Under the smoke screen of crew refusing to PX on freighters, Cathay Pacific are pleased to announce the closure of the Manchester and Paris freighter bases from 1 July.

Vancouver will follow once bargaining process is complete.

Crew will revert to HK, in positions applicable to their seniority.

Ex-KA crew cannot transfer back.........:ok:

Utter bullshit!

Surprised you even responded to that one BW!!

I do not think Table For 1 is very far off base. If the company decides to shutter some freighter bases, the freighter PX issue will be used as a company scapegoat. Let's not forget that it is the company who based them there in the first place, and it was the company who did not use the CoS08 opportunity to tidy up the freighter PX mess when they had the chance. This problem is entirely of their own making. Let's not allow the company blame the AOA or pilots refusing to PX on the freighter for any future base closures.

The company has scrambled the eggs for the last 20 years, let them eat them! I'll take mine sunny side up please...

Imagine a scenario no matter how improbable or expensive it may be.

Read your CoS to see if the scenario would be prohibited by your CoS.

If it is not, the company will do it to spite you.

Standing by for Cos12!?

what complete and utter b@<hidden>@<hidden> as good as the one someone came up with that all freighter flying will be transferred to AHK if we refuse to px on the freighter........................good try at a windup, but you need to make it have some semblance of possibility................

what complete and utter b@<hidden>@<hidden> as good as the one someone came up with that all freighter flying will be transferred to AHK if we refuse to px on the freighter........................good try at a windup, but you need to make it have some semblance of possibility................

Oh, I dunno. Quoting from last weeks 747 newsletter:

"Why is there so much positioning taking place, should be the first question you need to ask and understand. We have too many crew in the wrong places to support the freighter network first up...... The route network has significantly changed with regards to basings and preferred ports..."

and from the GMA 'policy letter' a few days later:

"there may be some other broader implications for Base locations and Base manning levels if Crew Positioning is limted to passenger aircraft only, as this will increase the cost and operational complexity of Crew Positioning, whch may materially impact the viability of some Base locations and Base manning levels."

There is more then a subtle hint coming from the company. And certainly within the " semlance of possibility"....

If you want a war, you'll get a war!

Bases, amongst other things and as part of better lifestyle for crew, were negotiated and came about as a result of giving up 5-4-3 (previous rest recovery days - in case you're new).

There is nothing from stopping the AOA to retaliate and nothing legally witholding the AOA from getting 5-4-3 back.

Bring it on management, let the games begin!

Bases have been in a vulnerable position since quite a while now, that has nothing to do with the freighter px abuse of CX.

There might be in fact a new base available soon : for a new GMA, this time they might consider getting someone with people skills.. :rolleyes:

AD POSSE AD ESSE
Wish I could share your war cry, but if you read The 49ers : The Real Story. You would realize that when the company declared the mother of all wars, a big percentage of our colleagues ran like little girls.

I'm afraid Beta Light is right. Within a few hours of the Nigel Go Slow it was obvious to the Company that most pilots don't have the balls to do a thing.

But, the company needs the bases to keep crews. Close the bases and the crew shortage will get even worse. Bases save the company money. Their talk of closing them is typical bullying (intimidation in the work place anyone?).

Say NO to freighter PXing.

I would say bases only save money when considering expats, those days are over so they can just let the guys wither on the vine where it suits them ie Aus.

Then they can continue to erode B into C like they did for A to B. They know guys will live and fly for CX in HK without expat terms.

Yes I know we'd all leave......but really where to? And out of spite won't help you.

I would not come to HK without expat conditions. I wouldn't even come with it!

Yes I think it is,

but not because you did not sign your PX waiver.

The company might spin it that way but we all know that they usually have a hidden agenda.

Anyhow just think of following scenario:
You sign the form and think that this action will prevent your base from being closed.
Well what If the base is getting downsized/closed after all and you find yourself now in HK getting positioned all over the place (read westbound and eastbound, north and south).
What will you do then?
Remember you signed the document which said: This is a oneway street.

But hey what do I know.

Now where is Gretchen?

Is it the nature of the freighters patterne that causes you to resist paxing on it? I ask because I used to enjoy it! A J class seat, horizontal bunks, easy access to food and drink etc. etc.:confused:

First, it is against the agreement in all of our contracts: It does not matter if you enjoy it or prefer it or like it or hate it. It is not allowed.

If the pilots are willing to give into the company's wish to change this, then there should be a negotiated settlement in which pilots get something for giving something. Simple. It appears that the AOA is willing to give in to satisfy those who want to PX, while allowing those who don't to just say no. However, I don't think that is getting anything in return for helping the company. In other words, some or all of the PX should be 100% credit.

The main problem with PX is the 50% credit rate: This means you work twice as long for the same pay. How hard is that to understand? When you have 5 and 7 sectors of PX at 50% credit, that means you have to work another 5 to 7 sectors just to break even. And that usually takes twice as many work days.

The secondary problem is the abuse of the PX option: Pilots are rostered for very long duties that defy logic and in some cases are simply inhuman. To trap a pilot in a plane for 30 hours is insane, unhealthy and dangerous. The seats are no comfortable and the spacing is cramped on all but the BCFs. There are no lie-flat seats, and the bunks are always taken by the operating crew and the "most tired" guy, or highest-ranking individual who usually displays typical Cathay-style lack of leadership, fairness or equality in sharing the remaining bunk, leaving FO's and SO's to sleep on the dirty floor like animals....you haven't understood the freighter PX issue until you've spent 20 or 30 hours upstairs, while getting 50% credit so they can roster you for even more flights as soon as they get you back. This is the problem with freighter PX'ing.

It has nothing to do with the food and drinks, everyone can watch their laptop or iPad, and we don't have to deal with cabin crew or pax or PA's or anything: But we do get rostered for twice as many flights/days at 50% credit, and it is not healthy or fair to be in an airplane for such long duties with crap seats and no guarantee of a bunk, particularly brutal after an already long duty when everyone else is at the hotel and you've got 10 or 20 hours to go.

Parabellum,
I know the whole freighter thing is a once-in-a-while "fun" thing. Hey, you can go to ANC, have some beers and crab. But now imagine waking in HK around the crack of 10 am but not leaving until 11 pm, and then staying on that same aircraft for 24+ hours - sometimes they even task you to get off midway and sit for 3 or 4 hours in a locker room until the next freighter arrives. You're then dumped off at the final destination between 2 and 4 am. Do this at least once every other pattern. This is normal. Still want in?

Just a thought. Would it make a difference to any negotiations if the seats on the freighter were the new business class type with tv etc and douvets?

Why do people keep thinking that it will be OK if they get nice seats or IFE? Obviously they do not PX on the freighter. I don't either but LISTEN to what people are saying. 24+ hours on the aircraft. PX two sectors then operate the last. It is an abuse of the PX system and against our conditions. Even full credit, nice seats, nice movies to watch does not make 30 hours on an aircraft acceptable.

No, bogie!

It's what Sloppy just said: You just don't get it!! This is a major issue because none of the rules provide any protection from massive abuse on an ongoing basis....except our COS that PREVENTS any and all freigher PX. That is the baseline. From there, if the company gives us something, like 100% credit all the time (to prevent the abuse and inefficient and stupid rostering), THEN we can offer to have SOME guys opt in IF it suits them. Not a blank check to keep doing it! What is so hard to understand? :ugh:

They roster PX to no limit, to make extra 20 guys go to work (get dressed, pack, travel to airport/commute, be at work early to ensure duty is not missed, wait for hours for no credit while trip is delayed, spend 5 or 10 or 20 hours at 50% credit to PX anywhere and everywhere, all to ensure that 1 guy does not get 1 hour of overtime.

There is no NEED for all this PX insanity: It is simply easier and cheaper for the company. Similarly, there is no NEED for any manning level on any base, it is simply cheaper. And now that's it's not easier (on shoring) or so much cheaper, and though it has nothing to do with freighter PX/PT, they are diverting the issue from costs/taxation/labour laws to use the base closing fear and relating it to freighter PX. This is NOT about the IFE!

Another thing to note: While 1000USD for a PT may seem expensive to most people, it is a drop in the bucket for the company. Just look at how many millions they spend on bonuses for management? And how many billions they spend on aircraft and fuel? Seriously, 1000 or 1000000USD for tickets to keep the machine doing is nothing....much like the small pay increases we want.

A nice thought of yours, but I think the main reasons we do not want the ftr positioning as it exists right now are:
1) against our CoS
2) unhealthy length of time spent onboard/on ground during a duty period.

