The 49ers and Related Issues(Merged)

[6feetunder]

Interesting reading.



Dear fellow Member,

There is an issue upon us and I would like to add my voice to the debate that from what I have seen has been thus far somewhat starved of real information. Those of you that know me are aware of my belief in vigorous debate and the importance of the transparent function of our union.

Those of you who do not know me will wonder about my background. I joined our union shortly after being employed by Cathay in late 1995 and have been a Member in good standing ever since. I became a General Committee Member of our union in 1999 and a Principal Officer later that year. I have also served as a Rostering Practises negotiator and Vice-President Professional.

On 9th July 2001 I was purportedly terminated and became a 49er. The sum total of the evidence provided by the Defendant in my case to explain why I was terminated is the phrase “generally uncooperative”. I do not believe that I will see the inside of a court room to test this bizarre evidence and nor does my lawyer – it is important that you know that does not bother me.

My words here are my own and I do not assert to represent the views of other 49ers. Please feel free to pass on this letter to fellow Members if you feel that it may be useful.

What does the General Committee say?

The ‘49er offer’ negotiations between the General Committee (GC) and management were conducted in secret and as a consequence there was no consultation between the GC and the 49ers or their nominated 49er Legal Team. This is unfortunate as it would seem an important omission when attempting to negotiate a resolution on their behalf. Consultation certainly may have avoided the feeling of isolation from the GC that many 49ers have recently voiced.

The GC has stated that it is their opinion that this is the “final offer”.

The GC has stated that their decision is based on financial aspects and that the Membership has done enough. The GC would like us all to move forward. 49ers have witnessed the General Secretary suggesting to Members that the financial liability to our union is HKD$20M. This dire assertion is at best a misunderstanding on behalf of the General Secretary and requires further analysis. Certainly those whose task it has been to assess these things for 3 ½ years on behalf of our union do not agree this is an opinion that would survive scrutiny.

It appears to be a strong possibility that certain assumptions driving GC policy at the moment require further qualified input. Transparency is always a good thing for a union and I submit that in playing out any possible 49er resolution our union needs to be sure that it is getting it right. That will need a little more time than we have all been given.

What does the Company say?

The DFO has released a statement on the 49er offer that does not appear to have been recognised for some of the things that it has said. There is a statement that a pot of money is being given to the GC and they alone have discretion as to how it is used. This money apparently equates to what management expect to expend on their lawyers getting to court. Clearly this is a win-win-win situation for management.

Management will in one stroke hand the responsibility and liability for the political issue of the 49er resolution to the GC. Management, and the GC, require the 49ers to unilaterally withdraw their lawsuits and decide to do that without having any protection whatsoever. Once withdrawn these cases are not able to be resuscitated and the GC will have cut-off financial support. Remember this is supposed to be the first step in the process and for some reason the 49er is expected to take all the risk.

While considering such a risky decision, the latest rumour doing the rounds has the DFO now saying only 6 or 7 49ers will be offered jobs. Rumour is exactly that however we are all aware of the DFO’s ability at projecting his message and it is often the case that he is accurately quoted – if only because he works at it.

What is the ‘offer’?

This is not completely clear to many, if any, of the 49ers. Judging by the mixed messages coming from various GC Members it does not appear to be completely clear to them either. What is clear is that this is not a ‘settlement offer’ as many have presumed it to be. What we have thus far is little more than a side negotiation between the Defendant and a third party – in this case the AOA President. This is important to note because the deal has been represented as, and appears to be assumed to be, something quite different. This is NOT a ‘settlement’ offer in its current form.

There are 2 ways that a Plaintiff can shut down a case such as ours. First option is the Plaintiff decides not to proceed with the case and the lawsuit is withdrawn. This option effectively means that the case is dead and would be almost impossible to resuscitate. It also does not require any input to the process from the Defendant.

The second option is that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, usually via their respective legal counsel, agree to an ‘out of Court settlement’. This form of settlement is binding on both parties and the agreement formalising the settlement is to be "entered into Court". Any failure to observe the terms and agreements by either party would be actionable under the law.

Right now we have no formal offer from the Defendant’s lawyers. We are therefore not in negotiation with the Defendant – only the President is. This means if we were to proceed with this current offer it would require us as Plaintiffs to withdraw our lawsuits unilaterally based on assurances made to a third party by the Defendant – this is the first option scenario given above.

Basically management has said to our President, if you can persuade the 49ers to unilaterally drop their lawsuits against us as a first step, we’ll interview the ones that want a job and give you a pot of money. It’ll be at our sole discretion whether we take any and it is at your sole discretion what you do with that pot of money.

Several other issues appear to be unfinished in the current offer such as Travel and Accommodation benefits - which are currently said to be non-existent. The General Secretary has recently stated that the GC is still sorting these issues out with management. To some this indicates that the negotiation is ongoing and that the “final offer” is in fact more ‘in play’ than represented to us 49ers. Of course this only adds to the confusion and anxiety when making this critical decision.

As another example of the apparent incompleteness of the offer, an issue apparently not fully considered by the GC is the implication that there are no freighter slots available in Australia. Most of the Australian 49ers are not able to domicile in Europe or NAM so that leaves HK. As a Year 1 Freighter F/O flying an Australian Based roster out of HK, therefore liable for either or both HK and Australian Tax and with benefits such as Travel and Accommodation not available, the net pay is likely zero. A returning 49er with a family could not afford to have his family in HK or commute. It gives rise to the growing impression that the re-employment aspect of the offer is not serious.

Put simply, the 49ers have received newsletters about a deal from the GC however at the time of writing we have no formal offer to consider. We have more questions than answers. Creating further angst is the fact that at a meeting especially held for the 49ers to meet with the GC and discuss the ‘offer’, the General Secretary prohibited the GC Member present from answering questions from the 49ers on five occasions. To summarise, the 49ers have no formal offer in writing to give to their lawyers and get advice, important elements of the ‘final offer’ are still in negotiation and important questions are not allowed to be answered by their GC.

Most importantly, this is far from a true offer to settle out of court. It is an attempt by the Defendant to get the GC to get the 49ers to unilaterally withdraw their lawsuits.

The timing, the Deadline and selling the unsaleable offer

Given that this issue has gone for over 3 ½ yrs now; why is there now such hurry? Why over Christmas/NY and such a short deadline. Given the ongoing confusion and continued requirement for clarification of important elements of the apparent deal it appears to be premature to go public until the ‘offer’ is thoroughly understood. The normal custom and practise in our Association is that our Membership is not asked to consider such important issues until that work is done.

Apparently the intended date was to be the Monday before Christmas, then a period which straddles Christmas and New Year, before an irrevocable decision is required from the 49ers by the 20th January an exact month later. Something happened that caused the GC to release the information a few days earlier.

The day before the GC ‘final offer’ newsletters were sent to the 49ers was a complete contrast. We had received uplifting news via our 49er Legal Team of a Judge’s decision in the Sydney case. It was a huge win of that stage of the case finally ending all the possible delays employable by the Defendant. Significantly ‘costs’ were awarded against the Defendant also which means that despite much work done by the 49er lawyers there, Australia has been extraordinarily cheap thus far for us – and extraordinarily expensive for the Defendant. Unfortunately the jubilation over this welcome news was short lived due to the release of the GC newsletter. The GC and the Membership appear mostly unaware of this significant legal news still.

The 49ers are being pressured into making an irreversible decision in minimum time and then the pressure will apparently be on the Membership to cut-off the funding. The General Secretary emphatically stated at a formal meeting of 49ers, whose lawyers were also present, that whatever the collective decision of the 49ers the GC will still recommend that the funding be cut-off from the 49ers. This may explain why the GC did not bother to consult the 49ers beforehand and is apparently not going to be influenced by the 49ers now – they made up their mind a long time ago about this issue.

The management of the big sell by our GC gives the impression of desperation and the timing smacks of cynical and calculated politics. Many 49ers have expressed their disappointment over a feeling of being ‘dead-lined’ by their own GC.

...cont\'d

What the 49er lawyers say

Some recent advice given by the 49er lawyers was based on a ‘hypothetical’ brief given by the GC of what an offer may include. The lawyers have not, in fact, had a formal ‘offer’ to consider and give advice.

Initial drafts using words like ‘good chance’ were toned down to say ‘moderate chance’. When I asked a leading 49er lawyer what would be the highest percentage chance he would ever give in writing his reply was 75% - this did not surprise me as this is the percentage that he put in the advice. He confirmed to me that 75% was as high as any smart lawyer should write and that he still considered our case so strong that he thought that “it would never see the inside of a courtroom”. Meaning that he expected the Defendant to settle when the time suits them.

The lawyers were not aware that the advice sought by and given to the General Secretary was to be kept secret from the 49ers. After all the 49ers are their own clients – the actual Plaintiffs in the action. The lawyers have delivered a robust advice which is quite readable to many who have had the misfortune to require legal advice. It is not surprising that it may require explanation when read by most of us who typically otherwise interpret lawyer-speak quite grimly. The letter from the General Secretary secretly seeking this advice from the 49er’s lawyers does in fact request that the lawyers frame this advice to emphasise a “stark” scenario i.e. worst case. However a few 49er lawyers that I have spoken to personally have expressed their disappointment at being used by the GC as a political tool against their own clients – the 49ers. Further, they have re-confirmed that they do not believe that the Defendant will allow the cases to go to court.

It is still the case that the 49ers, their lawyers, and apparently the GC still do not have an actual formal offer to consider. It is not surprising then that 49er lawyers have stated that they advised the 49ers strongly against signing or agreeing to anything until a formal offer can be considered. They have also stated that they would be pushing to ensure standard protections were included in any potential agreement to protect their clients – the 49ers.

What do we need as an Association?

I suggest that we are being pushed as a Membership into making a decision without the required complete information. The spin being put about regarding the 49ers legals is exactly that – spin. These cases have taken over 3 ½ years to evolve and require the ongoing attention of a Team of motivated and intelligent men in consultation with lawyers from four jurisdictions. It is not possible that the GC understands the 49er legal cases to a satisfactory level because they do not attend the Plaintiff/49er legal Team briefings and they have not consulted with the 49er Legal Team. The advice given in these cases is ‘privileged’ and therefore it necessarily must be protected. It is therefore less likely that the Membership has a superior understanding of the 49er legals than that of the GC. That would be especially difficult as various positive 49er legal results and developments reported to the GC for relay to the Membership as a whole still await dissemination.

Did you know for example that in Australia the Defendant has had to pay our lawyers fees to date due to consistent findings against them by Judges? Did you know that our lawyers in the US – a case which has been stayed rather than lost as some have been led to believe – costs us nothing because the 49ers lawyers there believe in the case so much that they work it pro bono. There are several disingenuous arguments around regarding the past and future 49er legal funding which are inappropriate and confusing. Yet this is one of the current leading arguments why the GC wants the Membership to cut-off the 49er funding.


I suggest that the future of our union is inextricably linked to the 49ers. The 49ers were used as a tool against the Membership and no amount of rationalisation or time passed will change that fact. The Membership will decide it’s principles for itself and that will become the measure of the protection our union can be expected to provide in the future. It is not realistic to expect complete capitulation by management and that we all live happily ever after. Nor is it reasonable to forsake the 49ers in order to declare that a negotiation came to a successful conclusion because a deal was agreed. It has been a painful experience for all involved and that fact alone demands that any resolution sensibly meets important objectives for all parties.

Sometimes we have to do what is right just because it is right. It is right to provide support for the 49ers as it is they who have been bearing the brunt of management’s attack on you and your family’s livelihood. It is right that the 49er issue is pursued legally and for the 49ers to be given the opportunity for legal representation – whether in court or to ensure a safe and sensible settlement. This has been an expectation of our Membership in the past and we have had success in cases not nearly as strong as the 49er cases.

What do the 49ers think?

I can only speak for myself and not the 49ers generally – and I would not presume to do so. In fact no one can do that including the GC, the Legal Team or anyone else. As individuals we have all had our own journeys and have different circumstances. We also have different expectations on what would be an acceptable resolution. I am sure most understand the need to find compromise and move on when it is sensible to do so.

After 3 ½ years many 49ers have exhausted their resources, depleted their retirement planning and their careers are in tatters. It is well within the capacity of management to ensure that the re-employment option is a realistic and workable option, or that the financial settlement allows the 49er to move forward without bitterness. Management’s objective of having the court cases off their radar screen and the dispute essentially behind them can be met.

A final thought on this point. This is perhaps the biggest issue our union has had to face. We of all employee groups understand that there is good reason to have union protection in Hong Kong. There is no urgency to force an error on this important issue as there are no large expenditures in Court or other dramatic events in the next couple of months. We are however getting closer to the end game from a legal point of view and our airline needs to prepare itself for the next busy era. The 49ers and their lawyers can handle their own negotiations to settle out these cases. I propose that we allow that.

What can you do?

This is an important issue and not one that you should take lightly. No other issue in the history of our union has needed your attention more as it will decide the future of our union’s integrity. I ask you to look deeper into this issue and apply your values based on a fully informed understanding.

To ensure a full understanding we Members must drive the debate and we must dictate to our GC what information we require and what time frame is acceptable to us. Otherwise how will they know? This may be one of those issues – and there have been plenty over the years - when the Membership saves the GC from itself.

In the ideal world for the 49ers the Membership would direct the GC to allow the 49ers to communicate directly with the Membership what their thinking is – without editorial interference. The Membership would direct the GC to continue to support the 49ers in their time of need for legal representation. I also suggest that we each contact the GC and inform them of our expectation that the various deadlines and EGM Motions be delayed until the issue has enjoyed sufficient scrutiny.

Please know that we 49ers are grateful for your support to get us this far. We are now within reach of the legal leverage that we have all worked so hard to gain. There is no reason to allow this approaching evolution to be denied to the 49ers and the Membership. We 49ers have managed to get ourselves this far because we have faith in the process and in you our fellow Members. We would like the opportunity to see this through and we ask you for your continued support.

Thank you.

[Turbo Beaver]

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MARTHA Z. SINGSON, respondents.

Martha Z. Singson was surprised with the suddenness of the notification but nonetheless acknowledged it. Later, she met with Nipperess and inquired of possible employment that entailed only ground duties within the company. She was advised to meet with certain personnel who knew of the employment requirements in other departments in the company, and to await a possible offer from the company.

On 20 December 1991 Singson filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint against CATHAY for illegal dismissal, with prayer for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Efforts on initial settlement having failed, trial followed.

Robert J. Nipperress and Dr. John G. Fowler appeared as witnesses for CATHAY. Nipperess confirmed that the decision to retire respondent was made upon the recommendation of Dr. Fowler. In turn, Dr. Fowler testified that the affliction of respondent with asthma rendered her unfit to fly as it posed aviation risks, i.e., asthma disabled her from properly performing her cabin crew functions, specifically her air safety functions.

On the other hand, Singson presented herself and Dr. Benjamin Lazo, a doctor in the country specializing in internal medicine and pulmonary diseases. She denied being afflicted with asthma at any point in her life, while Dr. Lazo confirmed the same declaring that at the time of his examination of Singson he found her to be of normal condition.

On the basis of the evidence presented before him, Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu Jr. declared CATHAY liable for illegal dismissal and ordered the airline to pay Singson HK$531,150.80 representing full back wages and privileges, HK$54,137.70 for undisputed benefits due her, HK$100,000.00 as actual damages, HK$500.00 as moral damages, HK$500.00 as exemplary damages, and HK$168,528.85 as attorney’s fees. Furthermore, CATHAY was ordered to reinstate Singson to her former position as airline stewardess without loss of seniority rights, benefits and privileges.

On 20 September 1999 the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter declaring Singson to have been illegally terminated. The appellate court anchored its judgment on the following findings: First, Dr. Fowler’s opinion about Singson’s medical condition was based on the personal examination of Dr. Fahy, and not his own. The appellate court held that a personal and prolonged examination of a patient was necessary and crucial before he or she could be properly diagnosed as afflicted with asthma,[7] and thus Dr. Fowler’s expert opinion was unreliable and mere hearsay. Second, CATHAY disregarded Sec. 8, Rule I, Book VI, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code[8] which requires a certification by a competent public health authority when disease is the reason for an employee’s separation from service, since it relied merely on the diagnosis of its company doctors, Dr. Fowler and Dr. Fahy. Third, the NLRC erroneously relied on the affidavit executed by Dr. Fahy since she was not personally presented as a witness to identify and testify on its contents. Fourth, respondent passed the medical examination required of prospective flight cabin attendants, the International Labor Organization’s Occupational Health and Safety in Civil Aviation examination, prior to her employment and found to be fit for flight-related service. Fifth, CATHAY failed to adequately prove the health standards required in aviation, particularly the non-qualification of flight attendants afflicted with asthma to flight-related service.[9]

Consequently, the appellate court awarded respondent full back wages with reinstatement, as well as moral exemplary damages, while deleting the award of actual damages reasoning that no undue damage inured to her since her husband nonetheless remained in Hongkong managing two (2) corporations. The appellate court however declared the option given to respondent to continue her employment as a ground stewardess with CATHAY to have been erroneously issued and consequently nullified the same.

CATHAY now argues that the Court of Appeals should have confined its inquiry to issues of want or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion and not into the factual findings of the NLRC since the petition before it was made under Rule 65.

In the instant case, no certification by competent public health authority was presented by CATHAY. It dismissed Singson based only on the recommendation of its company doctors who concluded that she was afflicted with asthma. It did not likewise show proof that Singson’s asthma could not be cured in six (6) months even with proper medical treatment. On the contrary, when Singson returned to the company clinic on 3 September 1991 or five (5) days after her initial examination on 29 August 1991, Dr. Fahy diagnosed her condition to have vastly improved.

CATHAY could not take refuge in Clause 22 of the Conditions of Service it entered into with Singson. Although a certification by a competent public health authority is not required, still CATHAY is obliged to follow several steps under the Conditions of Service before terminating its employee. The pertinent part of Clause 22 thereof provides –

Clause 22. Sick Leave. – xxxx In case of serious illness the Company will grant sick leave with full pay for the first three months and with 2/3 of pay for the fourth month. Consideration will be given to granting the cabin crew further sick leave, either with pay or off pay up to a further two months, or retiring the cabin crew on medical ground xxxx

Thus, even on the assumption that asthma is a serious illness, this again would not excuse CATHAY from ignoring procedure specified in its employment contract with Singson. Under the contract, Cathay must first allow Singson to take a leave of absence and not to terminate her services right there and then. It is only after the employee has enjoyed four (4) months of sick leave that the option to retire the employee based on medical ground arises. In the instant case, Singson went to the company clinic on 29 August 1991. On 3 September 1991 she returned to the company clinic only to be told that “effective immediately” she was dismissed on medical grounds.

We agree with the Court of Appeals in its award of moral and exemplary damages to respondent. CATHAY summarily dismissed Singson from the service based only on the recommendation of its medical officers, in effect, failing to observe the provision of the Labor Code which requires a certification by a competent public health authority. Notably, the decision to dismiss Singson was reached after a single examination only. CATHAY’s medical officers recommended Singson’s dismissal even after having diagnosed her condition to have vastly improved. It did not make even a token offer for Singson to take a leave of absence as what it provided in its Contract of Service. CATHAY is presumed to know the law and the stipulation in its Contract of Service with Singson.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 20 September 1999 declaring the dismissal of respondent Martha Z. Singson by petitioner CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD. as illegal and ordering her reinstatement to her former or an equivalent position without loss of seniority rights, with full back wages and benefits, and to pay her HK$500.00 as moral damages, HK$500.00 as exemplary damages plus ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award as attorney’s fees, is AFFIRMED. The amounts received by respondent representing her six (6) months retirement gratuity and one (1) month pay in lieu of notice should be DEDUCTED from respondent’s computed back wages, with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Mendoza, (Acting Chairman), Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Buena, J., abroad on official business.

[Turbo Beaver]

Cathay's continued tactics

Eddington fought a dirty battle. His managers sought to split the flight attendants on ethnic lines by trying to set Filipino strike-breakers against Korean and Malaysian pickets. These tactics failed as the multi-ethnic, largely female workforce fought the dispute with verve. They marched through the streets of Hong Kong, and 1,000 flight crew members occupied then governor Chris Patten’s garden, calling on him to intervene.

When the strike ended, Hong Kong’s legislative council set up a 14-strong monitoring group to ensure Cathay did not victimise strikers. Spitefully, Cathay immediately evicted all unions from their offices on company premises. The unions launched a five-year legal battle to get the offices back. Eventually, the two sides managed to reach an amicable agreement over the premises, but only once Eddington had finally left Cathay.

Speaking in 1993, Eddington said he had learnt two lessons from the Cathay dispute. First, he said there was a need for tougher labour laws – including legislation allowing firms to sack strikers and force unions into ‘cooling-off periods’. Second, he said it was important to try and win such battles in the media. Reflecting on press coverage of the strike, he said: ‘Clearly, when it was 4,000 pretty girls against a bunch of old men in grey suits, we didn’t stand a chance. But that didn’t mean we didn’t have to try.’

Winning over the press became a lot easier in 1999, when Eddington joined the board of Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp. He earned $65,000 last year for attending six board meetings. Without revealing Eddington’s involvement with its parent company, The Sun launched a one-sided attack against the GMB during the Heathrow dispute. According to the NewsCorp newspaper, strikers were recreating ‘1970s anarchy’, spoiling honeymoons and motivated by ‘sheer spite and bloody-mindedness’.

Eddington got onto the NewsCorp board because Murdoch once part-owned an Australian air firm called Ansett. Impressed by his role in the Cathay Pacific strike, Murdoch made Eddington Ansett chairman in 1997. Eddington slashed away at the company’s workforce. Australians joked: ‘How do you develop a small airline? Give a big one to Rod Eddington.’

[shortly]

Point being? CX was a naughty employer and quite rightly got kicked in the pants, or CX should maybe consider only hiring in Asia where the litigation scam has not yet taken off.

[Wizofoz]

litigation scam

Living in a country where your employer cannot fire you at a whim for no good reason is part of a "scam"???

I do hope you are secure in your own employment Shorty...

