PDA

View Full Version : Sacked Cathay pilot wins right to UK


frankg
29th Jan 2006, 14:17
Sacked Cathay pilot wins right to UK
hearing

RUSSELL BARLING

Britain's top appeals court has given some employees of Cathay Pacific Airways recourse
to British labour laws in a decision that has wider implications for how British-controlled
firms in Hong Kong handle staff dismissals.

The House of Lords upheld an appeals court decision allowing George Crofts, one of 51
pilots sacked by Cathay in 2001, to seek compensation for what he saw as unfair
dismissal at the hands of Veta, a wholly owned subsidiary of the airline. In 2004,
Britain's Employment Tribunals had said it was within its jurisdiction to hear Mr Crofts'
complaint, a finding Cathay appealed at the tribunal and appeals court levels.
"I think not only that the tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusion which it did, but
also that it was right," Lord Hoffmann said in the 5-0 decision in Mr Crofts' favour. "I
would therefore dismiss Veta's appeal."

While Cathay is unlikely to suffer substantial financial losses from the subsequent
tribunal hearing - 11 of the 12 British-based pilots sacked in 2001 accepted an offer from
the airline in April last year - Mr Crofts undoubtedly will see the decision as an
important symbolic victory.
Those close to Mr Crofts say his five-year battle with the airline was less about
compensation - the tribunal's cap is said to be less than the amount that Cathay offered
him to settle last year - than it was about gaining public acknowledgment that he and his
colleagues were unfairly dismissed.

Cathay said it was seeking counsel in Hong Kong and Britain to see if the decision was
"compliant with the letter of the UK labour law". "We are disappointed with the ruling," a
spokeswoman said. "It has always been the company's belief that the dismissal of Mr
Crofts was carried out entirely in accordance with the terms of his contract and was
perfectly legal under Hong Kong law."

Mr Crofts is favoured to win the tribunal hearing.

In a letter last year to fellow "49ers", as the sacked pilots are known, Mr Crofts urged
them to turn down Cathay's offer - believed in his case to be 10 months' salary and reemployment.

"[The] 49ers are black-banned with virtually every prestige airline in the world as a result
of being branded troublemakers. This offer makes no attempt to rectify that wrong. It
does not in any way clear our names or record," Mr Crofts wrote. "Expunging the unjust,
unlawful termination of the 49ers is paramount to us all. It is, in fact, your careers that
rest on this action."

Most of those rehired by Cathay were taken back as cargo pilots at lower wages and less
senior positions. Cathay and the pilots' union have mended fences recently after almost
five years of acrimony. But that did not lessen the importance of Mr Crofts' victory in
union eyes.

SCMP.com is the premier information resource on Greater China. With a click, you will be able to access information on Business,
Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. Bookmark SCMP.com for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong,
China, Asia and the World. Voted the Best Online newspaper outside the US and brought to you by the South China Morning
Post, Hong Kong's premier English language news source.
Published in the South China Morning Post. Copyright © 2006. All rights reserved.

Mr. Bloggs
30th Jan 2006, 08:16
The UK Veta Pilots owe Mr. Croft’s a very big “Thank You”. At least now we fall under UK law.
The British-controlled firms in Hong Kong must be very impressed with Cathay. There has to be some ear bending at the Hong Kong Club as of late.
The CPU is doing a better job at protecting our contract than the AOA.
Can't wait to see how this unfolds.

BusyB
30th Jan 2006, 09:45
All EU based pilots owe Mr Crofts a thank-you.

As far as who has done the job I would say that it is all the AOA and ex AOA members who have contributed over the last 4-5 years. Childish tantrums over who is doing what only helps management!!

cadence
30th Jan 2006, 16:04
The way I heard it the AOA betrayed and abandoned the 49ers and then forced a crap deal on them. That union has little to be proud of.

BusyB
30th Jan 2006, 17:05
Hearing anything doesn't make it true.

For some 49'ers, nothing except a legal battle to the end would suffice.
For other 49'ers the risk of losing what they had left in costs was too great and a compromise was wanted.

The AOA had to work with what people were prepared to pay and what was wanted. If they want to be represented and have at least a chance of affecting their working conditions they can join the AOA. The CPU can't help you there.