A better seat will help getting more quality rest or avoid the camping on the floor but I cannot see enough space on the U/D of a production ftr and the BCF's are on their way out.

just reminded me that for european crews a substantial amount of ftr pxing would not be necessary if the preferred port option would be still in place, at least at the beginning and/or end of a duty cycle.
I know that a lot of the MAN based guys had preferred ports in continental europe.
Well the company took the option away, didn't they and that was on short notice remember.

So if you want less ftr pxing and less PT tkt costs, bring them back on I say.

Thanks Gents, my experience was absolutely nothing and I do mean nothing like those you describe, we were one sector max for a start. I would not agree to your situation, as described, either!

One of the main reasons being cited here against freighter PXing is length of duty day and the freighter seats being too cramped. From my experience in North America, in most cases you stay on the aircraft you came into ANC on and PX to base or preferred port. Yes the duty days are long. Sometimes some pretty ridiculous things have happened such as trying to PX guys to LAX via MIA. And sometimes there is a ground wait to PX on another aircraft. My own personal experience has been that I almost always come into ANC on the same A/C I'm supposed to PX on, and rarely are there so many guys that there isn't a bunk available. And the -8 seats are quite comfortable. But again, this is my experience on one base with a preferred port, and I have been there and watched eight guys come off an A/C from YVR.

But let me ask what people think is going to happen on North American patterns if you don't PX on a freighter? Do you think they will simply stop positioning crews? Roster you to operate every sector putting you into overtime? I think a whole bunch of people will get off in ANC, have a nice trip through security in the passenger terminal, a nice sit in a gate area, and then a wonderful Y class seat to your base or preferred port. And if that PT is seven hours a Y class seat is all you get since the US Airlines call those seats in their forward cabins "first class" seats. It doesn't matter that they aren't even as comfortable or spacious as a freighter J class seat, Cathay equates them to a Cathay first class seat and we seem content to allow that. Of course it doesn't matter to anyone based in HKG who doesn't have to deal with such nonsense as the (imaginary) US first class seat.

I'm going to guess a minimum of fours hours average ground time in ANC while you wait for a PT flight depending on time of day. Maybe a hub stop and a connecting flight as well on the way home. Compared to one hour to clear customs and stay on the freighter home. So if the company continues to position crews you are almost GUARANTEED a much longer duty day than a freighter PX. A nice middle seat in the back and if you're lucky a bag of peanuts. Make sure your suitcase fits in an overhead or you'll be waiting at a baggage carousel at home, and your flight bag under your seat in front of you. But there's a lot of leg room in Y class anyway, so that's no bother.

Now I could be wrong. Maybe the company won't want to pay PT costs and they'll schedule more efficiently or have some sort of a bid to realign the bases. Maybe we'll work every sector for full pay. I don't see them caving and offering full pay in return for freighter PX. I think a lot of people will get a Y class PT shoved up their a** and told "this is what you wanted." Nobody really seems to be addressing that scenario but people will certainly be thinking about it sitting in the back of that Delta 767 on the way to Atlanta (stop in Minnie anyone?) wishing they had a bunk to lay down in.

Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances. Its a gamble.

-8 driver...

Sounds like you have decided to sign.

8driver,
on your way to anc you will most likely get a friendly acars message asking if you would like to remain on the freighter to your base. After July cc new task will be to exhaust all efforts to save money on PT travel. So, rest assured, you'll get to lie down in that bunk rather than eat your peanuts in a middle seat. In the end, we will have a choice which is the way it should be.

Just say CANNOT. Too tired

8Driver, at least there will be somebody (you) to do the Dhaka-Hanoi-Hong Kong flight!

Oval Three Holer,

I never defended that pattern, its probably the most abusive one out there. The crews should be positioning on Dragon Air. And if I was based in HKG there is no way I would sign that letter. If I was on any other fleet I wouldn't sign it. It wouldn't make sense.

My point is that not every pattern is abusive and in a large amount of cases not PXing on the freighter in North America would be a significant hardship. For a YVR guy it would be shorter to PT home from ANC than to go through LA first on the freighter. It wouldn't be shorter for a Miami guy, or an LA guy, or a New York guy. It would be longer. On my last pattern it took me 19 hours to get from HKG to Miami. I was one hour on the ground in ANC and slept six hours to MIA in a bunk, after having had a meal. There is no faster, easier on the body, way home. It doesn't exist. So there is no one size fits all solution.

What bothers me here is that I see people talking as though this is going to bring a large unilateral improvement in our conditions. Only the most abusive cases are cited. For many it will be an improvement, and for some it won't. Sure you can say CANNOT to the PT, I want a room in ANC. And you'll lose a day and that same lousy PT ticket will be waiting for you the next day. I'd like one person to tell me how it would be healthier for somebody east coast based to sit four hours in a terminal and six + in US airline cattle class after coming from HKG to ANC? And for those of us who would be served the sh** sandwich I don't see any promises to deal with that long haul Y class nonsense we have in North America. Its not even on the radar. Once Janet Robertson was gone PT travel went to crap and its stayed that way.

Barry McCockner- I'll only get that ACARS if I'm on the MIA flight out of HKG. There will no longer be any impetus to roster me that way. Any flight to ANC and a PT ticket to LAX, my base. Wrong coast. Maybe they'll be less PXing overall. That's wonderful but to keep me under guarantee, hmmmm...finish in LAX or MIA?

I'd love to see the abusive patterns stopped. Anyone who will see an improvement in their conditions should most definitely not sign. There is a small minority of us in North America on the 747 though that benefit from the freighter PX. And I don't know if I'm ready for my roster to go to crap mid-summer simply to show solidarity while I wait for some undefined good to come from it. More credit hours, less PXing, a Miami base? Or a bunch of PT tickets from LA to ANC and back? You tell me, because my crystal ball is broken. Like I said, for me its rolling the dice.

8driver,

I think you're missing point...

You and those like you want to give something away for nothing. At least give the AOA a chance to negotiate something better...

DO NOT give your consent!!! Otherwise, you are giving away one of the few pieces of leverage we have for negotiations. Is this a hard concept???

And yes, you will be doing the DAC-HAN patterns in HKG with correlating rest on both sides (read extra EXBs), making your time away from home even greater... So I'm not sure you're actually helping yourself.

8driver,
cxorist is right. If you sign this you are making a lifetime decision. Take a step back and look at the big picture.
The company wants to get something for nothing. If they don't get anyone to sign there will be negotiations to follow after May 28 has come and gone.
Wouldn't it be nice to get 100% credit for all those px flights?

Cxorcist,

The point is that its an individual choice and no one should be castigated for signing. Most people are giving away something for nothing, but not everyone. What am I giving away? My right to a Y class seat for up to eight hours with no food instead of a freighter bunk? The right to end up 2,000 miles from home in my base instead of my preferred port because PT tickets to there are cheaper? My right to sit in a terminal for up to six hours while waiting for that Y class seat? My right to a longer duty day by PTing in North America?

I am part of a very small minority and I know it. I think there is a complete lack of understanding about some of the issues in North America. I also think there is a complete disregard for those issues, because it is only the 747 fleet, and only in North America. I've seen massive abuses of PXing on Captain rosters, a lot of it as a result of the YVR "megabase." I've also seen a lot of F/O's routinely go home by the fastest possible means on the freighter.

Crews in HKG have recourse to the Cathay passenger network and J class seats for PX. I don't know how it is in Europe with PXing, but if the sectors are long you will probably have recourse to Cathay or another airline with J class. In North America the carriers choose to designate the front cabin as "first." The seats are in most cases of a lower standard than a freighter J class seat. But the reservations system says "F" so the company says "Oh, no, that's a first class seat, no J, you're stuck in Y for as long as we like." BUT, sometimes when that exact same aircraft goes between the US and Canada that cabin becomes "business class." Same airplane, same seats, and now we can sit there. OR, I love this one. Sometimes a US carrier uses a transatlantic airplane to go cross country. These have a J class akin to ours. Nicer than their normal first class, recline almost fully, etc. Its a nicer seat and we are entitled to those because its coded "J", but not the inferior domestic "F". I can't make this stuff up, but its what we deal with. Its the definition of stupid. A couple of photographs and we should be able to straighten this right out. But nobody wants to because it only happens to a small minority on one fleet, in one base area. Is the AOA negotiating that? How about when the company redefined the six hours wait time on the ground to not include post flight, preflight, and transport? So that its almost eight hours now? Does that happen a lot in HKG? AOA working on that?

I'm venting here Cxorcist, because this is a very bad deal for me. Last full year of commuting to LA was 8,000 USD. Pass riding no longer reliable with US domestic loads. Miami is a great deal but we just can't seem to open it as a base.

