DEFO NO Vote [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Five Green

10th Oct 2006, 10:58

Oh and one other thing. Let us assume that the non members are more company than not. I know there are some hard corfe that left the AOA in disgust but for a moment just suppose.

If that is the case then the company would actually benefit by letting it be known that they approve (or at least support) of having the AOA. Then new joiners and fence sitting worriers would see that it is ok to join. If you got 200-300 more joiners then the votes would probably follow a more company sympathetic direction.

While this may not be ideal in some eyes, it surley would be better at the negotiating table and iin the aftermath of any vote taken.

Not sure what I think of that possibility.

Oasis

10th Oct 2006, 12:32

Five Green, I wouldn't naturally assume that non-members are pro-company as you say. It seems the aoa managed to pi$$ off people from both sides of the fence.

A sad state of affairs that hopefully will soon be rectified.

BScaler

10th Oct 2006, 23:05

tifters

It is worth standing back a little now and focussing on what we in the AOA actually voted down.

We have comprehensively voted not to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners.

That's all.

The Company has now advertised in a NTC, a significant number of FO basings positions in SYD and AMS in accordance with current basings agreements. Positions that are not taken up by currently employed eligible Officers will be filled up by recruiting in directly.

So the Company is still going ahead with DEFO recruitment - it simply remains to be seen what CoS will be offered. Will the Company offer New Joiners current CoS or will they, as some fear, disregard the sentiment of the vote that has just taken place and offer CoS07, or something similar, anyway?

I am looking forward to further updates by the AOA on this topic, and hope that the Company will confirm that it is offering current CoS to New Joiner DEFOs.

In the absence of such an assurance, it would be helpful if any prospective DEFO New Joiner reading this, who has been offered a position, could pass on the details of the contract they have been offered.

I am heartened that the vote was so comprehensive against the motion, and believe that it signals a strengthening of the unity of the AOA membership.

I hope more CX aircrew will be encouraged to join the AOA in the months ahead as a result. Certainly, those that join the Company after January 2007 can be shown demonstrably that the AOA stood up for their cause when they were yet only potential colleagues - powerful motive, I would think, to join such an organisation.

Jaguar7777

11th Oct 2006, 00:43

tifters
I hope more CX aircrew will be encouraged to join the AOA in the months ahead as a result. Certainly, those that join the Company after January 2007 can be shown demonstrably that the AOA stood up for their cause when they were yet only potential colleagues - powerful motive, I would think, to join such an organisation.

As an upcoming new joiner SO in the coming months, i hope this is the case. Hold off the COS changes and AOA will have my application.
Convoluted though it is to grasp all this, id like the extra weeks leave if nothing else down the track, let alone any pay differences.

Jaguar7777

11th Oct 2006, 06:34

Theres always someone twisting the intent of a post.

:=

Time to stop fighting each other!

nolimitholdem

14th Oct 2006, 17:56

Just received the invite for a DEFO interview. I applied without specifying FO or SO, I assumed DEFO was only for the freighter? Or is it possible it is now for pax as well? Sorry for joining the discussion late, if someone could point me to a relevant thread I am trying to catch up on the whole issue....

Numero Crunchero

6th Nov 2006, 19:24

B scaler, I think I know who you are and would love to discuss this further.
nolmitholdem....apply for and get what you can. If the vote had gone through you would have flown pax aircraft for about 90K AUD but since it failed you should end up being paid $120K.

Five greens...just my point of view but...people who dont vote normally don't care. SO they really have no effect on the % outcome but they do make the total voter outcome look bad. Since they dont care the % vote is probably representative. Th RP07 vote was 57% for and 43% against...that was based on 700 voters. Now does anyone have a good reason why those 700voters are not a good representation of 2100 pilots?

And heres a thought...lets say that the other 1000odd non members are company orientated...so what. It means we will have to start to live their lives. WHats the point of being in the minority...I would rather have 2000+ members adn do what is right!

cpdude

6th Nov 2006, 19:49

Th RP07 vote was 57% for and 43% against...that was based on 700 voters. Now does anyone have a good reason why those 700voters are not a good representation of 2100 pilots?