It seems to me that dividing those who've supported the 49'ers for so long is not a particularly clever thing to do.

cadence
30th Jan 2006, 17:22
That's funny, the guy I heard it from is a 49er so I think it does make it true. Those were his words by the way, betrayed and abandoned.

BusyB
30th Jan 2006, 17:36
Well the eight 49'ers back at CX don't say that, I've spoken to them.

The point I made was that they didn't all have the resources to want the same thing. The AOA certainly didn't have the support to do everything that everybody wanted. There isn't a black or white in reality its all shades of grey.

Wally Gun
1st Feb 2006, 09:46
From a 49er to those who aren't.
You were all conned by the union leadership. This was not a **** deal...it was far worse. Abandoned and let down doesn't adequately describe what you and your peers did to (for) us. We told you to decline this settlement offer and yet, in your infinite wisdom, you decided that what we thought and wanted was irrelevant and accepted, on our behalf, a crap deal.
Well I guess you are now reaping what you sowed. Look forward to being screwed for the rest of your career.
Age 60...on B scale reduced pay and benefits. You didn't stand up for us so screw you.
George...I take my hat off to you.
Wally

6feetunder
1st Feb 2006, 12:24
And those guys are going to confide in you BusyB? I think not, they have already been screwed once by the company and you guys screwed them again. What do you expect them to say? Remember they are being very closely watched and listened to. They are also on probation for the second time in a company that already fired them once without cause.

Those guys are born again, the DFO couldn't have asked for more ideal employees.

Wizofoz
1st Feb 2006, 14:38
And let's not forget those who supported the ridiculous employment ban on the promise that the HKAOA would "Support their applications" once the ban was over- Only to be told "Sod off, you're not a member" when the time came.

The HKAOA was willing to screw over other pilots rather than make a stand themselves, then screw over the 49ers when fighting on got too expensive.

NOT the actions of an hounorable group.

cpdude
1st Feb 2006, 14:55
From a 49er to those who aren't.
You were all conned by the union leadership. This was not a **** deal...it was far worse. Abandoned and let down doesn't adequately describe what you and your peers did to (for) us. We told you to decline this settlement offer and yet, in your infinite wisdom, you decided that what we thought and wanted was irrelevant and accepted, on our behalf, a crap deal.
Well I guess you are now reaping what you sowed. Look forward to being screwed for the rest of your career.
Age 60...on B scale reduced pay and benefits. You didn't stand up for us so screw you.
George...I take my hat off to you.
Wally

Yes, we are so screwed! Other airlines have furloughed hundreds and or lost entire pension schemes, benefits, dramatic salary cuts but we are the screwed ones. We may have to work to age 60, like everyone else in the industry but we are the screwed ones. Many other airlines are so unstable pilots with as much as 10 years or more of seniority are jumping ship trying to join us screwed ones at CX.
Take look around you and take notice if you can. The screwed ones are ALL of us in this industry called aviation and we (CX) happen to be doing a little better than almost everyone else!

BusyB
1st Feb 2006, 20:08
I think its strange that one 49'er who voices his feelings deludes himself that others won't voice their feelings to me.

Slagging off others who are still contributing to 49'ers welfare also seems extraordinarally shortsighted.

Dividing the pilot workforce as some are attempting can only help CX.

6ft and woz, are you management?

Wizofoz
2nd Feb 2006, 07:56
6ft and woz, are you management?

So, any discenting view must be management?

No, I am mearly an interested observer. I consider the action of CX management in sacking the 49ers reprehensible. I consider the HKAOA response weak, selfish and ridiculous.

Mr. Bloggs
2nd Feb 2006, 08:15
Just some comments to the above threads.

The 49ers will confide in very few people, especially if he has any doubt it will be repeated or even mentioned in a casual manner elsewhere. It depended on how you expressed your opinion in the past and how the 49 er thought you voted. They are all on probation. It seems the 49ers that were vocally opposed to the deal and the one’s that were not, had two very different outcomes. CX desires obedience.

Prude, “should have been fired 49 times”, you are such an excrement cranium and a down right uknt. Please don’t take offence to this because I know you won’t. I have never seen a person so judgmental against the 49ers. Is there a reason for this?

If the 12 rehires got fired for no particular reason, then got rehired because they were not vocal about the crap deal, which the members chose for them, well there was no reason to fire them in the first place. Except to show the AOA leadership that CX can do and get away with it.
Other business.