So if you were faced with well over three hours of PT in a Y class seat, and finishing in your base rather than your preferred port, and a duty day being extended by a terminal wait, what would you do? Think about it. Operate to ANC, six hours in a terminal, and Y class for 4,000 miles. Really?

I've just been trying to show that it isn't the same for everyone. And when when was the last time the company responded the way the AOA expected and conceded something?

8Driver,

I was just stating an example and I take all your points. It is true that for some pilots, signing the consent form (which is VERY open-ended and vague, as the company likes it) could maintain the most reasonable way to get to/from home. However, as others have said, this is one chance (and we don't get many) to get something from the company. If no one signs the company will HAVE to negotiate something better. However, I don't think we'll all be sticking together on this one, just like all the rest.

This is just another way for the company to divide and conquer. If you are content with your individual contract having a vague blanket permission to the company go ahead and sign.

I think each person will decide on his or her own whether to sign. Solidarity has never existed at this company for as long as I have been here and I don't think now is the time it will start to exist. Do what's best for you. Don't fool yourself and don't expect others not to sign just to make a point.

I think it won't matter if some guys like 8 driver sign it, no hard feelings from my side.

I reckon 95% will not sign, and that is enough to motivate the company to offer something substantial in order to make a deal.

8driver=20 minuter
Gone once FedEx/UPS/Insert Legacy Carrier Here starts hiring

These guys expect the world yet forget who they are working for. Go back to Mesa/Colgan/insert shitty feeder here.

Or you could come to Hong Kong, but I am guessing that is not an option

We'll know who signed anyway. They'll be the lonely few in the back of the freighter PX'ing all over the planet.

And if I was based in HKG there is no way I would sign that letter.

Without even considering your other arguments, that statement has more holes in it than a CX contract.

The point is that you might be HK based one day. I agree with santorum's assumption that you're probably a 20 minuter, which is fine, and I seriously hope that all of you in that basket can make your way into a legacy job - it's a win-win for us, where you get a more preferred job, and a crew shortage pressures CX to improve the remaining pilots' lot. However, just consider the fact that 1 day, if the FedEx/UPS/etc path doesn't work out for you, you might end up in HK.

Do as you consider best for yourself, but by taking a little short term pain, we can hopefully make some long term gain.

8 driver,
did you ever consider that not signing this letter might forced the company to open a MIA base. We need pilots to operate in and out of there. Can't get them there via px, pt is expensive and inefficient, so lets base a few of them there. The rumor that cx wants a MIA base has been around for a long time. I believe that the gma's letter said something about re-evaluating bases.
Any thoughts to that outcome?

Berry, you're thought is interesting.

This letter from the GMA proves that the AOA is only a convenience for the company and a pipe dream for the pilots.

The company "negotiates" with the AOA when it wants the pilots to think that they have some power as a group and when it does not WANT to hear from each individual pilot. The company goes directly to the pilots (as it has just done) when it wants to modify each pilot's individual contract (which it is, except in Canada and Australia.)

If each pilot, who is on an individual contract, were to go to the company and say, "I want this, I want that," which would most likely be done through a grievance, the company says, "Go to the AOA and have it bring the needs and wants of all the pilots to us. We don't have time to listen to each of you individually."

However, when the company wants something it goes directly to each and every pilot. This is how it is and this is how it will be as long as those pilots are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement such as in Canada and Australia.

Regardless of the existence of the AOA, this issue will certainly come down to the wishes of each individual pilot. The company has no obligation in law to treat the pilots as a group, therefore, group mentality is not pertinent.

Wow. The ignorance and assumptions are astonishing.

8driver=20 minuter
Gone once FedEx/UPS/Insert Legacy Carrier Here starts hiring

Just over eight years at CX Santorum. Hired as a direct entry F/O on the freighter, went to the passenger fleet after my three years and stayed on a base, chose to stay on the -400 when my base converted to 777. No apps in anywhere, haven't made a logbook entry in seven years. One of my classmates at CX led the charge to UPS, if I'd wanted to go down that road I would have done it six years ago. Take a look at my age. 47. You really think I'm pining after a right seat in a "legacy" 737 flying six legs a day for probationary pay awaiting the next US downturn? Just because I fly mostly freighter trips and I'm based in North America doesn't mean I was hired yesterday and that I see Cathay as a stop in the road. My intention has always been to retire here. (Insert joke here). Trust me, I don't miss the US airlines.

Go back to Mesa/Colgan/insert shitty feeder here

I flew DC-8s around the world before I came to Cathay, my last flight at a regional was 15 years ago. I was hired before we dipped into that pool, but thanks for smearing a lot of the guys I fly with just the same.

Or you could come to Hong Kong, but I am guessing that is not an option

You've guessed right Santorum. My intention had been to go to HKG but a divorce got in the way and I've two kids that I'm just a little attached to and share custody of. It will probably be an option in the future. On the other hand it saved me from getting "locked" over there without an option to return due to basing issues, which has happened to quite a few guys hired after me. I do have white beaches and blue, sunny skies where I am.

What I'm really surprised at is how many people just jumped onboard with Santorum's silly assumptions about me. One of the reasons I care about the implications of not signing this letter is because I'm not going anywhere.

cxorist is right. If you sign this you are making a lifetime decision.

And that it is my overriding concern. In typical Cathay fashion, its a one way street going their way, and if and when I am based in HKG it could very well bite me in the ass.

8 driver,
did you ever consider that not signing this letter might forced the company to open a MIA base. We need pilots to operate in and out of there. Can't get them there via px, pt is expensive and inefficient, so lets base a few of them there. The rumor that cx wants a MIA base has been around for a long time. I believe that the gma's letter said something about re-evaluating bases.
Any thoughts to that outcome?

Most of the Captains and a large portion of the F/O's are crewed out of HKG. A lot of the guys request the layover. There isn't the amount of PXing you would think. They'll often PX the relief guy to Houston from another base. Often I PX to IAH the first sector and operate the second to ANC. So guess what? Now it'll be PT to IAH and stay overnight a day early. Miami was up to six flights a week and doing just fine using mostly HKG crews. There have been rumors of it opening for two years, but I think the issues are very deeply rooted in seniority, who would bid the base, and right to live and work. I don't see the solution coming soon.

Do as you consider best for yourself, but by taking a little short term pain, we can hopefully make some long term gain.

That's really the problem Broadband Circuit, the short term pain. How short is short term? I asked above when the last time was that the company reacted to pressure the way the AOA expected and got no answer. I asked what was being done about this Y class PT issue over three hours and got no answer. It should be business class or better, not business or worse. I think most people are ignorant of this issue as well if they aren't in North America. It isn't an issue in HKG, so nobody really cares. But to me that could be a duty day increase from 20 to 30 hours on the way home and an economy seat for those extra hours. Its routine guys. Land in LA, Captain has a YYZ base, he gets a four hour sit in the terminal and a Y class ticket to the East Coast. Because J doesn't exist. I've mentioned this in every post and no one has said a word about it. I get a strong feeling its not a concern. The last year I commuted to LAX full time cost me about 8,000 USD. Sure, I'll be costing the company PT money from ANC but bleeding cash and days off getting home. Not much consolation there. If there was any history to indicate the company might actually be forced to negotiate in a hurry, it would be an easier decision. But that history doesn't exist here.

Just saw Oval3Holer's last post which speaks to a point I'm trying to make. Even if there were a group mentality for those under HKAOA the US pilots interests are lost there. We haven't been on-shored and we are still dealing with HKG labour law. We don't have a collective bargaining agreement, and we don't have anyone to negotiate our interests as it is in Australia and Canada. I feel like our interests are secondary to the majority in HKG.

And beautifully put if I may so, and therein the nub of the matter: your meat is another man's poison. If you take the HKG case the issue is the amount of px'ing prior to operating. I do no less than 3 HKG-DAC-HAN etc this month which are 14 hour days and my credit hours for all that effort are 43 ! So this needs to be resolved. Px'ing is a necessary evil to an extent on the freighter operation. Sadly, as in so many other things, the company just take the piss, and will not stop until threatened with legal action. Wasn't required when I first joined as we were a small operation in a Crown Colony and things were settled over a quiet beer by the AOA President in the police mess over the road. We have outgrown that; sadly, however,the CX mindset has not
I have every sympathy with your situation howeverr a negotiated decent settlement is the only way to go... And watching paint dry is excruciating !!
The company will attempt the usual divide and conquer tactics as usual; save our Canuck and Oz colleague who cannot have anything forced on them.

Question: why are the Canadians and Australians excluded?

