone felt left alone in our Bangkok dilemma.
 
Your ALPL Board regularly investigated these rumours only to find out that official information from the Thai authorities concerning crews is rare, sometimes contradicting and incomplete. It appears, that in room confinement still is mandatory, even for vaccinated crews. Please click here to read the latest letter that was sent to management concerning the layover situation in Bangkok.
 
In our recent vaccination survey, we tried to get a better picture of the vaccination status of our colleagues. According to the feedback we received, roughly 91% of the pilots indicate to be vaccinated. This knowledge will allow us to make informed decisions in the event of any future operational changes in connection with the COVID-19 vaccination rate.
 
In this context, some colleagues have raised their concerns that the company would only send vaccinated pilots to destinations like Bangkok with in-room confinement, whilst unvaccinated colleagues would be able to enjoy trips with less restrictions or no restrictions at all. 
 
To make it clear, it is the firm position of your ALPL Board that this would not be acceptable and could lead to serious conflicts amongst the pilots. Management informed us that this is not intended.
 
Finally, we would like to point out once again that a even higher vaccination rate amongst the pilots could support our case and accelerate the process to have those restrictions we currently see in Bangkok and other places being lifted.