If the members did not stand up for the 49ers, how can you negotiate your contract upwards? It is not going to happen. The Pilot group will receive what the company thinks they should have or what CX can get away with. I would suspect a new COS post June 2006 with this expansion.

The AOA will represent your conditions downward. Of course the company will only talk to the AOA, wouldn’t you. I just can’t realise how 30 days free reserve benefits My Family and I. I must have missed that part of negotiation school. What did we get for it? That’s correct, nothing. Save your money.

All those other pilots with 10 years experience coming to CX, it is not their first choice. If it were, they would have been here 10 years ago. It’s a matter of need.

I look forward to the outcome of Mr. Croft’s case. In due course, this will clear the name of all 49ers, which they all deserve. It will also show CX, if they want to dismiss people, they will be subject to the laws in which person lives/based. CX will dismiss more pilots, but will have strict guidelines in which to do so, if they don’t, we will see them in Tribunals.

Good luck Mr. Crofts, you have my support.

Nullaman
2nd Feb 2006, 08:26
I must find that newspaper article about Mr C. About 11-12 years ago the incident? In a carpark?? Surely not. :mad:

Mr. Bloggs
2nd Feb 2006, 10:24
If it were that long ago, should something have been done then. Bit of a delayed reaction don’t you think.

There will be skeletons in everyone's closet. What soundness does“no particular reason” have to do with getting dismissed.

Although Mr. Croft is the only one left in the UK case, I wish him and the other 49ers the best in there court cases.

Any skeletons on the rest? Maybe a sense of humour failure on behalf of management.

Big Picture
5th Feb 2006, 12:26
Fellow Aircrew,
I don't believe that we will achieve much by denograting any of our fellow aircrew. What happened to the 49's was terrible. I don't believe there is anyone in the industry that doesn't feel for the loss and hardship all those professionals and their families went through. But the facts are as as follows:
a. The decision was in UK, against aircrew employed and living in the UK. i.e it doesn't apply to anyone outside UK, however in a court "OS" the ruling could (under certain circumstances) be admissable as evidence, i.e. could hold water OS but don't bank on it.
b. The case in the UK, to follow, may not even reap the benefits of what (I think we all agree) was dissapointing, but the best on offer by the company, i.e. a victory in a the house of Lords is great, but in the bank account of Mr Croft, well I guess we will see, that my friends, is the key point to remember, is Mr Croft going to be financially better off, remembering that he has turned down an offer of a lousy freighter job/ interview or 10 months pay??? Watch this space.
c. Remember, its was the membership (that some of you critize) that supported these guys for many years. I tip my hat to them and wish that they all could have got a better outcome, I'll be watching the court case in the UK with interest.
Good luck to all those aircrew that fight the fight, any win could be a potential win for us all, if we suffer the same fate.
BP

hawkeye
5th Feb 2006, 13:06
In the court case, in which Crofts got the GBH conviction, it was also revealed that he had taken a drug overdose. Must have felt bad about hitting his mistress so hard that her front tooth was buried in the roof of her mouth.
If CX had known about the overdose they would have had another reason not to hire him. Not only that but the Hong Kong CAD would have been interested. UK CAA must take a more relaxed view.
Crofts had no option but to keep the fight going. When his past was in the open, he knew that he had no chance of re-hire by CX.

Big Picture
5th Feb 2006, 16:21
Interesting call. Any chance you could expand on this. i.e. Dates , places, details of the conviction, GBH I understand? Maybe you could attach a transcript from the judge and his summary????
I just want to get the truth!!!
BP

Hamrah
7th Feb 2006, 14:05
Gentlemen,

for the record , the said individual left AEU for no other reason than a better job offer. There were no complaints made against him. On the basis that this accusation is false, can I caution you all to be sure of your FACTS if you are going to put them on this bulletin board.

Grand slam, I assume you are willing to back up your post with dates and facts, should we be required to present them to lawyers. If you can't, I'd suggest an edit to something that CAN be backed up.