If you were CX Flight Crew you'd know the answer to that. :mad:

8driver,

As a NY based pilot, I've got an enormous amount to lose by not signing. There is no doubt flying into ANC and staying on board is easy, but guess what, I'm not signing. This is about solidarity and being part of a push to unite us in the eyes of the company. My GC speaks for me and I've been advised not to sign. If your union MEC said you are going on strike, you go on strike or you scab. Easy choice.


Finally, if you sign every single person will know when you are PXing on the freighter. I know you think it is nice and comfy in the bunk but guess what, that is CA's discretion. I know for a FACT that almost every CA I've flown with and talked to in the last week has adamantly stated that if they have someone on board who signs, NO BUNK.

Best of luck to all. All we are doing is enforcing our contract. The company has every right to PT us all to death. If they choose to fix that, the AOA is ready to discuss.

8-Driver,
Your PP is exactly that, "preferred"!
I know that for some people living near your base is a strange concept, but it certainly makes life easier!

Because J doesn't exist. I've mentioned this in every post and no one has said a word about it. I get a strong feeling its not a concern.

8driver, I am HKG based not on the -400/-800, so I don't suffer the freighter PX or Y class PT, but I am not unaware of it, and I think it is a disgusting cop-out by the company. The Y vs F ticket issue is typical HK (and especially CX) mentality to just read the words, without understanding their meaning.

I agree with jacobus that watching paint dry is excruciating, but I believe it is the way ahead here.

The "explanation/way ahead options" attached to the letter from GMA are obviously intended to intimidate people in your demographic to sign. Your 8 years at CX has probably taught you to question why they are trying to push you & your demographic into signing. The usual answer to that question is that it is in their best interest, not yours.

nitpicker, do you really think if I was not CX flight crew I would be even remotely interested in that kind of stuff? Really?? Are you insane ??
Of course I heard of industrial/ union issues, but since I am not from these parts and I actually do have a life..
Get real..

Batman hit the nail on the head. It's about solidarity and the company negotiating with the Association. No more individual contracts/deals.

711, If you are an AOA member may I respectfully direct you to the AOA updates and forums. You will then have a clear insight in to why the company's unilateral action cannot be directed towards the Australian and Canadian bases.
I appreciate you have a life to live but so do the rest of us and we are trying to improve our lives by making a considered decision to stop some of the pxing abuses.

Ok. What is CX going to do if none of us sign?

They have a mandate to reduce costs. Adhoc hotel rooms and PT's are not cheap. Let alone extending your duty to cover the overnights here and there requires more crew to handle the task. What is going to stop them asking you nicely to PX on the freighter? If it suits you.. do it! If it doesn't.. don't.

At the end of the day, I firmly believe in negotiation. But if they want to play hard ball, let them. What have you got to lose?

Negotiate! Unless they want to spend thousands of USD's everyday PT'ing crews around the world to prove a point.

Finally, if you sign every single person will know when you are PXing on the freighter. I know you think it is nice and comfy in the bunk but guess what, that is CA's discretion. I know for a FACT that almost every CA I've flown with and talked to in the last week has adamantly stated that if they have someone on board who signs, NO BUNK.

Figured that was coming. My quality of life is going to suffer either way. I understand the point is solidarity and to force a negotiation. I'm just trying to figure out what experience you've had here batman that leads you to believe the we'll either get the solidarity or the negotiation. I hope you're ready to go to the wall for people like me, because I'll be refusing just about every PT in Y class after a transpac sector without a hotel rest first. I'm not gonna beat myself up like that. Don't want to risk a DVT now, do I?

If your union MEC said you are going on strike, you go on strike or you scab. Easy choice.

Please don't reference ALPA. I was a member of that sorry organization for 15 years. My blind faith that they had my best interests at heart or knew what they were doing departed long before Duane "Worthless" took the helm. A lot of "gray areas" and promises that didn't pan out. "Just stick together and (fill in the blank).....". Uh-huh.

As you said, good luck to us all. Hopefully we achieve the desired result.

Ever occurred to anybody, that if nobody signs, the Master roster freighter patterns will not work anymore. Sure, they could PT everyone like on the YVR base, but that would increase cost significantly. So the obvious solution is to rework the freighter patterns, pushing for more productive patterns and adjust the staffing on some bases. A couple bases might be reduced, for example LAX has too many 747 FO's, but other base vacancies might open in the basings area or they might even bring preferred ports across country borders back. Maybe even more 777 conversions on bases. Sure it sucks if you are junior, but thats what seniority is for and CX surely abused that principle. Of course YVR 747 is greatly overstaffed, however I can't see them change anything until the collective agreement is signed.
I always wondered why CX never gave 3 months notice to our current RP's and roster us under AFTL's as it seems we can't get to an agreement. That wouldn't work either as suddenly there would be no EXB's, O and A days to roster.
Personally I think not signing is the only option. We actually helping CX to safe money that way, forcing them to redesign the inefficient and unproductive freighter rosters, maybe even fix the present basings situation. Both parties win, CX will safe cost, the pilots have shorter and more productive patterns, less or no PT/PX and no sitting around in ANC or HKG for endless days.
But of course, then there is the option of the "that's how we do business in Hong Kong" way, saving face and showing the strong hand, making rosters worse regardless of cost. However, that doesn't help the bottom line and I am pretty sure that this is CX's priority in todays market - reducing cost.

You are spot on with your DVT comment.

I was wondering if we should "pull" our AME (Dr. you know who I mean) into this saga.
It cannot be healthy if our company rosters us for 22-30 hours duties, which include two or more sectors (operating/positioning).
There should be a limit and as far as I am concerned it should get more limiting the more sectors you are onboard, bit like our FDP limit.

Finally, if you sign every single person will know when you are PXing on the freighter. I know you think it is nice and comfy in the bunk but guess what, that is CA's discretion. I know for a FACT that almost every CA I've flown with and talked to in the last week has adamantly stated that if they have someone on board who signs, NO BUNK.




Hmmmh,

perhaps one should not forget, that someone might agree to a PX request by crew ctl during the roster period.
How are you supposed to know if the bunk applicant has signed the form or just simply agreed to a roster change?
Are you going to give them a lie detector test (meet the parents style)?

Batman, do you really want to go down that road? Intimmidation is not the right way (as our rooky-GMA is about to find out) .

perhaps one should not forget, that someone might agree to a PX request by crew ctl during the roster period. How are you supposed to know if the bunk applicant has signed the form or just simply agreed to a roster change?
Are you going to give them a lie detector test (meet the parents style)?

It's not that hard to look up a crew members published roster to see who is scheduled to px vs. a crew member simply agreeing to it. Also, I would assume most would not straight-up lie if asked if they were rostered or requested to px.

I agree that is an option as you point put.

However I think the whole "Sorry Madam/Sir the bank is not available to you"
card, do you really think we should go down this route?

And if you fly the freighter you know that the roster keeps changing quite a bit, so "your" preflight crew study has a 50:50 chance of being correct at most.
On top of that although the bunk is at the captains discretion but I'd like to see the captain who is going to refuse the bunk a fellow aviator, knowing that he/she has just operated through their night.

Keep in mind that it is an individuals's choice to have their CoS changed.

Everything is about money, that is why people PX on the freighter rather than staying in a hotel, using a KA business seat or going on another airline.

If you do not sign and end up in ANC with the plane you just flew going to Miami do you think they will refuse your request to PX for free or are they going to buy a ticket to get you home?

The cheapest option always wins.

To me, I'mbatman gets it. Being JFK based, I am betting he will be converted to the 777 in the next couple years. When he is, he will be so glad he stood his ground on the freighter PXing. He will not be subject to ridiculous patterns on the 777F. Instead, he will be operating for much more credit whether it is on the passenger or freighter aircraft. Subsequently, he will very likely be at home more, not less.

8driver,

I get what you are writing about, but I think you are being somewhat shortsighted and naive. The only thing that is for sure is that things will change. When they do, I'm sure you will still be able to give away your rights not to PX on the freighter. "One time opportunities" at CX which primarily benefit the company tend to be available after the "deadline" expires (ie CoS08).

I learned the hard way 8driver, told that CoS 08 was a one time offer, never to be repeated. Tripple checked this fact with 3 different senior managers. I reluctantly signed as i need to work a couple of extra years and i am close to the 55 mark.
Now I am out of 10 months bypass pay, business class F.O.C's etc. The "once only" offer ?, you can walk up there tomorrow and sign CoS08.