Yes, because they are short 1400 voters!:=

We all signed contracts directly with the company...we should all have a vote regardless of AOA membership. What we vote for can continue to be negotiated between the Company and AOA!:ok:

cpdude

7th Nov 2006, 00:03

You are disappointing me cpd...i hate it when you post things i completely agree with.
This seems to be happening more of late, you been taking smart pills?
:ok:

We are all individuals with our own ideas and comments. You may agree or disagree with my opinion or someone else’s, but what I have noticed from you, is a tendency to mock or insult others you don't agree with. That should change if you intend to engage in a meaningful discussion!;)

cpdude

7th Nov 2006, 03:50

And where in the rest of the civilizied nations does this happen?????? You want representation but you are not prepared to pay for it. Dont use the excuse that you dont agree with past or present presidents etc etc........neither do I but I am still a member and therefore have the right to vote on YOUR future......
Just pay your dues.......peanuts now....and you can vote, SIMPLE. Stop friggin moaning......:eek:

Not moaning Jizz...hahahahahaha! Hard to take someone named Jizz seriously!:8

Let me ask you this...where else do you have a representing body negotiating changes to contracts for more people not members of the association? Or where else is there is no legal requirement to belong to an organisation which has exclusive rights to speak for you without your consent?

I'm all for a Union and all for CX making it mandatory to belong to the AOA but it's not like that is it?

The union is weak, I wish it wasn’t.

You can jump and scream at people to join and support the cause, but it won’t happen.

CX needs to make pilots join the AOA OR ask each individual to vote on contract changes.:ok:

404 Titan

7th Nov 2006, 04:10

cpdude

7th Nov 2006, 04:41

cpdude
You seem to forget the company is already on record as saying it will only negotiate with the AOA. It doesn’t want to nor does it have the resources to negotiate with 2000 pilots individually. Therefore if you want to vote on your future conditions and have some say then the only means open to you at present is to join the AOA. Think of AOA membership like being a citizen of a democracy AND being registered to vote. If you don’t registered you CAN’T vote. Pretty simple really. Every pilot at CX has the right to join the AOA. If he/she chooses not to join that is his/her right as well. Just don’t complain though when those members then vote for something you don’t agree with. You have already made the choice not to have a say knowing full well the company only negotiates with the AOA.
By the way compulsory union membership in HK is illegal so the company can’t and won’t make you join the AOA. It does though have the right to say that it will only negotiate with the AOA and nobody else. You have the right to be a part of those negotiations. If you choose not to that is your right also. Just don’t complain if as I have said before something is voted in that you don’t agree with.

I know what the company is on record saying but what if it's flawed! I also didn't suggest the company negotiate with the 2000+ pilots…you did!

What I did say is if the company and/or the AOA want to vote on a change of the contract then we should all vote on it and not 700 or so members. I trust you do understand the difference between voting and negotiating.

Oh, citizens of countries don't have legal contracts for specified conditions with their governments but we all have a legal contract signed directly with this company. Too bad someone wasn’t willing to take that to court!:E

Lastly, don't make it sound like it's so terrible just for those not in the AOA not to have a voice. It is just as much a hardship for those in the AOA as those out of the AOA that membership isn't 100%. All you have to do is look at the RP07 vote as an example. I would like something done to change that!

Numero Crunchero

7th Nov 2006, 07:55

Well said 404titan.

CPdude
I dont know how many morons(sorry, concerned citizens) voted for George W but I bet there are many out there in the US that wish that had voted against him and then maybe they wouldn't be in this god awful iraqi mess!

I have no problem with abstenstions or people not voting...as a statistician it tells me that they don't care which way the vote goes. As for the 1000 or so nonmembers....well unfortunately for them I can influence their lives and they can't do a thing about it without joining the AOA!

cpdude

7th Nov 2006, 13:45

Truckmasters

11th Nov 2006, 00:39

There will be no direct recruitment of Officers by any Basing company into any Base Area.

I know we can do DEFO (Hong Kong). Could some one please explain how they are recruiting direct to a base.
Or is it the simple answer of, lets break the contract.

evyjet

11th Nov 2006, 00:46

I've just been given a start date as a 330 FO Sydney base early next year.

I'm rejecting the offer.

All the best guys. Enjoy.

Harbour Dweller

11th Nov 2006, 01:04

Hi evyjet,

Congratulations on being successful with CX. Not an easy thing to do.

I do not know of your background but it is encouraging to hear pilots standing up to employers for better conditions.

If this was all or some of the reason for rejecting the offer walk proudly my friend.

