HKAOA

[EyesWideShut]

During the more unhappy times of the early 2000’s the Company learned how best to deal with the HKAOA. One thing they learned is the majority of Members are passive and will do whatever the President and General Committee recommend.

The Company developed strategies to use their knowledge of our weaknesses against us and their strategies are working perfectly.

The 49er issue was a thorn in their side and in 2005 they manipulated the GC to break our own rules to ensure the Members ratified a treaty to put an end to the 49er issue. A Member discovered this rule breach and the Registrar of Trade Unions supported his discovery. Unfortunately the majority of Members did not force an enquiry and the GC got away with the crime.

In September 2006 the HKAOA President and GC again breached a number our own rules (with the full blessing of the Company) to ensure RP07 was implemented. The HKAOA have been approached to explain the obvious breaches and to date their official response is; It will be dealt with in due course. It has now been 11 months since the event and we’re still waiting.

The HKAOA GC are about to present to you a Pay, Recruitment and Retirement “package”. The issues could not be dealt with in isolation because that strategy would have disadvantaged the Company. The HKAOA GC, true to form, fell into line to support the Company’s requirements.

The HKAOA President, GC and the DFO have an intimate knowledge of the demographic breakdown of the HKAOA voting Membership. You will find they have structured the package in such a way it will appeal to a larger group or more likely a number of minority groups, therefore increasing the possibility of success. However overall it will not be an attractive package for the current pilot body as a whole or for any pilots joining the Company in the future.

Ladies and Gentlemen it is vitally important firstly before any vote the credibility of the HKAOA President and GC is confirmed with an in-depth enquiry into the rule breaches in 2005 and 2006.

Secondly it is vitally important we look at the package that will be presented to us in the near future and ensure it is an improvement for the pilot group as a whole.

To truly be able to achieve improved conditions we ultimately need every Cathay Pacific pilot to be voting Members of the Association, to not only ensure we solve our own internal issues but also to present a united force to the Company.

I urge anyone who is eligible to join the HKAOA as soon as possible and ensure that our next “package” is fair and equitable for every Cathay Pacific pilot now and any joining in the future.

[rick.shaw]

Just a few points from my perspective:

1. I have not had a pay increase for 6 years apart from some flying hours related pay. We need a rise in basic pay - not flying pay. This is so we don't get screwed in any situation where our hours go down through no fault of our own. I have seen every other group in the airline get a pay increase in that time.

2. My annual flying hours have risen 23% since RP whatever was introduced. This is a productivity increase that has come at NO COST to CX. Not to mention the reserve situation etc.

3. Don't even talk to me about profit share (not just for pilots, but ALL employees!

4. Retirement age 60 or 65? No way for me. And I do not believe for a minute this won't delay my promotion significantly. If the AOA and CX can come out with solid, fact based reasons for their 'little or no-delay' statements, then they should do so. Not to mention that they could have negotiated this many years ago for any new joiners and it probably would have gotten through. Oh that's right =- they need the extra pilots now - see no. 6 below.

5. Extensions or service past 55 on B Scales? They want their cake and eat it too! No way! Pot of gold only so big? Not our problem. This company is making extremely good profits. Little is coming back to the employees.

6. The airline has been running short of crew for years. Why should we pay for it? Certain managers, I am sure, have been getting nice bonuses for running an over-lean machine for so long. Why should we have to suffer the consequences for that and their lack of planning by being scared into working days off, flying freighter aircraft (when we don't have to) and thinking about giving them a higher retirement age because they haven't been recruiting and training enough people? Expansion plans don't happen overnight.

By the way. How much have Director and other management salaries (and bonuses) gone up in the last 6 years?


More to come I am sure!

[slapfaan]

The above once again suggests that the AOA GC is actually being run and orchestrated by CX management...no doubt about it...

The solution is not for all to join the AOA...but rather for the existing members to call for massive industrial action...cx needs a serious wake up call...

[BusyB]

slapfaan,

You are entitled to your opinion but before you start slagging off the GC I'd be interested to know how much time and effort you have put in to help your colleagues. I won't condemn you now because I don't know and I suspect you don't realise how hard the GC works.

Put your money where your mouth is and stand for the GC if you feel you can do better.:ok:

[ULRequalsSLEEP]

I guess we will know if the GC is simply a puppet for the company. If they recommend what is starting to look like a crap deal then they have answered it for themselves.