Me too Beta light...apparently though you have to give your bypass pay back if you do sign over...just what I heard so would appreciate if anyone could shed any light

Almost all of those PX guys using the bunks are not allowed, and I didn't read anything about CA discretion regarding their use: Bunks are restricted to operating crew and other flight crew on PX travel only if they require in flight rest to satisfy the AFTLS. So not all PX crew are allowed, and certainly not those PXing home from ANC. Yeah? GMA forgot to put this detail in his offer.

Half a dozen FOs returning to HKG for Command have elected to sign across to CoS08.
They have been required to pay back all their bypass pay!

Not sure if the Company twisted their arms to change to CoS08 or if was purely voluntary?

It is interesting and somewhat amusing to read the rhetoric over the issue of PXing on the freighter, the threats of intimidation against those who sign the waiver and the bravado of how everyone is going to take on the company.

Gentlemen, there is a reality and I have seen this all before during my many years here at CX. First, there is no requirement to join the HKAOA in Hong Kong so pilots are free to do whatever they wish. CX knows that and acts accordingly, leaving individuals to make their own choices. I recall a freighter Captain almost losing his job because he once intimidated an FO because they differed on views of an issue.

Anonymous forums are a great way to vent one's frustrations and it is amazing how tough one can be when you don't have to give your real name. Many of my colleagues talked a big story, made disparing catcalls behind their colleagues backs and said how they were going to take on the company. Ironically, when the chips were down, it was these same individuals who were the first to turn and run. The result, 49 very capable pilots lost their jobs. And what did we do, we should have downed tools, but we all quickly went back to work. And happy to have our jobs.

For too many years, the HKAOA leveraged gains for HKG pilots on the backs of the bases. Those days are over as the bases now have the strength of collective labour legislation behind them. Pilots on bases have to belong to their union and pay dues. No more will the non joiners reap the benefits of those who are willing to take a stand. Do you really think we give a tinker's dam about HKG housing?

Who was the individual who once spoke of those who fail to study history, are doomed to repeat it?

Now gents, back to your anonymous bravado.

Do you really think we give a tinker's dam about HKG housing?


Right. Ok, then, after the HKAOA financed your start up to help develop the Federation, and you say things like this, do you think the HKAOA will give a tinker's dam when CX cease operating CX Canada, just close it down and hand you your 3-months' notices? You don't think that's a real possibility? You think you have any power to stop them from deciding to close or sell or change their company, eliminating all your employment positions?

And then, do you really think you'll then just be allowed to slide right back into HKG without going to the bottom of the list (if at all) after new job openings are advertised to replace you?

Good luck with that.

Iron, if they close a base, the pilots involved can relocate to HK on their seniority level benefits and salary. I really don't understand where you are coming from....

ps. I think Westcoastcaptain's comments are even more offensive and rather crass. We ALL have a vested interest in each others conditions. Anyone who doesn't understand that is doomed to a very miserable and frustrating career.

Iron Skillet, thanks for responding so quickly to my post. I see I may have struck a nerve.

CX has always used threats to facilitate gains. How long have you been here? The reality is the last base they will close is the YVR base. They are worried about pilot retention and besides the severance packages would kill them. Why do you think negotiations are going so well in Canada. Much to the chagrin of the HKAOA, I might add. Both employers and employees are required to negotiate in good faith. It is the law. But more importantly the last thing CX wants is to go to arbitration. Just imagine their response when the arbitrator wants to see their books or the discussion of bases comes up. They tried the same threats with the YVR Cabin Crew, the clarion call being "take the cuts or we will close the base. Your costs are too high." There were no cuts and the cabin crew have a new contract.

You say the HKAOA Federation financed the onshoring negotiations. I suggest you have a look at the funds that are diverted to the HKAOA from the Canadian Union. The real issue here is the HKAOA used to leverage gains for HKG pilots on the backs of the based pilots. Those days are over with a completely negotiated contract here in Canada.

So........for all of your bravado, remember it is much easier to get rid of a pilot in HKG than on a base. So for you it is good luck!

Westcoastcapt:

As soon as the collective agreement is signed and in effect, CX can reduce or close the YVR base as they please. You are mistaken that Canadian Labour Law prohibits this. Have seen this happen several times before with actual Canadian airlines, considering CX Canada is only a Canadian entity of a Hong Kong company you are on even weaker ground. You are also incorrect in your assumption that you will receive a severance package. As you are still part of a global seniority list, the basings agreement will govern how a base closure is dealt with. You can choose any vacancies available in your basings area (which leaves only YYZ) based on seniority, choose to return to Hong Kong, choose any available vacancy where you have the right to live and work based on seniority or choose to terminate your employment if the previous options don't appeal to you.

You are also incorrect with your statement "No more will the non joiners reap the benefits of those who are willing to take a stand."

You are not required to join a union in Canada, however you are required to pay the union dues, either to the union or another suitable organization of your choosing. Every Canadian airline I have worked for or know off, the collective agreement applies equally to union and non-union employees.

Why is it that always there is a conflict with management we start to have a go at each other? This makes no sense.

....because there's always one sh*t stirrer like Westcoastcapt who chooses to wind everyone up, even though he's wrong on every fact he touches on. Moron

Just to clarify, I didn't say the agreements with the company don't appear to entitle pilots to return to HKG as per their seniority....I meant good luck expecting that it actually happens that way.

A couple of quick questions,

1. Do you believed forced PXing on the Freighter is contrary to your COS?

2. From the 1st July, could the company roster a YVR pilot to PX on the Freighter without the pilot's consent?

For Tornado Ali,

As I reread my posts I don't recall ever using any derogatory terms to describe my colleagues. I may disagree with your posts but I don't need to resort to name calling. Rather sad really, you probably think you are really something. I just stated an account of the history and if you decide to disagree that is your perogative. If you decide to check the facts you may find that I am indeed correct on many of the points.

Your colleague is indeed quite correct that in Canada you do not have to belong to the union, but you are required to pay the dues. It is called the Rand Formula and it is to prevent exactly what occurs here in Hong Kong. Again Tornado may call me a moron but after the 49er debacle many of our colleagues abandoned the HKAOA because they didn't want to pay the increased subs to aid our colleagues who lost their jobs. Again, it was many who talked with great bravado who were the first to abandon ship.

The Crofts case in the UK was the impetus for CX to go onshore as the UK courts found that Mr Crofts was indeed employed in the UK and subject to UK labour law. You may find that we are indeed employed in Canada and subject to Canadian Labour law. Why do you think negotiations have gone so well?

Quite frankly I don't care what many of you decide as I have no intention of going along with it, no matter what the HKAOA decides. I have seen the results of anonymity firsthand and believe me it is full of selfinterest.

Just to wrap up, I once recall a colleague belittling another colleague behind his back. Rather sad really, like an 8 year old schoolboy. I bet him he didn't have the courage to say it to the individual's face. He didn't.
Enough said.

Liam G,

I don't mind answering your questions in the least. It is rather nice to interact at a mature level.

First, yes it is against my COS to PX me on the freighter. I was once rostered to do so and called CC and said I won't as I flew pax and was quickly taken off and sent on Alaskan Airlines. Much better really.

To answer your second question, I think you have to answer first whether you have signed the waiver. If you have, then you are stuck.

First a little history. Tornado will probably say I'm wrong but again it is the facts. There is very little labour law in Hong kong, but what there is, is very good. CX cannot just change your contract unless it is an outright improvement. Yes, they can force a pay raise on you without your consent, but not a pay cut. No, they cannot force you to take unpaid leave. Our contract is very clear, last in first out. That is why they always bundle something good with something bad, just to get you to sign. So, if you have to sign it, I would suggest it is not to your benefit.

Hope this helps.

For Iron Skillet,

Yes, a number of colleagues have returned to Hong Kong from a base on the same pay and benefits. I may suggest they are even better than what you have.

Suggest you get out more and understand what is going on out there. Don't believe everything you hear.

Westcoastcapt

You do simplify the facts. CX Canada is a unique setup for Canada. Technical you are employed by a Canadian Shell entity of an Hong Kong Airline/Company with the sole purpose of crewing the YVR and YYZ bases and operating Hong Kong registered and owned aircraft under a Hong Kong Operating Certificate. Which means you are employed by a Canadian crewing company which has no assets and the only purpose is to employ pilots. The matters are even more complicated that your future collective agreement will reference a global seniority list and a basings agreement. Anyways, if you really think Canadian Labour law will protect your position on your base you are mistaken. You might want to contact the Canadian ALPA guys who have dealt with such things as base reductions and closures before in Canada. I think though you guys will be safe as CX has a very poor track record with their legal advisors which mostly are in-house or HKG based.

