DEFO/Conditions of Service 2007 Hot Oil

[BScaler]

For those of you that are interested, here is the latest on the agreement that the Air Officers Association and the company have reached on the recruitment of Direct Entry First Officers. This agreement forms part of new Conditions of Service (CoS 07). This agreement has yet to be ratified by the AOA membership, and it will be voted on in the near future.


These are the clauses in the agreement that I believe are worse than what we presently have here at Cathay:

5.3.a Ability to Operate Freighter or Passenger Aircraft
This is a significant operational concession that we would be making on behalf of all New Joiner Direct Entry First Officer aircrew, as well as others who choose to take up CoS 2007.

5.3.c Annual Leave Entitlement
The staggered 4-5-6 week leave entitlement, which includes a further ‘two-year, five-week step’ in leave entitlement for a Direct Entry First Officer, is a degradation to current CoS which has a 4-6 week leave stagger, (ie. an initial 'two-year four-week' step then up to six weeks in the third year). Over time, this gives the Company an extra two weeks work, for every newly employed Officer, for nothing in return.

5.4.c ‘Intent’ to still Upgrade Second Officers As Soon As Possible
The term ‘intent’ is wide open to interpretation and is not, in any way, a cast-iron guarantee that this will in fact take place in an environment where training resources will be stretched to the limit. This could lead to Second Officers remaining as Second Officers for appreciably longer than they otherwise would have under present CoS. I do not think the word ‘intent’ should be used in this manner.

5.4.d.ii Bypass Pay
Reducing the ability of an Officer to receive Bypass Pay by insisting on Second Officer service of at least 42 months before becoming eligible is a degradation of the current CoS. In addition, the Bypass Pay received in this instance would be less than under current CoS, because the applicable salary scale would be less.

5.5 CoS 07 Salary Scales
Based on a rationale which includes Freighter Salary Scales, the Company has come up with what it proposes for a Combined Scale under CoS 07. Thus the first years of a Direct Entry First Officer Salary under Cos 07 are significantly less than if he were to join as a Direct Entry First Officer under present Passenger Fleet Salary Scales.

Aircrew have previously come to agreement with the Company on the topics of Freighter Crewing, Housing and the 49ers. I would ask what the aircrew would have to negotiate with, precisely, when it comes to Salary, if agreement is made to give everything away before sitting down with the Company to negotiate? I believe Salary to be a valid topic to be negotiated upon in conjunction with a change in Conditions of Service. The company doesn't see it this way.

5.6.a Voluntary Movement to Hong Kong
This provision, where Officers recruited to a base must serve on that base to SFO1 before becoming eligible for Voluntary Movement to Hong Kong, is a degradation of current CoS where an Officer must only serve two years before becoming eligible to return to Hong Kong.

5.6.b Ability of the Company to Hold an Officer on a Base
This provision allows the company to hold an Officer on a Base where that Officer is operating an aircraft type that is not crewed out of Hong Kong, such as the B747F Classic. Although the Officer is paid ‘Hong Kong Deferment Pay’, equating to Hong Kong SFO Salary, no Expatriate Benefits apply. This is to the Officers detriment if, through no fault of his own, he is recruited onto an aircraft type that is so affected, and he wishes to relocate to Hong Kong as would otherwise be his right.

In addition, this provision could open a loophole whereby the Company may in future, actively seek to change rosters so that other aircraft types are not crewed out of Hong Kong, holding those Officers on a base and therefore saving them Expatriate Benefits.

5.7.b Voluntary Election of CoS 07 for Current Officers
This provision mandates that Current Officers transferring to CoS 07 and taking up a Base, shall serve a minimum of three years or SFO1 before being eligible for a return to Hong Kong. Once again, this is a degradation of current CoS.

Summary
It appears that the Company want to gain everything with this agreement in return for not a lot for the aircrew.

If this agreement is ratified, the Company will gain the following:
· combined crewing for freighter and passenger fleets,
· the ability to hire Direct Entry First Officers without incurring Bypass Pay for Second Officers for 42 months,
· reduction in the amount of Bypass Pay compared to current CoS Salary Scales,
· a reduced Salary Scale for the first number of years of service of a First Officer,
· reduced leave for First Officers,
· ability to recruit directly to a Passenger Fleet base,
· greater period of qualification before becoming entitled to Voluntary Movement to Hong Kong for Direct Entry First Officers recruited to a base,
· ability to hold an Officer on type and on a base, despite that Officer being eligible for Voluntary Movement to Hong Kong, should the company require it in the case where that aircraft type is not crewed out of Hong Kong,
· no cast-iron guarantee for timely upgrade for current Second Officers, merely an ‘intent’ to upgrade as soon as possible.

If this agreement is ratified, the Aircrew Community will ‘gain’ the following:
· current serving Officers will have no appreciable change to their CoS,
· the more junior current serving Officers wishing to take a base will be required to sign up to the inferior CoS 07 in order to do so,
· the aircrew body will have knowingly consigned all New Joiners after January 2007 to an inferior set of CoS, in effect a ‘C-Scale’, whether the airline grows or doesn't grow,
· the aircrew body will have given all this in return for not even a commitment to partake in salary discussions, and will have already given away yet another significant bargaining chip for when, eventually, negotiations take place on salary.

All this will have taken place when the industry is in arguably the greatest upswing in recent memory, and pressures on pilot recruitment world-wide are at an all-time high. If an erosion of CoS is allowed at a time where the industry is in an up-cycle, what will aircrew agree to, or be forced to accept, when the industry commences a down-cycle?

Accepting this agreement would serve only to split the membership further in future, and promote the Company’s ‘divide and conquer’ strategy.

It should be clear to everyone that there is nothing stopping the Company recruiting Direct Entry First Officers under current CoS. It is just a little more expensive for the company.

I believe that the AOA membership should not vote for any proposal that includes degraded CoS for New Joiners. I personally do not wish to explain to a future colleague why I voted for his degraded CoS and I am hoping the membership will comprehensively vote this agreement down.