Rickshaw,
I think we do need more AOA members. According to an email I received, only half the FOs are represented, less than half the SOs but well over half the CNs. The CNs have everything to gain and nothing to lose...A scales for another 10 years. Meanwhile over 1300 CX pilots will have their commands delayed. So the GC recommending that will confirm it really is an A scale captains GC.

Look at the seniority list. You will see that over 500 CNs are due to retire, on current conditions, over the next 10 years. We have 750 CNs now...so someone please oh please try to tell me that RA65 wont' have an effect on time to command.

Eyes wide shut,
I feel you are on some Nigel agenda. What is to be gained by your path of reasoning? Last year's extension was legal...I disagreed with it but it was legal. Try reading the rules sometime.

[EyesWideShut]

ULRequealsSLEEP

I wasn't aware I was on any agenda but if you could explain what a "Nigel agenda" is I would be happy to let you know.

I never mentioned anything about an illegal extension? Would you care to elaborate?

[ULRequalsSLEEP]

Sorry Eyes wide shut. I easily get confused. When you say "breached the rules" I just naturally jump to the word illegal. As I said, if you care to read the AOA rules you will see that what they did last year was legal. It was a questionable move, but the subsequent increased vote for and reduced vote against RP07, indicates they did the right thing.

Nigel was in a huff about something or other and left the GC back in 2005 I think. Maybe you care to explain how the GC "breached the rules" and what exactly was it the RTU said. Or is it just easier to use innuendo?

Call me paranoid but given your history of 2 whole posts I smell a Nigel plant trying to stir up muck for the benefit of the company and the CPU!

[jtr]

"It was a questionable move, but the subsequent increased vote for and reduced vote against RP07, indicates they did the right thing."

How exactly does it indicate they did the right thing? Because it passed? Because they managed to sway enough numbers to get what "they" wanted?

[slapfaan]

Well said JTR...,and as for BusyB,...an interesting point for you to ponder on:

Just before the RP07 vote last year I happened to chat with a certain member of the GC,and whilst voicing my opinions/reservations/comments about the RP07 vote...your fantastic GC member basically told me that everything I said was "not in the best interest of CX"...

Yes..surprised????This just proved that the GC is in fact being run by CX...YOU are paying their salaries, and they WILL be pushing for any deal to suit CX...

Hard to believe that the AOA still has any members left..and you are calling on more to join!!!YOU must be joking...We should all instead demand from the GC to call for a 24hr strike, this will show their true colours..give CX a wake up and at the same time show that you have the ball...

Good luck to all who are looking elsewhere...there IS life after CX!!:ok:

[slapfaan]

and yes BUsyB...you ARE right about how hard the GC works...for a ****tier deal than ever before, less money, less benefits and less AOA members...

They all deserve an award: "ASSholes of the YEAR" - bronze,silver and gold!!! :ok:

[ULRequalsSLEEP]

Whilst I don't think it helpful to dwell on past decisions, right or wrong, I will comment on what jtr and slapfaan have said.

I voted for RP07 - I was disgusted and quite vociferous in complaint to the GC at the time when they extended RP04. With the passage of time and the result of the 2nd vote, I have swayed my thinking to agreeing with what they did.

Why?
Because many voted NO in protest to CX, not in response to the RP07 deal.
Many voted NO hoping for a better RP deal.
The MAJORITY had voted for RP07. In all the anglosaxon countries we come from, the vote for would have been considered a landslide. It just so happens that we have archaic rules that meant the vote failed even though the majority that voted it wanted it.
The vote was 're-presented' several months later. If the NO voters had acted wisely in the first vote, the number of No voters would have remained constant or increased. The actual number of No voters decreased. Many that had been too apathetic to vote the first time, who had assumed it would pass, got off their butts and voted second time.

Result, increased number and percentage of YES voters - decreased NUMBER and percentage of no voters.

How is that a failure of democracy?

If you truly believe in something you don't change your mind to the same vote a few months later. More YES voters, less NO voters - think about it.

[jtr]

If you truly believe the sh1t will only keep on coming and you are exasperated with being sold down the river you also change your vote.

Reality is probably somewhere b/t your assessment and mine ULR.

edited to add...

"Is this GC really in a position to give impartial judgement of this deal?"

ULR you wrote this on another thread and I am a but confused on your actual position. Are you suggesting the GC might put self interest before membership?

[Cripple 7]

22 more years on A-scale? I am laughing all the way to the bank.:D

[rhoshamboe]

If the membership refuse to vote for a kick in the head we will pretend the vote didn't count, have a second vote and make the alternative 2 kicks in head. Too easy...