And if you are Canada based what is the whole point of your post. You are excluded from the whole PX proceedings because as you mentioned yourself CX and AOA Canada have to bargain in good faith and as such you can not sign the PX letter as this would be violating the bargaining process. Sure some people here post strong opinions, but my guess is that the majority will not sign as I have observed that a lot of the guys/girls are beyond the point where they can be intimidated. After all the recent disappointments from 2009 until present day in regards of SLS, housing, basings, AFTLs and abuse of freighter PXing to just name a few and constant conflict it seems the pilots good will has vanished.

Westcoast. Tornado obviously got under your skin. Your initial post was deserving of his contempt. Everything you said in that post was incorrect. Don't bother being defensive, you are wrong. Admit it and move on.

For whatever reason, you may feel that the derogatory comments get under my skin. They don't in the least. Rather, you can tell when someone has little to opine, they just resort to name calling. It's all very sad, especially when it is an anonymous post.

My sole purpose in placing my initial post was to just state the facts. If you want to state I'm wrong, that is your perogative. However, I suspect I have been here much longer than most of you and probably have seen much of this before.

I will be guided accordingly.

Ah, the good ol' "I've been here longer than you" argument....a typical logical fallacy.

As mentioned, there are only 2 bases for CX Canada pilots....you may interpret things your way, but I know which way the company will interpret that, and how much they are always willing to spend in court and for how long they will drag things out to get their way.

Why have the negotiations gone so well? Yup, because they are stuck with it. Then guess what happens as soon as the negotiations are over and the contract is in place? Do you think you work for a different company than everyone else?

So, my prediction is that once the contracts are all in place, and there are no more legally binding limitations on shutting down the company, if that's when they feel like eliminating 100 or so positions, that's how they will do it, a whole "company" at a time (not a base closure), as has been done many times before around the world. Much more savings by eliminating expensive, roster-inflexible FO's and CN's (who may return to HKG with housing one day) rather than cheap SO's with no housing. Just a thought!

You may be blinded by your hopes and dreams, but again....remember who you work for. As usual, nobody seems to notice they always have an ace up their sleeve, just like the PX letter to sign.

Sorry to press you on the answer to my second question, however the GMA's letter on Freighter Positioning was vague as to the Australian and Canadian pilots.

He says that all pilots, except those based in OZ and Canada, will not be PX'ed on the Freighter after the 1st July, unless they submit a consent form. He then went on to say that arrangements for the Oz and Canadan based pilots was yet to be determined.

Have you received further and better information, or are you assuming that unless you submit a consent (and you have not been offered that option) that you, or your YVR based colleagues, will not be PX'ed on the Freighter?

Good morning Liam,

Certainly a very good question. I cannot speak for the Aussies as I am not an expert, nor profess to be, an expert on Aussie Labour Law. But I do know a thing or two about Canada.

The reason the recent waiver letter does not apply to Canadian based pilots is due to the fact they are in negotiations. CX is not allowed to facilitate any changes whilst these negotiations are going on. It is against the law.

I doubt there will be anything in our new COS to allow for px'ing n the freighter so I have no concerns. That being said, I suspect CX may eventually try to wrap it in a supposed gain in order to get pilots to agree. Let's remember that their rostering and crew management is very amateurish so flexibilities such as freighter px'ing gives them the latitude they need.

You may recall that CX tried to impose SLS the last time on the YVR cabin crew with no success. In Canada, one must follow a certain protocol when trying to facilitate change. You cannot just impose it. Of course, they huffed and puffed, but in the end just walked away.

Iron Skillet,

Stop it, you're killing me. With predictions like that I look forward to any stock tips you can offer.

No seriously, I admire someone who has an opinion rather than just resorting to name calling. Not worth the effort.

Here let me offer you a little rope and see where it leads. If CX's intention is to close bases, why wait until there is a legitimate COS in place? The move to onshoring in Jan 2010 would have been an opportune time to sever ties with the Canadian bases. The longer this draws out, the more attention that is given the whole base structure. Remember the Croft's case. But perhaps of greater interest, why would CX threaten to close the CC base to secure concessions then sign a new contract for the same?

As you tangle yourself up, let me leave you with something. People continue to come even though the overall package in HKG continues to erode. What if they cut your housing by 50%. What could you or would you do? My guess is you will sign. Remember it costs a lot more to employ a pilot in HKG and on a per hour cost are more expensive.

This will keep you busy for awhile.

My questions relate to what will occur on the 1st July and I note your negotiators are not back to the table until July (at the earliest). What may or may not be in your final agreement is fun to speculate, but irrelevant to what may appear on the next YVR (and SYD) based rosters, published on the 15th June.

You stated that it is against your COS to PX on the Freighter. That is the also the position of the Exco and it would appear, by implication, to be the position of the company. Therefore, this becomes a matter of COS enforcement, not change. In this light, why has the company yet to determine a policy for the Canadians and Aussies?

Could it be that the company is waiting to tally up the numbers of pilots that consent to PX on the Freighter, and if numbers are insufficient to publish a roster, particularly the DAC-HAN-HKG trip, they will utilize the YVR and SYD based pilots on such trips. This rather distasteful action will be shrouded in phrases such as "on-shoring" and " maintainance of accepted practice".

So the question to you, or more specifically all of your 747 colleagues, should this occur, what are you going to do? Will you all fly your rosters to "curry favour" with your employers in the hope of rewards at the negotiating table?

Perhaps these are not questions for this forum, but they are certainly questions that need to put to Nick B. well before the 15th June!!

If CX's intention is to close bases, why wait until there is a legitimate COS in place?

I'm no expert but could your previous post also be the reason?

CX is not allowed to facilitate any changes whilst these negotiations are going on. It is against the law.

May be it's time for AOACAN to drag out "the negotiations" indefinitely, as CX has done so in HK so many times!

For Liam, there is simply no currying of any favors. In fact, it is rather naive to think otherwise. If you don't wish to px on the freighter, don't sign the waiver.

For SMOC, sorry but the Canadian negotiations will be completed in the next few months. There is no benefit to let them drag on.

Kindly afford me the courtesy of reading my posts properly.

This is not about me signing a waiver, this is about you not having a waiver to sign! This is about the scenario where the YVR and SYD based pilots, who have not been given a waiver a sign, are rostered to PX on the freighter post 1st July, particularly on the contentious DAC-HAN-HKG patterns.

This is about the possibility that the YVR and SYD crews are forced into a scenario where they are acting against the interests of the rest of the pilot group. This is about one group of pilots depowering the leverage of another group.

My question still remains unanswered, back to you.....

At the risk of sounding like a troll, may I ask why almost every single thread ends up in a sh** throwing session where two, three, or four guys fight over what they 'really' meant to say? Seriously, I'm genuinely curious. Why? Is it just poor communication skills? Lack of writing ability? Laziness? Stupidity, perhaps? Whatever the reason, it always seems to be the same stupid people going at it about [who] meant what, or [what] someone really meant to say. Oh please! Why not just get a room together, so you can settle your differences the way normal married couples do. At least that way someone has a real chance of getting satisfaction from all those hours, minutes, an seconds wasted typing, editing, arguing over all the aforementioned crap. :yuk: But by all means, don't let me stop you now, please keep embarrassing yourselves. At the very least, it's FREE entertainment for everyone else at YOUR EXPENSE.

Yes, Liam I did answer your question earlier. Remember that during negotiations CX cannot undermine your contract or facilitate change during negotiations.

I think it has been agreed by all parties, CX included, that having a pilot px on the freighter without their consent contravenes the COS. That is why CX has had the other groups sign a waiver.

Hey, I thought this was a rumour forum, or for the intellectually challenged a forum for anonymous name calling, not a personal help line. But what the heck, I like to help. If you are rostered to px on the freighter advise CC that you do not want to and insist they take you off. If they don't, I suggest you refer the matter to the union.

For FreqFlyer001,

The short answer is because many here have nothing of substance to offer. Because they cannot put two relevant thoughts together in a sentence, calling someone names gives them that sense of bravado. I can assume that at least their wives are proud of them.

I am starting to share Freqflyer001 frustrations.

You are very determined to not understand this. I have never sought advice about my position as I am perfectly comfortable about what happens to me on the July roster. I wont be signing the waiver and I won't be PX'ed on the Freighter.

However, what about you (assuming you are YVR based), will you be PX' ing on the Freighter?

Despite what is in your COS, CX has been PX' ing both the SYD and YVR crews during the whole negotiation process, what makes you think that will stop on the 1st July? In the GMA's recent email, where does he say the YVR and SYD crews won't be PX'ed on the Freighter from the 1st July?