[Dr Seuss]

I've had a good read of the above article, and agree that what CX is trying to sell us is a load of garbage, and nothing more than the introduction of "c" scale, ultimately for ALL flight crew down the road.
If this gets through, where and when do you think existing B scalers will get a pay rise, let alone the A scalers? Just as A-scalers have not risen in pay, and now are not dissimilar to B-scalers, so to will current B-scalers be shafted any sort of pay increase (and we are now FIRMLY in an inflationary environment), rather slip backward in real terms towards this proposed C-scale.
CX will expand regardless, and there is ample provision under the current CoS99 to do so. This is nothing more than a pitch at ultimate greed by the CX management, under the banner of "Growth" and how we, the flight crew will be so much better off by helping them out. When did they last help us out?- Profit Share, assisting with roster change requests, etc, etc,etc.
There is a dire shortage of aircrew worldwide, the imposition of fuel surcharges has NOT affected load factors; quite the opposite with demand for air travel at very high levels and climbing.
Slots into HK by CX are vitally important for them, more so than the few $thousands they'll save by shafting the crew. They would rather grow the business by a lesser dollar value than not at all. If CX don't take the slots, others will-for keeps.
Further, US and Euro zone carriers HAVE started to increase pax airfares across the board, reflecting the better pricing power in the industry right now. This comes about from simple supply and demand economics. Our skills as flight crew are in hot demand by the travelling public, and hence airlines.
Why oh why would we throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Asian carriers will soon follow suit.

DO NOT VOTE FOR DEFO AGREEMENT.
The Doc.

[Five Green]

The most stunningly brutal thing about the DEFO scheme is that it affects almost half the pilot body negatively.

Anyone who is not currently relief and would like to take a base is screwed !

You will have to take a pay cut and loss n the COS as outlined at the begining of this thread. That and the base may be filled before you get there.

This is very serious and unless I am miss-reading it very bad for all non-relief hoping to some day take a base.

Very disappointing day in CX history.

[localTCN]

Guys, enough "moving forward", enough "helping the company" shxt, sign this RP07, we will be forever screwed by the company, and the AOA, sadly.
:mad: that!

[Mach75]

Hi guys - pardon my ignorance on the subject but what will this mean for DESO's who are hired in the months to come?

a) Will this proposed new DEFO payscale at all effect the salary of a soon-to-be-hired DESO at some point down the road or will the salary structure remain the same? Does this new "C-Scale" apply to DESO's hired after 2007?

b) On the subject of taking a basing at some point in the future - is it realistic to say that ALL available slots at non-HK basings might possibly be filled by DEFO's therefore making it impossible for a current FO or SO (after upgrade) to take a basing if he so desired?

In other words: I was recently found to be successful after my final DESO interview in HK and am awaiting the official offer of employment. I am told that the offer will come within the next few months and I should expect to be scheduled for a start date in early 2007 - Does this mean I will end up getting screwed if this new CoS 07 proposal goes through?

[BScaler]

Mach75

I will attempt to answer your questions, but you may wish to confirm with Cathay yourself.
a) if the agreement is voted in, and you join after Jan 1st 2007, then you will be employed under CoS 07;
b) the Company saves alot of money by basing Officers out of Hong Kong because they do not have to pay Expatriate Benefits. CoS 07 will allow the Company to recruit First Officers directly to a base. The company will want to exploit this situation as much as possible, so it would be fair to assume that your chances of getting a base when you upgrade to First Officer eventually would be lower than at present.

Mach75, I am working real hard to have this proposal voted down comprehensively because I do not want to have to look you in the eye when you join this Company and say that I had a part in voting to allow the Company to introduce lower conditions than that we presently enjoy. This Company can continue to profitably grow without the introduction of CoS 07.

I know you are between a rock and a hard place in coming to a decision as to how to proceed. Perhaps you could ask the Company the title and details of the CoS you would be joining under when you get offered the job. That would give you the best information.

[Mach75]

Thanks for the reply BScaler. This is very disappointing - you wait patiently for years to get a chance to interview with CX and reach your career goal, you work extremely hard for months to pass the interview, and then the company alters the conditions of service - literally a month or two before you join. Does this mean that those who successfully passed their interview a month before I did will be earning a higher wage for doing the same job simply because they started with the company a month earlier than I did?
Also, what does the company consider to be your date of joining? Would this be when you start training in Adelaide or when you initially accept their formal offer of employment prior to leaving for Adelaide?

[BScaler]

Mach75

I would have to refer you to the Company for those ones. Sorry I can't be of more help.

If this agreement gets voted down, then someday perhaps, we'll get a sector in together and you'll be on the same CoS as me.

That's the aim anyway.

[great southern land]

hahaha....welcome Cathay mate..! To answer your questions:

1. Tough luck! If your mates join one day befor COS07, and you join one day after....you are S.O.L. You'll enjoy earning less than your mates for the rest of your career, never mind the other compromises it will introduce.

2. Your seniority is based on the day you start your course.

3. Why bother even showing up? Cathay has a sad history of undermining and disappointing it's aircrew. I won't bother to bore you about all the different issues that have caused most of us sleepless years (never mind 'nights').

4. I'm sorry you have 'worked towards your dream', only to have the dream become a nightmare...literally 'overnight'. That's aviation mate...and a sad fact of life. Join a company that will not leave you in constant frustration. No career is worth living with that. :uhoh:

[cpdude]

3. Why bother even showing up? Cathay has a sad history of undermining and disappointing it's aircrew. I won't bother to bore you about all the different issues that have caused most of us sleepless years (never mind 'nights').
4. I'm sorry you have 'worked towards your dream', only to have the dream become a nightmare...literally 'overnight'. That's aviation mate...and a sad fact of life. Join a company that will not leave you in constant frustration. No career is worth living with that. :uhoh:

Wow...I think I'll slit my wrists now.:eek:

[oldhasbeen]

"join a company that won't leave you in constant frustration"..... now there's an oxymoron!!!:eek:

[Team America]

Mach75, I am working real hard to have this proposal voted down comprehensively because I do not want to have to look you in the eye when you join this Company and say that I had a part in voting to allow the Company to introduce lower conditions than that we presently enjoy. This Company can continue to profitably grow without the introduction of CoS 07.

Bscaler, I agree with most of what you have been saying but in reference to the above quote, when you and I joined on B scale we where happy with the T&C otherwise we wouldn't have taken to job. The same goes for the DEFO's, if you join on these conditions you really can't complain about them at a later date because by signing them to take the job you are saying you are happy to work for those T&C's, otherwise don't join.
For the record I wil be voting No and if this is all the company is offering to the DEFO's I would think they won't be geting many application's as most of the people they are targeting are experienced guys who are presently employed with other airlines.
So hang out till the T&C's are better or take an S/O job, it is a very good life.