[shortly]

Yup Wiz litigation scam, lets line the bloodsucking lawyers pockets a bit more. Oops I dropped my coffee, better sue the electric company for not warning me that hot beverages smart when dropped on your private parts. Oops I'm overweight, better sue the fast food companies for force feeding me their muck etc etc. Isn't it sad that you can't have a street party anymore in some countries because of the fear of litigation. If an employee is felt by the employer to be unfit for duty after a medical examination how dare that company think it can dismiss the employee. Shocking, lets sue the company quick.

[jumpseat]

Unfair dismissal / Litigation scam

Sorry Shortly, I'm not getting the connection.

I'm not accusing you of being management, but you've certainly read their 'Spin' manual.

[Turbo Beaver]

Shortly:

If you can’t fly an airplane then you should be terminated. If you are unfairly dismissed because someone in the company says so and you get an outside expert opinion stating the opposite, then you have legal recourse. As the case above.

If you are unfairly dismissed, then you have legal recourse.

If you drop hot coffee on your nuts, your just stupid. Same thing if you eat McDonalds and wonder why you are fat.

The real reason this will never see the inside of a courtroom. Cathay is getting pressure from other businesses in Hong Kong not to let this go to trial. If those nasty pilots win, it will set a precedent in Hong Kong law and then the rest of us cannot do this:

PCCW sacks hundreds

From South China Morning Post, 7 December 2001

Troubled hitech company, Pacific Century CyberWorks, sacked 506 workers on 5 December, while announcing a pay freeze for the remaining 14,000 staff, and stopping recruitment of new staff.
The redundancies are the second this year - 290 workers were sacked in July.
PCCW refused to rule out future sackings.

The company union said that workers made redundant were selected unilaterally by management, and no rationale accompanied the choice of sacked workers, other than to claim that PCCW will maintain quality of service – a point some union members dispute.

The union is collecting information before officially approaching management, but not to reinstate the workers, merely to improve the redundancy package for the 506.

Cathay will sack more pilots in the future when that want something. Why, if this offer goes through, because it works!

Yours, mine and the 44ers future are at stake here. You probably don't care because you don't have much time to go before your 60 and off the freighter. Unless your NR of course.

[Turbo Beaver]

Analysis of the offer

This part of the paper will deal with the many questions that have been asked regarding the offer itself. It will not recommend rejection or acceptance of the offer. Each of us is going to have to make that decision as individuals. What it will do is offer some food for thought when coming to that decision.

It is acknowledged wisdom that in any negotiation, if a deal between the parties is to have any chance of being a satisfactory and lasting solution, then that deal must, as far as possible, satisfy the objectives of all parties to the negotiation. The question that has been asked is, does this offer meet that criterion?

From the company’s point of view, if we were all to accept the offer, then it would most certainly meet their objectives. The various legal actions would be settled for a relatively cheap price and the problem that they have been having in crewing the freighter aircraft would be solved, again at a relatively cheap price. From the company’s perspective, it would seem to be a good deal. On the other hand, however, if only some of us accept the offer, it would not be such a good deal as the court cases will continue on their current course and one of the company’s prime objectives would not be met.

From both the 49ers’ perspective and that of CX pilots as a whole, it can be argued that the offer is not nearly so attractive. Some of you have asked, what about our objectives? As communicated to you in the newsletter of 27th September 2004, two objectives were agreed to by the President prior to entering into negotiations.

1. To ensure that Cathay Pacific pilots can never again be put in the position in which we have found ourselves.

2. To ensure full reinstatement and proper compensation for 49ers who are qualified and wish to return to work for CX and to ensure proper compensation for those who are not now qualified or do not wish to return to work for CX.

As reported to you earlier, at our recent meeting both the President and the Gen Sec stated that neither of these objectives has been met by this offer. On that basis then, this is not a fair deal. Therefore, we should insist in the subsequent negotiations that our objectives as well as the company’s are satisfied.

A possible counter to that suggestion is that both the company and those from the AOA who have presented the offer to us have stated that this is a “final” offer. The question has been asked by many of you, is this really their best and final offer? In negotiations training we are taught that “best and final offers” are rarely that, especially when they are the first offer to be put on the table. Rather, it is standard negotiating technique used to pressure the other party. Often such a tactic is accompanied by a “deadline” as we have in our current situation. Again, negotiation training teaches us that the best thing to do with deadlines is to ignore them. On balance then, this might be a “final” offer but experience tells us that it is more likely to be a negotiating position.

No doubt those who have come up with this deal believe that it is the best deal that they were able to reach at the present time and that is why they have recommended it to us in its present form despite the fact that it does not satisfy our agreed objectives.

If we were to reject this offer, what guarantees do we have that the company will come back to the table with an improved offer at a later date? The simple answer is that we do not. There are few guarantees in life other than death and taxes. In this situation we are, however, able to make a judgement call based on our knowledge and experience.

We have been in situations similar to this before. In 1999, during the contract negotiations, it was stated by the company very bluntly that there would never be a scope clause in the pilots’ contract and they stonewalled that position. When they finally became convinced of our resolution on the matter, one morning the scope provisions were reapidly agreed to.

When our current President was made Cat D because of his union activities, it was stated categorically by the then DFO that the decision was “set in stone”. Two months later, the decision was effectively reversed.

When a Past President was fired purportedly for questioning the serviceability of an aircraft he had been assigned to fly, that decision was stated to be final and the last word on the matter. Four weeks later he was reinstated in full with no loss of pay or seniority and his record was expunged.

There is no doubt that the company has already shifted its position from as recently as 6 months ago. Then, it was being stated that “the 49ers are history”, that “we have moved on” or words to that effect and refused even to enter into discussions. They have now entered into a first round of negotiations. That is significant movement. It is an acknowledgement by the company that the 49er problem needs to be solved through negotiation. The only question now to be resolved is under what terms?

What pressure or influence can we exert on the company to return to the table with an improved offer? If we examine the company’s strategy with regard to the various legal cases we have been pursuing, it can best be summed up in two words, delay and prevarication. They have consistently sought to avoid having to defend their actions on the substantive issues. Our intelligence strongly tells us consistently that they do not want to find themselves in a position where their actions will be subject to public scrutiny. Even the DFO refers to “adverse PR” in his recent newsletter. With the latest ruling in our favour in the courts in Australia, this is a probability rather than a possibility. The company know that the timescale is now shortening and this might explain the timing of the current offer.

Despite the fact that the actual financial legal remedies available in some of the jurisdictions fall short of the financial offer that is currently on the table, it can be argued that that is neither the whole story nor the sole criterion on which to judge the “leverage” the cases provide for us.

No company wants to see its senior executive officers called to the witness stand to account for their actions in open court. No company wants to be found to be in breach of legislation designed to protect its employees. No company wants to be branded as a bad employer. No company wants to have its dirty washing aired in public for all to see. These sorts of factors are not taken into account by lawyers when giving legal advice. They are nonetheless significant factors to be taken into account when making our judgement call on whether to accept the offer currently on the table or to continue to sue for an improved offer.

The available legal remedies are only part of the story, not the whole story. Whilst the law may not provide specific remedies for the factors mentioned above, an employer that has acted improperly with often go over and above the legal remedies in order to protect its reputation and good standing.

What of the terms of the current offer itself?

For those of us who cannot or do not wish to return to employment with the company, the matter is a relatively easy one for us to decide. Is the money on offer adequate to compensate us for the damage done to our careers? Is it an amount that we can live with to make the whole sorry mess go away and get on with our lives? Is it an amount that our individual financial circumstances will permit us to accept? If the answer to those questions is yes and we are not concerned anymore with the principles at stake, then clearly we should accept the offer. If, on the other hand, the answer to those questions is no, then in making our decision we first have to decide whether or not we believe that a better offer is likely to be on the table at a later date and then how we would get to an improved offer.

For those who are considering the offer of employment, there are a number of factors to consider, both upside and downside. It is an offer to apply for employment. It is an opportunity potentially to get back on the flight deck. It is an offer potentially to re-enter a career. It is not an offer of re-instatement. It is not an offer of re-employment in your old job. It is not even an offer of employment as there is no guarantee that you will be successful in the selection process. Put simply, it is just an offer of a job interview that might be available to any other pilot worldwide. Also, the employment contract would still include clause 35.3.

Again, we have seen this situation before. When the Classic freighters were sent to ASL, all of the “contract” Flight Engineers, some of whom had been with the company for over 7 years, had their contracts terminated. They were then invited to apply for positions in ASL; effectively to apply for their own jobs back albeit under a different name. The interview process was then used, in the words of one manager at the time, “to weed out those who were considered undesirable.” Some of these men who had years of loyal service with the company were told that they had failed the interview and were not offered employment.

In deciding to drop your legal action in full and final settlement and in return for an opportunity to apply for a new job, you may wish to consider whether or not history might repeat itself. If you are considering accepting the offer purely because it means getting back to flying, you should consider the possibility that you may end up with 10 months pay, no flying job or legal justice and be prepared to accept that result.

One other factor that you might want to consider is how it would look to a potential future employer if you were to fail the psychological evaluation process that you would be required to undertake. In certain jurisdictions, you would be required by law to disclose that information as part of your job application. If you did not disclose that fact and it came to light at a later date, you could be subject to summary dismissal.

We have also received independent advice that, should you be considering accepting the offer to apply for employment, it would be prudent to first ensure that you have a valid Hong Kong Class 1 medical certificate prior to undertaking the selection process.

This paper will not analyse the terms of the actual employment contract itself. You can all read them for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. There are issues regarding compensation, salary, seniority, probation, career progression, staff travel and so on that each individual must consider as to whether or not he finds them acceptable according to his own circumstances.

Amongst the most important factors to be considered is that this offer does not address the original purported dismissals. It is fundamentally important, especially if the employment procedure is even to be considered, that the events of 9th July 2001 first be declared null and void by the company and the so-called “dismissals” entirely retracted. It can be very strongly argued that anything less places the future careers of all 49ers in permanent jeopardy.

In summary, it is not the purpose of this paper to recommend rejection or otherwise of the offer currently on the table. Rather it is intended to provide some advice and observations for your consideration when making your decision.

No doubt some of the issues raised herein will generate debate amongst our group. That is a good and healthy thing. In engaging each other in debate, however, let us all remember that everyone is entitled to his own opinion and despite the fact that emotions may be running high, let us keep the debate on a civil level.

Borrowed from a 44er on Cprune.

[BlueEagle]

I'm merging three thread in to this one and will make it a 'sticky.
Grateful if you will post relevant material here - Thanks.

BE.

[Freehills]

On the PHP case - that is a country where Cathay was once sued for upgrading a passenger. And the passenger won...

Not quite sure why a PHP labour court would has jurisdiction over a HK case. But looks like they decided they do.

Have any filipina cabin crew been hired since this case finished (1999)?

[dotcom driver]

Accept the offer, trust MG & JF and.............the company will never do this again.

Accept the offer and...........................all will be safe and secure in the knowledge that you will never be able to count on any more than a 3 month future career.

Accept the offer and.......................... about 10 will be re-employed for visual optics, no more.

Accept the offer and...........................hide in DB and hope this issue never comes to your door.

Wake up and smell the coffee there is only 1 way to vote.

[Turbo Beaver]

Dear Friends,

I am trying to work out how best to express my opinion about “the offer”. It is very important for all of you to know what I (and my family) want you to do. We want you to consider the following and see what conclusions you draw and on that basis cast your vote.

Basically I have a simple question: Is this “fair treatment for the 49ers”? There is one simple answer to this question and that is NO. It is interesting that I have yet to speak to anyone who thinks this deal is fair. Nobody thinks this is fair including the committee.

This leads to a quandary. Why is the committee “selling” such an unfair deal? I believe that they are convinced that this is in fact the best offer available at this time. So we need to ask ourselves do we think that time will improve this offer. Personally I believe that in this instance time is our friend and I think a better option would be to seek vast improvements in the offer prior to being forced into deciding.

Personally I wish to be re-employed by Cathay. I believe them to be a great airline and I would be honoured to be a Cathay pilot again. What I do not need is to be constantly reminded of the results of this protracted dispute by being forced to accept such a “punitive” offer of an interview and perhaps employment. This offer only continues the punishment that my family and I have endured for the last 3½ years. At the very least I deserve to be returned to my previous salary and position on the seniority list. What equipment I operate is irrelevant. In order for us all to put this dispute behind us compensation and re-employment must be fair.

Several pieces of correspondence have alluded to a perceived weak legal position. I ask the question… If this legal position is so weak why then does the Management require me to relinquish this (weak) position prior to having even a medical? I believe that Cathay will not go to court and that there will be a better offer that includes jobs. Likewise I believe that the Union can afford to continue supporting the 49ers. In fact it can ill afford not to.

The Senior Management of Cathay has decided to attempt to resolve this dispute. This offer does not resolve the dispute. This offer does not allow us to confine the past 3 1/2 years to history. This same management team has equally acknowledged that money is not an issue…so let’s tell them to stop making it an issue and come up with a non punitive offer.

My family will be forever grateful for the support you have given us. Please be assured that your decision will be one which we accept.

Thank you.

[Just an other number]

Cathay Pacific is offering payouts of about $1 million or the chance to reapply for jobs to pilots sacked during a 2001 industrial dispute - if they agree to drop legal action against the airline.

The offer of an out-of-court settlement to the group known as the "49ers" is the first of its kind in the bitter 3-1/2-year dispute and is being recommended to pilots by the Aircrew Officers Association, which negotiated the deal.

If it is accepted, the sacked pilots can either take a 10-month payout or an interview for a job as freighter pilots with Cathay, positions junior to those they previously held.

Any 49er who applies for a job will be subjected to psychological testing - a step proposed by the association - to make sure they do not hold a lasting grudge against the airline.

Fifty-one pilots were sacked by Cathay in July 2001, at the height of a dispute over pay and rosters which resulted in a work-to-rule campaign by association members. They are named for the 49 dismissed in one mass sacking.

Legal proceedings have been taken out against Cathay by sacked pilots in the US, Australia, Britain and Hong Kong, and the offer to pilots is conditional on the actions being dropped.

The 1,000-member Aircrew Officers Association, which has supported the 49ers financially and funded their lawsuits, is due to decide at an extraordinary general meeting on February 15 whether to approve Cathay's offer.

The offer has opened a heated debate within the association and among the 49ers over whether it should be accepted or whether the pilots should continue fighting their cases through the courts.

The five plaintiffs in the Australian case have written to association members, saying: "We beg you to continue to support our legal cases until we have a reasonable offer formally made to us or have our day in court."

One of the 49ers, Canada-based Steve Urquhart, 36, said he wanted to accept the offer and return to Hong Kong. "We could be bitter for the rest of our lives but I would rather put it behind me and go back to work," he said. "Hopefully in five years it will all be ancient history."

Association president Murray Gardner, recommending the offer to members, said: "This has been a difficult period in the history of industrial relations between the association and the management of Cathay Pacific.

"However, relations have improved markedly in the past two years and the priority of both parties now is to further improve the relationship, to help the airline grow and prosper and to safeguard the best interests of everyone."

Cathay's director of flight operations Nick Rhodes said Cathay's offer was a "full and final" one and if it was rejected the matter would be sorted out in the courts.

"There comes a time in any dispute when you have to move forward," he said. "We are very pleased the association is now run by a business-minded committee."

.........................

Cathay Pacific pilots are each paying thousands of dollars a month to support the 49ers in what is believed to be the longest and most expensive dispute for aviation union members anywhere in the world.

Dues were raised from the usual level of 1 per cent of salaries to 5 per cent at the peak of the dispute over the 2001 dismissal of pilots. As more of the 49ers found work and needed less support, that level was reduced to 4 per cent and then 3 per cent, but it still amounts to about $4,000 a month for a senior captain.

The burden of paying the legal fees has made it one of the most expensive unions in the world and, not surprisingly, membership has fallen from more than 1,300 before the 2001 dispute to less than 1,000 today.

However, union insiders say that the members now left are committed to the association and its causes. "The guys that are left are 49er supporters," one long-serving member said.

"They understand the issues and understand we need to ensure fair treatment for the 49ers. They have been paying to support the 49ers for 1,300 days now and they are prepared to continue paying if they have to."

Another senior member agreed the debate over the settlement offer had been "divisive and emotive", but said whatever the outcome of the vote, the association and its leadership would remain united. "We've been through too much together to come apart over this."

[Turbo Beaver]

The 49er conditions had a gag order. Seem the conditions made it to the front page of the SCMP. Noticed they took the salary of the highest paid pilot that was about to retire. Surprised it was not higher.

What was it that Rod Eddington said again about winning in the media?

The AOA President had a meeting with NR (DFO) the day before this came out. I wonder if they were finalizing the wording of the article. I am sure the DFO knew it was coming out. Amazing the timing of all this.

The AOA president has not flown in about a year, has an office at CX, has lunch and knows all the managers by their first name. We may as well have the DFO as AOA president. This whole thing smells.

[Turbo Beaver]

Seems someone really wants to get these court cases over with. Would you sign this after being unfairly dismissed only to go for an interview? This is really taking care of your members.




4. Governing law and jurisdiction

The terms of this offer are governed by Hong Kong law. By accepting any part of the offer the former officer is acknowledging that the courts of Hong Kong have exclusive jurisdiction to hear any dispute, complaint or controversy relating to this offer and waives any objection to proceedings in such courts on the grounds of venue or on the grounds that the proceedings have been brought in an inconvenient forum.

1. THE HKAOA’S OBLIGATION

(a) In consideration of Cathay’s undertakings set out in Clause 2 above, but subject to sub-clause (b) below, the HKAOA undertakes:-

(i) immediately to cease assisting (directly or indirectly) any of the Terminated Pilots in any existing Legal Action against Cathay, Veta Limited or USA Basing Limited or any Relevant Person,

(ii) not to assist (directly or indirectly) any of the Terminated Pilots in any future Legal Action against any Relevant Person, and

(iii) not to assist any other person (being an individual, corporation or any unincorporated organisation, society or union) in assisting, whether directly or indirectly, any Legal Action (whether an existing Legal Action or a future Legal Action) by any of the Terminated Pilots against any Relevant Person.

For the purpose of the above:-

“assist” includes, but is not limited to:-

∑ financial assistance,
∑ the provision of advice or facilities which operate to facilitate any person in bringing or continuing a Legal Action, or
∑ any act which would encourage any person to bring or continue a Legal Action.

“Legal Action” means:-

∑ Actions brought in the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance, Nos. HCMP 4400 of 2001 and HCA 2822 of 2002, by John Simpson Warham and 22 others against Cathay Pacific Airways Limited and Veta Limited;

∑ Actions brought in the Employment Tribunal of England and Wales, Nos. 2304383/01 and others, by George Andrew Crofts and 11 others against Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, Veta Limited and USA Basing Limited;

∑ Appeal brought in the Court of Appeal of England, Ref: A1/2004/1485, (On Appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal No. HKEAT/0367 & 8/03/DA) by George Andrew Crofts and 11 others against Veta Limited, Cathay Pacific Airways Limited and USA Basing Limited in relation to the Employment Tribunal’s decision regarding preliminary aspects of Employment Tribunal claim Nos. 2304383/01 & others;

∑ Complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, USA, Case No. BC259052, by Hendrick Van Keulen and 8 others against Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, USA Basing Limited, Veta Limited, Tony Tyler and Philip Chen Nan-lok;

∑ Proceedings filed in Australia by Mark Andrew Evans and 4 others against Cathay Pacific Airways Limited and Veta Limited;

∑ any complaint, action, suit, cause of action, proceeding, arbitration or demand (in each case whether contractual, tortious, statutory or otherwise) relating to the employment of any of the Terminated Pilots by Cathay, Veta Limited or USA Basing Limited prior to the date of this Agreement or the termination of such employment.

“Relevant Person” means Cathay and any subsidiary or holding company of Cathay (or any subsidiary of a holding company of Cathay) and their officers and employees (both past and present).

“Terminated Pilot” includes the estate of Gregory Stephen England.

(b) Each of the undertakings of the HKAOA set out in sub-clause (a) above are conditional upon the membership of the HKAOA passing a resolution in favour of the terms of the offer set out in this Agreement and the offer letter on 15th February, 2005 (or such later date as Cathay and the HKAOA may agree).

DAMAGES NOT AN ADEQUATE REMEDY

The HKAOA acknowledges that damages will not be an adequate remedy for a breach of the undertakings in Clause 3 above and, therefore, Cathay is entitled to an injunction to prevent a breach of such provisions or a continuation of any such a breach.

PUBLIC STATEMENTS

Both Cathay and the HKAOA agree not to make any public statements concerning this Agreement without the prior written approval of the other party.

AMENDMENT, WAIVER ETC.

(a) No failure on the part of any party to exercise and no delay on its part in exercising any right or remedy under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver of such right or remedy, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right or remedy preclude any other or further exercise or the exercise of any other right or remedy.

(b) No provision of this Agreement may be amended, waived, discharged or terminated orally but any such amendment, waiver, discharge or termination shall only be effected by an instrument in writing signed by both Cathay and the HKAOA.

SEVERANCE

Any provision of this Agreement prohibited by or which is unlawful or unenforceable under any applicable law actually applied by any court of competent jurisdiction shall, to the extent required by such law, be severed from this Agreement and rendered ineffective so far as is possible without modifying the remaining provisions of this Agreement, and where the provisions of any such applicable law may be waived, they are hereby waived by Cathay and the HKAOA to the full extent permitted by such law to the effect that this Agreement shall be valid and binding and enforceable in accordance with its terms.

GOVERNING LAW

Cathay and the HKAOA agree:
that this Agreement is governed and is to be construed in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong; and
irrevocably and unconditionally to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Hong Kong to hear any dispute, complaint or controversy relating to this Agreement and waive any objection to proceedings in such courts on the grounds of venue or on the grounds that the proceedings have been brought in an inconvenient forum.

[DITW]

Greetings chaps.

Please find attached a document which was sent to me for distribution to all 49ers for your perusal.

It has been compiled by a chap who is the HR Director of a very large company in the UK, albeit not in the aviation business.

This chap knows a couple of us 49ers personally and has been following the "goings-on" with professional and personal interest.

He volunteered to present his view of our situation to us, bearing in mind that he has nothing to gain, or lose for that matter.

In my opinion it is worth reading, at least twice!, and circulating to every member you know.

Regards,

Xxxx


I have put together my thoughts regarding the offer that has been made to the 49ers and given my limited understanding of the situation I do have concerns regarding the deal on the table.