Well done :ok:

OBNO

12th Nov 2006, 08:19

Evyjet - Direct entry FO on A330 based in SYD on current conditions sounds like a reasonable offer to me. Without wishing to pry too much, what has turned you away?

Five Green

12th Nov 2006, 11:00

What I did say is if the company and/or the AOA want to vote on a change of the contract then we should all vote on it and not 700 or so members. I trust you do understand the difference between voting and negotiating.

Perhaps CP dude you do not understand the difference between paying your fair share and getting a free ride. Those of us who are in the AOA have paid for the priviledge of voting on the issues. Those who are not do not have the right to vote on anything the company negotiates with the AOA. It is our subs that pay for the arrangement and therefore we get to vote and negotiate. If you are really concerned and want to vote THEN JOIN THE AOA. If not form your own group and see how you make out.

Oh, citizens of countries don't have legal contracts for specified conditions with their governments but we all have a legal contract signed directly with this company. Too bad someone wasn’t willing to take that to court!:E!

Errr as in the M. G. case ? Not sure what you mean. Whatever you mean it takes funds to take the Co. to court. Guess where the funds come from....SUBS. So with no (or less than 100%) representation how much money is available to protect ALL CX pilots contracts ?

Lastly, don't make it sound like it's so terrible just for those not in the AOA not to have a voice. It is just as much a hardship for those in the AOA as those out of the AOA that membership isn't 100%. All you have to do is look at the RP07 vote as an example. I would like something done to change that!

To change the way a vote turns out you need to educate people. You need to get involved. You need to go to meetings use the web site and motivate your friends. All of which is not happening even now at a time when there are some major changes coming down the pipe. If you want to analyse how the dynamics of a vote work you have to look a little deeper than you are currently looking. It is not a case of 700 people deciding for 2000+. It is also not the case that the minority of the AOA is deciding for the majority. Out of 900+ voting members we averaged 700+ on the vote. That means that 22% did not vote. Presumably these people are intelligent enough to know the percentages required to pass a vote and therefore (here is the big point of my rant) they decide what impact they want to have on the vote. I'll explain...to vote means that you are getting one vote for the issue you support (majority or minority) to abstain or to not vote means you lend power (or a vote) to the minority. This is because it now requires more votes to achieve the %50 of total OR the 65% of voting. That is not to say that abstaining is not a choice you should make, on the contrary an abstention means something, it means that you were on the fence, that you could go either way or that you were too confused or overwhelmed to decide. All of which are good indications for both the company and the AOA to move forward after the vote. To not vote tells us nothing, except that you were happy to leave the vote in the capable hands of the rest of the AOA body.

So to sum up. By not being in the AOA you say "I am happy for you to pay and support the structure by which you determine my contract, I do not want to be involved..". By being in the AOA and not voting you say "I am happy to support the minority vote".

So when you use words like "Majority" and "Minority" you have to take all of the above in to context.

Congrats if you read all this dribble

FG

Numero Crunchero

12th Nov 2006, 11:04

Hey EVYjet...we have a friend in common...SR in Sth Korea. He said you had knocked the job back but he didn't say what you were going to do instead! I quite like visiting the sandpit but have to say I don't think I could live there for long so I can't blame you guys for seeking greener pastures! Plus it would be hard to go back from 4bars to 2!

Truckmasters
In the DEFO deal(that was voted down) I think the company weren't allowed to put any DEFOs in HKG for a few years. So without the deal they can do it anytime. The savings are to be had on basings...no housing, no education etc. Back in 99 a few management guys did some number crunching and worked out that it took about 2 years for an SO to make up in salary/housing etc what he cost in then subsequentely being upgraded to FO versus a DEFO. So with 3-4 years as an SO the company saves lots.

BUT....for the forseeable future it is capacity constrained in the training department. So obviously an FO for 10years takes less training than an SO for 4 followed by FO for 6. So I believe they are going to do the oz trips with 2FOs and any other trips they can. Ideally we would have no SOs but apparently there are not enough landings available to keep that many FOs current.

So to answer your question, yes they can and no they aren't breaking any agreement. They will have to pay bypass pay to any eligible SO. Now what exactly defines eligible nowadays is beyond me. If there are say 50DEFOs then there should be 50 SOs on bypass pay in HKG...assuming they are all 'eligible'!

Numero Crunchero

12th Nov 2006, 11:14

Howdy Five Green, your post came up as I was writing my previous!