H

Turn and Burn
30th Mar 2006, 19:56
I can understand the moderators concerns about lawyers and website owners. The question is, on an open forum such as this, if unsubstantiated opinions were excluded, how many contributors would remain?
In the case of Crofts, the evidence can be substantiated by reference to court records. The Sun article, in which the story of Crofts' court appearance was originally printed, is now circulating. Does a reference to a newspaper article constitute a libel. If it does not, I shall reproduce the article for the benefit of pprune subscribers, although I regret I shall be unable to reproduce the photograph of Crofts, which also appeared.
Regarding other allegations made against Crofts, contributions are restricted by the fact that few outside of the Hong Kong pilot force would bother to read Fragrant Harbour. Astraeus crews who know Crofts are unlikely to venture this far East and give us the benefit of their experiences.
Neither are many Dan-Air, Airtours and Ansett crews likely to find their way down here. Any that do will certainly remember Mr Crofts.

Turn and Burn
2nd Apr 2006, 07:08
Frankg has moved this post to a wider audience on the 'Rumours and News' page.

Danny
2nd Apr 2006, 14:25
Whilst I am not a lawyer, I have to remain aware of my responsibilities as the website owner. In this instance, there appear to be a few brave souls who fearlessly post potentially libelous rubbish from behind their cloaks of anonymity. Well, I warn them now, that should anyone get a court order asking me to reveal what information I have on them, which includes IP addresses which, if necessary, can be used to trace an individual through their ISP, so that any libel action can pursued, I will not hesitate to do so.

What is in the public domain is one thing. Making unsubstantiated allegations about what isn't is an entirely different matter.

A far as this thread is concerned, some of you obviously have an agenda. Sadly, the agenda appears to reflect the inability of some to understand certain basic principles, one being that this case has nothing whatsoever to do with George Croft's previous history. It just so happens that he is the only one with the stamina to continue with the proceedings to this point. The result is that Uk employment law should have been used when considering dismissal of the 49'ers. George was not fired because of any skeletons in his cupboard. He was fired along with the other VETA pilots unfairly and illegally. If Cathay wanted to fire George because of any skeletons in his cupboard then they should have followed the proper procedures, which they didn't. To raise them now, in the context of this thread is puerile.

George Crofts has successfully taken on Cathay and set a precedent so that the rest of the Cathay pilots have recourse to English employment law where applicable. Whatever George Croft's history, they cannot fire him for it now.

So, can we please concentrate on the issue of the ruling from the House of Lords as it applies to UK run companies based in HK and not on George Croft's past history. If you feel you can't resist the urge to have a go at George then at least have cojones to do so up front and without the comfort blanket of anonymity. :hmm:

Turn and Burn
2nd Apr 2006, 16:49
Danny. The question of unfair dismissal is woven into this case, regardless of the procedures adopted by CX in their treatment of the 49ers. George Crofts has chosen to expose his 'bag of bones' purely by his objection to being unfairly dismissed. We all have skeletons in our cupboard. Most of us give them a wide berth. If we made a big issue about being dismissed, knowing that CX had grounds for doing so, we should not be too surprised if the bones in the bag get raked over.

jtr
2nd Apr 2006, 22:42
T+B, In summary, I think what Danny was saying was....

"STFU T+B"

Just trying to help you out.

frankg
2nd Apr 2006, 23:14
T & B, the main reason I started the thread on Rumours and News was to include the link to The Cathay Pilots Union (http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org) website. There you will find a lot of information regarding the case Crofts v Veta.

This is an important issue that will impact thousands of employees in many industries worldwide.

Mr. Bloggs
3rd Apr 2006, 02:04
Mr. Crofts past is a red herring. If CX knew about his past, maybe they would not have hired him. If they found out after the fact, there is a CX mickey mouse court he could have gone through. Instead, he and 48 employes we Fired/Terminated/Loss of Confidence/No Particular Reason or whatever on a single day. No procedures were followed.

Mr. Crofts was given a letter stating he was terminated for “No Particular Reason”. I believe some (possibly CX types or Mr. Croft haters or both) are now trying to find reasons for Mr. Crofts termination to justify his termination in the tribunal.

I am sure the Tribunal will look more at the situation surrounding his termination than what Mr. Croft has done in the past. Like I said, it’s a red herring.

Whether Mr. Crofts wins or loses this tribunal, it will be very interesting to see Cathay Laundry hanging for the employees and the world to see.

We are a caring company, to whom, I am not sure.