[Mach75]

I guess all I can do is wait to see what happens and hope for the best.
I'm still a little confused - is this new proposed F/O salary structure only for DEFO's hired directly to a non-HK base - or will it mean a decrease in pay for new-hire DESO's initially as well? How about a new-hire DESO who, several years from now, successfully upgrades to F/O - will this mean he will be earning less pay than an S/O who passes his upgrade prior to 2007?
At any rate, it seems to be a raw deal all around - what incentive is the company offering its employees in exchange for their YES vote?
Also, is there any approximate date that management is expected to make the announcement of the outcome?

[Truckmasters]

The company is offering its goodwill. !@#$%
Read - the company would like us to give away all of our negotiating power on various issues before they will discuss a review of pay for the existing employees.

[BScaler]

TeamAmerica,

...when you and I joined on B Scales we were happy with the T&C otherwise we wouldn't have taken the job.

Your comments regarding the CoS we joined on are pretty much how the Company would like you to see it, but I see things slightly differently.

Based on your argument, if there were a guy out there willing to do our job for nothing, (say to get a type rating and some experience before moving on), is that what you believe the market says our job is worth? Is that what we should be happy to have New Joiners sign up for? I would disagree.

You and I were not offered A Scales because they were not on the table. They were not on the table because the AOA GC at the time allowed the Company, without challenge, to offer B Scales to New Joiners such as you and I.

The Company would like us to repeat this happy set of circumstances for them by having us allow them to present a set of C Scales to New Joiners from January 2007, and I cannot agree to this.

As you know, some guys work for years to gain experience, apply for the job, gain interviews, and finally get accepted to airlines such as ours. I believe it is our responsibility to protect our CoS and not simply permit the Company to offer New Joiners degraded CoS for doing the same job and carrying out the same responsibilities as we do now.

The Company would like you to see this as a way forward for them to acheive 'profitable growth', but don't forget that CoS 07 would apply in a subsequent downturn as well. (I don't see a clause in this agreement that says that if the airline does not expand, they will revert to current CoS.)


...if this is all the Company is offering to the DEFOs I would think they won't be getting many applications...so hang out til the T&C's get better ot take a S/O job...

I just got an email from a guy who has gone through the long and involved interview and selection process, who would like to take an SO job, but due to his experience he is being told 'take the DEFO slot or nothing'! The Company does not appear to be giving New Joiners flexibility to pick and choose in this regard.

This agreement is not a good deal for New Joiners, the Company can achieve profitable expansion without it, and we should not give the Company permission to offer CoS 07 to New Joiners, particularly at this time of world-wide tightness in the pilot market.

You may be interested to check out the AOA Forum site. There is a post by an AOA GC member pointing out that the AOA are commited to robust defence of our present CoS, (Although I don't know how he can say that and at the same time ask us to ratify a lesser set of CoS for New Joiners!), and that in his opinion the Company cannot legally impose new CoS on New Joiners without agreement from the AOA.

I am glad you intend to vote against this agreement. I am working to have this agreement voted down comprehensively. In this way I believe the Company will negotiate with our AOA team in a more meaningful way to come up with something acceptable.

[The Management]

Soon we will start our propaganda campaign and as usually will we have 80-90% of the members shaking in their shoes.

We have the committee in that position already, with them and our campaign we will get the resolution passed. We have changed the voting rules so the resolutions proposed get through with much greater ease.

We will have the members (and non members) convinced it is much better to vote yes for the deal than to have the wrath of us imposing RP07/DEFO’s with mush better conditions in OUR favour.

Negotiations with the AOA are just a red herring, feel good factor if you wish, We just tell the AOA what we want, they sanction it and we convince the members it is a better deal than what we will impose.

You must realize from past negotiations, we get what we want. When negotiations break down or the AOA members don’t pass what we want, we just impose it. When we do make changes, they are insignificant.

The only time we felt the pressure was in ‘99 because we did not expect most B scalers to go sick. We knew the A scalers wouldn’t. Most signed the critical mass within the first few hours.

We quickly realized the power of fear. We just had to fire some pilots and it made a difference. We are willing to do it again if we are put in that position, so take this as a warning. You know what we are capable of. You have been warned.

As for your pay negotiations, we will negotiate what we are willing to pay you. If you don’t like it, leave. We would much rather have long term cost control of labour and slow our expansion, than to have labour cost too high hence the new DEFO scales. Don’t you realize how much productivity that will grant us?

When these resolutions pass, the new C scalers will not be angry at us, it will be at you for voting it in. Now we have three separate scales fighting against each other. Actually brings a smile to my face and a warm tingly feeling to ones heart. That bonus keeps getting bigger.

The Hong Kong Airport Authority will not give our slots to other carriers if we don’t expand as quickly as we like. Do you know what we do for Hong Kong? We are one of the main arteries to Hong Kong and the HK Government and Airport Authority knows this. How naive can you be? That’s right, you are pilots. Too busy thinking you run the airline. “Progress Hong Kong”. It is not as transparent as one might think.

It feels great having so much power over such a large group of so called Professional Pilots. Maybe we can teach UPS a thing or two. For you, the UPS contract is a pipe dream.

Fear is a great motivator, you all live in fear and most pilots have the “I’m all right Jack Syndrome”.

The Management

[BScaler]

The Management,

Thankyou for showing us the picture in such sharp relief! I like your style and perspective - it provokes much food for thought.

[Hugh Gorgen]

As a potential "new joiner" facing CoS07, I sincerely appreciate the efforts of BScaler and the like. It is refreshing and enlightening to have fellow pilots fighting for the conditions of others.
Good luck guys and Thankyou !!!!

[ALPHA FLOOR]

Its Easy---- Just Say NO DE FO, NO RP 07, NO Age 60.

Its the only card we have!!!!!!!!

[jetset]

My understanding is that this deal is not 'sanctioned' by the HKAOA but rather it is the best deal they are able to negotiate with the company at this time.

In other words they have :ugh: banged their collective heads against the wall and now any further discussion is worthless and it is time the membership gave their reaction.

Our vote is the response of the HKAOA, not the current deal (RP07/DEFO’s). It might be time to take that opportunity to express yourselves (to 'The Managment') if it is not currently available.

I will vote and vote NO.

[BScaler]

Jetset,

What concerns me is that although the AOA GC have not given this agreement a ringing endorsement, they have put it to the membership for a vote.

In previous correspondence, the AOA intimated that as the two parties were so far apart on the topic of 'Extension of Retirement Age Beyond 55', it was not worth them putting anything to the membership because they could not be confident of a positive vote.