[SIC]

Still standing by for someone to enlighten us on how much management salaries and bonuses have gone up in the last six years. While we at it what about cabin crew, ground staff and engineering. I am VERY sure it would be quite interesting.......

ANybody know??

[EyesWideShut]

ULRequalsSLEEP

I read the HKAOA rules before I joined and understood them quite well. When RP04 was extended I couldn't figure out how that was done under our rules. So I read the rules again, and I still couldn't figure it out.

A few weeks ago I received an anonymous email apparently from a Member that went into detail to outline what rules had been breached.

I can't disagree with what was said. The President negotiated an extention of the RP04 agreement with the DFO and ratified it himself. No one on the GC has authority to change a working agreement. Also the result of any negotiations must be presented to the Members for ratification.

Also the agreement itself stated one months notice must be given to the other party requesting an amendment.

I have read and fully understand the rules and there is no doubt they were breached.

Your turn to read the rules ULR.

Sorry to disappoint, I'm definitely not on an agenda of any kind, have no affiliation with the CPU and have never even met or spoken to a Nigel?

Just trying trying to find out why the GC would revert to breaking our own rules? If the Members can't trust the GC then who do they trust?

In 2005 the RTU's findings were that rule 8.6 had been breached (see below).

The recent breaches are even more blatent (17.2, 19.4 and the agreement itself)

Re: Violation of Rule 8.6
Dear Fellow HKAOA Member,
I apologise for not writing to everyone personally who has written in response to my recent letter concerning the violation of Rule 8.6, but there just has not been sufficient time. I do, however, thank you all for your overwhelming support.
Two questions have arisen from the feedback I have received, and I should like to answer both of them here.
Q1. Why is disciplinary action the only viable course?
A1. When the CPA 'offer' over the 49er issue was first made, both the 49ers and the Membership strongly rejected it.
Nonetheless, it was then re-submitted immediately, to be voted on at an EGM only a few weeks later, with dire warnings of the cataclysmic consequences were it not to be accepted.
Principal amongst these were inaccurate statements about the cost of continuing the lawsuits, and so the scheduled EGM of 13th April contained Motions demanding huge (and unnecessary) sums of money from the Membership. Failing Membership approval thereof, Motion 4 once again sought acceptance of the previously rejected CPA 'offer'.
Knowing these 'Doomsday' statements about funding the legals to be untrue, an EGM was properly requisitioned in order to present to the Membership accurate information about actual funding needs, and about the supplementary funding that had been found.
With this information in their possession, who amongst the Membership would then have voted to accept the CPA 'offer'?
Unsurprisingly, the GC acted vigorously not to allow this requisitioned EGM to be held, and violated Rule 8.6 in so doing.
The interests of both the HKAOA as a body, and the Membership as a whole have thus been seriously damaged, and thusly damaged in direct and undeniable contravention of the Rules.
Disciplinary action against those responsible is an absolute necessity.
Q2. What can be done?
A2. Firstly, the membership can and should demand the formation of an ad hoc Committee to decide who is to blame for this violation. The RTU has already issued a formal finding as to what has been done - that much need not be investigated – now we need to know who on the GC was responsible.
Please be reminded that it is the responsibility of the General Secretary to advise correctly as to the Association's Rules.
It was also the responsibility of the (then) President to ensure that the GC did not act in contravention of the Rules.
Secondly, the Membership can demand that action be taken.
Where any person responsible is an employee of the HKAOA, dismissal would be a moderate course of action.
Where any person responsible is still a member of the HKAOA, expulsion from the Association would be entirely appropriate.
We have all been badly let down by this violation of the Rules, and much damage has resulted. Let us all now do what we do best as pilots, and take direct, corrective action to address the problem.

[BusyB]

I have to say that some of the ramblings on this thread show complete ignorance and lack of thought.

What is that you want? Do you want the GC to reject the deal out of hand or do you want to be in a position whereby you can make your own mind up and vote. You can't have both!!

As for raking up the past are you acting for CX and trying to split the membership? There was an opportunity to stand for the GC and I was stunned to see that despite all the mouth music on here there aren't even enough people standing to have a proper election!!

Seems to me freehills are here again under other names.:confused:

[EyesWideShut]

BusyB

Whether the GC reject the package or put it a vote the outcome may be the same.

The GC should ensure the HKAOA doesn't have a past that can be raked up.

Who's trying to "split" the Membership, the people who committed the crimes or the people who exposed them?

Maybe Members are not happy with the current GC and don't want to be associated with them so didn't stand for the committee?

Who's freehills?