Ricky Whizz
8th Apr 2006, 08:36
T & B,

Please tell me:

If you had a D & G procedure in your contract and your employer had a problem with you (all those skeletons!) - would you expect them to use it (D & G) or to give you three months notice (co-incidentaly at the same time as 48 other chaps)?
:rolleyes:

Turn and Burn
15th Apr 2006, 15:12
CX procedure in the past has been to offer the candidate for dismissal an option. He can either go D and G, in which case he would not receive a reference for a future employer, or he can resign. The latter route leaves the door open for some negotiation over terms. If the company had obvious grounds for dismissal, then you would be a fool to choose D and G. Some of the 49ers had good reason to want D and G since the company would have been hard pressed to prove a case against them. Others would have gone quietly knowing they had no defence.

BusyB
15th Apr 2006, 16:21
T & B,
I don't think that is correct. A number of pilots were offered a punishment (eg. demotion) or dismissal. They were not offered the D & G procedure. Despite being in our COS it only appears to be used as a grievance procedure instigated by an individual.

Ricky Whizz
16th Apr 2006, 00:28
Thank you T&B, I believe that you have answered my question. It is obvious from what you have said that you would expect the company to allow the officer to resign or to be put through the D&G.

As you well know, this did not happen in the case of the 49ers. The company action (termination of contract) amounts to anti union intimidation in my opinion and I suspect that the employment tribunal in the UK will be able to see that quite clearly.

As a professional pilot (especially if you are with Cathay) I would expect you to be more outraged by Cathay's action in sacrificing the careers of 49 pilots than by any misdemeanours that any of the pilots may (or may not) have committed.

Turn and Burn
30th Apr 2006, 10:37
Those of you who were in CX at the time the 49ers had their contracts terminated will remember that there were many issues on which to be outraged. The union leadership had called for a sick-out, which meant that crews would call in sick, sometimes only hours before a flight. The reason given for going sick was generally stress. Not only did this disadvantage the company, but it also inconvenienced the majority of crew members who refused to take part in the union action.

We then had AOA members ringing up non-compliant crew making veiled threats about their future health. That was outrageous. We also had Captains refusing to speak to crew members who were not in the union. The lead would be followed by others in the crew such that, in a four man crew, one of the crew members would be ostracised. In the context of CRM, such behaviour is unprofessional and certainly outrageous.

It is in the context of this poisonous atmosphere that the company actions should be viewed. When your own crews are being intimidated and your passengers are being disadvantaged you have to act.

The management and CC provided 200 names. Some were selected because of the frequency with which they had phoned in sick. Others because they were deemed to have been involved in the intimidation of other crew members. One was an unstable bully, about whom complaints had been made by other crew members and ground staff in several ports. The fate of that particular Captain was sealed when he grabbed a member of ground staff by the lapels. Some cases, including the latter were not union related, but all got swept up as 49ers.

You ask why D and G procedures were not followed. Stress is a valid reason for calling in sick. Indeed, if you have suffered a family crisis, the company are demonstrably generous in giving time off to recover. However, in these instances the terms of the contract were being abused in spirit if not in law. The stress was bogus and by using it as a means of attacking the company, the perpetrators were undermining the position of crew members who may genuinely have been stressed for reasons unrelated to union activity. D and G under those circumstances would have been a charade.

Shortly before the sick-out was called, the union membership elected as their President a Captain who was known for his militant views. It was evident from the beginning that he wanted to take on the company in a trial of strength. Sadly, he persuaded a number of union members to follow him. What he failed to do is get the whole of the membership on side, with the result that the pilot force was polarised; pilot against pilot. The longer term result has been the almost fatal weakening of the union. It now represents less than 50% of the pilot body. The Captain who led the charge against the company, as union President, is still plying his trade with us. He is earning, with benefits, around HK$2,500,000 (US$275000) per annum. When he retires his Provident Fund will be worth several million dollars. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would have resigned in solidarity with the 49ers. If I were a 49er, I would be outraged.

BusyB
30th Apr 2006, 11:33
T & B,
You said

"It is in the context of this poisonous atmosphere that the company actions should be viewed. When your own crews are being intimidated and your passengers are being disadvantaged you have to act."

I would point out that the atmosphere you are talking about was created by CX who had regularly implemented changes to contracts and agreements unilaterally.

I myself have had my contract broken by CX twice and was threatened with dismissal in both cases when I complained.