By inference, then, the AOA GC have put the agreement on DEFO and CoS 07 up for a vote to the membership, and by proxy, support the agreement. In fairly extensive discussions and emails with both the President of the AOA and the Treasurer, it was evident that they support this agreement. (For those that can, check out the AOA Forum for details of these discussions) I can understand that they may be protective of the postion they negotiated, but faced with the arguments I put to them, they still back the agreement.

It is up to the membership to make the very clear point to our AOA GC and the Company, that we will not, as a body, sanction presenting New Joiners with lesser CoS than we enjoy at present.

To be perfectly selfish about it, were we to allow the Company to proceed in this way, we would be reducing our own level of expectation in any upcoming pay negotiations because the Company could claim that CoS 07 now represented where the market was at. We would have no show of a positive outcome.

I cannot entertain voting for allowing lesser CoS to be offered to present or future colleagues, and I hope this agreement is voted down comprehensively.

[cpdude]

Ok, It is clearly a bad deal this CoS07 with DEFO. BScaler you have convinced me to vote "NO". But what of the others?

Why do you feel RP07 is a bad deal?

Why do you feel age 60 is wrong?

[BScaler]

cpdude

I have not addressed RP07 orAge 60, except to say that we should not agree to everything and then talk about pay. For the simple reason that, having given everything away, what have we got to negotiate with?

What would happen in any pay negotiation under these circumstances is that the Company would demand 'something in return' for an increase in pay, and having given everything else away, we would just have to fly our aircraft more!

As I have said before, we gave the Company a Housing agreement, but no pay talks were forthcoming. We gave the Company Freighter Crewing,but still no pay talks. The AOA resolved the difficult, thorny and highly emotional issue of the 49ers, but still no pay talks. (See any trend developing?)

If we give them CoS 07, and RP07 and Age 60, maybe they will talk about pay, but only in return for more work. And our expectations would have been lowered anyway because we would have just agreed to allow the Company to offer new Joiners a reduced CoS and salary package!

Like I say, I have stated no opinion for the topics you mention specifically. I intend to focus on CoS 07 and my efforts to have them comprehensively voted down.

[BusyB]

BScaler,

You have put a very fair case against COS07 which is well worth debate and discussion. I have read the responses in the AOA forums which have explained/rebuted a number of your points but not all.

I don't see you accepting those statements yet you expect everyone to accept yours!

I also see you putting words into the GC's mouth
"AOA GC have not given this agreement a ringing endorsement, they have put it to the membership for a vote.

In previous correspondence, the AOA intimated that as the two parties were so far apart on the topic of 'Extension of Retirement Age Beyond 55', it was not worth them putting anything to the membership because they could not be confident of a positive vote.

By inference, then, the AOA GC have put the agreement on DEFO and CoS 07 up for a vote to the membership, and by proxy, support the agreement"

The GC have stated that this is the best they can negotiate and have given the unexpurgated facts without spin for the members to vote on. I now see you putting spin on and words into others mouths. Not very edifying!!:(

Lets have all the arguments for and against, without any spin, and let the members decide on the facts which way to vote.:ok:

[BScaler]

BusyB

What I have put forth here is not 'spin'. Characterising the negotiating that has taken place as 'Growth Talks' is Company 'spin'. And the AOA GC signed up to it. I do feel concerned about that, as should fellow members of the AOA.

I am not putting words into anyones mouth either. If I have quoted anyone, it is what they have said or written.

In my correspondence, I have indicated where I disagree with the AOA GC position, and I have given my reasons. In many areas it is a case of 'agreeing to disagree' because my position, compared to the AOA GC's position on this agreement come from different perspectives. Different starting points, if you will.

It is up to the membership to decide which of the two points of view, (or indeed any other point of view), is more valid.

[BScaler]

Mr Bloggs,

You wrote a lengthy one on RP07 - but we are discussing CoS 07 here.

Maybe you could start another thread with your post on this subject, and perhaps remove this one, as it does 'muddy the waters' being in this thread.

[Mr. Bloggs]

B Scaler

I believe that Rostering should form part of our COS, case in point about our court case if it ever comes around. But I will start a different thread.

It does not matter where you put it, it is all a crap deal. I hope the members can see through it.

B Scaler, you should join the committee.

[tifters]

We should not vote for anything that has the words "will endevour to", or "under normal circumstances". Guys new to all this must read that as "will never happen".
What is the definition or requirements that S.Os have to meet to take a DEFO position??? My point is that, if an S.O in HKG is qualified to take up a F.O position in HKG, then why shouldnt he be good for a DEFO slot?? (eg an S.O with 14 months in company and say Dash 8 Fo time, around 2500 hours...can he get a DEFO slot?)
Any room for shafting in the rules will be pursued with much gusto by the company!!!!

[BScaler]

Bloggs

I see your point. However, in order to allow everyone to focus on one thing at a time, I would advocate concentrating debate on one topic at a time.

It can be quite a complicated issue to get your head around. What I would not like to see happen is someone take a cursory glance at all this, decide that it doesn't affect them, and vote for it just because that is what the AOA GC want them to do. That would be an 'apathy vote'.

Forget about new Joiners for a moment. This will affect every one of us current serving pilots in future if it is allowed to be voted in. Consider these points:
1) If CoS 07 is allowed to be put to New Joiners in January then we will have shot ourselves in the foot in subsequent pay negotiations because the Company will claim that CoS 07 is now where the market stands, and that we voted for it!
2) After B-Scale CoS were introduced in 1993, and despite Company assurances that A Scale CoS would be left alone, COSAP 94 came about, directly affecting A Scale CoS. For the worse. Remember eight weeks leave reduced to six weeks...? And what is more, A Scalers have not had a pay rise since, although they have had a pay cut.

We should, as the famous saying goes, study history so as to avoid it repeating itself. This CoS 07 agreement needs to be voted down comprehensively.

Thanks for starting a new thread!

[BScaler]

tifters

I think you will find under CoS 07 that current SOs, who meet DEFO hiring criteria, can apply for a DEFO slot on a base. However, in this case, the SO would have to sign up on CoS 07 terms. This is a Transition Period provision.

But whatever provisions the Transition Period provides to protect current pilots, we would be still voting to allow the Company to produce lesser CoS to New Joiners if this agreement passes.

I challenge you not just to look at your own circumstances, (and you can see how you would be affected in my post above), but also those of your future colleagues and AOA members.