Before explaining my thoughts regarding the proposed deal I think it is important to recognise that in this type of situation, where emotions are frayed, that it is very easy to be critical from a distance. I am not party to all of the information or history and I would not want to under estimate the difficulties of conducting this sort of negotiation.

Its very easy to take a side swipe at the negotiating team and it is not my intention to do so, rather my brother has asked me to give him and you my thoughts with a view to helping him make his decision. If you think my thoughts would be of benefit to others in this situation then please feel free to pass this around as you feel fit.

Introduction
I have a number of areas where I think clarification would help the decision making process and the consultation meetings may go some way to providing the necessary clarity.

Negotiating Parameters
When I conduct negotiations I would normally expect to agree the parameters for the negotiations prior to any discussions taking place. I believe quite strongly that the good negotiator is the person who has the majority of the people that they represent “on side” prior to any negotiation taking place.

It would be interesting to know if the negotiating parameters were actually agreed between Mr. Gardner and the HKAOA/ 49ers prior to the negotiations taking place?

If these parameters were agreed then it would be useful to understand how far apart the desired position is from the deal tabled by the Company. If the gap is substantial, then it would be extremely useful to understand why the Company feels unable to close the gap further. This information should help HKAOA/49ers understand whether or not the offer from the Company is reasonable.

Mr Gardner states in the offer letter that the Company is not able to make further concessions (regarding the deal of offer). I think it would be very useful if Mt. Gardner could given some background on the concessions he has already negotiated from the Company and if he could explain why he feels this is the final offer. Personally I would find this language rather irritating because ultimately this negotiation is necessary because of the unilateral action taken by the Company. I am also “slightly” cynical of the final offer scenario. Personally, I have had to back tract on a number of occasions before delivering the final final and final offer. There is a real skill in making the judgement on whether or not this is actually the final offer or just a negotiating ploy.

On a slightly different point I understood from the letter dated 16th December, that Mr Gardner conducted negotiations on behalf of the 49ers without support from either colleagues or 49ers. If this is the case then I think this must have been very difficult (not to mention stressful) for Mr Gardner. I have been involved with negotiations with employee representatives (trade unions) for a number of years and I know that they would never allow their position to be negotiated by a single person because it would leave them in an extremely vulnerable position. If their membership do not like the deal, they will be attacked for being “in management’s pockets” and I have heard those words on a number of occasions. Ultimately, the deal can be wrecked by a perception of foul play when in fact the actions were totally honourable.

I would not negotiate with a single person, rather I would want all the interested parties to sit round the table and thrash out the deal. It is too easy (and tempting) to intimate a single person. Normally I would expect a negotiating team from both sides to be present and perhaps going forward it would be appropriate to support Mr. Gardner with a negotiating team which includes representatives from the aggrieved employees i.e. the 49ers. This is probably something that the company would not like but difficult negotiations should be tough and hard work. There is a lot of psychology in these situations, which should be exploited For example, it is much easier to be tough when you are not isolated on your own and conversely it is much harder for the Company representatives to negotiate directly with those that they dismissed. Ultimately, the Company can refuse to negotiate with this more formidable body – then you have the choice to continue or not with the legal action. Perhaps no deal is better than a weak deal.

When looking at any negotiation it is very useful to understand the background detail, which clearly I do not have, however, an obvious question is why now? What has brought the Company back to the negotiating table when I understand that the Company has resisted any meaningful negotiations with the pilot representatives regarding the dismissal of the 49ers for the last 3½ years.

I am aware that the HKAOA have won a major case in the labour courts of Australia – sorry bit vague on the detail – and it would be interesting to understand how influential has this been on the Company’s desire to negotiate given the pending court cases. I do hope that the message regarding Australia has been fully circulated because this is good news after a very long time and clearly shows tenacity bears fruit! - Not to mention a rather public and unpleasant court case.


Legal concerns
I am assuming that the following would be some of the desired outcomes from the proposed legal action:

 Money in the pocket for those directly affected.
 An admission from the company that they were wrong and that they have totally rescinded the previous dismissals.

And most importantly:

 A cast iron guarantee from the Company that they will not behave in such an unethical manner towards any employee in the future.

In judging the reasonableness of the offer Mr Gardner seems to be indicating that there is some doubt on the legal outcome from the forthcoming legal action. I believe it is crucial that the membership understand what these concerns are especially in the light of the legal victory in Australia. This knowledge will be very important in making an informed choice.

The offer
I am not intimately knowledgeable about the operational procedures of the Company but given my limited knowledge, I would question whether the deal is sufficient given the loss of earnings and stress suffered by the 49ers and their families’, colleagues and friends. Furthermore I think that the deal, as it currently reads, offers little long-term security for any pilot.

Compensation
There seems to be no compensation for loss of earnings/provident fund for the years since dismissal irrespective if the dismissed employees wish to return to flying or not. It would be useful if Mr Gardner could explain why he is prepared to recommend the deal on this basis.

Interview process
It states in the letter that professional competence would be assumed. Given this I am struggling with the imposition of a three-stage interviews/medical assessment process followed with the final decision being made by a selection panel. I think I am right in saying that this unnecessary mess was created by some secret selection panel (star chamber) in the first place?

The process seems very onerous given that these individuals are the victims of the unnecessary actions of the Company. I can accept the need to psychologically assess people (on the grounds of Health and Safety) before resuming operational flying, however, this is an interesting admission by the Company because it would appear that they are recognising that their actions may have “damaged” some people.

To assess and select people on their feelings and attitudes towards the Company is absurd. It would be completely unreasonable to expect the affected not to feel extremely angry and bitter with the Company given what they have been through.
The Company caused this situation and therefore it is up to the Company to show some compassion and work with all of their employees in order to heal the wounds.

I would assume that should a pilot be medically deemed unfit to fly on psychological grounds that this would, in effect, end their flying career with other airlines as well. In this situation I think it is reasonable and ethical to expect that the Company looks after this individual and ensures that they and their family are financially secure. This is a point that should be raised with Mr. Gardner.

Below are some questions that could be raised at the consultation meetings with Mr Gardner and the legal team.

- Why are there 2 interviews following the medical? What are the selection criteria to be used in both of these interviews - what is the difference between these interviews? If there is no real difference then only one interview should be necessary. (Unless of course this is power play from the management who want to continue to flex their muscles.)
- How is the selection criterion matched to being able to return to work given that the medical assessment regarding psychological fitness has already taken place.
- What training has been given to the interviewers/panel so that they are competent to both under take these interviews and make a decision?
- What happens to those pilots that fail this selection process. Given the situation I think it is entirely reasonable for one of the panel and the medical assessor to sit down with them and explain in detail why they have failed.
- Will the HKAOA/49ers be represented on the selection board
- What will the Company do to ensure that pilots who fail are given every support possible so that they are able to return to full duties.
- What support is the Company going to provide the families of those affected who undoubtedly have also been equally affected by the actions of the Company.
- What happens to a pilot who after receiving additional support is not able to return to operational flying? It would seem reasonable that the financial settlement on offer to those employees who choose not to return should be made available on the same terms to these individuals.
- What happens to an individual who during their “rehabilitation” training is deemed to be not up to the job?

For those pilots that successfully navigate the selection process I was wondering why they do not return immediately to the passenger fleet if that is where they were employed when they were dismissed. I do not understand all the operational intricacies but in order to reintegrate people as quickly as possible it would make sense that they start their re-training (whatever that means) on their original duties. Again it seems reasonable that a Captain would not assume the full duties of a Captain until he/she has passed the normal line checks/assessments that are routinely used. However, the convoluted route back, with no guarantees that they would actually make it back, could be read as more management power play.

It is unclear to me from the letter, but it would seem that the company is proposing to utilise differing/reduced pay scales. If I have read this correctly then this would make me question the commitment of the management team to fully integrate the 49ers back into the Company. Why rub salt into an already very sensitive wound – I sense more testosterone!

cont'd...

...cont\\\'d

Conclusion

Sadly, given the draconian actions taken by the Company I think it would sensible to be very cautious in placing too much trust in fine but rather vague words. It would be easy to be cynical about the Company’s desire to negotiate at this juncture given the court cases in Australia.

In the offer letter Mr. Gardner states that all parties have lost out greatly in this dispute. I would have to disagree with this – it is the dismissed and their families and their friends who have suffered most and this should not be forgotten. The crucial question that needs to be asked, irrespective of compensation payments, is will this offer prevent the Company from behaving in this manner in the future? If this is a no then you have two courses of action:

1. Accept it and hope for the best
2. Decline the offer and stand firm at the negotiating table. The ball is then firmly with the Company who can choose to negotiate or go to court.

Please do not take my thoughts as a reason to say yes or no. Rather I hope that they will help clarify the questions that still need to be addressed. I would strongly encourage people to attend the consultation meetings with Mr. Gardner. I also think that it would very helpful if the legal team could also be present at these consultation meetings so that members have the opportunity to put their questions directly to counsel regarding the legal concerns.

Best wishes

[tamalai]

It seems that the legal opinion offered by one Barrister is that if the "Offer" as put forward, had been won in court, it would be hailed as a major victory.................
perhaps the time has come to settle things and move on.......!!!!

[Onefortheroads]

We would just like to prove the Barrister correct in a Court of Law and then we can all move on thanks

[tamalai]

ah, yes, always good to keep the lawyers employed, especially if your not footing the bill, eh ???

[6feetunder]

And you are? Obviously no idea of what union membership is about.

[Turbo Beaver]

This is a bit long so it had to be split into two parts.

A paper portraying the case against the offer, supported by several Cathay Captains.

HKAOA EGM 15TH FEBRUARY 2005
THE CASE AGAINST “THE OFFER”
Ladies & Gentlemen
At the 15th February EGM, we are being asked to vote For or Against “The Offer”. Whilst the AOA GC is recommending that we accept the Offer, this paper details some of the issues that merit voting Against acceptance. It focuses on the issues for the non-49er Member. It is up to each individual 49er to decide whether the provisions of the Offer meet his own needs. For example, is he prepared to become a Year 1 freighter F/O instead of the Senior Captain on previous CoS? Only by considering all of the issues can we, the non-49ers, make informed and balanced decisions about our future.
Here are the “highlights”:

The current AOA Strategy has not forged a new working relationship.
The negotiation objectives have not been met:
o We have not protected our job security.
o We have not achieved Fair Treatment for The 49ers.
The Offer is not about The 49ers – it’s about withdrawing the legals.
The legal costs issue is a red herring.
The Offer is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
The Association’s future is best served by a No vote.

AOA Strategy. Our Association’s stated strategy is:

“The overall strategy since September 2002 has been to move away from a confrontational position and engage Management in constructive discussions with a view to forging a new working relationship. We believe that this path will benefit our Association. It is the path most likely to lead to a resolution to the 49ers; it is the path that will enable us to strengthen our Membership and therefore it is the path that is most likely to protect and improve our Conditions of Service. These are all very important objectives”; and,

“After every dispute there is never long-lasting peace unless there is rehabilitation. An essential part of the rehabilitation process is to find an acceptable resolution for The 49ers, and that would be our next step”; and,

“However, we are conscious that all parties have already lost greatly out of this dispute, the 49ers more than any, and what is needed is a resolution that allows us all to move forward.”

At the 29th December Focus Night, the President stated:

We thought {The 49ers negotiation} would go one of two ways:

Having agreed to negotiate they could make an offer that was generous enough to be seen to try and put the wrong right, and allow everyone to put it behind them and move forward. That’s one way and that’s the way we hoped they’d do it.
On the other hand, they could make an offer, which was better than any court could provide, but didn’t go as far as allowing people to put it all behind them. And that’s the path they’ve unfortunately chosen to go… a missed opportunity in my view.

The President is quite clear that the Offer does not permit “us all to move forward” nor does it “put the wrong right”. The DFO was also quite clear last month:

“The Company is keen to demonstrate that the confrontational approach of previous committees has no place within the Swire Group of companies”.

It is clear that our current strategy has not “forged a new working relationship”.

Negotiation Objectives. Last autumn, in preparation for upcoming negotiations, a 49er and the AOA President had the following communication:

I expressed to the President the view that the objectives of any negotiations that might be enjoined should be twofold:

1. To ensure that Cathay Pacific pilots can never again be put in the position in which we have found ourselves.

2. To ensure full reinstatement and proper compensation for 49ers who are qualified and wish to return to work for CX and to ensure proper compensation for those who are not now qualified or do not wish to return to work for CX.

The President agreed with both of these objectives.
The President responded on 13th October with: “I agree with the sentiment of the letter particularly as regards our objectives in any negotiation” and on 19th October, after reading the above final text in an internal 49er newsletter, with: ”Seems like fair comment to me”.

In essence, these negotiation Objectives are “Job Security via Fair Treatment For The 49ers”.

Neither Objective has been met.

The 49ers’ newsletter also included:

“The President also gave me an undertaking that financial assistance to the 49ers in pursuit of the legal cases will continue for the foreseeable future. I related to him that some people were concerned that he was going to negotiate a deal that does not satisfy the needs of the 49ers, put it to a membership vote and, if it passed, stop the assistance if the 49ers did not agree to accept the deal. He stated to me that this will not happen”.

That’s exactly what has happened.

Why Should I Have a Vote? The legal situation is that each 49er is in litigation with the Company. Therefore, any legal settlement is essentially between The 49er and the Company. However, as a peculiarity of the Offer, we non-49er Members have become directly involved: “The Association would be required to cease funding all legal actions related to the dismissals”. As a point of Law, the Association has never funded the legal actions nor are we permitted to do so. We have, however, given welfare loans to 49ers so they can pursue their own legal actions. This subtle but important difference means that we are not in litigation with the Company. We are, however, financially assisting our fellow Members who were unfairly terminated 31/2 years ago. That’s a basic union members’ responsibility, covered by the Rules.

Therefore, our vote is nothing to do with industrial relations or The 49ers, per se – it is all about withdrawing financial subsistence to those seeking legal justice.

Legal Funding. We have been told that:

“Even in the event of a victory in the actions, if the award is less than the current Offer, and it almost certainly will be, the courts would determine that we should pay the Company’s costs, as well as our own, from the time of the Offer going forward. Given that most of the costs still lie ahead of us, Instructing Solicitors advise that we would need to budget for a net outflow of up to HKD 20m”.

This statement is misleading and incorrect. Firstly, the Company has not yet made a “payment into Court”. Therefore the status of this Offer is not the trigger point for us accruing any liability, nor is the EGM date of 15th February. That trigger would only occur once the Company chose to make a formal “payment into Court”. One must wonder, if it could save such huge sums of money and force the AOA to pay its costs, why management has not done so in the last 31/2 years? It is a fact that there is every chance that the Company will not “pay into Court” because of associated jeopardy. Even if it did so, that would not preclude us accepting the payment with no liability.

Secondly, until it does so, it continues to be liable for a percentage of The 49ers’ costs to date: ≈HK$12m. By accepting this Offer, we would be agreeing to write off ≈HK$8.5m to date that CPA will almost inevitably be ordered to pay – even if it “pays into Court” - more than HK$9000 per Member.

The legal costs issue is a red herring designed to mislead you to abandon the long-running legal strategy.

The Voting Balance. For most of us, the vote is straightforward: we will continue to support The 49ers and vote whichever way they choose:

If all The 49ers accept – we will accept: the Yes vote.
If all The 49ers decline – we will decline: the No vote.

Objectively, we need to consider what to do if The 49ers are, say, split 50:50. Any other balance is just a weaker permutation of Yes or No. Clearly, the notion that “if one 49er accepts then we should all accept and forsake the other 49ers” is absurd. Therefore, let’s focus on the 50:50 scenario.

The argument is that we should all vote Yes “otherwise we are preventing The 49ers from being employed”. Let’s be clear here: the Association Membership has never prevented any 49er from being employed - management are. They could rehire all of The 49ers on full back pay tomorrow if they so desired. The only reason your vote is required now is that they want you to stop giving financial assistance to any 49er seeking legal justice. If you vote NO, you are not stopping any 49er being employed. If you vote NO, you are voting to continue assisting The 49ers who find the Offer unacceptable. We’ve been doing that proudly for 31/2 years and something that costs us less than the monthly Hourly Duty Pay we negotiated.

If you vote Yes – what does that mean for The 49ers who wish to decline the Offer? You are voting to abandon those 49ers. For those men and their families, the hardship of the last 31/2 years would be wasted, only to be abandoned by their union.

If you vote Yes – what does that mean for The 49ers who wish to accept the Offer? It means that they could proceed to a job interview - if they sacrifice their statutory legal rights first. It does not guarantee employment in a new F/O position and it is certainly not “re”-employment or “re”-instatement. It is only a job interview. To even consider abandoning some of The 49ers then surely the other 49ers should at least be guaranteed employment, subject to medical criteria? If 25 walk into the interview then 25 should receive job offers.

We are told that “the assessment procedure will permit a fair and objective decision to be made in each case”. What behavioural proof do we have of that? At the last Command Assessment panel 8 out of 10 SFOs were categorised Cat B. There is at least one Cat C F/O (not yet suitable for further Command training) who received no extra sectors and passed all his check rides on his Command Training. Is it likely that a junior manager will override the directions of the DFO? Why did the minutes of the original Star Chamber disappear? The Flight Ops Boards are heavily influenced by personal opinions and are definitely opaque. Why should this procedure be any different?

If management had faith in the natural justice of their own interview procedure they would have offered employment, subject to individual withdrawal of ongoing legal action. The 49ers could then choose to rescind their legal position once the job offer was actually available, and not before. There is no downside to this for CPA – unless they wish to retain the “weeding out” facility. Conversely, there is a major downside for our Association. In the scenario, we could face the situation where only half of the candidates secure employment, leaving us to support twenty-five 49ers that declined the Offer and twelve 49ers that now have no statutory legal rights.

Consequently, it is far too hazardous for us, as Members, to accede to 49ers sacrificing their legal rights just for an interview. It is also more hazardous to stop assisting The 49ers who still need our financial assistance.
On that basis alone, this Offer is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
The Association’s Future. Acceptance of the Offer will destroy the objectives of “Job Security via Fair Treatment For The 49ers” and waste our efforts of the last 31/2 years. Not only would we abandon some 49ers and their families, we would also set a dire precedent for the future of our Association. We would be saying to management that, any time they have a disagreement with the Association, they can “fire 20 or 30 pilots and the rest will fall into line”. The contractual Discipline & Grievance Procedure would be meaningless. “Moving on” would be condoning intimidation through capitulation. More importantly, we would be signalling that this Association is prepared to quit in the fight for justice. As our Association does not currently comprise quitters, it is very likely that many will decide that our Association no longer represents our morals or values and therefore resign. Just step back and look at this Offer morally and ethically. You know it’s wrong, don’t you?

The Association’s future is best served by a No Vote.

The President said that this Offer is “not a famous victory”. Stop it becoming “a famous defeat” that will emasculate our Association for the foreseeable future. When The 49ers vote No, please vote No with them.
Conclusion.

The current AOA Strategy has not forged a new working relationship.
The negotiation objectives have not been met:
o We have not protected our job security.
o We have not achieved Fair Treatment for The 49ers.
This Offer is not about The 49ers – it’s about withdrawing the legals.
The legal costs issue is a red herring.
This Offer is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
The Association’s future is best served by a No vote.


Please Vote NO at the forthcoming EGM

[HotDog]

The 49ers, having been sacked by the Company, are now being offered 10 months salary if they stop persueing their law suits.

The Flight Engineers that were made redundant on the Classic fleet were paid 6 months salary. :confused: :confused:

[Turbo Beaver]

SCMP 30/1/05

Captain A, who earned $ ????? a month when he was fired during the dispute over pay and rosters in July 2001, has said "no" to a $ 1.45 million payout offer from the airline and is determined to carry on fighting his case through the courts if his union colleagues will support him.

Mr Biaspal, who earns $ ????? a month, has said "no" to a $ 6,000 payout offer from the airline and on February 23 will go to Hong Kong's High Court with two other flight attendants to fight for pay they say they are owed but never received.

Both Captain A and Mr Biaspal are indignant and defiant. Both have so far resisted considerable pressure to reach an out-of-court settlement because they believe Cathay Pacific is acting unfairly. Both are determined to have their day in court.

It is the high-profile and emotive case of the 49ers - whose salaries start at around $ ????? - that has so far dominated the headlines.

But the case being brought by Mr Biaspal and his colleagues on February 23 may have far broader implications for staff relations at the hugely successful Hong Kong airline. Mr Biaspal, who joined the airline eight years ago, took a job with Cathay at a time when flight attendants saw their salaries rise by a grade every year, giving them automatic pay rises of around $ 600 for each year they completed. If it had had continued, as he says he was entitled to expect it would, he would now be on a salary of $ 15,120. Instead he's earning $ 11,888 and with every pay cheque that goes into his bank, he is $ 3232 worse off than he believes he should be. He claims they now owe him more than $ 107,000 - and the figure is rising by the month. About 3,400 attendants past and present employed in 1996 under monthly contacts are losing thousands of dollars a month, according to its calculations. In a series of meetings aimed at averting next month's court case, Cathay first offered in December a one-off goodwill payment of $ 4,000 to flight attendants of Mr Biaspal's junior rank, along with a 7.5 per cent pay rise over three years. The offer was increased on January 6 to $ 6,000 for junior attendants, $ 8,000 for senior pursers and $ 11,000 for in-flight service managers - a one-off payout that would have cost the company a total of $ 24.3 million. By her calculations - which she admits take the highest possible permutations on behalf of cabin crew - Cathay should be offering significantly more than $ 24.3 million to settle the dispute. She believes that if the two-week court case goes against the airline, it could be facing a bill of as much as $ 350 million. It is a scenario Cathay - which says it has made a fair and reasonable offer to staff - dismisses, indicating the approach taken by the union representing 70 per cent of cabin crew fails to take account of Hong Kong's "economic situation and competitive environment". However, the fact the airline has fallen so far short of the expectations of a large proportion of its cabin crew and now faces a court hearing over alleged breach of contract points to an uncomfortably disparate view of the world between management and frontline staff.

If, on top of that, pilots vote "no" when the Aircrew Officers Association meets later this month to decide whether to accept what Cathay insists is its final offer to the 49ers before court cases proceed, the schism between management and staff is in danger of looking more like a chasm.