Perhaps it is time for another YVR or SYD based pilot to post on this thread and get this debate back on the rails.

I said awhile ago, I don't px on freighters. Was rostered once but had CC change it. Can't make it any clearer than that!

You win.... I give up....

I thought I was having a conversation with someone who actually works for CX, not a fantasy airline.

WestCoastCapt???@<hidden>@<hidden>##!!
Moron:mad::yuk:

Liam, I don't see what's unclear about Westcoastcapt's claims. Just like everyone else, it's in our COS not to PX on the freighter. I would think the GMA mentioned "TBD" because the CBA is currently in negotiation, therefore he (nor anyone else) can say for certain what will happen when the CBA is finalized. For the time being, however, PXing on the frieghter is against our COS. You claim some folks are doing it, which I cannot dispute, but AFAIK there is nothing to stop said individuals from refusing to do so. I see no change to the status quo come July 1st (in fact, legally, there CAN'T be a change, given the aforementioned negotiations).

I don't know what planet you and Westcoastcapt have been living on, however I suspect it is a planet that doesn't involve 747s and AOA membership.

Some basic facts on Freighter PX' ing.

1. The company's long held view has been that they can roster any of us on the Freighter. Whilst they may, at their sole discretion, change individual trips to passenger aircraft, the pilot had to fly as ordered or face a "missed duty".

2. The AOA threatened legal action in 2009 and put forward a series of settlement proposals where pilots volunteered to PX on the Freighter in return for greater credit. The company rejected this proposal.

3. As a preliminary to Legal Action a number of pilots individually lodged D&G proceedings with CP747, with varying degrees of success. These D&Gs did result in those handful of pilots being excluded from Freighter PX'ing. Buoyed by a modicum of success, earlier this year, the AOA threatened a mass D&G leading to litigation.

4. In response to the mass D&G and litigation threat you received an email from the GMA on 10 May. The AOA's recommendation is not to sign the waiver and they remain ready to negotiate a better deal for all pilots, including you. Many in the union would like to see all PX'ing attract 1:1 credit to discourage poor rostering. Besides you are in uniform and on duty, why not get paid for it?

5. The company expects pilots rostered to PX on the Freighter in June to do so. What would happen to someone who refused to do so is uncertain.

6. The position regarding OZ and Canadian based pilots is unclear.

Any notion that pilots have ever been able to refuse to PX on the Freighter is fanciful. I heard guys talk it, but only seen I guy try it and it didn't end well.

It would be nice if the next post was from an OZ or Canadian based pilot who has an educated view on their position..... Please.....

Good post Liam. All correct as far as I know.

Some basic facts on Freighter PX' ing. (LIAM GALLAGHER)

1. The company's long held view has been that they can roster any of us on the Freighter. Whilst they may, at their sole discretion, change individual trips to passenger aircraft, the pilot had to fly as ordered or face a "missed duty".

Wrong: Fly as ordered - yes, PX as ordered - NO (breach of contract, see other discussions);

2. The AOA threatened legal action in 2009 and put forward a series of settlement proposals where pilots volunteered to PX on the Freighter in return for greater credit. The company rejected this proposal.

Wrong: Proposal was not rejected, it was simply ignored by the company, in the hopes that the "problem" would go away;

3. As a preliminary to Legal Action a number of pilots individually lodged D&G proceedings with CP747, with varying degrees of success. These D&Gs did result in those handful of pilots being excluded from Freighter PX'ing. Buoyed by a modicum of success, earlier this year, the AOA threatened a mass D&G leading to litigation.
Wrong: 3 D&G's were held, all concluded that freighter PX is in breach of CoS, all 3 pilots continued to be rostered to PX on freighters against their CoS;

4. In response to the mass D&G and litigation threat you received an email from the GMA on 10 May. The AOA's recommendation is not to sign the waiver and they remain ready to negotiate a better deal for all pilots, including you. Many in the union would like to see all PX'ing attract 1:1 credit to discourage poor rostering. Besides you are in uniform and on duty, why not get paid for it?
Wrong: No poll has been conducted amongst union members re 1:1 credit, 530 members (sic) protested against breach of contract by signing an en masse objection against freighter PX (the rest just couldn't or wouldn't be bothered);

5. The company expects pilots rostered to PX on the Freighter in June to do so. What would happen to someone who refused to do so is uncertain.
Correct: Uncertain, but 3 options remain: ask to operate the sector, ask to PX on a passenger a/c, ask the duty to be changed. File an individual D&G;

6. The position regarding OZ and Canadian based pilots is unclear.
Wrong: OZ and Canada have REAL Labour Laws which makes forcing a change of CoS - illegal

Any notion that pilots have ever been able to refuse to PX on the Freighter is fanciful. I heard guys talk it, but only seen I guy try it and it didn't end well.
Correct: although a polite request to change to a PX on a passenger a/c is given wherever it's possible, otherwise, see 5 above.

Liam

I think you will find that the company cannot deal directly with AUS and CAN members, they must deal through the representative body. They will negotiate at the bargaining table. I guess until then it's ops normal. No deadline for these based guys.

Let's welcome another winner, ArcticAce. Let me guess, he is an ace at writing skills. Pathetic! How can you spot the village idiot in a conversation?

The North American accent? :cool:

Kitsune,
I like that, a man with a sharp sense of humor. Chaps, that good ole English wit. But let me ask you, which one?

Kitsune's wit is like my Freighter PX credit. 0.5. Or said so he could understand it, Your a half-wit!

Pot meet kettle? How full-witted to position on the freighter (and for half credit)!

I do not wish to get into a p!ssing contest with you and rather than dissect your comments line by line I wish to focus on your statement that the D&Gs upheld that Freighter PX'ing is a breach of COS and how this relates to on-shoring.

Firstly, in his email the GMA makes no admission regarding our COS. I have not read the exact basis of the CP747 D&G decisions. However, I am prepared to accept, for the sake of this debate, that the 747 Fleet Office ruled that Freighter PX'ing is a breach of COS.

You and many others trumpet the virtue of Canadian and OZ labour laws. To the best of my knowledge, and I am sure that you and many others will shout "wrong" if this is not true, Canadian and OZ pilots have been rostered to PX on the Freighter for the past decade and throughout the entire on-shoring process. They may not have liked it, nor agreed it, but it has happened in clear and willful breach of their COS despite these gilt-edged and First-World labour laws.

Now you and many others blandly say that the COS cannot be changed during on-shoring. That maybe so, however this is not a matter of changing the COS, but upholding and adhering to the COS. Alternatively, are you arguing that because the company abused the COS before on-shoring, they can do so during on-shoring. Is this really what First-World good faith labour bargaining looks like?

Finally, you shouted "wrong" when I said the position of the OZ and Canadian pilots on 1 July is unclear. I paraphrased that straight out of the GMA's email. So please enlighten me, where in GMA's email does he say that the OZ and Canadian crews will not continue to be Freighter PX'ed post 1st July?

PS. As to your final remark about the " polite request". How much did Dicky Hall pay you to write that patronizing nonsense?

Firstly, CC "generously" granting your grovelling request to abide by the terms of your COS probably sees you lose your Credit Hours. Secondly, if you seriously believe this whole issue of poor, inefficient rostering, often resulting in 24+ hours in an aircraft and playing boy scout in the back of a freighter can be resolved by a "polite request", you are delusional. Keep drinking the Koolaid buddy!!

Is the pay on the freighter less than PAX flt? Can anyone confirm the content of this article? Cathay Pacific makes pay raise offer to pilots after ?work to rule? threat: report - Taipei Times (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2011/01/03/2003492516)

I think maybe airgent just had a small blow to the head

I can confirm the article is 18 months old! :cool:

Right, now let me put this crap thread to bed once and for all.

I was talking to two project managers with our Cathay construction company last night who are in charge ( big bosses ) of the new Cargo terminal construction and who WILL be building the new extension to the Headland Hotel. They will start later this year early next and double the size of the hotel with a new wing up to approx 28 stories high.

Why I ask? Well because of the bases and a requirement to add extra rooms.

Cathay ARE NOT CLOSING BASES. Don't fall for stupid rumors and subtle threats.

There was a letter from the GMA? :zzz:

box

Cathy Pacific has pilots based outside China?

Not for much longer:}

Nitpicker that could be for cabin crew though. Their crew bases have worked well and no doubt will be expanding more. Even adding one flight of based cabin crew means a sudden influx of crews staying two nights meaning another 30 rooms per night.

Baywatcher in response to my opening post in this thread you replied:

Utter bullshit!

Sadly my deductions have proved correct, feel free to PM your apology anytime............