I disagree on your assessment of the non voters. I regularly choose NOT to vote because I don't care which way the vote goes regardless of archaic 2/3rds rules...and I was once a very active GC member. I have spoken to 2 people who didn't vote on the RP07 issue...I can assure you their IQs were quite high...but they were absolutely undecided and they really didn't care(not me....I have a low IQ and I did vote;-). If they had "abstained" it wouldn't have helped in either case!

I do strongly agree with you on this....
for whatever historical reasons, the company has chosen to negotiate with the HKAOA as the representative body for the aircrew. I think in those days, ex AOA GC guys went into management..now they become cat B;-) I digress...this has been the case for 14 years. If you don't like what is happening pay your 1.25% to vote. The only guys who really have a reasonable gripe about this are the ASL guys...the FEs in particular, who couldn't join due age etc. The rest of the guys should put up or shut up!

The Management

13th Nov 2006, 01:30

All S/O’s will be “Grade B” and only Grade A is eligible for upgrade. All S/O will not be suitable for promotion. This will invoke clause 6.2 of the COS. As per the COS, by pass will be paid to all S/O as per clause 10.5.

10.5 In any case of recruitment of First Officers by Direct Entry, other than in accordance with 6.2, the next most senior Second Officer suitable for promotion will receive First Officer Bypass Pay in the form of Junior First Officer’s Salary on a one for one basis commencing three (3) months after the date of joining of the First Officer recruited by Direct Entry. The payment of First Officer Bypass Pay will cease when the Second Officer receiving bypass pay commences Junior First Officer training.

6.2 Recruitment of First Officers by Direct Entry will normally only take place when there are no Second Officers suitable for promotion.

This will eliminate the bypass pay for Second Officers. We have been doing this for years with the First Officers and it has saved Us a large amount of By Pass pay.

Only We and the candidate appreciates who is in each Category. This way we keep the pilot group in the dark on suitability and the reasons for unsuitability. We don’t give any group the numbers for by pass pay which gives us deniability.

We don’t hear of too many pilots boasting about their by-pass pay because their are not many. We make sure of it.

We do enjoy our work particularly when we can take advantage of the pilot group, it only demoralizes them more.

The more the Review Board saves, the more our bonuses and less to the employees particularly the pilots.:ok:

The Management

cpdude

13th Nov 2006, 02:34

Perhaps CP dude you do not understand the difference between paying your fair share and getting a free ride. Those of us who are in the AOA have paid for the priviledge of voting on the issues.

What if I'm paying my fair share and don't like the ride? A majority of voters voted for RP07 but it didn't pass. What if all 2000+ pilots had a chance to vote? I'm saying the process is flawed and I would like to see a change!

Errr as in the M. G. case ? Not sure what you mean. Whatever you mean it takes funds to take the Co. to court.

My post was in referrence to a comparison of Think of AOA membership like being a citizen of a democracy AND being registered to vote.

So to sum up. By not being in the AOA you say "I am happy for you to pay and support the structure by which you determine my contract, I do not want to be involved..". By being in the AOA and not voting you say "I am happy to support the minority vote".

In principle, I am not happy with a process that allows 700 pilots to vote concerning the contracts of 2000+ pilots. It's just not right!:=

404 Titan

13th Nov 2006, 03:27

cpdude

If you have a master plan to convince the 1000 CX pilots that aren’t AOA members to join and vote, good luck. Until then the company has said it will only negotiate with the AOA. This effectively means the 1000 CX pilots that are AOA members will decide the future of the 1000 pilots that aren’t because they have elected not to be members. It is their right not to be a part of the negotiation and voting process just as it is mine to be part of it. Do I like that the AOA membership only consists of about 50% of the pilot body? No. An enormous amount of time and energy has been put in by the AOA committee to increase membership over the last 4-5 years. There has been some success but only time will tell how successful they will eventually be.

cpdude

13th Nov 2006, 03:34

cpdude
If you have a master plan to convince the 1000 CX pilots that aren’t AOA members to join and vote, good luck. Until then the company has said it will only negotiate with the AOA. This effectively means the 1000 CX pilots that are AOA members will decide the future of the 1000 pilots that aren’t because they have elected not to be members. It is their right not to be a part of the negotiation and voting process just as it is mine to be part of it. Do I like that the AOA membership only consists of about 50% of the pilot body? No. An enormous amount of time and energy has been put in by the AOA committee to increase membership over the last 4-5 years. There has been some success but only time will tell how successful they will eventually be.