[The Management]

You are all on individual contracts. The rules only state we cannot lower employees contract without their consent. Although we MAY not lower your COS (we could and you will have to take us to court, which may get heard in 5 years or so), we can certainly lower new hire Conditions of Service. After Jan. 01, 2007 if you like to join the “Same Team, Same Dream” these will be your conditions. Don’t like it, don’t come. Lots of pilots would enjoy living in their home country flying a widebody jet.

If we don’t get RP07, we WILL have to implement it anyway. We cannot afford to have 5-4-3 rule implemented as we will be desperately short of crew. We cannot allow the Reserve FDP to start at the 4 hour mark. We will be unable to complete the Australia flights if the duty starts at the 4 hour mark and someone goes sick. We will have to have more reserve but with shorter times so the 4 hour rule does not come into effect but that means more crew to get the task done. We don’t have the crews. We will not allow this to happen. We will have no other choice than to implement RP07.1

Although the RP 94 will take some time (completion of the court cases) we definitely cannot allow this to happen. If this is voted down, expect a revised RP07.1 in your mailbox.

You can sign letters to lawyers and take us to court. This will take at least 5 years to complete and by that time we will have the crew and would have negotiated a new agreement with the AOA that would put these court cases on hold or void altogether. You get the picture. This time we will void the court cases so they are not a thorn in the future.

You may as well sign these agreements, as this is the best you will receive in any case. You know it and I know it, so make it easy on everyone concerned. It’s less heartache. Just sign the agreements.

If you really look at the agreements closely there are some good things in it for you. The DEFO COS does not effect you so don’t worry about it. You should be worrying about YOU and YOUR FAMILY. That should be your only concern. Don’t put us in a position that we have to make an example out of more pilots. We don’t have a problem with that for the long term goal/growth of the Company. Think of your Family’s future as you don’t want to be one of the chosen few.

The Management

[kenfoggo]

Could somebody sensible, like BusyB or The Management please inform me how many pilots Cathay now employ and how many of these pilots are members of the AOA? Thanks.

[tifters]

Kenny boy, about 2000 pilots and about 50% in the union(give or take)
BusyB: I think it is still a case during the transition, that unassesed S.Os have to meet DEFO requirements. Now given that it takes 4 years to up grade, how about the guys around the 2 year mark who are unassesed but have a couple of thousand hours but not the DEFO requirements...why cant they get a slot? Given that in good times they would be qual to up grade in CX proper!!!! By the way, this does not affect me in least, just looking out for the S.Os....
Management....love your work.

[kenfoggo]

Tifters, thanks for that but really would like accurate numbers now please, not approx or about or give or take.

[ALPHA FLOOR]

kenfoggo.........

call the HKAOA they are only ones who have the exact numbers - cant understand why you would need the precise number though?

AF

[bigbeerbelly]

I was wondering why there are not things in CoS07 that do not cost the company anything, but would make a difference to employees, like improvements to employee travel program?

BBB

[Kane Toed]

Actually I can see where kenfoggo is coming from. I think that the numbers are 2010 pilots and 980 HKAOA members (+/- a very few).

Even with my pretty ropey maths (?math?) that's < 50%, assuming compete agreement by the union members. Not really a majority, is it?

[ALPHA FLOOR]

No majority required as the company only negotiates and accepts deals ratified by the HKAOA. Be it 10% of the pilot body or 100%.

So in general there is no point moaning if these latest developments are impossed on you and you did not vote against them even more so if you are not an AOA member!!!!!!!!!!!

As to why he needs the "exact" number of members - I smell a journo rat!

AF

[kenfoggo]

kane toed has it right and Alpha has it wrong. Just working out who will be screwing up my COS this time round. Like the idiots who agreed to make me work for 30 days a year for no credit. Well done! Carry on.

[cpdude]

kane toed has it right and Alpha has it wrong. Just working out who will be screwing up my COS this time round. Like the idiots who agreed to make me work for 30 days a year for no credit. Well done! Carry on.

Kind of like those that complain about a Government but failed to vote.

If you're not part of the union and/or you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain!

[Re-entry]

The Management. I have seen your comedic posts before and have of course been suitably impressed. So, is there anything we can do?

[popodom]

Mach 75 - Second officers joining under RP07 will be on the same salary as now ie:COS 99 (Appendix 3 of new agreement)

Still means No - NO - NO!!!

[Mach75]

Thanks for the reply, is this true - even for SO's joining after Jan. 2007 (assuming CoS 07 goes through)? Is this to say that once upgraded to FO they will still remain on the current CoS (CoS 99) or will they then be forced to accept the lower pay and the accompanying reduction in quality of CoS? This is the first I've heard of this - if true it's good news for people in my shoes, but still a raw deal over all for other new joiners.

[The Management]

Nothing you can do and here is why.

The pilots do not think of the greater good for all pilots but only think of what will work for them at THIS time. I heard “I’ll never go on a base, so they can cut the salaries” and a couple of year later the wife says she is moving home. So if the based guys have something that suits them they will sign, and screw the others, same if the Hong Kong based pilots have something they will sign and screw the based pilots. It does not matter who screws whom. That is life of the pilots of Cathay Pacific. Pilots/New Joiners, Captains/First Officers/Second Officers are all the same. We at Management know this and we use it to our advantage. This is one trait of Cathay pilots that we adore and can exploit.

You will never get the pilots pulling in one direction. Too busy saying “I’m OK” and just plain fearful. Got to fancy this.

It seems many pilots don’t like the fallback position, so are going to vote yes on RP07. Those pilots know we will give them rosters that are so blundered; they wished they had signed RP07. We will make your life wretched in whatever way we can to teach you a lesson.

We see about 20 pilots posting on this forum that will be voting no, but ask around, you will receive a different response from pilots that don’t post or read Pprune. To them, RP07 is better then the fallback and they don’t get it forced on them, so it must be a good deal. In their mind they are better off. They beat the company by not having it forced on them, so are willing to take lower conditions.

Someone mentioned better travel scheme; dream on. Do you realize how much revenue we generate off our own staff? In the old days we had to get back our money we had stupidly given the pilots in the way of a travel fund. Ten years ago we stopped the travel fund and now we are basically taking money out of the pockets of the non-travel fund pilots. We charge a fuel surcharge to our staff, which is free money for Cathay Pacific. Don’t count on it changing.