According to Ms Kwan and others, there is a strong sense among cabin crew the airline is not willing to give credit to its staff for Cathay's turnaround in fortune since the dark days of 2003, and sees any challenge over contracts as another union dragon to be slain at any cost.

Despite its vastly improved relationship with the leadership of the Aircrew Officers Association, Cathay will find relations with pilots back in the spotlight if association members reject the offer to 49ers at their extraordinary general meeting on February 15, eight days before the flight attendants go to the High Court.

It is impossible to know which way the membership vote will go, but there is ferocious opposition among the 49ers themselves, whose feelings will be made known to members after a poll due to be concluded on tomorrow.

If they reject it, the association will have to go against the wishes of the men they have supported for 31/2 years if the offer is to stand.

One senior association member, who asked not to be named, said pilots viewed the offer as "derisory and insulting". It was quite possible the offer would be accepted, he admitted, but he added: "If it doesn't go through they'll have a heap of legal trouble on their plate.

[shortly]

Good grief TB your feelings and motives are clear. But why should pilot x earning mega bucks a month for many years expect to have his day in court funded by someone else?

[6feetunder]

Uh shortly, it's about the contract... Part of being in a union. Guess that was lost on you.

[canuck revenger]

I have just read the letters from the 49er's that have been posted on the HKAOA website. I was particularly struck by the one from Craig Youngs wife. To read these letters is to experience only a very small amount of the pain and suffering our colleagues AND their families have been put through. We owe it to them, and ourselves to continue to force this management to address the terrible wrong they committed against our friends and their families. I voted for RP04, I voted for the housing, mainly to 'offer' the company evidence that I am willing to 'move ahead'. As many of the 49er's have so eloquently stated, there CANNOT be a way ahead until this terrible wrong has been overturned. Vote NO. Continue the support of the 49ers. We cannot allow the injustice of the 49er's to be ratified by such a punative and petty agreement as is now on offer. Morality and character do not go out of fashion....

[tamalai]

ah, yes, lets all go to court and spend fortunes on Lawyers to come away with less than what is already on offer................more sound reasoning from those who do not have to foot the bill............ A man who can go to court and doesn't have to pay irrespective of outcome is like a lunatic a howitzer in a shopping mall....................party on boys!!!!

[6feetunder]

What the hell do you care?

It's obvious you aren't a member of the AOA so piss off and let us spend our money the way we see fit, looking after our colleagues.

On the off chance I have made an incorrect assumption then maybe it's time to reconsider your membership.

[VR-HFX]

There have been some very composed and well expressed views in this thread. If nothing else it shows a developed focus and clarity which is how agreements are reached.

Regardless of the real or perceived motivations of the company there is undoubtedly developing a consensus for closure of some kind.To not seize the opportunity would, IMHO, be a mistake. The opportunity (and by this I do not mean the offer) may never come around again, leaving the issue as a nettle in every seat cover of every a/c CX will fly for generations to come.

How then does one gather together the differing views and nuances of those directly aggrieved, the rest of the pilot body and the company?

I think MG has helped to open the door a little, but it is actually up to the 49er group themselves to now grab the ball, if they wish to, bearing in mind the AOA's nuanced position on extended funding.

There is no point at this stage debating the so-called offer, as you as a group have not received one. I believe if you cannot grab the ball and run as a group, then reject the offer and move on to the courtroom.

However, do not give the company the opportunity to say that they tried but that there was no response.

I have already said enough on the subject in past years but suffice it to say, this is what I would be inclined to do.

Step back from what the company wants or seems to be offering for a moment and reach consensus on what it takes to bring closure. Not necessarily satisfaction but closure.This is the hardest step.

State what you want directly to the company on a document, including a philosophical statement of what you want out of it as a human being, namely full or partial redemption and restoration of dignity.

Address it to AS, the Chairman,the CEO, the COO and the DFO. Noone else. Make it as personal a document as possible.

Make it simple but preface it with a few opening remarks before going into any legalise.

Acknowledge your understanding of the background to this whole sorry mess but also state clearly your dismay that a company of such standing could employ random and discriminatory methods to wreak havoc on so many lives. I would also be inclined to express regret over some of the press brouha declaring CX management as unfit to run a school tuckshop.

If you want to divide, no more than two camps. Those that want to return and those that don't or cannot. Black or white as there is no way to cover all the grey in between.

Write a brief preface for each group. Why you want to return or why you do not. Short but eloquent.

List one set of requirements and requests for each group.

State what you want for each group. Dot points.

Group under:

Financial restitution - salary, super etc
COS - access to old seniority and scale after what period.
What you will do for this. Freighter time etc.

Keep it out of the press.

When you clap your hands, which hand makes the noise?

Who cares as long as the two hands meet.

Enough said. Best of luck.

[FlexibleResponse]

VR-HFX,

Wise words indeed.

[Turbo Beaver]

Seems the AOA President has a mandate to stop the legal funding at all costs. One has to ask, why? Rumor has it that he will up the dues to 6% in the hopes people will stop funding the legals. Time will tell.

VR- I wish it were that easy. It was business but got very personnel from CX. Trying to have people thrown out of their home, sending letters to banks - credit cards being cancelled, defamation of character, blacklisting, etc. Don’t think a touchy feely letter to AS, on down would suffice.

Tamalai- somehow I believe you are footing the bill - this is an anonymous forum. Very easy to call a truce before we both spend a lot of money. You know what has to be done. Nobody cares what aircraft they fly, just the conditions it has to be done. I will leave it to you- work out the details before we give the money to the lawyers. I believe we are both willing to go the distance, but if both eat a bit of crow and not just the 49ers/AOA, it would be a lot easier to swallow, seems we are eating the whole flock ourselves. Imagine, just a little bit of crow but wash it down with wine and caviar with all the money we both save. Over to you.

Shortly- we fund it because it is the right thing to do. A lot of people were just starting/in the middle of their careers (with obligations) when this happened.


49er Letter:

Dear AOA President,

As one who has defended you in the recent past, I am disappointed to see the following in your 'response to the case against.' Maybe it was written in haste, under pressure or with a feeling of annoyance at the authors - I don't know, but I believe it to be provocative, ill advised and a source of stress for the 49ers.

You said:

'We would need a separate mandate going forward with more than two thirds of the Members voting in favor. There is a clear possibility, therefore, that the Settlement Offer could be voted down with a subsequent Motion on continued legal funding also being voted down; this is critical in any consideration of the Offer at present before us.'

I disagree strongly that there would be such a need. The current path, endorsed by the membership, is that the legal actions will be funded by the AOA. If this offer is voted down then that path has not changed. There will therefore be no need for a 'separate mandate' and I would view the attempted introduction of one with deep suspicion.

You are leaving yourself open to accusations of attempting to manipulate the membership with the threat of the withdrawal of funding for the legal action if the offer is voted down.

As I have no doubt that this is not your intent and that you would rightly deny such an accusation, I would suggest that you clarify or withdraw your comments.

[VR-HFX]

TB

Your comment:

VR- I wish it were that easy. It was business but got very personnel from CX. Trying to have people thrown out of their home, sending letters to banks - credit cards being cancelled, defamation of character, blacklisting, etc. Dont think a touchy feely letter to AS, on down would suffice.

My response:

I am very aware of all the pettiness and nastiness..and that will not be easy to forget. So forgive but do not forget. Understand from which part of the organisation the bulk of the acid originated.

Nothing will ever reach closure if all that cannot be put to one side for a moment.If that can be done, then I believe it is easy to take the next step. If not then closure may never be reached.

[Turbo Beaver]

VR- any reason why you pulled your last thread?

The AOA President has hinted at numerous 49 meeting overseas that certain people will not have a problem with the interview, but discouraged other members from moving back to Hong Kong. I believe that MG and NR already talked about who will be accepted and who will not. They think some will be too bitter, well take a look at some still working at CX, but hey, we are willing to put it all behind us, are they willing to do the same? I think not!



"Behind the scenes" politics regarding the 49 vote.

Hi xxxx,
Great to hear from you, thank you for your support.

I hope that you are not looking for 100%, cause that will never happen. There are many reasons but statistically:

Facts of industrial relation disputes (10-80-10):

There will always be a 10% group of militants who will reject, no matter how good the deal is.
There will always be a 10% group who will be intimidated, break and bend over backward for management.
There will always be an 80% group who can fall either way, looking at the merits of the "offer" itself.

With regard to the 49er Poll that you will receive approximately Tuesday, I would be shocked to see more than 10% of 49ers who intend to accept (4 or 5 at the most.) I think that 100% of the 80% will Reject the "offer", which means that 90% of the 49ers will reject. We shall see...


PS. I am confident to say that I would not pass the three interviews, as I have not received "the call" from MG. MG has personally called at least four 49ers (that we know of,) telling them that they would be "OK" during the interviews (wink, wink, nudge, nudge.) MG knows who will not be accepted and who will (of course, he will deny that.) These 49ers include ??????. (the first two will accept the deal, the third won't.) Another one was recently called, see this following message:

Gentlemen
It has been brought to my attention that one of our group recently electronically submitted his intention poll and EGM proxy vote both of which were NO. One hour later he was telephoned by the President who attempted to persuade him to change his vote.

In the course of the conversation he was told that the President could "virtually guarantee" that he would pass the "selection process" and that he would "probably" receive his Command within 12 to 18 months after his employment. He was also told that the AOA would pay for his commuting costs between his place of residence and his home base.

The terms of the current offer make no provision for such guarantees and/or financial undertakings

The timing of this phone call may be pure coincidence or it may be more sinister.

From information received, it would appear that the integrity of the EGM proxy voting system may not be so secure.

Ignoring matters of confidentiality and abuse of process for the moment, if any of you are subject to such communications, you might want to ask on what foundation such "virtual guarantees" are based and whether or not the membership of the association is aware that they are going to be asked to pay their own money to subsidies costs which, under the terms of a proper settlement, should rightfully be borne by the company.

Perhaps this is why budgetary matters have become such an issue all of a sudden. In the worst case scenario, if the Association is to subsidies the commuting costs of all the 49ers who wish to return to employment with CX, the cost could run into "millions of dollars".

[VR-HFX]

TB

No sinister reason. It was poorly worded and wanted to re-write when I was more awake.

My earlier suggestion was really to try and get the group to reach some internal consensus and try and take the lead rather than be dragged along by conflicting agendas. Very difficult I know but I really think it is the best way.

Otherwise you will end up playing the nod nod wink wink game alluded to above.

Only my view but I firmly believe management would be responsive to a straight approach with clear options from the group itself.

[Turbo Beaver]

Gentlemen

I see the 49ers have rejected the offer and that the GC has responded to the "Case Against".

All reponses are a little light on evidence and heavy on emotion but that is how I would characterise all of the information that the membership has received. As you will see below, I believe that following the 49ers lead is the only way to proceed. For me, the 49ers rejection of the offer is the most significant and relevant piece of evidence.

In this very difficult negotiation their recommendation is flawed and we need to vote against this motion and give them a mandate to go back to the company. The good relationship they have built with the company will serve them well in delivering to the company the message that the offer needs improving.

The paper posted on the web site sets out the case against the offer and begins by describing why this is a bad offer.
This boils down to 2 facts:
• It is not fair to the 49ers.
• It does little to ensure this will not happen again.
In other words, this does not achieve what we asked the committee to do and what they stated were the goals of the negotiation.

The question is: “Is there an alternative that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome; one that treats the 49ers more fairly and makes it less likely the company will act in the same way in the future?”
The GC judgment is that there is no realistic alternative.

Their judgment is based on 2 main arguments:
• There are limits to what remedies courts can decide on.

Since the offer is close to these limits it must be a ‘good’ offer.

• If we proceed we will face very high legal costs.

But these are poor and somewhat misleading arguments.
To take the first: Yes, the courts are limited by these remedies but the company is not. If it is in the company’s interests to do so, it will exceed these limits. It is likely that its reputation and that of its CX officers are worth a good deal more and that the company will, therefore, settle out of court. The fact is that in the context of the whole process, which could include going to court, there is no upper limit.
Indeed, the court remedies could now be viewed as a lower limit since the company has more or less matched them

That said, there is of course an upper limit to what CX would pay and that would be a sum just short of making the company insolvent. Obviously, this is very unlikely, so much so, that the GC, quite rightly, has not mentioned it. Now, this will seem a trivial point to make except that the GC has been selective in which unlikely events they mention. Take, for instance, their 2nd main argument, that of costs. Here they are happy to emphasise a very unlikely outcome. Nearly all the reasoning presented to us by the GC is based on worst-case scenarios where costs are concerned.
Yes it is technically possible that all costs are awarded against us, but it is not likely. To date most costs have been awarded against the company.

What would be more useful is guidance on likely outcomes rather than the limits that bound them. However, this is not as straightforward as defining the limits. It requires extensive knowledge of the legal process, allied with good judgment in assessing how badly the company wants to stay out of court. To whom can we turn for such advice?

Well, for many of us, when first faced with this decision, we instinctively turned to the 49ers themselves. For most, this was a question of morals – an obligation to support the 49ers in which ever way they preferred. Well, as it happens, this is a very sensible way to proceed and for more than the moral reasons that, for many, would suffice. We have the company to thank for a large and diverse group who after 3 1⁄2 years are well versed in the legal process. And now, thanks to the company they are well motivated to make the correct decision.

The 49ers have an offer that we have been told is reasonable.
(Do not forget that the general membership is voting on funding; the <10 months / job interview> is an offer to the 49ers and it is theirs to accept or reject.) The 49ers have considered the offer and it would seem they are about to overwhelmingly reject it. The 49ers believe that rejection is an alternative that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome; an outcome that treats the 49ers more fairly. We need debate no further. The 49ers are a large diverse group, well versed in the legal process and strategy and well motivated to make a sound decision.
If, as looks very likely, the 49ers reject the offer, there is no alternative to a NO vote to allow the legal cases to proceed. In the context of all that has happened and all that inevitably waits for us in the future, this is one of the more simple decisions we have been faced with.

[6feetunder]

When the 49ers were terminated, there was a universal outcry from within our ranks which acknowledged the fact that their termination without due process was unwarranted and unjust. We rallied around our friends and colleagues to assure them that we would not allow this injustice to stand. Three years later we have kept the faith. Our support of the 49ers and their struggle to find a fair resolution to this affair is both admirable and necessary. As a group, we have helped in the very important area of financial assistance for nearly three years. Quite possibly, the greater impact of this monetary support is in the message it sends: we will not give up on the 49ers and their families. This is something we should be very proud of because, through this support, we have stamped an indelible mark of integrity on our Association.

The purpose of this letter is to re-focus our thoughts on our 49er colleagues. This will help to reinforce the reason why we continue to support them and the good we are doing by our continued support. They have been through an experience that not one of us would wish to have, but we have not allowed them to endure it alone. This is a bond of fellowship that our Association can be proud of and which will serve us well in the years to come. Let’s continue our struggle to right the wrong and ensure that the 49ers will always be a central part of who we are.

Murray Alan Gardner - 9th July 2004


Our decision to recommend acceptance is the only one possible from a careful and logical assessment of the facts and it takes into consideration the best interests of both the 49ers and of the Association. The decision was supported by an overwhelming majority of your GC. Has fair treatment for the 49ers been achieved? No. but I would say to you that we are confident the best Offer possible has been obtained. While we all want to have fair treatment for the 49ers, if that is not obtainable then we need to be pragmatic and look to achieve the best possible outcome.

Murray Alan Gardner - 5th January 2005

Where did the "integrity" go in the intervening 6 months?

[Turbo Beaver]

Hi all,

This is a_serious Motion_and though we have all had enough emails to chew on I suspect that some may still be wondering what the right way to vote is. I write to you in the hope that I may clarify the salient points as I see them. I present them in bullet points as much as possible to save you time.

1. The 49ers have a lot at stake and have a wealth of experience with this subject matter and they have voted 41:4 against the offer. Do not be fooled into thinking that it means something else because it doesn't! We would never put our hand up to remain 49ers for a second longer than we have to unless we had good reason - and right now we have good reason.

2. The_funding_scaremongering_is a red herring and was trotted out because nothing else will sell this crap deal. In my opinion we are not enjoying good leadership on this issue and certain realities are either not understood or are being ignored - we must do what is right for our union and vote this motion down.

3. The legals have two big cost periods being right at the beginning and right at the end - we have had the first one. We only cop the second one if we see through the whole case and then go into a series of appeals. Given that our lawyers are still saying to our faces that we will never see the inside of a court the scaremongering about the worst case scenarios conveniently ignores the obvious and most likely outcome - sensible settlement just before we go to court. Right now the cases are idling over not costing anything much and this will continue to be the case until we get deep into the courtroom phase - so there is no hurry and no imminent calamity. There is plenty of action to be had before we get to court - just look at the FAU example. You have to ask yourself why the big crisis spin - and why now?

4. This is not an emotional decision this is a smart negotiating position - we know they can't go to court and right now is just the first offer - as usual too cheap too late. Let's get this done properly and in a business-like fashion_because we all know that_the current deal is unacceptable. Do not fall into the spin about 49ers being offered jobs because we have not been offered jobs - we have been offered a half-arsed interview process which is full of jeopardy for the 49ers. Many have convinced themselves that this will get the 49ers their jobs back - it is only an offer to interview.

5. Timing is everything and the current scaremongering is a rearguard action - vote NO and we'll have plenty of time to sort it out. There are no big legal costs for quite a few months now so let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - we have plenty of time. Our leadership has tried to rush you and the 49ers and frighten_us into making a serious error. Let's slow the pace and deal with this in our usual measured and well informed manner.

6. If we based all of our decision making on unlikely worst case scenarios we'd never get off the ground - time for a reality check - this motion needs to go down strongly and send a message to the defendants that the next offer needs to be more sensible. Btw, history tells us it won't be the next offer but it may be the one after that - it is never the first offer ;-)

We have a very short time to make sure this Motion is defeated for the sake of our union and the 49ers - please do what you can in that time.

Best regards,

[Wizofoz]

Out of interest, when is the ballot being held?

[BusyB]

The Members know!

[Wizofoz]

Well if it's a secret to non members, why is it being debated on a public web site???:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Turbo Beaver]

February 15, 2005

Results should be in early afternoon HKT.

[water check]

...were debating this on a 'public website' because the AOA leadership closed down our own version of this site, called CPRUNE. This was done because the members were debating the rather less than honest machinations going on within the AOA executive during the debate over our new housing and rostering deals. The comments amongst members were mostly negative, soooooo, our leadership decided to do away with our debating site.....how democratic..!! For that reason, we have now reverted back to PPRUNE. Please feel free to add your comments.

[tamalai]

Actually this ongoing action DOES have an effect on many things, the Union has, over the past months made serious attempts to get a working relationship going with management with a view to resolving outstanding issues and moving forward with negotiation of such insignificant matters as pay rises, etc etc.
The GC position has always been that full relations with CX would not be restored until such time as the position regarding the 49'ers has been settled................to this end the offer to settle.
This offer can be viewed in two ways:
1. Weakness on the part of the company, the usual bo##ox about, how they will never go to court, they cannot have the public see what terrible managers they are etc etc (Dream on boys, I think you'll find they are pretty happy!!!)

2. A realistic offer of settlement based on the Maximum award a court is likely to make plus a review of employment status that no court can award (I refer you to the previously stated Barristers Opinion, "If we won this offer in court, we'd be hailing it as a major victory")

Cost of the action is not the issue, the issue is why prolong the whole mess when a reasonable offer of settlement is on the table ??? Had the Union done what it should have done to support it's members and gone on strike the day these guys where terminated this discussion would not be neccessary!!!!!

[shortly]

Nope the offer wouldn't be necessary and we would all be working for a darn sight less than we do now. I assume the airline senior management has a contingency plan in the cupboard ready to dust off to cover the 'total strike' scenario. It would be extremely similar to what happened in OZ. I note the offer was rejected by 36% of the pilots and so the dance continues.

[Freehills]

"Be it resolved that the Membership of the Association accepts the Company Offer of 14th December 2004 on the 49ers.

Motion failed with 63.9% cast in favour and 36.1% cast against the motion"

Close, very close. Possibly the worst result it could be. The Company and GC will feel vindicated that the agreement they came to was accepted by a big majority - the 49'ers will feel bitter that there is so obviously little support for them. Would have been better to have either been yes, or a resounding no.

This vote makes it look like the AOA members agree with the company that the 49'ers are an embarrassment to be forgotten

[FlexibleResponse]

St James Ethics Centre Plato records Socrates as having asked the fundamental question of ethics, "What ought one do?". Whenever one seeks to answer that question, then one is operating in the ethical dimension. There are a number of things that should be noted about this question. The first thing to note relates to what Socrates did not ask! Socrates did not begin by asking questions such as, "What is good, what is evil?" or, "What is right, what is wrong?". Rather, he asked an immensely practical question that confronts people whenever they have a decision to make, whenever they are in a position to exercise their capacity to choose. Socrates did not mark off a special area which was to be the terrain for ethical reflection.
We are honoured to stand amongst such men.

[VR-HFX]

FR

Thanks for the inspiration. I thought I had said more than enough already but obviously not judging by the burst of recent posts.

Indeed, what ought one do?

When the company and the GC were first whispering in ears, I dragged out the GUILT/BLAME matrix that I used to use to negotiate with the kids when they were teens. I reached the conclusion that a settlement was indeed possible, as long as both emotion and the AOA stayed outside once the door started to open.

Basically, for this case, the matrix goes like this:
(the numbers are based on my assessment)
GUILT: (each party allocates themself a score out of ten)
CX Mgt 2,AOA GC/GenSec 3,49ers 1
If we have accounted for 50% of the guilt and everyone has a score on the board, then we move forward.

BLAME: (each party allocates to themself and the other parties a score that must total 10)
CX Mgt - CX 1/AOA 5/49ers 4
AOA - CX 6/AOA 2/49ers 2
49ers - CX 6/AOA 2/49ers 2

In this case, if the 49ers get less than 50% of the blame but also have a score, then we move forward again.

Obviously this is a very in-exact science with a lot of moving parts, but I trust you get the drift.It is basically about realising that in most conflict situations, the guilt and blame are actually shared.

Since 2001, a lot of the original cast has moved on, and many that haven't, have their own form of selective amnesia.