A good start would be to allow ALL PILOTS to join the AOA, ASL or CX.;)

404 Titan

13th Nov 2006, 05:10

Sqwak7700

13th Nov 2006, 07:13

Man, pilots are the stingy-est group of people I know.

Just pay the damn fees and get over it! We are not talking major fees here. I don't care if you disagree with policy, or don't like the president. The fact that you can vote is enough for me. Also as important, the fact that you get extra insurance coverage and other "in-case-****t" benefits.

A lot of the guys I have talked to just haven't joined because they really don't give a damn. If that is the case, then you deserve what you get and have no right to complain about how it is handed to you.

So please stop arguing about stupid little percentages and dumb-ass excuses for not voting. You sound like a bunch of whinners arguing about pennies when it comes time to pay the check at a restaurant. :yuk:

And make sure you give a buck to the driver on the overnights (I can't believe I actually have to tell people that!):ugh: Even the cabin crew at my previous job would tip the van driver. And they where only making 17 USD/hour! :yuk:

ACMS

13th Nov 2006, 09:13

Sqwak7700 I agree.

cpdude

13th Nov 2006, 16:09

cpdude
ASL isn't ideal but quite frankly is a drop in the ocean in the who scheme of things. I would like to know what you would do to encourage the other 90%+ that aren't members to join the AOA because to be honest I have no idea what else could be done that isn't already being done?

Advertise! Advertise the benefits! I still every now and then speak to a union member that doesn't know what kind of income protection they have as a standard benefit with the AOA. Non-members don't have a clue about it!

Flyers, posters and BBQ's will bring many in!:ok:

...and every drop counts!:)

cpdude

13th Nov 2006, 16:12

Man, pilots are the stingy-est group of people I know.
Just pay the damn fees and get over it! We are not talking major fees here. I don't care if you disagree with policy, or don't like the president. The fact that you can vote is enough for me. Also as important, the fact that you get extra insurance coverage and other "in-case-****t" benefits.
A lot of the guys I have talked to just haven't joined because they really don't give a damn. If that is the case, then you deserve what you get and have no right to complain about how it is handed to you.
So please stop arguing about stupid little percentages and dumb-ass excuses for not voting. You sound like a bunch of whinners arguing about pennies when it comes time to pay the check at a restaurant. :yuk:
And make sure you give a buck to the driver on the overnights (I can't believe I actually have to tell people that!):ugh: Even the cabin crew at my previous job would tip the van driver. And they where only making 17 USD/hour! :yuk:
Sure...guilt them into it...that will work...NOT!:D

Sqwak7700

13th Nov 2006, 17:46

I could care less if they join it or not. I'm just tired of them whinning about not wanting the AOA to represent them wanting to pay for a "broken" union. You know why it is broken?? Because people like you just don't give a damn and many don't join. So which came first?? The chiken or the egg?

What kind of message do you think the company would get if membership all of a sudden jumped through the roof? You think NR would still be pushing that" you should join the union" line?

I hope these whinners don't join. I'm glad I'm in and my friends are in, and we vote and think alike, that is why they are my friends. I'll keep voting for what I like and you can just keep getting what I decide you should get. I really don't care if you like it or not. :} :} :} :} :} :}

Rant complete, before take-off checklist.

cpdude

13th Nov 2006, 18:31

I hope these whinners don't join. I'm glad I'm in and my friends are in, and we vote and think alike, that is why they are my friends.

Don't underestimate the number of whiners in the AOA. They are everywhere!:suspect:

Five Green

13th Nov 2006, 22:14

I think Squak7700 just exposed himself as one, wonder if his friends whine too?
:{

Unbelievable ! CPDude has brought into question the validity of an AOA vote. That is what prompted the replies like that of sqk7700. It would seem to me that CPDude and those that think like him/her are the ones whining.

Join the AOA if you want any control over which way your contract goes.

If not just keep quiet and accept what you are too cheap to participate in.

cpdude

13th Nov 2006, 23:56

Join the AOA if you want any control over which way your contract goes.

People like Sqwak7700 and his friends continue to badmouth and shame those out of the AOA in a strange way of trying to encourage them to join. Well, honey works better than vinegar!