We broke the union last year, we realized that the pilots of Cathay Pacific do not have the stomach for confrontation and will do anything to avoid it. The pilots know we will use our big stick to cut the heads off pilots that confront us or lead a confrontation. We have you living in fear. How many pilots do you see giving adverse comments on these deals in public? Even the so-called “hard core” pilots are keeping a low profile out of fear what we can and will do to them.

We have many pilots going above and beyond the call of duty because if they don’t, they know what we will do, even if the rules state different. We don’t receive adverse reports about the company anymore. As I said before, Fear is a great motivator. You don’t want to be the one sticking your head up.

We are confident the pilots will vote for RP07 because we know their character and it doesn’t change. As with any of these agreements, if they don’t pass, we will just implement them. I have heard one of the pilots put it “We are going to get the bat, it is up to us if we want it lubed or not”. We must stop slipping pilots in Bangkok.

We are now working behind the scene with the CAD to increase the duty times in Table A and B. This way we can have longer duty days to get in an extra sector and cut down on crew slipping at outports. Watch this space.

Voting by the AOA pilots is not even necessary; it is just to make you feel good. Either way, the agreements are going to be implemented, so you may as well vote yes and reduce your stress. We don’t want pilots getting so stressed and be absent from work again. I can assure you that will never happen at Cathay Pacific again.

As with the DEFO agreement, we will implement a new COS for new joiners, it’s not that hard.

The Management

[BScaler]

Mach 75

This is a complex deal. It involves different pay scales for different bases and of course different pay scales for different ranks. There are also changes in CoS for New Joiners, none of which, in my opinion, are better than what we have now. For instance, CoS 07 provides for less leave than we have at the moment under CoS 99. Please understand clearly that under the proposed agreement, pilots joining from January 2007 will never be on CoS 99.

To answer your specific question, the Hong Kong pay scales under CoS 07 are the same as we have at present under CoS 99, except that two 'steps' have been taken off the top of the FO scale, which means that if airline growth stalls or an Officer is considered unsuitable for upgrade to Command, his pay increments will finish earlier than they do now.

Based pay scales have all been reduced under the proposed CoS 07, particularly in the US, but the Company does not, as yet anyway, recruit SOs directly to a base. They will be recruiting experienced FOs to a base though, and this will save them considerably in terms of Expatriate Benefits.

I just fail to see why we should agree to allow the Company to present New Joiners with less pay for doing the same job that all of us here do at present, so I am against voting for this agreement.

[Mr. Bloggs]

What is stopping the company hiring S/O’s on a base instead of paying expat benefits?

[BScaler]

Mr. Bloggs

You would have to ask the Company that. There are probably some very good training and operational reasons for this policy.

[Truckmasters]

The way I read it
SO's who join under COS 07 will get 3 weeks leave (same as COS 99) however when they upgrade they will still only get 3 weeks leave for the first two years as FO and then 4 weeks leave for year 3/4 FO. COS 99 would give them 4 weeks leave as JFO (usually 1 year) and then 6 weeks once QL (Year 2-4). Therefore SO's who also join on COS 07 on HKG base will worse off than the existing conditions. Also for them to go a base as FO1-4 after they have been an SO (if there is a base available) is a severe paycut from the current COS99.

[Two Cocks]

What I don't underdstand is why the AOA even looked at the proposal!!!! They should be fighting for better conditions for all pilots not worse conditions.

The current board at the AOA needs to stop taking the little handouts that CX management are giving them peronsally and actually stand up to CX and say

"No - this is not right"

You're allowed to stand up for your rights - you are the board of directors at the AOA aren't you? Then why not do your job properly. If not then get a new board!!!!!!!

When the world is crying out for "Experienced" pilots you are trying to get them worse conditions!!!!!!! Tell me how that works?????

[localTCN]

Two Cocks,
Been there, done that, 49 guys sacked. Hundreds other guys quited AOA...it goes on.

[BScaler]

Truckmasters
The leave situation goes like this:
CoS 07: SO three weeks; FO1/FO2 four weeks; FO3/FO4 five weeks; SFO1 onwards six weeks.
Current CoS: SO three weeks; JFO (equivalent rank to CoS 07 FO1/FO2) four weeks; FO onwards six weeks.

There is one further two-year five-week step in there that New Joiners would have to sign up to under CoS 07, that represents a degradation to the CoS we currently enjoy. In effect, at least two 'free' weeks work for every pilot that joins under CoS 07 compared to presently employed pilots.

Two Cocks
I agree with your sentiment. I cannot understand why the AOA is endorsing lesser CoS for New Joiners at a time of world-wide tightening of the pilot recruitment market.

We have the opportunity to express this sentiment to the AOA GC and the Company by not endorsing their agreement, and I hope the agreement is seen for what it is and is voted down comprehensively.

localTCN
What is being advocated here is not industrial action. No 'golf days'. No WOE campaign, ('Withdrawal Of Enthusiasm' for those not acquainted with the term).

I believe that it is quite within our right to vote down an agreement which is clearly not in the best interests of ourselves or New Joiners, and I don't think we should expect a repeat of the '49er' situation, or any other punitive response along the same lines, as a result.

To consider that something such as you suggest may be the Company reaction to a rejection of this agreement is just scaremongering.

I will not vote to allow the Company to produce lesser CoS for New Joiners.

[Mr. Bloggs]

Two Cocks

We pay the HKAOA General Secretary and his Secretary over $200,000.00 HKD per month in pay and benefits. Why are they even there? We should get rid of them an hire someone who can run it better. We should get a lawyer for that much. At least new blood would have a better relationship with the CAD and maybe get something done.

The Committee only has the power the members are willing to give them and from past experiences, the members don’t have much power.

Many complain, but not much else. Remember we lost half of our committee 5 years ago and the last two Presidents know this, so not much power to negotiate.

Hence, the bad deals coming through.

[BusyB]

Two Cocks and Bloggs,

Your last posts have displayed your ignorance to all with a brain. You happily insult all AOA members, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, join the AOA, get elected to the GC and show everybody how its done?

Let me guess, no-one would vote for you because they all know you couldn't do it!!:ugh:

[Mr. Bloggs]

BB

Couldn’t do it , more like don’t want to do it.

I insult the pilot group and the AOA for good reason. Have you ever talked to the GS or Sec, not much help. Can’t figure out why we pay all that money. It could be better spent elsewhere. Tell me why the Gen Sec needs a Sec? Not like many pilots go to TST and visit the AOA office. We only have 9?? members.

The pilots............... why would you want to help the pilots that don’t want to help themselves???