So all parties feel some guilt and all would blame themselves for some of the problem. Therefore a solution must be possible.

Who then should now be involved? IMHO, the 49ers and the company...end of story. You are united enough and organised enough to walk alone if you want real closure.As I said earlier, take your position to the company directly.The AOA cannot act as an honest broker in this.

If and when you can move, remember the following:

-All the business school theory about negotiating does not apply. The company is not offering to settle because of pending court cases or potentially bad publicity. They have provisioned for any court settlements. Any negative PR will have only a very small audience and soon become tomorrow's fish wrapper. Indeed using the reputation argument could very well blow up in your face.
- Lawyers know nothing of the real world. They only understand litigation and torts. The legal process may bring a settlementof some kind, it cannot bring closure.

- Old Mohawk Indian Proverb - "It is hard to see the future with tears in your eyes". Emotion will not get it done for you. If you want closure, put what you want succinctly on paper and take it quietly to those I suggested.

If I see this thread go quiet, progress is afoot. Good luck

PS:

Tamalai

I hope time will show you that the AOA was never, is not and will never be a union. It pretended to be and look what happened.

Next time you open your wallet, think about how much of your credit rating is due to who you work for in HK and not what your profession is. On paper the bank may hold the mortgage but they do so only in escrow for the guarantor. Only then will you understand that the AOA pretended to be something it wasn't and could never be.There simply is not the leverage available to exercise industrial muscle, it must be done the hard way by lobbying and negotiating ad nauseum.

That is why many voted with their feet, not out of petulance but out of a basic philosophical difference that arose when we started paying someone to tell us we were fools and that good old fashioned union muscle would get us what we wanted.

[christep]

Some light relief today from Hemlock:
http://www.geocities.com/hkhemlock/rooster/diary-19feb05.html

[Plastique]

I'm standing beside the swing-o-meter and it appears that a swing of 13 votes are all that would have been needed to get the 2/3 majority needed.

That sends out one hell of a message to the AOA and the 49ers.

Who is the winner? The lawyers.
Will the AOA membership support the 49ers in their action? Well almost 2/3's thought that they should have taken the settlement offered.

I think things are about to get very interesting.

[cpdude]

The only winners here are the lawyers...they never loose!:E

[Turbo Beaver]

Well you heard it here first.....


The one thing that we've all said is that we won't talk CoS until the 49ers are settled. Yes, we've given away: contract compliance, PR, HCA3390, HCMP1679, Recruitment Ban, SLS, RP04, AFTLS, AHK scope, housing - anybody remember anything else?

However, we've always said: No CoS until 49ers solved {No Dave No Deal}

So are we going to let our GC go and "negotiate" CoS without getting The 49ers deal? You bet we are!!

The GC have been in for months "brainstorming" {please excuse the oxymoron} CoS in an effort to seduce management into dealing on The 49ers. Well of course, the AOA have just rejected the Offer.

What would you do next?




Say "Very sorry, no age 60 retirement, no B Scale retirees, no mixed crew flying (remember ASL?) until we've solved The 49ers".


Say"Ok well we got close - pity only 4 49ers wanted the Offer. Anyway let's now deal on COS and ignore that slight problem".



Of course, as soon as you enter into CoS talks it would be quite ok for CX to say "Well we're now in KA/CX merger planning - don't worry, the savings will only be in all of the other departments, your seniority list won't be touched...."

Now that would be ok, wouldn't it.... after all you're about to get a 2% pay rise when you ditch The 49ers....?

[cpdude]

It is really too bad that some and possibly many can't understand that there is no winning possible. It's all about losing and how much or quickly we lose it is mostly up to us.

Watch how much we lose now that we upset the bear!:(

Silly me...one too many "o's"

[jtr]

Loose - Anti-tight

Loosing - Engaging in acts of harmonic vocalisation whilst using the little boys/girls room

Lose - Anti-win

Losing - Anti-winning


Sorry:rolleyes:

[BusyB]

Thanks JTR, thats been really irritating, I must be getting old too.

[tamalai]

Looks like the end is nigh....................

Roll on April !!!

[cpdude]

ahhh...the vote to say goodbye. It's been a slice...we tried...but goodbye. Had to happen...cut the rope or they would drag us all down!:(

[Turbo Beaver]

OPTIONS
In deciding what Motions are required, the GC considered the various courses of action available to the Association. The Motions that we conclude are necessary are covered in some detail later in this Newsletter, but first it is appropriate that we should provide you with insight into your GC thinking on each of the options considered.
Do Nothing
It has been suggested by some Members that the best approach for now is to do nothing, allow the dust to settle and then perhaps a path forward may become clearer. Moreover, they suggest that it is appropriate to assume that the funding for the legals will materialize at the required moment and that, in any case, the continued existence of the legal actions will elicit a significantly better offer of settlement from the Company at some stage prior to their conclusion.
Whilst, we fully agree that sitting on our hands and taking stock of the situation was the most sensible initial action, we believe it is clear from ample Member feedback on costs and the recently defined position of the Company, as described in our Newsletter of 25th February, that time is not on our side.
Therefore, we have rejected this strategy in favour of a more proactive approach to gain positive guidance from the Membership.
Re-consider the Offer
Some Members, including some 49ers, consider that the best course of action is to simply vote again on the Offer, as provided for under Rule 17.50. Moreover, we are advised by our industrial consultant that this is a common occurrence in similar situations. Certainly, there is new information available for us all to consider:
• Prior to the vote on the Offer, none of us could accurately judge the level of support for continuing forward with the legal cases. We did not know if 10% or 90% of the Membership would support acceptance. The narrow defeat of the previous motion may indicate a serious shortfall in the required Membership support to continue forward on the legal path with the financial commitment that entails.
• The Company has indicated that the current Offer will not be available beyond 16th May and that they will then make a cash-only Offer through a “payment into court”. We must assume that this means that the opportunity of re-employment, an important component of our original objective for a 49ers resolution, would then be lost.
• As described in the legal advice provided by Instructing Solicitors (still available to you on the web site), a ”payment into court” considerably increases the likely costs to the Association of the actions going forward.
• Following the vote on the Offer, we have been petitioned by some 49ers and Members requesting a re-vote.

Whilst this clearly remains an option worthy of consideration, the GC does have to recognize that the Offer did not achieve the required 2/3rds support. Moreover, it is likely that many of those who voted against acceptance of the Offer would feel that the new information in itself does not warrant a re-consideration. Those Members would feel that the appropriate next step should be to identify the funding to carry forward with the legal actions. We believe that this view must be acknowledged and a feasible plan developed.
However, as previously advised, in conjunction with our Solicitors we have concluded that we do not have the required mandate to simply continue with the funding of the legal actions on the basis of the failure of the vote on the Offer. Additionally, there is clear jeopardy to the Association in this route and therefore we need to know that the commitment is there in order to go forward with the legal actions. We believe it would be better to know the answer to this question whilst there are still other options available to us.
Vote on Legal Funding
The situation is that no positive mandate for funding of the actions has ever been obtained from the Membership. The actions were started in 2001 as a proper legal response to the 49er dismissals and to serve as a pressure point to promote a resolution through negotiation. The financial ramifications of funding the actions to conclusion were less of an issue at the time as it was hoped that we would never reach that point before a resolution through negotiation could be achieved.
To date, we have spent HKD12 million of the Association’s money in support of these actions (allowing for monies returned in costs awards to do with a number of appeal and jurisdictional rulings). We estimate that the Company, as is normally the case, will have spent more.
In going forward with the legal actions, we are advised that to get the actions to a verdict will cost a further HKD13 million. As the legal process is now approaching the point where expenditure beyond our current reserves will be required, ensuring that the proper funding is in place has been a growing concern of your GC for some time. However, for obvious reasons these were concerns that we considered should be kept extremely confidential prior to entering into any negotiations with the Company.
Our concern is to ensure that:
• There are sufficient funds available to bring these actions to a verdict, and
• in a situation where the actions were discontinued due to lack of funds, or where a costs award is made against the 49ers, that sufficient Association funds are available to cover any costs. If this precaution is not taken, individual 49er plaintiffs would be exposed to the near certainty of having to pay the Company costs in the action to that point. These costs could be considerable. If we consider that Company costs are likely to already exceed the HKD 12 million the Association has spent, and with significantly more costs ahead, this would obviously be a disastrous situation for the 49ers.

We believe that these are both strong reasons to ask the question on funding and if Members are not willing to bear the considerable cost of continuing to the point of legal finality, it is better that the 49ers find out sooner rather than later.
Your General Committee has examined a number of options for providing the funding required to carry the legal actions forward, but has concluded that a levy is the most sensible option. Under Rule 6.4 a levy is a payment in addition to normal subscriptions which may be raised for a particular purpose. A levy in instalments would spread the cost, but ensure that the funds are in place prior to the point at which the increased expenditure will be required. The extent of the levies may be mitigated by other means and we have investigated the following:
• Sale of premises. Sale of premises could provide funds of between HKD 3 and 4 million but would expose the Association to relocation and ongoing rental costs in a volatile market. We believe this is a poor option.
• Borrowing. The only collateral the Association could advance is premises. Due to the age of the premises we are advised that the loan amount would not exceed HKD 2.5 million. In borrowing money for this purpose, we would be placing a debt burden on future Members that your Committee, and our auditors, feels is more properly borne by current Members. We believe this is a poor option.
• IFALPA Funding. IFALPA will not agree to fund these actions and have advised us as follows: “The only financial support that IFALPA offers is suspension of subscriptions to Member Associations in financial difficulties and help with representation at conferences, meetings etc. We are a federation of pilot associations and requests for support for any cause would certainly have to come through our Member Associations. We would not support any individual pilot or group of pilots in a legal action as such a precedent would have impossible consequences. “
• Reduce staff costs. VPA conducted a very thorough audit of our staff costs only nine months ago, including benchmarking salaries against the marketplace. The conclusion is that our staff structure and cost base is efficient and appropriate for our needs in the near and medium term.
• Re-direction of subsistence monies from the 49ers to legal funding. This is a decision that properly belongs with the Membership and that option is available to you through motions on this agenda.
• Donations. Donations are a very feasible means of mitigating the amount of any levy required. To that end we have established a HSBC account for the purpose of collecting donations. This account is now open and ready to receive donations. Checks should be made payable to “HKAOA” and marked on the back “49er Legal Fund”. If you wish to make a direct transfer, please contact the AOA Office. Any donations received will be used only for funding 49er legal actions, and only if the decision of the Association is to continue to fund the actions. Should it be the decision of the Association to not continue funding the actions, any donations will be returned in full. Should it be the decision of the Association to continue to fund the actions, the donations will be used to mitigate the subsequent amount of the two levies when they are raised.

OTHER ISSUES
Subscriptions
In response to the feedback we have received, it is clear that we must provide the Membership with an opportunity to determine what it will fund in addition to normal running costs.
Consequently, the Committee has decided that a basic subscription rate should be set to cover only Association running costs with a small buffer which would allow for limited additional expenses. Funding for other issues such as 49er legal and subsistence costs should be raised through special levies that would be voted on by the Membership. In that way the Membership can decide precisely what it is prepared to fund. Therefore, with effect from 1st May the subscription rate will be reduced to 1.5%.
As happened when the subs were reduced from 4% to 3%, this does not require a Membership vote. However, the Membership will be presented with options for maintaining funding at current levels, or even higher, should you choose to do so.
It is important to note that special levies would not be borne by Officers who join the Association for the first time after the levy had been raised, but would form part of the rejoining fee for any former Member seeking to rejoin the Association. In this way we believe we can encourage Officers to join the Association who our experience shows are intimidated by the current high cost of membership that has resulted from events with which they feel little connection.
Subsistence
As you are all aware, 49er subsistence has been an integral element of our support for the 49ers since they were terminated and it is something of which this Association can be extremely proud. I am confident that none of us would want to share either their considerable loss or traumatic experience and I know that the 49ers are universally appreciative of this assistance. Moreover, they have voluntarily ‘tightened their belts’ on several occasions now to enable us to reduce the burden on the Members.
Nevertheless, approximately half of our current 3% subscription rate is used to provide an indefinite commitment to a subsistence program that allows any 49er under age 55 to request assistance of up to HKD 25,000 per month.
Whilst your Committee strongly believes we should continue to financially assist the 49ers, having now provided subsistence for over three and a half years and in light of the ongoing uncertainty of when a resolution will be found, we believe we should seek to define a reasonable time limit on continued subsistence, and the level that Members are prepared to support . On the expiry of this period the Membership would be able to review its commitment.
Therefore the GC will provide an option for you to do this through a levy. As funds raised through levies are directed at their sole purpose, should further ‘belt tightening’ or reduced demand lead to a surplus, it can easily be identified and returned to the Membership.
ACTIONS
After a full consideration of all factors, your Committee has decided upon the following actions:
1. Reduce the subscription rate to 1.5% wef 1st May 2005.
2. Convene an EGM to debate and vote on a series of motions on raising levies to cover most 49er related costs, including continued funding of the legal actions.
3. Only in the event that funding for the legal actions is not mandated by the Membership, reconsider the Company Offer.

EGM MOTIONS
Motion 1 – LEVY TO FUND LEGAL ACTIONS
Be it resolved that the Association will continue to fund the ongoing legal actions relating to the 49er dismissals for those plaintiffs whom it represents, and to that end the following levies will be raised and payable in addition to basic subscriptions:
A levy of up to twelve (12) months subscriptions (at the level of 1.5% of basic salary) to be payable in equal monthly installments commencing on 1st July 2005; plus.
A levy of up to twenty four (24) months subscriptions (at the level of 1.5% of basic salary), to be raised as and when required to cover any additional costs of the actions.
Such levies will be payable by Full Members who are Members of the Association on 1st June 2005 or former Members who subsequently rejoin.

These levies would raise a funding guarantee that would ensure that the actions could be brought to a conclusion without exposing the Association or individual 49ers to the potential of a massive financial liability. If it eventuates that the full amount of the levies are not required after they have been raised, the unused portion will be returned to you, as provided under the Rules.
Motion 2 – LEVY TO MAINTAIN CURRENT 49ER SUBSISTENCE LEVELS
Be it resolved that the Association will continue to provide current levels of subsistence and medical coverage to any 49er requesting such assistance, for a period of up to twelve (12) months, and to that end the following levy, payable in addition to basic subscriptions, will be raised:
A levy of up to twelve (12) months subscriptions (at the level of 1.5% of basic salary), to be payable in equal monthly installments commencing on 1st July 2005.
This levy will be payable by Full Members who are Members of the Association on 1st June 2005 or former Members who subsequently rejoin.
Current subsistence arrangements provide for any 49er below retirement age to request assistance up to the amount of HKD 25,000 per month. When combined with the new basic subscriptions rate of 1.5% this proposed levy would equate to our current subscriptions level of 3% and reflects the fact that 49er subsistence currently accounts for approximately half of our annual expenditure.
The continuance of this subsistence for a further limited period would provide much appreciated stability and reassurance to the 49ers and their families as they deal with the uncertainty of the immediate future. Your Committee urges you to continue supporting this level of subsistence. Should further belt tightening, or reduced demand result in a surplus, this surplus will be returned to you, as provided under the Rules.
Motion 3 – TO CONTINUE 49ER SUBSISTENCE WITHIN RESOURCES
It is important to note that Motion 3 will only become effective in the situation where Motion 2 has failed. However, you will need to submit a vote on this motion and your vote on this motion should assume that Motion 2 has failed.
Be it resolved that the Association will continue to provide subsistence and medical coverage to 49ers within available resources, for a period of up to twelve (12) months. Be it further resolved that this motion will only be effective if Motion 2 fails.
Your Committee has asked that you continue supporting the current levels of subsistence for a limited period through a positive election for Motion 2. However, should you feel unwilling to continue to fund that level of support, your Committee would urge you to at least give your support to the continuation of subsistence payments in some form. In that situation, we would have to manage our available resources through the introduction of significantly more stringent criteria than those that currently exist.
Motion 4 – TO ACCEPT COMPANY OFFER
It is important to note that Motion 4 will only become effective in the situation where Motion 1 has failed. However, you do need to submit a vote on this motion and your vote on this motion should assume that Motion 1 has failed.

Be it resolved that the Membership of the Association accepts the Company Offer of 14th December 2004 on the 49ers. Be it further resolved that this motion will only be effective if Motion 1 fails.
In the situation where Motion 1 fails, the Association will have decided to discontinue support of the legal actions and acceptance of the Offer would seem to be the only sensible alternative remaining for the Association. Therefore, regardless of how you vote on the Legal Funding motion, we believe you should strongly consider voting for acceptance of the Offer on this occasion. This would allow those 49ers who wish to do so to accept the Offer, and those who do not to retain their right to continue with the legal actions on an individual and self funded basis.
SUMMARY
There is no doubt that the realities of our situation have conspired to place us in a difficult position and no path forward exists that will fully satisfy all Members. Moreover, we are faced with difficult choices that will require significant commitment or compromise.
We are certain that the outcome of the vote on the Offer has created the potential for a very real Membership crisis within our Association. Whilst obtaining a resolution to the 49er situation and taking care of their welfare remain very high priorities for your Committee, we are now required to provide the Membership with an opportunity to clearly indicate to what extent they are prepared to continue funding their Association and the needs of the 49er cause. Simply put, Members are the Association’s lifeblood and we are only as effective as the size of our Membership and their commitment allows.
In the circumstances, your Committee and I have striven to provide you with a clear description of the challenges that face us going forward. We believe that the result of the vote on these motions will provide the clearest possible indication as to the direction that is supported by the majority of the Membership. This is the direction that is most likely to further the interests of the 49ers and of your Association.
We ask for respectful and constructive debate, and we urge you to remain informed, during the period leading up to the EGM, which will be held in the middle of April.
Sincerely
President
04 March 2005

Dear Committee

Thank you for your reply to my earlier letter, dated 17th February, which contained the following text:

“…it remains the policy that such budgetary matters are confidential to the GC. However, I can assure you that the answers provided to you at the EGM were correct based on the information recently provided to me by both the Treasurer and the Administrator. Could I further assure you that all members will be provided with all information necessary to make fully informed decisions on any motions relating to cost issues going forward.”

I have read your newsletter dated 4th March 2005, that explains that your priority is to continue the legal funding by introducing Special Levies amounting to HK$48million. That equates to me paying HK$102,360. I’m afraid that you have given absolutely no explanation of the mathematics involved, so I have not been “provided with all information necessary”.

Please answer the following:

1. The current annual income of the HKAOA is approximately HK$24m i.e. approximately HK$2m per month at 3% subs. From Special Levies 1&2 (Motion 1), you will raise HK$12m and HK$24m, respectively. You stated earlier that you needed HK$30m. Why have you increased this to HK$36m?

2. If the court cases are not scheduled to finish until the end of 2006, or longer including separate damages hearings, why not raise Special Levy 1 over 18months or even 2 years i.e. a final levy of perhaps 0.75% coinciding with date of actual payment?

3. You are allowing for CX costs to be broadly equivalent to ours. Assuming that we will spend HK$12m + HK$13m, CX costs will be _HK$25m. Indeed, Special Levy 2 equates to HK$24m. However, costs are awarded at _70%, therefore the probable liability = HK$17.5m. Why raise an extra HK$7.5m?

4. Item (3) assumed that CX will win in all 3 jurisdictions and they “pay into court” in all 3 jurisdictions – otherwise we are not liable for their costs. If CX “pay into court” and lose then they will still be liable for our costs to date (70% x HK$12m = HK$8.5m). As the lawyers are confident in all jurisdictions, the more likely exposure is 17.5 – 8.5 = HK$9m, therefore why budget for HK$25m?

5. The Committee has previously given direction on all Motions yet no direction is given on Motion 1. Does the Committee urge us to vote for or against Motion 1?

6. You state that staff costs have been “benchmarked”. What other pilots’ unions pay a basic salary of >HK$1.3m for a General Secretary and have less than 1000 members?

7. Why do we need a General Secretary and an Assistant General Secretary when membership numbers have fallen by a third? As the industrial climate is more straightforward now, why not just have an Asst GenSec?

8. When did the 49er Objective become “to get the best possible outcome”?

9. Today, the lowest Seniority number is 1760. There are 123 ASL crew including 61 Flight Engineers. The Association has 9 Associate Class A members. Please explain:

The Association currently has 925 Members. There are 1912 pilots in Cathay Pacific.

10. You appear to have reduced subs because of adverse membership input indicating they will leave. Which gives more income:
a. 875 members paying 1.5% or
b. 825 members paying 3%?

11. Please confirm that that an EGM is required to have a Rule change? When are you going to change the levels in Rule 6.3?

Yours sincerely


This from another forum:

Is that true the general secretary gets paid 1.3million a year? That\'s more than a B scale captain. Does IFALPA pay that sort of money? Sounds way over the top. Now that we give in to whatever cx wants why do we need a general secretary?
If they\'re serious about saving money then there\'s a straight $1.3million saving.



10th March 2005

APRIL EGM

Gentlemen

I write to you all regarding the upcoming EGM scheduled for April in which a number of motions regarding financial assistance to the 49ers are intended to be tabled. Naturally this is a matter of the utmost importance, not only for the 49ers but for the Membership as a whole.

There exists a concern that there are a number of recent developments of which you may not be aware and, therefore, that may not have been taken into account during your deliberations prior to deciding upon the current course of action. Some of these are summarised below.


1. Australian Court Case

At a directions hearing held at the end of February last, the judge set a court date of 6th March 2006 for the case to be heard and set aside 4 weeks for the hearing. This hearing will rule on all matters, both substantive and jurisidictional. In addition, she also set a very detailed timetable of procedural steps to be completed between now and the hearing itself. Now that a specific timetable for this case is available, this facilitates the construction of a more accurate cash flow and business plan regarding possible funding requirements


2. UK Court Case

The case in the Appeal Court is to be heard on either Monday 14th March or Tuesday 15th March 2005 in the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London. This will determine once and for all the issues of jurisdiction. The only possible further avenue of appeal available to either party is the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. In any event, the hearing in the Appeal Court will make case law and set precedent. This is a very significant development on its own. In addition, however, it also has a direct bearing on possible future funding requirements depending on the outcome. Therefore, the view can be held that it would be premature to make irrevocable decisions on funding matters until the result of this hearing is known.