[ULRequalsSLEEP]

I stand corrected! I do remember now the incidents of 2005 and I also remember being at the 2nd EGM and saw how John Warham was not allowed to have his vote or something. I thought things stank to high heaven.

I cannot recall the paragraph but there is an 'out' clause in the AOA rules that allows the GC to act in the member's best interests. That was done last year wrt RP04 vote. As I have said, I strongly disagreed with said extension, even though I voted for RP04. But in this case, were people unduly influenced to vote Yes in the 2nd round? There was no financial calamity heralded should the vote not go through.

Does the ends justify the means? If I was AOA president I would not have done what was done. But then I haven't given up my free time to be AOA president so I can't really second guess Steve.

Busy B
I think some of the stuff being brought up is quite intelligent and relevant. I want to know what agenda the GC is on. If the details of the deal that have been emailed are accurate, then yes I would expect MY GC to reject it. Or at the very most, present it for a vote without recommendation.

If the GC recommend this deal, as it appears to us now, then it will affirm the belief that many have that the GC is no longer representative of the pilot body. I suspect many will leave the AOA - whats the point if all the GC does is approve any CX inspired deal! I may as well save my 1% a month.

[ULRequalsSLEEP]

While we are talking about 2005, can someone please confirm or deny that Murray had over a year off, on full pay, whilst being AOA president so he could concentrate on his duties as AOA president?

What deals were voted on during his term of office --- let me think, housing-twice, 49ers-twice.

Nigel got no time off. Steve gets 2 days a month off....seems extraordinarily generous of the company during 2005!

BusyB, you seem to have links to the GC, care to answer that one?

[BusyB]

I don't have any knoweledge of Murrays duty arrangements. I do recall hearing that for much of the time he was actually off sick but I don't know for sure.

Doesn't this show that Steve & the GC are not in CX's pocket with only 2 days/month?

Don't get confused between the GC recommending a proposal and their feelings about the results of a members vote.:ok:

[Numero Crunchero]

SIC,
all that information is available on the CPA website.
To save you the trouble, the top 4 managers earned about $18million (in total) in 2001. 3 in the range of $4m-4.5m, 1 in the $5-5.5m range.
In 2006, total was $23m for top 4. 1 was in $6-6.5m, 2 in $5.5-6m, 1 in $5-5.5m.

That gives an approximate payrise of 28% over the period.

Bonus
I assume you are only interested in Nick's?
total bonus and bonus contribution to PF
2006
$1.776m
2005
$1.426m
2004
$1.302m

There was no specific disclosure before 2004. Nick's house is assessed to be worth $140K per month -nice RFZ to have!

[BlunderBus]

The reason i fled the union was utter disgust.After years of going toe to toe over all the above mentioned issues MG made a concerted assault at becoming the president.In complete contrast to the previous incumbent many concessions were immediately granted him by the company including 18months free of flying duties to 'find a solution'.When a company sponsored 'solution' to the 49ers and continued union support for them was voted down the president took it upon himself to force the issue..have it re-voted on and passed to the satisfaction of the company...end game?..12 re-employed as B scale freighter crew...whoopee!After 18 months of 'passionate' union running he buggers off to a US basing thanks very much washing his hands of the whole affair....mission accomplished!..not to mention the pro-company RP2007.
We now receive 2.5% of monthly salary for working guaranteed days off..less than normal daily pay...whether we fly to taiwan for an hour or do a 15 hour lax trip!! what a bargain...Proferring costs $1000/hour if we want to 'sell a trip'...a company idea so why don't THEY pay the same penalty.
It's going to be more of the same bat up the bum ... and they're going to need 65 retirement in a hurry judging by the number of guys leaving in droves back to NA carriers...30 in one month!
Why talk at all?...we don't need any changes...just say no to G days and freighter flying...they need our co-op badly...if so...let em pay for it.

[oriental flyer]

Blunder bus You are absolutely right, We don't need to do anything except sit tight and wait. Market forces ( a phrase NR loves so much ) are working against the Company right now there is a coming crew shortage and the company wants it solved sooner rather than later. Simply Because later will cost them a lot more when they are really hurting for crew.
Northwest cancelled 30 flights in one day last week, reason, no crew when that starts to happen to us questions will be asked.
People are leaving, it's a trickle at the moment but will soon become an economic burden to the company . When it gets to that stage they will be a lot more motivated to offer a better deal.
They want RA 65 to help solve their crewing supply problem we don't need it so simply don't vote for it unless it's part of a great deal on the table . Not much chance of that.
This is all bluff like poker ,but we have the aces in our hand for the first time in years . Dont blow it

[Numero Crunchero]

So murray was "sick" for 18 months on full pay. Lucky him. The rest of us only get 126 days.