How many Captains forward their MOR’s to the AOA for follow up? How many F/O’s/S/O’s write Hazard Reports (if any) and forward them to the AOA. How many pilots work on G-days? How many pilots answer there phones? How many acknowledge crew changes in Crew Direct, etc? Pilots don’t want to get involved. If I ever mentioned Contract Compliance, pilots would wet their pants.

Helping in contract negotiations is no a way to get a pay raise or better conditions.

The AOA does not even confront the company, if they do, PW tells them to pi$$ off and they do.

Show me the pilots standing up for themselves and I will join the committee, until then, the pilots get what they deserve.

For the AOA, show me they will act in the better interest of members and I will change my mind.

The AOA cannot even run a full committee. nobody wants to join because nothing gets done. The AOA needs to be “OVERHAULED”. The engine desperately needs replacement.

I hope you'll enjoy your new masters. You might want to consider paying them a monetary tribute each year- I know how much you want to keep in their good graces.

The Pilots and the AOA will forever be living on their knees.

Good luck on the new RP/COS/DEFO improvements.

[BScaler]

Mr Bloggs,

I hope that you will agree that in my posts on the subject of DEFO and CoS 07, I am not only standing up for ourselves, but also standing up for future New Joiners - those that have no voice and no current representation. Whilst not in the GC, I am an AOA member.

It is up to us as members to put our views to the AOA GC, and I hope, in voting this agreement down, the membership will have spoken clearly to their representatives and to the Company alike.

We cannot vote for a proposal that allows the Company to present lesser CoS to New Joiners like this.

[Five Green]

Mr Bloggs:

It is really a shame we cannot funnel your emotion into something constructive.

If you are hoping for the AOA or any Pilot Assoc or Union in the modern aviation world to wield ultimate power over their employer, you a dreaming. Those days are long gone.

Now we can only hope to work with our respective employers to reach agreements. There is nothing said that this deal cannot be sent back for some updating. It is only if the company categoricaly says "take it or we impliment anyway (minus something or other)" that we would be facing an industrial situation. We are much better to do what we are doing and try to bring the deal more to what the pilot body accepts. Of course this is the "voting" pilot body. So if you have no vote then you have no opinion on the matter. You also have no control over your career. Whatever you think that level of control is, it is till more than with no AOA.

Sign up today and use that emotion iin a posotive way.

[BusyB]

Bloggs,
Basicly you're just one of the shortsighted, freeloading whiners that live off the fruits of others labours and payments. Through the AOA, we get access to, and take part in, the various IFALPA committees that do a great deal of work for the benefit of ALL pilots and passengers. The AOA is not just a Union it is a professional Association that has inputs into a number of areas.

There is nothing wrong with discussion, no matter how heated, within the AOA, thats how a concensus is achieved. If COS07 is rejected by the members thats fine. We are entitled to our votes.

This childish sniping just gives us a measure of your professionalism!

[Mr. Bloggs]

Yes IFALPA really helped the 49ers and should the AOA be looking out for its own members first instead of other various IFALPA committees. Who pays your bills, it is the members, so start looking out for them instead of going to an IFALPA meeting in JNB.

Has anyone’s COS been better in the last 10-15 years? How many contracts are out there? A+, A, Super Super B, Super B, B and now Super Super Super C which will be knocked down to just C very quickly. But, the airspace over Africa and China are better than it was 10-15 years ago.

I am working more and doing it for less money. Now we have 30 free reserve days I am working even more for less money. Yes the AOA is really looking out for its members.

Childish sniping, sounds like I hit a nerve. I like to get value for money, but not so in this case.

We will have to wait until the voting is over to see what is in the cards for the pilots of CX. Somehow I don’t think their future is so bright, especially the new joiners and our current S/O’s.

Freeloading Scum, sounds like the Gen Sec and Company living off the payments and labours of the members.

If the Members were the shareholders of a business, they expect something in return for their money. Seems now, we spend a pound and get back 0.75 pence. Business will not last long. Surprised it lasted this long.

[Two Cocks]

BusyB

I have to disagree with your comments on making changes within the AoA.

I have been in my past been involved with various Airline Unions (World Wide). In all of them it's a pilot group protesting pilot issues. That's all well and good. But only to a certain degree. Unions do a lot of bickering within their ranks on stupid little points.

To change the union management it takes more than one person, it takes other members to vote for you and have a majority to pass issues. Something that is bigger than just one person.

I recently heard in a bar a pilot put it like this...

Q: "If you were an NBA star would you negotiate your own contract? If you were a Hollywood actor would you negotiate your own contract?"

A: "No"

Q: "Then why do we as pilots do it?"

Now I have to agree with this person. Why do pilots who have a personal interest get involved? Sure you want your issues raised and put forth but why not get a professional negotiator to do this for you. This is their job, not the pilot who's first job is to be a pilot. They are impartial but also know the inside management mind as well and all their dirty little tricks.

For the airline management this is what their jobs entail on a daily basis. For pilots their jobs entail flying the plane first...... so why not get a professional negotiator (one that does this for a living.... first and foremost) to work for us.

Thoughts and comments?

[BusyB]

Two Cocks,
After your first comment,

"The current board at the AOA needs to stop taking the little handouts that CX management are giving them personally"

A fairly serious accusation to make of the GC and one that I'm sure you wouldn't have the guts to make face to face.

Because of that I am in two minds whether to take your last post seriously.
However, you raise a fair point and if enough members wanted that, were prepared to pay for that AND a suitable person could be found then it would be well worth considering.
Unfortunately, even if all these conditions were met if CX didn't want to give you something what would you do. As history shows pilots not in their home countries are not going to strike. With no stick what are you going to do.

[WeeJohnPooPongMcPlop]

with no stick what are you going to do?

Bend over and take it again, I guess.

[BScaler]

Gentlemen

What we definitely can do as AOA members, is vote down the CoS 07 agreement that the AOA GC negotiated with the Company, in as comprehensive a manner as possible, to show both parties the level of dissatisfaction within the membership at what has been arrived at.

We cannot simply allow the Company to present New Joiners with lesser CoS than we enjoy at present. Particularly in the present happy era of airline expansion.

[cpdude]

Is this a take-it-or-leave-it offer? Is the company willing to negotiate further on CoS07 and RP07?

[BScaler]

cpdude

The CoS 07 agreement represents the best the AOA GC felt they could get from the Company. Whether it is 'take-it-or-leave-it' is open to debate.