3. Supplementary Funding

Very recently, an independent sponsor has come forward and offered substantial funding for the purpose of assisting with financing the legal actions should this be required. Negotiations on this offer are at an advanced stage and should be completed within the next 3 to 4 weeks. Given that the GC is presently considering a financial plan for the way forward, this is obviously a significant development which should be taken into account.


4. Membership

A significant number of Members, have approached the 49ers and given undertakings to the effect that, should the Association decide to cease funding assistance, they will leave the Association and pay the equivalent of their membership dues directly to the 49ers in order that financial assistance may continue. In addition, it is understood that plans are already in hand to set up an alternative union in such a situation. This is a very serious matter and has significant ramifications for the future viability of the Association itself given that its Membership and finances are already depleted.


Might I suggest that an evaluation of these and other matters be completed by a sub-committee and its report be circulated to the Membership for consideration prior to any irrevocable motions being put to the vote. Might I also suggest that the sub-committee consist of 6-persons: two General Committee Members, two 49ers and two other Full Members; one each “other Full Member” to be chosen by the General Committee and the 49ers respectively, although each may be neither a General Committee Member nor a 49er.

It is strongly recommend that until the General Committee has had the opportunity to properly evaluate these matters, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Membership to be asked to decide on the need for special levies.

Yours sincerely

[tamalai]

"The lawyers are confident in all jurisdictions"................quote..........ever met a lawyer who'll tell you your case is crap ??? He's in Business like everyone else, he'll tell you what you want to hear !!!!, so why bother to make provision for anything ??? I mean the lawyers are confident, so whats the problem ???

The problem is that going to court is the same as rolling dice, you win some, you loose some, in fact more often than not you loose.....................................

so, the best way forward would be to accept the company offer and let everyone get on with their lives !!!!!

[Turbo Beaver]

AUSTRALIA LEGAL UPDATE
A directions hearing was held at the end of February in SYD to set court dates and determine the timetable
for the remaining steps to be completed prior to the trial. The following are excerpts from the judge's
directions:
1. All matters (including the proceedings remitted from the High Court) to be heard together;
2. That the evidence in each matter, so far as it is relevant, be evidence in each other matter;
3. That discovery in each matter, so far as it is relevant, be discovery in each other matter;
This means that contrary to the defendant’s petitions and appeals in both the Industrial Relations
Commission (IRC) and the High Court, the substantive matters (i.e. the facts surrounding the purported
dismissals) and jurisidictional matters will be heard be heard together at the same time and become a matter
of public record.
4. By 8 April 2005 the defendants must file and serve their Reply (i.e. their defence);
5. By 6 May 2005 the plaintiffs must file and serve a Response to the Reply;
6. By 13 May 2005 both parties must apply to the Commission for an order for discovery;
7. The plaintiffs must file and serve all affidavits to be relied upon in evidence by 1 August 2005;
8. The defendants must file and serve all affidavits to be relied upon in reply by 1 October 2005;
9. The plaintiffs must file and serve all affidavits in response to the defendant's affidavits by 21
October 2005;
10. Within 14 days of all affidavit material having been filed, the plaintiffs must serve a list of all
documents on which we intend to rely by way of evidence in the proceedings on all parties;
11. Within 14 days of the receipt of that list, the defendants must serve on us a list of any additional
documents on which they intend to rely by way of evidence in the proceedings;
12. Thereafter, within a further period of 14 days, both parties must advise all other parties as to which
of the documents contained in each list will be the subject of consent to become evidence in the
proceedings;
13. Within a further period of 14 days the plaintiffs must prepare, file and serve a Court Bundle of all
documents which are by consent to become evidence in the proceedings and, in another section, all
documents which both parties seek to become evidence in the proceedings but the tender of which is
opposed;
This timetable takes us to the end of December.
Four weeks has been set aside by the Commission to hear our unfair contract claims, commencing on
6 March 2006.
Whilst this date is one year away, this was necessary in order to provide an appropriate amount of time for
the procedural matters to be attended to (as above), and was the first available time in her Honour's diary
for a four week trial.
To quote our lawyers, "We are now firmly on track for determination of your unfair contract claims."
We now have a fixed timetable and a court date set for Australia. This is very positive news and belies
some predictions that this case was at least 2 years or more away from being heard. It also means that an
accurate cash flow prediction of the probable costs leading up to the case can now be prepared.
As you know, to date we have been successful in every hearing that has been held in Australia in both the
IRC and the High Court. We have also been awarded costs each time and have recovered 80% of our costs
to date.

7th March 2005
UK LEGAL UPDATE
The cases filed in the UK Employment Tribunal (ET) were originally challenged by the defendants on the
basis that the ET did not have jurisdiction to hear the cases. In the first hearing the ET ruled that it does
have jurisdiction to hear the cases filed by the Veta employees who are resident in the UK. The defendants
appealed this decision to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT). Because of developments in case law
in another case (Serco vs Lawson), the EAT referred the matter back to the ET to be heard afresh. Rather
than go back to the ET, it was agreed that the matter should be passed up to the Court of Appeal.
The case was heard by a bench of three judges chaired by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips, with Lord
Justices Waller and Maurice Kay in attendance at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand on 14th & 15th
March 2005. The fact that the case was heard by the Master of the Rolls indicates the seriousness with
which the court views these matters. Unlike the ET and/or EAT, any judgement by the Court of Appeal will
set precedent and become case law.
Another case dealing with similar matters (Botham vs Ministry of Defence) was heard alongside our own.
Rather than being subject to a full hearing, this case was passed up to the House of Lords, the highest court
in the UK, for hearing together with Serco vs Lawson. Our own case, however, was subject to a full hearing
in the Court of Appeal.
Whilst there are similarities between our own case and Serco vs Lawson & Botham vs MoD, the principal
and significant difference is that the latter 2 actions are being brought by employees wholly resident outside
the UK (Ascension Island and Germany respectively) against UK government departments. In our case, the
action is brought by UK residents against an overseas based company that has a place of business in the
UK.
The hearing commenced at 10:30 on 14th March and finished at 13:30 on 15th March. Our barrister
presented our case first, the defendant’s barrister then presented their case and our barrister then responded.
The arguments centred around whether or not the original ET had erred in its ruling. Much of the debate
was on dry legal points that do not bear amplification in this report. There were some interesting
developments, however.
The respondent’s barrister made some statements that were factually incorrect. He stated that the Veta
employees were paid in HKD, that there were no separate pay scales for the various base areas and tried to
infer that the pilots did not pay tax in the UK. These statements were refuted by our barrister and led the
bench to ask for copies of the full contracts of employment and the Basings Agreement to be provided for
reference during their deliberations. Up until this point, only certain extracts from these documents had
been entered into evidence. Our barrister was pleased with this development.
The defendant’s barrister, on advice from a member of Cathay Pacific management who was present at the
hearing, also told the court that it was illegal for any air carrier to operate an aircraft that was not registered
in its own state of registry. Her lack of knowledge in this area was brought to the court’s attention.
The bench reserved its judgement to be handed down at a later date. Our barrister is hopeful that this will
be delivered before the Easter recess.
The Court of Appeal’s decision can be further appealed by either party to the House of Lords which is the
final arbiter in all legal matters in the UK. Should this happen the process will be relatively rapid as the
case would be heard jointly with Serco vs Lawson & Botham vs MoD both have which already been listed.
Our solicitor advises that the likely cost of such an appeal would be from GBP45,000 to GBP 60,000
depending on how many counsel we were to employ. A costs order for the current appeal will be made
when the court hands down its ruling but, should the matter go to the Lords, the order may be deferred
pending the outcome in that forum.

17th March 2005

[Turbo Beaver]

The attached letter from Captain ???? to the General Committee is self explanatory. An independent sponsor has come forward and offered substantial funding for the purpose of assisting with financing the legal actions. The extent of this supplementary funding is such that it may well be possible to reduce membership subscriptions whilst continuing to fund the 49er legal actions and subsistence without the need for any Special Levies.

This is obviously a significant development which deserves careful assessment before the Membership is asked to vote on changes to subscriptions or special levies. It is proposed that a fair and representative Sub-Committee be formed to evaluate and report to the Membership on the financial position of the Association with respect to the 49er Legal Cases and in particular the budgeting of the Supplementary legal funding recently offered. Obviously it would be inappropriate for the Membership to vote on the need for special levies before the Sub-Committee has completed their assessment and reported to the Membership.

HKAOA Rule 8.6 states that “the General Committee may, and shall, upon a written requisition signed by not less than one tenth of the number of Members entitled to vote for the time being, convene an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Association.”

It is proposed that the EGM scheduled for 13th April 05 be postponed by petitioning the GC to convene an EGM to vote on the motion below. If you are in agreement with this initiative please print out this email (or page 1 of the document attached), sign and fax to +852 . Once petitions are received from the required 10% of the membership (92 members) they will be presented to the General Committee.

Requisition for Convening an EGM of the HKAOA

In accordance with HKAOA Rule 8.6 I hereby petition the General Committee to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Association prior to 13th April 2005 and to put the following motion to the Membership:

Be it resolved that the EGM scheduled for 13 April 05 be postponed until such time as a Sub-Committee evaluates and reports to the Membership on the financial position of the Association with respect to the 49er Legal Cases and in particular the budgeting of the Supplementary legal funding recently offered. Be it further resolved that the Sub-Committee consist of 6 persons: two General Committee Members, two 49ers and two other Full Members; one "other Full Member" to be appointed by the General Committee and the "other Full Member" to be appointed by the 49ers, neither "other Full Member" to be a General Committee Member nor a 49er.

Signed:

Name:

Membership Number:

Date:


Letter to the GC:


The President & General Committee

Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association

Haiphong Road

Kowloon

10th March 2005

APRIL EGM



Gentlemen

I write to you all regarding the upcoming EGM scheduled for April in which a number of motions regarding financial assistance to the 49ers are intended to be tabled. Naturally this is a matter of the utmost importance, not only for the 49ers but for the Membership as a whole.

There exists a concern that there are a number of recent developments of which you may not be aware and, therefore, that may not have been taken into account during your deliberations prior to deciding upon the current course of action. Some of these are summarised below.

1. Australian Court Case

At a directions hearing held at the end of February last, the judge set a court date of 6th March 2006 for the case to be heard and set aside 4 weeks for the hearing. This hearing will rule on all matters, both substantive and jurisidictional. In addition, she also set a very detailed timetable of procedural steps to be completed between now and the hearing itself. Now that a specific timetable for this case is available, this facilitates the construction of a more accurate cash flow and business plan regarding possible funding requirements.

2. UK Court Case

The case in the Appeal Court is to be heard on either Monday 14th March or Tuesday 15th March 2005 in the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London. This will determine once and for all the issues of jurisdiction. The only possible further avenue of appeal available to either party is the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. In any event, the hearing in the Appeal Court will make case law and set precedent. This is a very significant development on its own. In addition, however, it also has a direct bearing on possible future funding requirements depending on the outcome. Therefore, the view can be held that it would be premature to make irrevocable decisions on funding matters until the result of this hearing is known.

3. Supplementary Funding

Very recently, an independent sponsor has come forward and offered substantial funding for the purpose of assisting with financing the legal actions should this be required. Negotiations on this offer are at an advanced stage and should be completed within the next 3 to 4 weeks. Given that the GC is presently considering a financial plan for the way forward, this is obviously a significant development which should be taken into account.

4. Membership

A significant number of Members, have approached the 49ers and given undertakings to the effect that, should the Association decide to cease funding assistance, they will leave the Association and pay the equivalent of their membership dues directly to the 49ers in order that financial assistance may continue. In addition, it is understood that plans are already in hand to set up an alternative union in such a situation. This is a very serious matter and has significant ramifications for the future viability of the Association itself given that its Membership and finances are already depleted.

Might I suggest that an evaluation of these and other matters be completed by a subcommittee and its report be circulated to the Membership for consideration prior to any irrevocable motions being put to the vote. Might I also suggest that the sub-committee consist of 6-persons: two General Committee Members, two 49ers and two other Full Members; one each “other Full Member” to be chosen by the General Committee and the 49ers respectively, although each may be neither a General Committee Member nor a 49er.

It is strongly recommend that until the General Committee has had the opportunity to properly evaluate these matters, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Membership to be asked to decide on the need for special levies.

Yours sincerely

[Turbo Beaver]

49er NEWSLETTER

Gentlemen

As the April EGM approaches, we find ourselves in a situation that none of could have envisioned 12 months ago. For the last 44 months we have pursued our dual goals of fair and equitable treatment for the group of us that were victimised by the management of Cathay Pacific and to ensure that such treatment cannot be meted out to any of our colleagues again. Throughout that time we have had the support of our colleagues in our fight. One of the key weapons that we have employed in that fight is use of the legal process. The road has been hard with our opponents using every means available to them to prevaricate and delay their appearance on the witness stand where they will be required to justify their actions. Despite that, we have remained together as a cohesive group and the end is now in sight.

In Australia, a firm trial date has been set which is now only 11 months away. Between now and then, there is an extensive and definitve timetable that has been set by the court that must be met by our opponents. A significant date is 8th April 2005 by which time the defendants must file their defence on both the substantive and jurisdictional issues. This is the first time that they will be compelled to reveal their justification for the treatment to which they have subjected us. Our lawyers in Australia tell us that we have a very good chance of prevailing there. The remedies available to us under law are also the most favourable in that jurisdiction. The cost estimate from our lawyers for this part of the process is AUD550,000 with 250,000 being the cost of the preparatory process to the end of November and 300,000 for the hearing itself scheduled for 4 weeks commencing on 6th March 2006.

In the UK, we are awaiting the judgement from the Court of Appeal. This judgement will set precedent and form case law. If we are successful, it will mean that all Veta employees based in the UK will enjoy the protection of UK employment legislation. The only further avenue of appeal is to the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. The cost estimate from our lawyers is that a further appeal to the Lords would cost GBP45,000 to 60,000 depending on how many barristers we employ.

Until recently, this process has been managed by your Legal Liaison Team (LLT) working in conjunction with the General Committee of our Association and our legal advisers. This process worked well for 3 years.

Towards the end of last year, the President entered into negotiations with a view to finding a resolution to the situation. Some of our group did not wish him to pursue such a path at that time and informed him accordingly. Prior to entering negotiations, he agreed certain objectives namely:

To ensure that Cathay Pacific pilots can never again be put in the position in which we have found ourselves.

To ensure full reinstatement and proper compensation for 49ers who are qualified and wish to return to work for CX and to ensure proper compensation for those who are not now qualified or do not wish to return to work for CX.

These were communicated to you in a newsletter dated 14th October 2004. Nothing further was then heard until the announcement was made of “the offer” on 16th December. This was accompanied by “advice” from our various legal representatives by way of answers to certain questions that had been posed to them by the General Secretary. This was the first that your LLT had heard of this and took place in deliberate secrecy behind our backs. Subsequent to this, the General Secretary initially refused to disclose the full text of this “advice” under the cloak of privilege and also attempted to prevent your LLT from obtaining a hard copy of the letter of enquiry. The nature of the questions and the manner in which they were posed resulted in a much more gloomy forecast of the efficacy of our various legal actions than had previously been the case. This was used to support the case for acceptance of “the offer”.

At a meeting on 17th December, both the President and the General Secretary agreed that “the offer” failed to meet the two stated objectives that had previously been agreed. In answer to the question, “What if the membership reject the offer?” the response was received that, “Then we would continue on our current course with the legal actions. Further, the GC would take such a rejection as a positive direction from the Membership to continue on our current course.”

Initially, our leadership put us in a position where we were deadlined and would have to decide on “the offer” before we knew the result of the vote by the Membership. This was seen by many of us as trying to force us into making a career threatening decision with incomplete information being made available to us. After considerable lobbying, the order of events was reversed. In a poll conducted by the Association, the 49ers voted 41 to 4 against accepting the offer.

In the lead up to that poll, a number of 49ers received personal telephone calls in which they were told that they were definitely on the list of those who would be accepted back into CX should they avail themselves of the job application process. At the same time, the spectre of massive financial costs being awarded against us in the event that we should lose was raised. Other spins and sales pitches were used by our leadership in an attempt to persuade us and the Membership into accepting an offer that is wholly inadequate and fails to meet the previously agreed objectives.

In the event, in accordance with the rules of our Association, the resolution to accept “the offer” failed to be carried by the Membership vote.

In accordance with the undertaking given by the President on 17th December, that should have been the end of the matter. However, our leadership has now decided to take a second bite at the cherry and attempt to use the unlikely prospect of massive costs awards as an excuse to levy greatly increased dues on the Membership.

No proper justification for such increases has been provided. Certain qualified individuals who have analysed the Association’s finances are unable to agree with the Committee’s assessment. Initially these individuals were denied access to our Association’s accounts. Our leadership has decided to depart from a budgeting strategy that has carried us through more than 3 years and now to budget for a worst case catastrophic scenario as a justification for their latest actions.

They have also stated that the GC could “probably” be held personally responsible for those costs. At a meeting with our lawyers in HKG with the General Secretary present held at the beginning of March, a question was posed regarding possible liabilty for costs of our Association, the GC and/or the Membership as a whole. The response was received that, “It is exceedingly unlikely that either the AOA or individual GC members could be held liable for any costs award made against the plaintiffs.” This advice was confirmed in writing on 10th March. Thus, the assertion made previously was simply not true.

Much has also been made of the “paid into court” scenario increasing our costs risk exposure. No such action has been taken by the defendants. Under the terms of “the offer”, each party would bear its own legal costs. In other words, none of our costs to date, other than those already received in Australia, would be recoverable. If we pursue our current course and are successful, then much of these could be recovered irrespective of whether or not an offer is paid into court at a later date.

In an attempt to assist with the potential financial crisis as being painted by our leadership, some 49ers have been looking for sources outside of our Membership to provide supplementary funding. One such possible avenue was mooted to the GC in a letter dated 10th March. At a membership meeting held on 11th March, before any formal response or enquiry was received to that letter, the President described the initiative as a “hollow delaying tactic”.

The IFALPA Annual Conference takes place this week. It was intended that a former President of our Association would attend and use the opportunity to lobby other fellow Member Associations for financial assistance should it be required. Our leadership took active steps to have him barred from attending the conference even in the capacity of observer. Why would our leadership do such a thing? If there truly does exist a potential financial crisis, should we not be pursuing every available source for supplementary funding rather than just attempting to tax our own Membership? Why actively thwart others who are trying to provide alternative solutions?

Rather than raise subscriptions, an alternative of placing a cap on the amount of funding assistance supplied by the Membership has been suggested with our own group being responsible for finding any shortfall in requirements from other sources. Apparently, this solution is not considered to be acceptable. Why not?

Also, why the hurry? The unlikely doomsday scenario of losing multiple appeals in multiple jurisdictions that is being painted is just that; unlikely. On the one hand we are being told by our leadership that results from the legal process are too far in the future to bring any immediate pressure to bear on the defendants yet, at the same time, so close that they must be funded now. There exists ample time to investigate other sources of funding should it become necessary. This is all being done with indecent haste but for what reason?

One possible conclusion is that our current leadership is hell bent on railroading through an offer that is wholly unacceptable to the vast majority of our group before the end of its term of tenure. The terms of “the offer” would effectively preclude any future GC from representing or supporting the 49ers in pursuit of our objectives. One can only speculate on the reasons for adopting such a course of action.

The result of this turn of events is that, if we wish to continue to pursue our stated objectives, then we must be prepared to act on our own behalf in spite of the leadership of our Association. Should the Membership vote against the subscription increases proposed at the EGM and vote in favour of accepting “the offer” at the second time around, then we must be prepared to deal with that situation.
.
To the end, the following actions have been taken.

In accordance with the Association Rules, a petition has been presented to the GC to have the EGM postponed in order that a sub-committee can be formed to properly analyse the financial position and construct a realistic business plan and cash flow. The Labour Department has been briefed and is taking an active interest in the situation.

A supplementary income stream has been identified from a sponsor in HKG to be used to assist the 49ers in their legal costs. This funding would be in the form of a loan repayable in part or in whole only in the event that costs are awarded to us. This fund will be managed and administered by the 49ers themselves in conjunction with the sponsor. For business reasons, the sponsor wishes to remain anonymous.

An alternative union is being set up in HKG. Initially, its main objective will be to support those 49ers who wish to continue to pursue our stated objectives. We have received many calls from Members of the AOA who have stated that, should our funding be removed by the current leadership, they will either leave the AOA and/or pay their subscriptions directly to the 49ers. This union will not be bound by the terms of “the offer” which, should it be accepted by our current leadership, would remove the right to legal recourse in the event of contractual dispute and bar the AOA from providing assistance to such members, either financial or otherwise.

We will continue to focus on our legal actions with emphasis being placed initially on those in Australia & the UK followed by HKG.

con\'t

Gentlemen, it is likely that each of us is going to be faced with making a personal decision by the middle of May. I am aware that many of you are reliant on the subsistence provided by our colleagues to keep your heads above water pending a properly negotiated settlement that meets our objectives. Despite claims to be merely wanting to maintain the status quo, the current leadership of our Association has chosen to put that in jeopardy as well as a means of coercing you into taking “the offer”.

We are currently unable to make any commitment on continued subsistence from other sources although it is planned to set up a benevolent fund. However, there is no guaranteed income stream for this purpose that has been identified as yet. What we can provide is alternate legal funding assistance.

Only each of us individually can decide what to do under the current circumstances. For those who wish to continue with our current strategy, the vehicle is in place for you to do so. For those who feel that they can no longer continue down this path, for whatever reasons, then that is your choice.

Bear in mind, however, that if you accept “the offer” as it stands, you will forfeit all right to any improved offer that is negotiated at a later date. Also, if your sole reason for accepting “the offer” is to avail yourself of the job application process, be aware that, should you be unsuccessful in that application, all you will receive is a lump sum payment that goes nowhere near addressing the loss that you have suffered. Your reputation will not have been restored and your career prospects will remain poor. In fact it could be argued that they will have been damaged further.

In our current situation, the optimum result that we could hope for at the forthcoming EGM, if it is held as proposed by our current leadership, is that the Membership votes in favour of the subscription increases and against acceptance of “the offer”. Even if the Membership votes against the subscription increases then, irrspective of the way in which the resolutions have been worded, if we believe that our current path is the way to go, we should urge the Membership to continue to vote against resolution 4, acceptance of the offer, and use all available communication channels to urge our colleagues to do so.