I'm in the AOA and I don't have any control over which way my contract goes because the entire process is flawed. We are in a sort of stalemate here! Nothing will change with the process and nothing will improve with the contract.:( :( :(

Five Green

14th Nov 2006, 00:02

Numeroo :

What I was tryin to point out is not voting means there are less people to vote for a motion. That in turn means it takes less people to vote down a motion thereby giving more weight relative to the overall membership and over all pilot body to a no vote.

For the record I completely agree with this. Howwever an abstention rather than not voting is much better because it shows that you cared enought to be involved in the process but that the issues was not clear cut enough for you. It also means that the company and CPdude and friends cannot then spin the resulting numbers as well.

For CPdude. The vote is set up in the way it is to ensure that only votes that are categorically supported go through. Other wise you maintain the status quo which is the contract under which you joined or subsequently agreed to (excluding forced changes as we won't talk about those!) pre-dating the vote(s). So if people don't vote or don't care to join the AOA then that works because those that are affected and therefore care enough to vote can decide their own fate.

FG

Truckmasters

14th Nov 2006, 01:25

Numero Cruncher you wrote
Truckmasters
In the DEFO deal(that was voted down) I think the company weren't allowed to put any DEFOs in HKG for a few years. So without the deal they can do it anytime. The savings are to be had on basings...no housing, no education etc. Back in 99 a few management guys did some number crunching and worked out that it took about 2 years for an SO to make up in salary/housing etc what he cost in then subsequentely being upgraded to FO versus a DEFO. So with 3-4 years as an SO the company saves lots.

BUT....for the forseeable future it is capacity constrained in the training department. So obviously an FO for 10years takes less training than an SO for 4 followed by FO for 6. So I believe they are going to do the oz trips with 2FOs and any other trips they can. Ideally we would have no SOs but apparently there are not enough landings available to keep that many FOs current.

So to answer your question, yes they can and no they aren't breaking any agreement. They will have to pay bypass pay to any eligible SO. Now what exactly defines eligible nowadays is beyond me. If there are say 50DEFOs then there should be 50 SOs on bypass pay in HKG...assuming they are all 'eligible'!

My original post
There will be no direct recruitment of Officers by any Basing company into any Base Area.

I know we can do DEFO (Hong Kong). Could some one please explain how they are recruiting direct to a base.
Or is it the simple answer of, lets break the contract.

My quote comes direct from the PBPA 06
so as far as I can see they are breaking PBPA 06 by recruiting direct to the bases?

Numero Crunchero

14th Nov 2006, 11:45

Truck and flagellatedmonkey
If there are no takers for the based position all the way down the seniority list, then they are not breaking the contract by employing directly onto the base. You have to be eligible to take the base....1000hrs heavy plus other stuff. And you have to want it...so if all SOs fail to want it or meet the requirements, then they can employ directly onto the base.

In the mid 1990s they were doing a defacto form of this...they would technically employ an FO onto a HKG base but on his first day in the company he would apply for and be accepted for a european basing...why? Cause no other FOs wanted it and there were vacancies.

So there is NO problem with them recruiting directly onto a base. What was/is a problem is recruiting a Pax fleet FO. That is why there is bypass pay. Two different issues.
clear as mud?

PS that quote from the basings agreement...that was to prevent Veta/OABL et al from setting up ASL like subsidiary companies. Its intent was to ensure that all employees that join CX are on a common seniority list. That way all basings/promotions etc come down to DoJ. In our current situation, I assume the DEFO will be recruited by CX and then resign at the same time to join OABL etc.

Loopdeloop

15th Nov 2006, 01:30

NC, that's exactly what happens. It's no different to the DEFOs on the freighter since 2000. One of the first thing they do is go to see AL or some other management type and resign from Cathay Pacific to join the basings company.

Numero Crunchero

15th Nov 2006, 15:51

quackers
I had AL on my Jumpseat not long ago and the SO I was with asked her about DEFO basings. She said if you have the experience you can apply. I must admit to not being 100% cognizant of the issues as I tend to ignore all basings NTCs being so happy living in HKG. But the impression I got from Andrea is that anyone can apply if suitable(ie hrs/experience).
chase it up...if you have a grievance contact the AOA GC...or if you aren't an AOA member, post your grievance somewhere on PPRUNE where it will be ignored;-)

The Management

16th Nov 2006, 00:47

Ha Ha Ha. No Grade A S/O’s, No By-Pass Pay and we hire DEFO onto a base Free of Charge.

You must know by now, we disregard contracts when we need to. Take us to court, by the time we enter a court room, the pilots would have forgotten all about it.