Here's a good game:-

Post Random, glass half empty, persecution complex driven, obviously feasible (but with no factual basis) conspiracy theories to get the usual suspects to churn out the usual stuff. THEN!! If your No. comes up even vaguely, (not all bases, wrong date) claim PPRUNE Sagehood status ;)

(If a thousand monkeys type on PPRUNE for long enough, complete Works of Shakespeare results theory).

Time for a cold one......

One base is all.

They have already assured the AOA in writing at the EBA neg that they have no intension of closing the Oz base.

Nit picker, you must find that a great source of comfort to you that it is in writing!

Nah not really....

But, I fail to see why after paying out considerable LSL entitlements under their obligations they would then decide to close the Oz base with the associated huge cost of 200 Pilots returning to HK with full expat benefits........This would be akin to closing the door after the Horse has already bolted....

Crazy, then again no one ever said they act logically. :ouch:

huge cost of 200 Pilots returning to HK with full expat benefits.

As opposed to the huge cost of returning 41 PAR officers to HK with full benefits? They did that for fun?

The considerable LSL entitlements were required paid -and backpaid- the day they onshored Oz; regardless of their subsequent actions which may (or may not) include the closure of Oz alltoghether.

You can't shut down a base in the middle of negotiations... THAT would be bad faith. Once completed, however, they might wanna ensure that not one single more day of LSL entitlement incurs...

Confirmed, Paris base closing 1 September.

Any word on MAN?

Don't see why MAN or LON would close, from what I believe, the tax authorities and local terms and conditions of the contracts were sorted back in 2008. Perhaps CDG was similar to the AMS case and the local terms and conditions required for a proper on-shored contract would have been too much in favour of the employee, with various sick leave entitlements etc, so I guess Cathay didn't like this with other reasons decided to close the base. Not sure on the complete reasons to close the base yet but it can't be due to a lack of flights because the double daily flight starts up again soon and the Freight only reduces to 3x weekly so it must be to do with on-shoring.

Probably due to there only being 40 Pilots based there, scales of Economy so to speak.

I think it is the attempt of a certain individual to make a name for himself.

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.



Maybe it's time we speak out?
Or they quietly will shut down base after base?

... then they came for WestCoastCaptain and his bunch of self interested backsliders, who cried "Where's the AOA when we need it... oops" :E

Mr Kitsune,

Another cutting remark that adds nothing to the real debate. So expected, and so boring.
Sadly, many are asking just what you suggest; where is the AOA in all of this? The based pilots certainly are, with many again left wondering the benefits of AOA membership. At least see if there are any potential legal avenues available.

You are quick to berate the Canadians for taking a stand. May I suggest that in a few months the clarion call may be to be more like the Canadians. I think you Brits call it our finest hour.

WCC

To compare a bunch of self serving, self interested, based Canadians who care only about themselves, and not the greater good of the Cathay pilot group, to a group of heroes who helped save their nation from the nazi scourge ('their finest hour') really does show how ridiculously self serving you and your group of splitters are.

Ironically, led by a Brit....

Ironically, led by a Brit....

Actually, it's led by a Canadian.

At the beginning of all this he said this - he said that, I was concerned and a little confused at how things could have degraded to the point that the AOAC would be locked out. A little reading on this forum of members who continuously post dismissives and sweeping judgements based on little if any actual facts makes me wonder how the AOAC execs lasted as long as they did.

Self declared experts in Labour law and international contract negotiations post edicts like they're talking to an eight year old child instead of a professional peer.

CX management doesn't have anything to worry about when it comes to negotiating with the AOA. They'll get whatever they want, whenever they want it.

Maybe it's just me. But before we get in to too much technicality.

Isn't it odd this just happenned to be announced on Father's day weekend. I mean we're talking perfect morale breaker tactics here.Just Cx trying to show that when we want we can break you and your families lives.

Don't know when my turn is but I wish all the CDG based guys and their families all the best in this difficult period.

ps Anybody knows what really was in this letter as far as reasons and details of closure?

Go onto the AOA forum to see what the AOA has to say thus far.

How about giving the volunteers, working during their free time between flights, a few days to sort out the massive mess and provide some researched, reliable, valuable information instead of complaining irrationally 10 seconds after the news broke?

Don't mean to be cynical.... oh yes I do, but did anyone else notice that onFriday the main doors were closed and we were offered the trades mens entranceinto despatch. There was no wx related reason for it, which is the usual case.

Management 101 again?

This was around 22:00HKG

onFriday the main doors were closed and we were offered the trades mens entranceinto despatch. There was no wx related reason for it, which is the usual case.

Apparently the doors are maintained and managed by the same team that did the roll-out of iJourney.

I share your cynicism but I think the 'Freehills Door' was in use this time because of squally showers.

Yes but don't forget all the Canadians (and others) who helped as well to achieve your "finest hour"; or is your knowledge of history as lacking as your knowledge of the HKAOA power grab to the cost of AOC (and AOAA if only they knew)?

What the hell? This thread went from producing some well thought out posts to verbal diarrhea within the blink of an eye.

Mr S...h...I...t... I suggest you review your history just as many of our colleagues have implied.

Paris is burning and there is a growing call for the HKAOA to at least do something. Many of our colleagues in PAR are facing some difficult decisions, yet many on the committee would rather berate the Canadians for taking a leadership stand and making a decision. What better way to take the emphasis off the difficult problems.

As the facts slowly emerge, and they will, many will find that AOA Canada contributed more in funds than they took. And, many will realize that the decision to go it alone was the best one.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

Westcoast. Puerile swearing just denigrates yourself and any credibility you may have had.

Ranting on about the Canadian AOA split should go on another thread. Ask why they closed the base, why they have never made an announcement that could be used against them in court (a French one?) and review what has been said about the Easy Jet case.

This is at the heart of why they closed the Paris base.

MrClaus and others are quite right on why the PAR base has closed. Tax, social security and other potential legal problems. The only surprise here is that people are surprised about the decision. It was inevitable and, if they are honest, those on the PAR base knew they were next after AMS.

Basings have always been liable for this since they began. The arrogant Swire attitude of we are Swires, in HKG and we can do what we like so Veta is set up as a HKG company 'outside' the laws of all countries and was always doomed to get caught. CX have still saved millions despite having to pay millions to avoid tax and social security evasion charges.

The only 'safe' bases are those on shored, Oz, NZ, Canada and the UK.

OZ, NZ, Canada and UK are least safe,because HKIRD are rightly saying that if you work for CX you are automatically HK based even if you are working from an outport. The OECD documents relating to aviation and shipping confirm the validity of the IRD position.

North America has already ruled, in the 49er judgement, that CX crews operating from North America are working for a HK company and are subject to HK employment law.

If Germany goes for social security under a recent EU ruling, FRA will be the next base to close. FRA crews are notionally employed in the UK, (but not really. Only in the imagination of CX basings office), but they start work in Germany and social security is to be paid in the place where your roster normally starts.

OZ, NZ and Canada will wither on the vine for now.

The previous GMA, now in Canada, who is responsible for the basings debacle, has demonstrated a level of incompetence that would get a pilot sacked.

So all bases eventually close except for the US, where only US citizens or those with a work visa can be employed. Oh Joy!

That will make Americans even more popular in CX. I can't wait for my next line check with an angry Euro, Ozzie, or Canuck whose base was closed forcing him back to Hong Kong. That'll be fun! NOT. Better brush up on my futbol, rugby, and hockey lingo...

HKIRD are rightly saying that if you work for CX you are automatically HK based

Not quite true. HK tax is based on the source of the income, irrespective of domicile, residency, etc. Although basees are paid in a foreign country, HKIRD has rightly determined that the income is sourced from HK, and is therefore taxable in HK.

That said, the taxable income is reduced according to the number of days spent in the foreign jurisdiction (eg. Australia), provided tax has been paid in that jurisdiction.

Isn't the tax pro-rated on the days spent in the other tax jurisdiction rather than days in HK? It was for me last year.

"HK tax is based on the source of the income".

If Cathay flies to PAR or AMS or wherever, benefitting from traffic from that local market, then what really is the true source of the income? It's PAR or AMS, not HKG.

The bases are closing because CX wants its cake and eat it too... And local govt said no. If you want to benefit with landing rights, then there should be a giveback to the community. Supporting local infrastructure is one way. Otherwise might as well give all the landing rights to EK EY where the customer ultimately gets more for there money.

If people are living in a jurisdiction, they should be subject to supporting the infrastructure there. Full stop.

Isn't the tax pro-rated on the days spent in the other tax jurisdiction rather than days in HK?

Quite right. Earlier posting amended above!