The fact is that “the offer” does not meet our objectives and is not acceptable to the majority of us. 41 of our group have already stated that clearly. Irrespective of the increased pressure that is being applied to our group and the Membership as a whole by our current leadership, that situation has not changed.

5th April 2005

[cpdude]

Some people will do anything to hurt the company regardless of the affect to them or their co-workers and other's will always be problem children either in or out of the company.

It's easy to paint a dark picture and some thrive on it...I don't!:)

[geldap]

I do not believe the comment about "problem children" is a valid one. Some people simply have higher morals than others, if they suffer or see wrong doing they wish to do something about it. I am sure I was a "problem" when with CX, but as I now work for an employer which treats me with dignity and respect this is certainly not the case now, nor was it for my previous 15 years in the industry prior to my employment with CX.

Its appears a little strange that people with perfect careers suddenly become troublemakers who wish to harm the company when they work for CX, only to revert to type and be satisfied competent individuals again once they have left.

Good luck to the 49ers - I watch with interest.

[cpdude]

I'm sure there is not one pilot in CX that at some point or time has been treated poorly or incorrectly by an individual or a department within the company. You can jump up and down and bring attention to yourself followed by more hardship either by design or just coincident or you can just let it go and possibly it will just stay in the past. Some have elected to jump up and down and the results are mixed. You place your bet and take your chances. But just because one elects to jump doesn't mean we all should or will!

Bottom line...is it a good job? Yes it is! Is it a great job? I have yet to ever find a great job and I don't believe it exists!

I believe like most, if not all, that the 49rs were treated poorly and I wish all of them good luck in the future but more importantly I hope they get over their anger and resentment and start to move on in life.;)

[FlexibleResponse]

Stuff the 49ers! I'm all right Jack!

They haven't sacked me............yet!

Way to go dude!

[cpdude]

If that's how you read it ... that's up to you!:8

[BusyB]

Cpdude,
You really are a hypocrite,
"Some people will do anything to hurt the company regardless of the affect to them or their co-workers and other's will always be problem children"
Lets worry about people who have been hurt by CX.
You disgust me.

[cpdude]

I'm happy you got that off your chest...wouldn't want you to carry it around for the next 4 or so years.:D

[DITW]

Consequences of “the offer”

In recommending “the offer” to the Membership, it has frequently been stated that it should be accepted because then “…those who wish to come back to work may do so, and those who wish to continue to sue the company may continue to pursue that course…” i.e. acceptance is being represented as the best of both worlds.

This is a misleading misrepresentation of the facts.

Please examine the Agreement between CPA and the HKAOA, section 3 on pages 2 & 3: “The HKAOA’s Obligation”

Under this section, the Agreement requires the HKAOA immediately to cease provision of:

financial assistance
advice
facilities
or even encouragement

to any of the following:

any of the 49ers
any individual, corporation, unincorporated organisation, society or union which seeks to assist any 49er

in any existing or future Legal Action against CPA and any subsidiary or holding company of CPA, including any subsidiary of a holding company of CPA, and their officers and employees, both past and present.

Quite apart from withdrawing financial assistance to the 49ers, this agreement means that HKAOA Officers and Members would not be permitted to assist the 49ers in any way whatsoever with their legal actions against CPA and they may not even be allowed to offer to testify in such matters, except on behalf of the company.

This seeks to remove one of the few protections that are conferred by Section S72B(1)(a) of the Employment Ordinance; your right not to be dismissed, threatened with dismissal or otherwise discriminated against for giving evidence or agreeing to give evidence in a legal action brought under the Ordinance.

Such an agreement would also be binding on any future GC that might seek to take a different path from that being currently espoused. Is this where you want our Association to go?


Acceptance of “the offer” means not just ceasing financial assistance but total abandonment of those 49ers who wish to continue the legal actions in pursuit of a negotiated settlement that meets our stated and agreed objectives. The agreement also denies legal recourse to any 49ers who accept “the offer” should CPA abuse the employment application procedure.

[backspace]

OK, Motion was passed, where to now?

[tamalai]

well, logically, there will be all sorts of huffing and puffing, and various factions will "Continue court action" but it will all fade into obscurity and in three years time not many people will recall the events surrounding this sorry affair..........................

on the plus side will come fairly rapidly no doubt .........

retirement at 60 (or 55+ anyway) which will hopefully be tied to a fairly substantial pay increase, when was the last one 2001 ?
4% x 4 years = 16% so ask for 30% and work back ...............

Various other agreements that are outstanding and (Hopefully) a new era of Cx/AoA co-operation......................

Cathay will continue to expand as fast as possible and will process the re-application of those who wish to go through this somewhat demeaning process, ................

No doubt the freighter boys are waiting with bated breath to welcome the first returning 49'er to the right handseat !!!

[6feetunder]

In order to get the 10 month payout they have to drop the complaints, permanently.

[amos2]

This is a sad, sad story, going absolutely nowhere!

Haven't you guys heard about the 89' dispute in OZ??

OR, have you conveniently forgotten about it??

After 4 yrs this is a nowhere exercise!! :(

[cpdude]

Agreed! Chock it up to experience and move on.;)

[Turbo Beaver]

Union accepts Cathay offer for sacked pilots Members reject increased dues to fund legal action, reversing earlier 'no' vote on airline's settlement

Cathay Pacific pilots have done a U-turn and voted to accept an offer of 10 -month payouts or job interviews for the group of sacked pilots known as the 49ers.

With weeks to go before the airline's May 16 deadline for the withdrawal of the offer, the Aircrew Officers Association voted to accept it - after narrowly rejecting it at a meeting two months ago.

The vote, taken at an extraordinary meeting of the union, effectively ends one of the longest disputes in world aviation.

The 49ers were dismissed by Cathay during a bitter 2001 dispute over pay and rosters, and have been supported by union members for the 31/2 years since.

The union, which backed the Cathay offer, warned members after the "no" vote in February that they faced a "very real membership crisis" if they continued to pay for costly court cases over the sackings.

But a majority of the 49ers wanted the union to continue supporting them and their legal actions, believing they could ultimately win more through legal actions in Hong Kong, Britain and Australia.

The union has been paying up to $ 25,000 a month to each of the sacked pilots since 2001, pushing union dues up to 5 per cent of salaries and leading to a sharp fall in union membership.

February's motion to accept the Cathay offer narrowly failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority after a bitter debate between rival union factions.

At a follow-up extraordinary meeting earlier this month, the union asked members to either vote in favour of a huge increase in union dues to continue the legal fight or to consider accepting the Cathay offer after all.

Members voted overwhelmingly against increasing dues. About 73 per cent of members then voted to reverse February's decision and accept the Cathay offer.

The vote represents a major victory for union leader Murray Gardner and fellow committee members who have been battling to stem a fall in membership numbers as a result of the dispute, and can now sharply reduce union dues.

But it is also expected to lead to resignations by hard-core members who believed the union had a moral responsibility to continue supporting the legal action of the 49ers.

Some of the 49ers are expected to refuse to accept the pay-offs or job interviews and to continue legal actions, but they will no longer be funded by the union.

The union - which had about 1,300 members in 2001 - now counts only 925 of the airline's 1,912 pilots as members.

Most of the 49ers wanted to continue with their legal battle, and supporters accused the union committee of bad faith for resubmitting the Cathay offer to members.

One of the pilots who voted 'no' to the Cathay offer said: "The 49ers and their supporters are very disappointed by this development."

A spokeswoman for Cathay Pacific, said: "This settlement will enable both parties to move forward together to grow a stronger airline."

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

The vote, taken at an extraordinary meeting of the union, effectively ends one of the longest disputes in world aviation. .............................the longest being the 1989 pilots dispute in Oz. it's still unresolved!

[pontius's pa]

It seems to me that the AOA has more than fulfilled its obligations to the forty niners, many, if not all, of whom, probably deserved their fate at the time.

That anyone would still wish to continue being financially supported by former colleagues four years after the event is rather sad, if not shameless.

[6feetunder]

pp, if you don't work at CX then I can understand your opinion however misguided it may be.

If you do work at CX however then you are simply a moron.

[cpdude]

Is your head in 6' of sand buddy? Although PP may strike a nerve with his statement of the 49rs, it is true that the majority took advantage of an overly generous payment scheme and I too find it shameful that some would continue to collect charity handouts from the union. It's called milking the system and I for one would never due it! But then some guys just don't have any pride or morals do they?

[Che Xindamail]

I would say it took a lot of backbone for the union to stand together and support the guys that were sacked.

You had newly employed second officers pitching in to support far senior guys. Talk about loyalty. What can possibly be wrong with that?

That some guys could perhaps have done without the money is beyond the point, as is if some "deserved" the sack.

[pontius's pa]

6 feet etc

I do not work for CX.

I do not think someone is a moron if he/she does work at CX.

Oh I see what you mean

Thank you for your comments.

It made me quite miss the good old days when unbridled vitriol was directed at any dissenter, although I must say the insults in those days were rather more imaginative.

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

I would say it took a lot of backbone for the union to stand together and support the guys that were sacked.
......................oh sh!t yeah.stood by and watched members take the 49's commands, harrassed new joiners with threats and midnight phone calls, refused union membership to replacement pilots......................yeah, lotta backbone that hkaoa.:mad:

[kenfoggo]

Difficult to discuss this issue without lapsing into ill considered remarks and accusations. But you cannot, by any possible form of words, express the blundering, the delay, the confusion and the stupidity of it all. It has accomplished nothing other than to prove that it is pointless to belong to a union at Cathay Pacific. And when the dust settles the AOA will be seen as a toothless debating society that cannot look after the interests of its members even when they are dismissed with no proper disciplinary process. And perhaps it took the company 4 to 5 years to bust the union, but in effect that is what it has done. Why would anyone want to be part of this ineffectual group?

[VR-HFX]

Ken

Indeed..glad to see that reality is finally dawning.

It all started when the AOA began to get a major testosterone flush and employed people who were in a time and place warp. Net result...they lost their place at the top table.

MG is doing his best to restore some balance ... wrong word ... but the old tarts n farts will know what I mean.

We should have appointed Michael (just retired from the Aero Club after 38 years) as General Secretary about 20 years ago!

[pontius's pa]

VR-HFX

Amen to that

Hopefully better days are ahead.

IMHO, in the current climate, the AOA needs to be focussed on the present and the future, rather than the past, for that is where possible discomforts may appear

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

like the AFAP in '89..the HKAOA has lost this one. time to change the watch, single up all lines and look to the future.

[CPX]

As pilots, we sometimes stuff up.
A decision that is not the best, or a bad approach. Sometimes this happens in the sim or on a line check. There are many factors such as being tired or out of practice, but it happens.

When a stuff up occurs good pilots dwell on the situation for only a very brief time, then get on with the flight which is still going at 470 kts and using fuel at 6+ tonnes/hour. They dig themselves out of the hole. We all know pilots who dwell too long on previous decisions and have careers that have stalled. They live in the past and don't look forward to the future.

After the flight is over, the important thing is to analyze our stuff up, learn from it, and make sure we don't do it again.

1989 and the 49ers were stuff ups. The important thing is to analyze and make sure similar situations do not happen again.

CX pilots need a strong union. The company will always do what it wants to in the end, but a strong union can influence the final decision. A union does this by pointing out inconsistancies in any company proposal and proposing alternative points of view that company management may not have considered. Like a good Opposition Party in a democracy.

The HKAOA at the moment is not a strong union. Less than half of CX pilots are members. This has to change back to where over 90% are members.

Previously black-banned CX pilots should be actively encouraged to join the HKAOA. CX pilots who have resigned over the past 4 years should be actively encouraged to re-join. Both groups should be welcomed and encouraged to join the HKAOA without any penalty or animosity. Perhaps then other non-members may also feel inclined to join the HKAOA.

CX pilots need a strong union. One that has learned from its mistakes and is looking forward to the future.

[FlexibleResponse]

The extent to which the HKAOA has been successful in recent times is debatable depending on one’s viewpoint. However, it is acknowledged that CX management was finally forced to seek a settlement with the HKAOA over management’s action in sacking the 49ers. On the other hand it is acknowledged that the settlement fell well short of the expectations of the members of the HKAOA.

In a large company, a strong Union is essential to protect and further the interests of its members and in particular, protect the otherwise defenseless individual worker against the abuse of power and other excesses of management.

In this context, it is interesting to consider Gorgophone’s post on “O’Leary going to Jail” in the Rumours & News Forum:

Gorgophone The actual quote, I believe, is from the report into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden some time ago.
----------------------------------------------
Sorry, I should have said. Yes you are right Cargo Boy. (Are you older than your name suggests?)

Moshansky, Virgil P. Commissioner (1992) Commission of the Inquiry Into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden, Ontario, Fifth Report, Volume III, page 1090.

They are the words of Dr. Helmreich. I wish the rest of that post had also been by Helmreich - the bit that suggested that CRM should mean CORPORATE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT!

The bit that goes, "I would say further to this, that human nature is such that managers who are out of their depth WILL resort to bullying and coercion; a poor corporate culture WILL develop. " comes from a working knowledge of psychodynamics of organizations. Does anyone remember the experiment at Yale where people were asked to give electric shocks to 'learners'? (Milgram, Stanley. (1974) Obedience to Authority. Tavistock Publications)

The 'learners' turned out to be actors who 'screamed in agony' while the real subjects of the experiment, those giving the 'electric shocks', continued to 'harm' the actors to the point of giving them heart attacks. Conclusion? Normal people will harm others if they think they are being obedient to those in authority. "I was just following orders..." is an example of that.

Remember - more people have died because of those following orders than those who opposed them.

Managers WILL send pilots to fly when they are fatigued and coerce even more work out of pilots - even if it means risking their lives. They do this to please those in authority over them. They are not deliberately being murderous. This is the chilling fact; this behaviour is normal.

That is why we need an enlightened, proactive, Regulator, not merely a commercially-focussed enterprise that merely relies on market forces. Market forces (with concomitant organizational psychodynamics) can kill.
(My highlight)

[cpdude]

CPX,

I totally agree. All should be invited to join the HKAOA including ASL pilots. Ban joiners, re-joiners included. The real enemies are the 30-50 radicals that have such hatred and resentment in their hearts.

Maybe they should quit and join the CPU?:)

[Turbo Beaver]

You stand up for what is honorable you’re a radical. If you resign from the HKAOA you’re a militant.

Cpdude, you think you’re invulnerable. Sounds like management. I am sure all the people you mentioned will get to join the AOA and they will be regarded as heroes and the people that recently quit, you/CX will consider them “Terrorist”. Not quite saying the word, but I think that is what you are implying.

You will be quite happy with those types, AOA members in good times and deserters in bad times.

If you want the real enemy, look within.

So am I a revolutionary for my postings? Am I part of the 30-50? Do you include the 41 of the 49ers that said no? Do I have hatred in my heart? With all the world events, I don’t think you know the meaning of the word or you use such a strong word without regard.

Everybody that voted no/don’t want ASL/do not want the ban breakers are militants?

Are you implying that these 30-50, with hatred in their hearts, should be fired? Should they dismiss the whole CPU?

With regard to the CPX's statement, I will be considered a ghastly pilot.

[cpdude]

Mr. Beaver,

You stand up for what is honorable you’re a radical. If you resign from the HKAOA you’re a militant.

Your ship sank...join the new crew or leave! If you stay without changing your attitude, then your a militant.

Cpdude, you think you’re invulnerable. Sounds like management. I am sure all the people you mentioned will get to join the AOA and they will be regarded as heroes and the people that recently quit, you/CX will consider them “Terrorist”. Not quite saying the word, but I think that is what you are implying.

There are no heroes but I find it somewhat amusing that you refer to yourself as a "Terrorist".

You will be quite happy with those types, AOA members in good times and deserters in bad times.

So your sailing adrift with an irrational Captain at the helm...you say I should stick with him...I say I'm smarter than that! I'm surprised he didn't get more people fired or cause greater damage to our COS.

So am I a revolutionary for my postings? Am I part of the 30-50? Do you include the 41 of the 49ers that said no? Do I have hatred in my heart? With all the world events, I don’t think you know the meaning of the word or you use such a strong word without regard.

If I was a 49er I would have said no as well. Why turn down a cost free lawsuit? As for the radicals, I have seen the hatred they have displayed in the past to new joiners, freighter pilots and anyone who opposes them. Sure it has toned down but I'm sure the resentment is still there.

Everybody that voted no/don’t want ASL/do not want the ban breakers are militants?

Militant? Possibly not but they sure do have a narrow focus on life and how to achieve results.

Should they dismiss the whole CPU?

The CPU is a joke. It will dismiss itself from a lack of participants.

With regard to the CPX's statement, I will be considered a ghastly pilot.

Then maybe you should resign before you are justly fired.:ok:

[Turbo Beaver]

Is that the same hatred you are showing towards your fellow union members? If your are actually in the union.

Maybe it is you that should resign.

[FlexibleResponse]

Your Union is you. Without a strong Union, you do not exist.

If you leave your Union over a defeat in one battle then you have signed a guarantee to lose the whole war.

If you leave your Union, management have hoodwinked you and they will have indeed won.

Stay the course and let’s go away and lick our wounds. If we learn from our failures, we will emerge as a stronger Union.

[cpdude]

Silberfuchs,

I actually agree with you however, this was not about losing a vote but the entire direction of the committee. It was hell or high water for the members on the committee and they were not listening. The war drums were banging and you were either with them or against them and so I walked. Should I have stayed in a group out of control that I neither trusted or supported...I think not!

Turbo Beaver,

Your either drunk or your a child...go away!

FR,

In normal times I agree with you. But like I said above, this was not a simple vote and many were not sure how many more would be fired for following the union advice. I love my job and I will not sacrifice it for anyone. That said, if and when I don't love my job any longer, I will leave the company unlike others that stay and fester like a cancer throughout the ranks.

Lastly, I think I speak for many that feel a strong union is necessary. But strong means a clear majority of members with an executive that negotiates fairly and competently with the objective of building good working relations with the company and voicing the concerns of the members in a firm but diplomatic fashion. We are not looking at destroying the company which provides for our well-being but to compromise in a fashion which moderates the changes taking place in this industry so the impact to us is softened.

The younger crowd must accept that the conditions of service and salaries of the 80’s will never return but we do have some bargaining chips like the age 60 issue. Best we use it before we lose it!
:)

[geldap]

Good God, it seems that with all the infighting it is completely forgotton how this all started. By this particular company's disgracefull lack of regard or decency for members of thier own staff. One common thread in these arguments seems to be a consensus that there are plenty of sackings for those not prepared to jump through hoops for "management" - be they right or wrong, how can this be anything but wrong?

In my oinion, the amount of sackings from CX is disproportional to the size if the company. I believe the self proclaimed high standards and claims of being the best are precisely to divert attention away from the truth "oh yes he did not meet our extremely high standards so he had to go" when a more proper explanation may well be "oh yes he spoke out about..........so he had to go"

Even the people who defend the ethos admit to the wrong doing by CX but are too afraid to speak. This is how things are in China so maybe if CX wishes to treat people like this they should stick to operations within China - the western world does not wish the rights of Chinese enforced on their workers IMHO.

I always thought that a trade union was there to improve the rights of workers, defend against unfair treatment and unfair dismissal at work. The AOA seems not to be in existance to fulfill these needs. It appears to an outsider like me that it is a club that is there for the betterment of a select few. If people suffer detriment such as the 49ers the "union" should do all possible to defend and protect them, no matter how long it takes, otherwise it has failed to function as a union.

The people who voted to dump the 49ers should be ashamed of themselves - you have voted for yourselves not them. CX will of course know that the union is a pushover and has succeded in breaking it due to members not having the courage of their convictions.

I hope those pilots left in the AOA who voted to continue your club without your colleagues and have their perfect little careers still in tact sleep easy - I know I wouldn't.

[Turbo Beaver]

Mr. Dude:

I am not a child nor am I drunk. Hitting a nerve me thinks.

Didn’t think you were in the union.

The management can be unscrupulous i.e. the recent Cabin Crew fiasco and of course the firing or the 49ers. I believe it is wrong. Why do you consider me a Terrorist/Militant etc? Only management has that hatred for people.

I too want CX to succeed. There are many ways we can do that, but CX management wants total control. How much input do you have with you’re roster? In order for the best outcome there has to be give and take. Seems all the giving is on the AOA and the taking on the Company. You really sound like a manager.

CX do not negotiate fairly. Look at the Cabin Crew. Was that fair? It was wrong what they did and the FAU took them to court and won. Are the Cabin Crew Terrorist/Militants? No, they are fighting for what is right.

It is you that should go away!!

By the way, that Ship Captain, was his name Shackleton?

[VR-HFX]

I tend to concur with CPDude whilst agreeing in part with the Silver Fox.

I joined the AOA when it was an Association...being an organisation of persons having a common interest..albeit some of whom were somewhat eccentric. That common interest was shared by most and allowed us to have an input into the company's thought processes and policies.

It then added the words...

The Registered Trade Union of the Pilots and Flight Engineers of Cathay Pacific Airways

... and defined itself as an organisation of WORKERS formed for the purpose of advancing its members interests in respect to wages, benefits and working conditions through collective ACTION..and to hell with whomever got in their way.

It then employed union muscle, if not intellect, in a jurisdiction which immediately rendered it an oxymoron.

Management turned off the lights and the UNION turned on any dissenting members in it's continued search for fresh meat

And now some of you have the gall to criticise those that left.

My question is why would any sane person pay good money to be insulted by an organisation hell bent on destroying itself and insulting the intellect of those who dared to criticise it. I have far greater access to management (and I'm not one) than ever I could through the UNION.

I have disagreements with policy but can see clearly that a lot of it is due to the combatative state of relations with flight crew.

Sure I have issues with management policies but feel that my input is sought and often listened to.

The cabin crew have their own issues and my sympathy but they too let the militants destroy their bridge to the policy table.

CX is not our train set and I will say again, more can be gained by constructive dialogue...and removing the second line from the AOA logo would go a long way to restoring a good working relationship with influence.

For all those that pine for a genuine union...Air Canada, Qantas and BA offer a limited window.