[Hoolio]

I agree completely that ST's actions were an abuse of his position. How can you argue that we have a vote on RP04/7, it gets voted down, then he unilaterally says that the vote doesn't count?

We should not re vote on anything, ever, unless it has been significantly renegotiated. To do otherwise only demonstrates to the company that they never need to negotiate with us in the first place. Maybe re votes should have a higher mandatory pass percentage required to carry them.

Regardless of your position on RP04/7, you can not agree with the GC and ST overruling member votes. There is no point in voting if they are going to screw us like that.
The AOA has low membership because of issues like this. How do you tell someone to join when the GC tows the company line, not the pilots?

Am I making this up? How many threats from the company did you hear about how they would roster us under the fall back? None

How many threats did you hear from ST about the fall back? Tons

We have "enshrined" 84 hours in our contract but have we locked down how they credit hours? What is to stop them saying you only get credit hours when you are in the seat?
What is to stop them saying you only get .80 hours per hour on 4 man crews?

ST gave away 5-4-3, after we voted against it, and all we got was a handful of magic beans. "We will try to not give you reserve every single time we cancel a duty", "we will try to not work stack around leave." etc

[Numero Crunchero]

Au contraire, the membership gave up 5-4-3 etc by voting it in.

The GC will present the best deal possible. Its up to the membership to vote in or reject the deal. I voted no to the housing deal both times because I didn't like it discriminating FOs rental entitlements but it got voted in anyway. Thats democracy for you.

Wasn't it Churchill that said "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Get all the facts and opinions you like and then make up your own mind and vote accordingly...as many times as is necessary;-)

[AnAmusedReader]

After many months of being an amused reader the thrill of joining the intelligentsia has overcome me, so here is my first post. I know, you hope it will be my last. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Eyeswideshut slags off the GC and hints at collusion between the president and others and the DFO. Take it to the ICAC. “Oh dear me, couldn’t do that as it would mean losing my anonymous nature. I’m not that brave.” Why not be brave and stand for the committee, or even president? Afraid of the work? Afraid of the critics hiding behind pprune? You are living in a state of delusion. Crimes? Those who commit and those who expose? Resurrecting QH’s ramblings of the past?

Slapfaan needs a slap. Massive industrial action? Didn’t see a massive response to Nigel’s MSS. Didn’t see massive action when 49 were sacked. It’s slapfaan who needs a serious wake up call.

ULRetc, Nigel’s not behind this, although the CPU could do with boosting their membership, currently just under 20 I have heard.

And as for the rest of you on this thread and others who constantly write about the AOA not doing this or that, or doing this or that (they can’t win can they?), don’t you realise YOU ARE THE AOA. If you don’t like the committee or president do something about it. If you won’t, that just about says all that is need to be said about you.

Long live pprune so that you can rant with the other ranters and dismiss anyone with a contrary view to yours.

Why are you still here OrientalF? Thought you would have rushed off to India or China or one of those nice M. East countries. Take advantage of the pilot shortage and go to one of those other great jobs out there.

Nigel, Murray, Steve are all losers according to you sad lot. Yet none of you have the bAlls to do anything about it. Keep up the whingeing. I’ll be back in a few days after I’ve read that other figment of imagination and mystical ramblings Harry Potter.

And in case you’re wondering, No I have no more bAlls than any of you, so I hide behind a tag. I do however like working for cx, I do like living in hkg and I am content with my lot in life. Now where is that Harry Potter book…………………..

[AAIGUY]

The truest post ever made on Fragrant Harbour.

[404 Titan]

AnAmusedReader

Well said. There are plenty of critics here but few with the exception of Numero Crunchero that are willing to stand up and be counted.

[ChairmanBoysClub]

Dont forget that PPRUNE is what it is. Its not like its a truth paper. If u cant stand the smell leave. Its that simpel.

[oriental flyer]

I think that you misread my post . I didn't say I was unhappy in CX or HKG but I would like a cost of living adjustment .
Believe me, a visit to the grocery store is getting more expensive by the week and my salary hasn't gone anywhere except down for years.
So yes, we have an opportunity to claw something back from the company. They want something from us , we want something from them so we need to find a common ground that we can both live with. I want 30% they are probably willing to give 5-8% so we both have to give a little . Simple economics . But no where in my post did I suggest leaving or that I was unhappy