Regardless of this threats to individuals are, as you say, totally unacceptable and your linking the 49'ers to them is in very bad taste.

7FF
30th Apr 2006, 11:46
Although I do not agree with most of Turn and Burns posting, It is his opinion. I suppose that is what this forum is about.
However, I do agree with him about the CX pilot he is referring to.
I can remember the person in question standing up at one of the AOA meetings stating that if we do not win the fight, the company will not be worth working for.
We lost and he is still here.:confused:
Shows how committed he was in the end. Same for the leading AOA paid employees.:\

FlexibleResponse
30th Apr 2006, 14:26
Some posters keep up a diatribe of malicious falsification, misrespresentation and distortion of the facts. One suspects that one day the boys from spin city will face the music for their actions.

Other posters respond with untiring integrity. They remind us of who we are and what is important. They restore our faith in civilised behaviour and humanity.

Turn and Burn
30th Apr 2006, 15:03
BusyB. Some of the 49ers were guilty of intimidating fellow crew members. How can it be in bad taste to link them to the activities in which they were involved. Perhaps Flexible response would like to tell us that the intimidation never happened. Or was it the ostracising of fellow crew members that was misrepresented?

frankg
30th Apr 2006, 15:30
If anything that T&B states about individual behaviour were true then those individuals could have been sacked for cause. THEY WEREN'T... No D & G, no nothing. The were sacked 'for no particular reason', a direct quote from the company.

Nothing said here defaming the plaintiffs or mitigating the company's behaviour has any bearing on the current complaint.

BusyB
30th Apr 2006, 15:45
T & B,
You've done it again

"Some of the 49'ers"

is what you claim.

All of them were unfairly dismissed. If D & G's had taken place and what you said were true no doubt action could have been taken, but they didn't.

Personally I feel that in a more enlightened country the pilots could have taken out a Grievance against the managers concerned for not managing and therefore bringing the Airline into disrepute! No doubt you'll dispute that as well.

19weeler
24th May 2006, 01:15
T & B
As well as much of your post being factually incorrect, it seems to reek of justification for your apparent lack of moral fibre.

cpdude
24th May 2006, 02:26
T & B
As well as much of your post being factually incorrect, it seems to reek of justification for your apparent lack of moral fibre.

Kind of a "delayed" reation wasn't it?

tifters
25th May 2006, 02:00
The same president came up with "A company gets the union it deserves".
Although it can be easy to pick the mistakes that we all made back then, lets not forget why we were doing it!!!! I for one was sick and tired of the changes to my rosters and the lack of care on behalf of the company on the effect on our home lives. We had to do something. We have to learn from the mistakes of the past and find common ground with all pilot bodies, going against this company with anything less than 70% of the pilots is suicide.

sizematters
25th May 2006, 05:39
actually going with anything less than 100% is suicide, and that can't happen 'cos everyone who isn't in "the club" is stopped from joining the union.....................recruitment ban guys, asl, etc etc

union.......mmmmmmmmm............unity, .................whats that all about then ???

The Management
25th May 2006, 09:45
If I am not mistaken, it was 94% in favour of Limited Industrial Action back in 2001. As soon as we fired the 49er’s, within a year, 300-400 pilots quit your club, Thank you very much. You had your chance back in 2001 and you missed it.

We were very worried after the Air China Aircraft left, The Club would start their Limited Industrial Action. That obvious was not the case. Firing the pilots was the best thing we ever did, as it paid huge dividends in the long run. It is so effective that we should have used it sooner and will be an effective tool in the future.

The Pilots are staving for any piece of a pay raise. This means the pilots will sign off on just about anything to get a few crumbs

The Quitters made sure they protected themselves and other members are in such a disarray with all pulling in different directions. It is quite effective for us to do business at this time.

You see, we own you. What we want, we just ask the club and they convince the members it is the best deal you can receive, so it gets signed off. Very easy really.

We may have to pay Mr. Crofts some crumbs in the end, but what we have and will receive from the pilot group is peanuts by comparison. After Mr. Crofts case is completed, all will be forgotten by the pilot group within a year. From our intelligence, the CPU will run out of funds before it actually sees the inside of a court room.

We are very pleased with our current situation.

BTW, your rosters will be getting much more miserable if we have our way. We are working on a couple of areas.