Otherwise get real. Terms and conditions in this industry will never be what they were 25 years ago but I challenge any of you to name an airline that you could join tomorrow on better conditions.

CX, like HK, is far from perfect but most of the alternatives are further.

[geldap]

I challenge you to name an airline with better conditions

I am not a pilot but an engineer, better conditions of employment, generally can be found at British Aiways, Virgin Atlantic (through personal experience) American, United, Etihad, Emirates, British Midland Quantas and Air New Zealand to name but a few. Why ? Because they are managed by people (some less than perfect) and not corporate clones who cannot manage so bully, IMHO. Lets face it - the abuses of staff at CX comes from the top down (again just my humble opinion)!!

[tamalai]

Virgin ? British Midland ? Ethidad ? Emirates ? you are 'avin' a larf son, Not one comes close to Cathay for Lifestyle, terms & Conditions etc etc...................Sorry, But it used to be that the American Majors (United) etc were top of the tree, but not any more U.N.I.T.E.D......soon to be a low cost carrier called TED as one employee said, thats what you get when U n I have gone !!!
FEDEX/UPS yes still cream jobs but Asian carriers are the future and Cathay, well, is simply out front. The glory days over large salary's are gone but CX still beats the others, even on D scales

Union here? yes crap but at least they are beginning to get their S##t together and work with the company....................................................

Bad management??? Take a look at US airways or ask their ex employee's.......................everything here in the Hong Kong garden may not be rosy but at least it's all growing !!!

[geldap]

I am not just talking money here. The carriers I mentioned do not, to my knowledge have thier employees live in fear of the sack. That is worth an awful lot which the package cannot compensate you for.

[VR-HFX]

Geldap

I have never lived in fear of losing my job.

In order to achieve that level of comfort, I have followed some simple rules:

- Go to work when rostered
- Call in sick only when I think I would be dangerous
- Treat all CX staff with respect

These basic rules are commonsense but also allow one a voice on issues of contention. I have never been punished or treated adversely for voicing my opinions on some of the ****e that comes out of Kitty City.

I am not sure whether the same level of criticism, however constructive, would be tolerated at Emirates, Etihad, Qantas or whichever other airline you quote.

Any airline is so so much more than its pilots. If we all realised as much, we would find that our fellow employees and even managers would give us the respect we think we deserve.

[HotDog]

Well said HFX, agree with you 100%. Cheers, HD.:ok:

[FlexibleResponse]

Some of these postings reveal a huge difference between the views of current employees and the views of retirees who only saw the good times at CX.

Having had the pleasure of serving under PS (God bless his soul) and subsequently enduring the absolute horror of a totalitarian management by some “poor excuses for human beings” that followed, I can appreciate the lack of comprehension and empathy between some of the current and past employees.

Things have taken a major downhill slide in terms of management integrity, respect for staff and other “slippery dealings” since 1993. Even the Courts of Hong Kong are now starting to side with CX employees as witnessed in a recent ruling that CX management had illegally taken away pay increments from the cabin crew.

As difficult as it might be for some of our retirees to fathom, it is now an unfortunate fact that strong Unions are absolute necessities to keep this tyrannical management in check.

[VR-HFX]

FR

I am not a retiree.

I suspect, if you remember the open cheque book days of PS, we are of the same vintage.

Sorry but I do not share your view of subsequent management integrity.

Just goes to show that 2 folk of common background have a different takeaway....but therein lies the beauty and strength of CX.

The best interests of the flight crew of this company can ONLY be protected by getting a seat at the table. I am sorry to say, that can never be done via an aggressive UNION.

Disclaimer:

NO management role.

[cpdude]

VR-HFX,

That had better be a big table then!:D

Naaa...I tink a responsible Union is the way to go.:ok:

[Hangin' on]

VR-HFX, you seem to forget that the good times under PS were an exact reflection of the work done by the union, of which I was part. The original 5-4-3 rostering etc. were all the result of hard work on both sides negotiating in GOOD FAITH with each other. As for the A scales, they were a direct result of everyone in the union pulling together with complete solidarity for a better deal than the management were offering....which resulted in the then DFO MH, COMING TO THE EGM to tell us how the company was going to satisfy our needs in both pay and benefits.

The advent of B scales followed by ASL were the beginning of the rot, with a continual 'take it or leave it' attitude from the management side.

What you have left now is the ruins of what was in the '80s and early '90s a relatively cordial and at least respectful relationship between union and management, brought about by both commercial circumstances and the availability of pilots, but also the sheer bad faith and intransigence of the personell on the management side.

[shortly]

Bit of a red herring going on here. Sure PS was a gent and a real people person. Sure I miss his cocktail parties and such. However, who employed RE and BS to start the 'new way', who was Chairman at the time and for a long time after? I am with HFX on this one, there is bu..er all difference between the middle and senior level managers then and now, they all just do as they are told. IM less then HO it was the AOA who changed tactics not FOPS management.

[Cpt. Underpants]

Shorts, you either have advanced Alheimers or a very selective memory.

Do you forget the "no money in freight" B-S that GC handed out?
Do you forget the "sign or be fired" compliments of KB?
Do you forget the "big dipper" lie touted by VH?
Did you not have the "new contract" trauma?
Have you been insulated from the constant erosion of our COS?
Are you still on 76 hours, perchance?
Do you still have the 1 week NCL everyone else lost?
Are you unaware of the 19 (count 'em) different COS's in force?
Are you going to claim that Freehills was an AOA conspiracy theory?
Are you also going to claim that the 51 "deserved it"?



IM less then HO it was the AOA who changed tactics not FOPS management.

Go and take another puff of whatever it is you're smoking. You're not only part of the B-S, you're their Goebbels.

[Wizofoz]

Are you now going to claim that the 51 "deserved it"?

Deserved what CU?

Being sacked, or having their union dessert them?

[HotDog]

or having their union dessert them?

Sweet characters as some of them were, I don't think the HKAOA had any plans to feast on them.:D

[Cpt. Underpants]

Wiz

I did say 51 - the number that were originally fired. If you really had your nuts in one bag, you should be suggesting that the 49 were "desserted" by the AOA. Do your homework and stop playing on mummy's computer.

[Wizofoz]

Capt U,

Gee, sorry, two too many betrayed pilots and one too many "S"s.

But didn't you vocally defend the HKAOA in their useless, immoral recruitment ban, and now seem to be defending them after they have cut your friends adrift?

If Shorts is a Goebbels, you're doing a very good Neville Chamberlain!!

[FlexibleResponse]

Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. -Voltaire

While Voltaire wasn’t around to witness CX management’s downhill slide on corporate ethics in recent years, he was able to warn us of the effects of dysfunctional leadership on the management team and the sycophantic management groupies.

[cpdude]

So what now? We kiss and make-up and invite everyone to join the AOA? Sounds good to me!:)

[tamalai]

There comes a time when it is best to move on, and whilst this issue remains alive it is to the detriment of all and the benefit of none. I am sure those who have lost their jobs feel agrieved at the way they have been treated by both the company and by the AoA and to some the settlement, either by way of finance or the possibility to resume employment will never heal the scars left by this sorry affair, however, equally to continue with the court action will not achieve any satisfaction either, just prolong the bitter taste............................
Sorry, but the time to move along has come, nothing to be gained here but angst and bitterness, you will neither topple Cx nor those against whom you hold a grievence ,but time, the great healer of all wrongs will surely bring opportunity your way and those who step on your hands whilst climbing the ladder will usually find the compliment returned at some point in time, maybe not in the way you expect will justice be delivered, but it invariably is !!!!

[VR-HFX]

Hangin'On

I do indeed remember the PS days...and very fondly.

And Halcyon Days they were ... being made to feel and believe one was worth a small ransom. We were indeed the Hardy Boys, if you will excuse me bringing the Groupie's name into things again.

But one should put those days into the context of high growth off a small base and a perception in management that the situation in HK worked against attracting large numbers of quality aircrew to man the growth. Money was the simplest opiate to solve the problem. Agreed by AS and offered by PS. Shortly summed up the next step very well.

Whilst I agree the AOA played its part, your choice of words is prophetic. The reality is, they satisfied our 'needs' not responded to our demands. The good faith you refer to was a result of the company being in a position to accede to everything asked of it.

Swire management culture has not really changed. The owner of the train set remains the same.

The only thing that has changed is the tail thought it could go on wagging the dog when the ground shifted, as long as it became intransigent enough.

History is one thing. How one interprets it is quite another.

Best wishes.

[7FF]

Why would one want to join/rejoin an organisation that costs a lot of money and is TOTALLY ineffective. And in hindsight has always been so. The only useful function was the videos club.
:confused:

[cpdude]

I have to agree with 7FF. A rejoining fee? Sounds like a good reason not to rejoin the AOA to me. I'm not paying a penalty, fine or anything else because I was once a member a long time ago. Anything more than the normal joining fee is punitive and it won't wash.:*

[Turbo Beaver]

Now that this is settled.........

[Cpt. Underpants]

"dude", you were NEVER a member. Read your own posts.

[cpdude]

Ya sure Cpt. know-it-all!:8

[Turbo Beaver]

Ask yourself why the AOA Prez wants the quitters in? What are the demographics i.e. rank, AGE? What is the company needing?

Look at the demographics of the AOA. The S/O’s, JF/O’s, F/O’s, SF/O’s surely out number the Captains. He needs all the quitter captains to get age 60 passed (no F/O or below in their right mind would sign for 5 years increase in retirement age). If he doesn’t get the numbers, he and NR will offer an increase in pay for the grades below Captain to get the right seaters to sign.

It will be just enough to for people to think of themselves and not as a whole and well............enough said.

The only way for F/O’s to protect themselves is not to let the quitters in at a reduced re-joining fee. If they want age 60, make them rejoin and pay for it.

After this 49er deal, don’t think there will be too many new hires wanting to join the AOA. May as well save themselves 1.5%.

[jtr]

Turbo has hit the nail on the head.

[bonajet]

I think the real reason why recently employed pilots wouldn't join the union was because of the treatment handed out to them before, during and after joining CX, rather than because of the recent vote.
Quite a lot of middle ranking people (B scale FOs) I have spoken to, realize the need, for them, to work to 60. It will have to come in one day and maybe whilst your expansion is constrained by numbers of crew, is a good time for it to happen.

[jtr]

Quite a lot of middle ranking people (B scale FOs) I have spoken to, realize the need, for them, to work to 60

Don't confuse someone nodding in deference in an effort to shut you up with someone actually agreeing with you.http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/sleepy/blyawn.gif

[bonajet]

jtr - you don't know me - why slag me off? Because I just suggest something you don't agree with?

[jtr]

bonajet, as a B scale f/o, who spends 1/2 of my time in the seat with other B scale f/o's, and mostly speaks socially with B scale f/o's when mixing with aircrew, I can tell you that I have not heard one single B scale f/o say that they need to work to 60. I will leave you to interpret what you wish from that.

In addition, if I was to "slag" you off I would say something like..

That contravenes the rules of this forum and gets me banned !!!


however I chose not to, instead suggesting that any B scale f/o that agreed with your statement was perhaps doing so in deference.


jtr- still playing the ball, but we might need the video ump just to be sure.

[VR-HFX]

Turbo

I disagree.

You may be surprised to find how small the number of relics who want to go on to 60 really is.

Noise and numbers rarely have a sensible correlation.The 60 argument is a red herring for the majority of senior guys who left the AOA.

I did not leave the AOA in a fit of pique but only after realising it was like trying to teach a pig to sing...a complete waste of my time and it was only antagonising the pig.

Lets face it anyone who is silly enough to have no money at 55 after 20+ years can always do 5 years with Korean, Asiana, Mandarin etc if they have to, as well as stay living in HK.

I tend to agree that the young bucks will all probably have to go to 60, and why shouldn't they. The average 55 year old in another ten years will be a biological match for a 45 year old of my vintage...apart from a few die hard F/O's!

The trick is for the AOA to re-invent itself and show it has the ear of those who listen. It's not about the money.

[jtr]

yellow card acknowledged

[cpdude]

... it was like trying to teach a pig to sing...

Try making it down to Dakotas from 2am to closing as I always see pigs singing then.:D

[ameasham]

This is a most delicate post, if I offend please chalk it up to ignorance. I really want to know the real deal on the 49ers. I am interested to know the current working CX pilot, as well as someone in the know's position on the topic. Also, what is the company stance on this.
Please help as I only want to be as informed as I can be and can't find a lot of information on the topic. Thanks for the help.

[Turbo Beaver]

Of the 52"49ers"a total of 32 have accepted the Company offer - broken down into 21 who have applied for re-employment and 11 who have opted for a straight cash payment of 10 month's salary.

This leaves 20 individuals who have not responded to the offer. Of these 20, 10 are plaintiffs in the HKG court case, 4 have a claim with the UK Labour Tribunal, 5 were plaintiffs in the USA case and one is deceased.

Interviews for the 21 applicants will take place in the week commencing June 20th.

New Basings Policy
Discussions are now taking place with the AOA to finalize improvements to the administration and allocation of Bases.

We plan to hold discussions on the prospect of flying with CX beyond the age of 55 very shortly.

[bobrun]

If it is agreed to increase the retirement age from 55 to 60, will this affect the time to upgrade from S/O to F/O for the new joiners?

Thanks for your thoughts!

[cpdude]

I think the answer to your question can be argued with varied results.

If age 60 is implemented and a slow expansion occurs then maybe it will delay your upgrade potential.

If age 55 is maintained and the airline could have expanded had they had the trainers etc. then maybe not having age 60 will delay your upgrade potential.

If age 60 is implemented and a quick expansion occurs as a result then maybe it will speed up your upgrade potential.

If age 55 is maintained and the airline does not expand then the status quo is maintained.

Don't get too wrapped up about the implications of age 60 to your command. Its industry standard and a nice thing to have in your back pocket as you hit your early 50's. Also, it's a bit of a trump card at the moment that has a shelf life. The value of it to the AOA is decreasing steadily.

IMHO;)

[VR-HFX]

When I joined, I was told it would be 7-10 years to command. It turned out to be 5 years.

Today it is roughly 10. Tomorrow it could be 6,7,8,9.

I think the reality is that noone knows and I do not think increasing the retirement age to 60 will make any difference.

As I have said earlier, most of the A scale guys that are left will not be interested in staying after 55...my straw poll. Maybe a few want to stay to help in C&T for their own personal or marital reasons, but they would not get in the way of upgrades.

My guess is the easiest way to keep the addicts on until they are 60 is the freighter fleet and then try to integrate the freighter guys across to pax. The company would not be averse to this.

Reality is most should have a command by 40.

[Turbo Beaver]

It started in ‘93-’94 when CX introduced B Scales and started a continued erosion of Conditions of Service. The A Scale Pilots were threatened with a contract (sign or you will never get a pay raise or a basing). Very well maneuvered by CX and most signed the new deal without much of a fight. Most assumed B Scales did not affect them and they were not concerned. Approximately 50-60 stood firm and did not sign the new deal. This batch ended up getting the best roster, basings and a low threshold flying hours before overtime. That day, the Champagne corks were flying at Swire House. I am all right Jack syndrome began.

In ‘96 they started ASL to fly the freighters. The Freighters were even lower pay and conditions. By the time 2000 rolled around they realized it was not working (it provided no flexibility and low productivity). The ASL pilots were allowed a one-time offer to join the CX seniority list, which most did, but the old farts stayed with ASL because of age 60. Subsequently some have quit the AOA after joining the CX list. All 744 pilots now volunteer to fly the freighter aircraft because CX needs the flexibility. Also if you don’t you will be labeled a bad apple.

In 1999, CX threaten, again, all A Scale pilots with “sign a new contract or be fired”. The AOA conceived this as a threat and urged all A Scale pilots not to fly if they were stressed. All of the Captains at that time were A Scale. Most Captains kept flying. It was presented again as a threat to all pilots’ contract and everybody was asked not to fly stressed. The F/O’s got involved, as some Captains,and did not fly stressed. It went on for 2 weeks and at the height, there were 75 flights cancelled out of 129. IMHO, in hindsight, the biggest mistake was the F/O’s joining their fight. See later. Captains continued to fly (there were only a few A Scale F/O’s at that time, some flew, some didn’t). In the end the A Scales signed the new agreement (as in ‘94). The Based Pilots took the biggest hit (27% pay decrease) but the HK A Scalers got their PFund topped up (which was very good IMHO). Most Based Pilots returned to HK, which cost CX a huge amount (CX didn’t expect the Pilots to return to HK). Discussions on basing policy are up and coming and the option to return will be gone or extended. IMHO if you are not allowed to return to HK, they will cut pay on basing even deeper.

In 2000-2001 the AOA wanted a revised rostering agreement, negotiated pay, and benefits. Nothing was negotiated for the past 10 years. There were talks and nothing materialized (some will say there was an offer). There was no formal offer by CX to the AOA. Talks broke down. During that time it was work to rule.

The then AOA stated they may take industrial action. After the ‘99 dispute this worried the company. The now DFO implied 4 months before the talks broke down “if you will take industrial action, we will fire 20-30 Pilots and the rest will fall in line”. The AOA was a bit worried about this and figured it should not go stressed this time. CX asked the AOA what kind of action they were going to take and of course the AOA said “No Comment”. CX wanted to know badly what the Pilots were going to do. If it were another ‘99, CX will have to obtain aircraft for the flying. The last week of June (2001) CX had to make a decision on getting 10-11 aircraft. In the end they hired those aircraft secretly from Air China.

On June 30, the AOA announced that it would take limited industrial action by the way of working to rule. Basically status quo.

This really embarrassed Cathay Pacific. The Pilots did not go sick and CX had 10-11 aircraft from Air China that had to be paid for.

This was a huge embarrassment for the CX CEO, as a Pilot hoodwinked him. This made him furious. What shall we do, was the question. This is the same CEO that fired a pilot for throwing peanuts in the air at the company bar. Some landed by the CEO’s foot.

They paid for10-11 aircraft from Air China so they used them to fly some routes and had huge ads in the SCMP how all the pilots are calling in sick. We were actually put on reserve/standby for 2-3 weeks until the Air China aircraft returned. It was a colossal loss of face.

The DFO and the deputy DFO (now DFO) arranged a Star Chamber meeting of all the managers. We need to fire about 50 pilots. The managers were asked if they ever had exchange with pilots that they didn’t like or who they considered a bad apple (a bad apple is open for interpretation, speaking up put you in that category). One was stood down by Crew Control and then put down as a missed duty, another confronted Crew Control about Flight Time Limitations, and both are 49ers. CX had about 150 on the list but could not terminate that many without affecting the schedule, so the lucky 49ers were created. This happened July 9th, 2001. They did not get a chance to defend themselves. They were fired by phone, fax, and Express courier (DHL).

The AOA developed a Maximum Safety Strategy. It was a work to rule. Not all pilots did this and the ones that did, were called into the office to explain themselves. Some Captains wrote up F/O’s for trying to slow things down (not good for Command prospects) One Captain was demoted. CX had for 5-10 extra people to dispatch the aircraft. Ground staff were in the cockpit watching the pre-flight, others went with the pilot on walk arounds. The ground staff started to blame all delays on the flight crew as they could get away with it. Some pilots saved themselves from demotion by taking good notes and presented them to the interrogator when called in. Only then it was realized that some ports were really out to screw the pilots and were outright lying.

Then 911 happened and we have been trying to fight this in the courts for the last 4 years. Our dues went up to 5% at one point and have been at 3% over the last couple of years. When the dues went up, most of the pilots contract that was threatened in ‘99 subsequently quit the AOA and numbers have dropped by 400. Thank you for helping. New joiners are reluctant to join because of high dues and don’t want to get fired.

The AOA put on a recruitment ban (which was endorsed by IFALPA) and there are a number of people who have broken the ban. It was subsequently lifted.

The current AOA/Membership have decided to stop funding the court cases, which forced some to accept an interview or 10 months. The AOA Committee had to take two votes to unleash the 49ers. The first didn't make it by a few votes (need 66% to carry the motion). The motion was reworded and a second vote cast. Bring in the axe.

The court cases were to conclude early next year and to this point the 49ers had all judgments/costs awarded in their favor. The AOA Committee bulldozed this motion through for some reason. The committee painted a doomsday scenario and promoted it as the likely case. This doomsday scenario had to be cited but it is unlikely.

The returning 49ers will have to go through 3 interviews with the company (independent shrink present accompanied by the company doctor) and the DFO will decide who will come back (there is a panel but no one, who is career oriented, will speak up against the DFO). The panel may consist of managers who were involved in the Star Chamber meetings. The AOA president has hinted and called some 49ers to say they will not have a problem with the interview and discouraged some wanting to return to Hong Kong.

This offer is for an interview only.

Some are trying to start another union (the CPU-Cathay Pilots Union, Cathay meaning China) and acquire enough members to fund the legals for the 49ers that did not accept the offer. I believe people are reluctant to join the CPU as they will be considered bad apples (see above), but I am sure that some will contribute a percentage of their salary to keep the legals going.

As for the company’s position, it was a pain, both industrially and monetary, I don’t think CX cares if anyone is happy (opinion) as long as the job gets done. They don’t like it, that is why they want this to go away and the committee/members gave it away (again opinion). They always inquire about the 49ers at fleet forums (pilot-manager meeting). Again, if you speak up.

The company asks all pilots to move forward, but pilots are still Cat B’d (not yet suitable for command) because of political grounds of the events of the last 7-10 years. Obviously a one-way street.

IMHO they will continue to erode the contract because they can.

Looking forward to it VR.

[VR-HFX]

Turbo

I am not sure when you get your day in court but let me provide a more considered response when I get back on Sunday.

[Snake Hips]

Just been told the panel will include a couple of non Flight Ops senior managers to provide "balance and impartiality". What a good idea. $100 it doesn't happen!

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

dear, oh dear, oh dear,.............
The AOA put on a recruitment ban (which was endorsed by IFALPA) and there are a number of people who have broken the ban. ........why didn't the AOA realise only the company can ban recruitment? i guess because IFALPA never told them................................pathetic..............an d while we are at it...........when are my mates (who didn't join during this so called recruitment ban) going to get jobs ? ..............as promised by the HKAOA.

Oh sorry...... forgot the company does the recruiting NOT THE AOA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!