Got a grievance, call Beijing.

The Management

cpdude

16th Nov 2006, 01:17

Who cares anymore...let the company do what they want...they will anyways!

It will take time but in time people just won't come to CX like they used to! Oh that day of parked aircraft because of a staff shortage is near...very near! :8 :E :bored:

Ramboflyer 1

16th Nov 2006, 03:17

Sorry CP dude you are still the highest paid airline in the world, and many people are looking at the move. An F/o position in CX is better than a Capt position in many other airlines.

The Management

16th Nov 2006, 06:51

Cpdude, I invite you to drop by recruitment or ask someone who works for Emirates or a Middle Eastern , Asian , New Zealand, Australian, Canadian, African or any American Airline. Why do you think we have the Senior Pilots working on lesser conditions. You will be working on those conditions beyond 55 to age 65.

Resisting is Futile and when we lose, we win. Don’t join the AOA it is pointless, save your money. You will need it for your retirement at age 65. We still receive a percentage from Fidelity on your retirement fund, so it is called.

The S/O that are Grade A will be JFO's before the DEFO's arrive, so no bypass pay will be paid.

The Management.

fire wall

16th Nov 2006, 09:16

Ramboflyer, that is absolute bullsh1t
try BA, luftansa, air france, united, delta, american, ups , fed ex but to name a few without even thinking hard..... have a look at a 5 yr capt with united or fed ex compared to based capt with CX in any based port....have a look at provident fund....hey....just have alook before making such grossely wrong statements for you have not got a clue

The Management

17th Nov 2006, 03:10

So why are you here? Shouldn’t you be at those airlines mentioned above?

From our point of view:

1. Pilots will work for lesser conditions, so why not.
2. We can abuse contracts in Hong Kong and get away with it, so why not.
3. We look at 2nd and 3rd tier airlines on a base to adjust pay and it works.
4. We offer degraded benefits to new joiner and pilots join.
5. We ask the pilots/AOA for lesser condition and you agree. In the hope of a pay increase.
6. We abuse rostering and the pilots don’t complain. The job gets done.
7. We rule by intimidation and pilots work in fear.
8. We interpret the AFTL’s and the CAD allows it.
9. Our lawyers interpret HK Law and the HK Courts agree.

What is one to do?

We are in the business of making money, not making employees happy or satisfied. If we can take money from your wallet, it is fair play. If you die one day after retirement, we save a pay out. It’s cheaper if you die than to keep you healthy.

If we reduce pay and conditions to half of what the other major airlines pay, where would all the pilots move? Not many would leave, we know it and you know it. Last we checked, not many proper paying contracts. We attract with the benefits we offer ( we are not looking for Tier 1 pilots) and slowly take them away. By the time you realise this, where will you go? We are very happy with Seniority based system of the world airlines, retains pilots from moving and starting on the bottom of a list, as with no poaching agreements. We have you in our grasp!

In the long term we must reduce conditions. We cannot afford to pay housing, other benefits and increased pay if we want to expand the airline. It was possible when we had 500 pilots but now we have 2000 pilots and anticipate 3000-4000 pilots in the next 5-10 years. We simply cannot afford it. We have to fund the expansion while maintaining OUR bonuses.

Our philosophy is to keep your money bucket empty. When it becomes full it breeds resistance and we cannot afford it. Ask yourself why all the airlines of the world are pursuing reduced or no pensions?

If we could have aeroplanes void of pilots, we would. If we could have just one pilot in the cockpit, we would but the world is not ready for that, yet.

When resistance exists i.e. recruitment ceases and/or the aeroplanes stop flying, we will have to address the situation (termination's, etc.). Until then, Happy Flying.

The Management.

Sqwak7700

19th Nov 2006, 12:13

"Dont forget to factor in the decrease in pay/benefits that CX awards you after many years of service, once you hit 55. Who could imagine that someone in the twilight of their career would be forced onto lesser conditions to appease the greed of an airline."

First of all, CX doesn't award you ****t at 55. Those pilots elected to work past 55. When they were hired, they were told that retirement was at 55, so they can only look at still working here as pure luck. It is spelled out very clearly on the employment contract; retirement age 55. Plain and simple. :ugh:

Second of all, the company did not "force" them to stay. They chose to stay. That is a very big mistake on your part. That is like calling consentual sex between two parties rape. Sure, both cases might involve intercourse, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Like the difference between being asked to do something or being ordered/forced to do something. Hopefully you get the point now.

Re-treads aren't being forced to work here past 55. They elected to do this and have agreed to the terms under which they work. They could have chosen to go somewhere else and work there, but they said no, and agreed to stay here at CX. Them complaining about "lower pay" is as silly as a new hire complaining about pay.

And please also keep in mind that the reason they're paid less is because they accepted the company's offer. If they would have stuck to their guns, they would have probably gotten a better deal. It is that simple. And that is why I just don't have any sympathy for Re-treads' bitching. I've flown with many, and I have no personal problem with them; I'll even listen to you bitch while we are out drinking.

But I assure you that you will not recieve any sympathy from me. :=

BusyB

19th Nov 2006, 13:29

Sqwak7700,

"When they were hired, they were told that retirement was at 55,"

They were also told that they were on A-scales and having had that contract broken by the company at least twice they are fully entitled to expect to make up their financial losses by working on.

I'm sure they're not bothered whether they have your sympathy or not but facts are facts and you are correct that they've accepted the substandard package (unless they're trainers).:bored:

Sqwak7700

19th Nov 2006, 16:04

These A-scalers helped build this company and had to put up with a steady reduction in benefits and pay, despite their contract. What makes you think this wont happen to us??

...Actually, we voted NO on COS 07, so we are trying to prevent what happened to the A-scalers at one point. If they had done something to prevent the B-scale in the first place, then they wouldn't be facing their own creation now.

You cant wait until something turns personal to take action. If they did it to the A-scalers, once they are gone they will start to work on the B-scalers, then the soon to be COS07 scalers. Its inevitable. So if we dont support those guys, then we can only expect the same when we are late in our career with no other options or ability to do something about it.

Actually you might have heard that a lot of people are voting with their feet. That is what the Re-treads should have done. Not only are they screwing themselves by taking these lower packages, but they are also screwing the other guys who are 55, and the guys below them that are actually trying to change this place. Every re-tread that stays is one less Captain slot. One less reason to disband the "star chamber". One less reason to consider raising pay, instead of cutting it (pretty hard to negotiate more money when you accept to work for lower, mate) And if you are a trainer, then not only is it one less CA slot, but also increases the ability of CX to train new guys.

Now, if you are staying and have negotiated the same package, then I'm with you. Good for you, I would have done the same thing. But if you haven't, if you have accepted lesser conditions, then you are just pissing in the pool, man. Lots of people still want it clean, and here you come, happy to swim in urine :*

You are right about something FCUX, they will come after all of us at one point. They might have thought about raising the retirement age before, but I can assure you they won't now. They know that if they have the option of short-changing people when they are 55, they can save more money. They know that a 55 year old pilot is gonna be much more desperate than a younger guy just joining. You know how they know that? Cause they are doing it right now and most are taking it.

What will I do when I'm 55? Well, hopefully I'll still have enough piss and vinegar left in me to tell them where they can stuff the lower pay instead of staying and releasing some of that piss in the pool. Then I would take my skills somewhere else, but lets just hope I don't need to work that long. :hmm:

Team America

19th Nov 2006, 23:03

Sqwak7700 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I love the way they (the re-treads) will tell you they stayed cos they need the money, have they had a look at the contracts going at the moment?
Leave, don't stay and line the pockets of management who will get nice fat bonuses because their wage budget looks better with every extension.

Numero Crunchero

19th Nov 2006, 23:29

I have to agree with you 7700.
These guys knew what they were doing. If there was some nice simple, legal way for us to force the company to extend on current terms it would already have been done. They have been 'de facto' extending for years by allowing guys to go onto the freighters at 55.
I joined knowing I would have to leave at 55. Like many here I hope to leave long before then anyway.
No sympathy from this little black duck!

Mr. Bloggs

20th Nov 2006, 02:30

The only part of the contract I can see about extensions is in the Bypass Pay section. It does not state on what conditions those extensions will be, so I would say they would have to be on current conditions.

If the Re Thread is extended beyond 55 on a different contract, then the Re-Thread is a Direct Entry Captain which I don't think is allowed in our contract. All God likes must come from the CX Seniority list. This is no different than hiring off the street of DE Capt on a lower COS.

The Re-Thread is either extended on current conditions or the Re-Tread retires. There is no in-between in the contract.

I think a Dudge in the HK Court system would likely see it that way.