I don't believe so. I think a strong vote against this agreement would send a clear message that the AOA membership is against bringing in lesser CoS for New Joiners, and the more comprehensively this is voted down the better our chances in future negotiations.

The AOA GC would point out the different scenarios;
1. where the Company may simply impose the new CoS anyway, and
2. where the Company may do worse and become belligerent.

My counter to these scenarios would be;
1. that if the Company did simply impose the new CoS on New Joiners, then at least we would have grounds, due to our rejection of CoS 07, to mount a legal challenge to their imposition, and
2. that what I advocate in voting down CoS 07 cannot be construed in any way as industrial action which precipitated the Company's previous harsh reaction. And in any case, I believe the Company genuinely does not wish to go back to the days of the 49ers. Particularly at a time of expansion.

I contend that fear of what may happen if we turn this agreement down should not mandate that we simply vote for it.

The CoS 07 agreement should be seen for what it is - an attempt to bring in lesser CoS for New Joiners to make expansion even more profitable for the Company than it will already be under existing CoS. We should not vote to allow the Company to accomplish this at the expense of our future colleagues and AOA members.

[baseddude]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folks:

I've admittedly only been at CX for a few months. As a U.S. based freighter pilot, it appears that the Cos '07 gives the U.S. freight dogs approximately a $40,000 per year raise above the current freighter rates.

Clearly, the rates in the "out years" are lower than the current passenger F/O rates. However, even with the increases being front-loaded, and with the reduced "out-year" rates, total career earnings are HIGHER under Cos '07.

I ran the salary numbers out for the next 13 years with 3 different sets of assumptions comparing the current Cos and Cos '07. The result? Not as bleak as is being posted here.

The 3 scenarios were 1) no upgrade to Capt. - ever. 2) upgrade to Capt. in year 3, and 3) upgrade to Capt. in year 5. The assumptions I made under the current Cos analysis had me transitioning to passenger pay as F/O in year 4, and to passenger Captain pay in year 9.

Scenario #1 - The current Cos pays $17,916 more over 13 years.
Scenario #2 - Cos '07 pays $99,480 more over 13 years.
Scenario #3 - Cos '07 pays $89,940 more over 13 years.

Your mileage may vary.

Besides having to give up 2 weeks of annual vacation initially, what am I missing here??? Even though the "out-year" rates are lower than the current passenger Cos, the near-term increases are very, very significant. Are the posts opposing Cos '07 all coming from the passenger crews?

Bracing to receive return fire...

baseddude

[WeeJohnPooPongMcPlop]

Baseddudes post indicates EXACTLY why the AOA will never be able to achieve an increase in conditions for the majority of the pilots. The company has successfully divided the workforce into little self-interest groups, making it impossible to get all the membership pulling in the same direction.

[bobrun]

Two Cocks has a point. The AOA and the pilot group would probably benefit from having a negotiator at the table. In the same line of thought, why not have accountants/actuaries go over the numbers and find out what is the financial impact for the pilot group and the Company. Seems like we're lacking deeper analysis of the long term impact, with "numbers" to back up our perspective...

[Mr. Bloggs]

Should the Gen Sec and Sec be running the numbers for us? What are we paying them for? Like I said, we can put the money to better use.

Having a Professional Negotiator talk to the company is a great idea. The only problem is the company will only negotiate with the pilots. I believe this was brought up years ago and the company said they will not talk and it was pilots only. I wonder why??

I think the company is looking out for the better interest of the pilots.

[BScaler]

baseddude

Your numbers are good for comparing your present situation with what CoS 07 would offer you. And I agree, it is an attractive deal for current freighter guys wherever you might be based, the US or elsewhere.

This is because I contend that the freighter pay and CoS, as they stand right now, are below where the market is, and the Company knows this. The Company has pitched CoS 07 at a level that is more attractive to you.

If you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, what the Company are trying to get us to agree to, is for them to open up a new recruitment stream directly onto the passenger fleet, but at lower pay rates and CoS than what we currently enjoy.

Do me a favour and compare your current salary with that of a USAB pay scale, making the same assumptions you made in your CoS 07 comparison, and let me know the numbers.

I will guarantee that they will knock the socks off the comparison you made with CoS 07!

And that is my point. The Company want to have freighter guys fly passenger aircraft and vice versa, but pay pilots less than the current pay scales for passenger aircraft.

I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask the Company to pay current salary for the job we do now on the passenger fleet for New Joiners, if that is where they wish to place them to help with their growth strategy.

[BScaler]

WeeJohnPooPongMcplop

I agree that intoducing another set of CoS would not be a good idea for future aircrew unity, and would promote the Company's 'divide and conquer' strategy.

Which is another reason not to vote to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners.

[Two Cocks]

Mr Bloggs

Yes why do we pay the Exec so much to let them run the AoA the way they do? That is a very good question.... is an answer possible....... probably not.

BusyB

I quote

"A fairly serious accusation to make of the GC and one that I'm sure you wouldn't have the guts to make face to face."

I have talked to one of the principle exec members "Face to Face" about the above comment. He laughed of course and said it wasn't true but I find it hard that the AoA would even put a proposal like this up for voting when it clearly is a C-Scale for new joiners and conditions that you would find at low-cost carrier airlines.
Why are we going backwards in giving everything away and not getting anything in return. I understand that the Company said we'll talk after the CoS and RP07 have been voted on to discuss salary.....but why? We give away an negotiating bargin chip and then we can't negotiate the salary.

To the AoA

Why not combine the CoS and RP07 and salary talks into a updated CoS? The company is wearing away our conditions by taking little bits of the contract and negotiating on new terms. In little pieces it doesn't look bad but eventually it turns sour. The worrying thing is we have seen this all before in other ways. For example how many of you have done a CRM course and they look at different accident models. Like the Swiss Cheese version. Little holes appear and then eventually with the right conditions an accident will happen. Isn't this like the current negotiations? The company takes little chunks out of the contract and soon enough what will the pilots get? Think about that one.

Basedude

Sure you might get a few extra dollars but the rest of the pilot group then loses out. The company is trying to divide to pilot group. We can't let this happen, I have seen this too many times in other companies. Please don't let this happen. Why not hold out and everyone get a better deal?

Mr Bloggs

The AoA in the distant past use to have negotiators but then they became too effective and the company didn't like it and sort to get rid of them. (albeit with a very weak AoA board at the time - might have been the presi at the time can't remember, long time ago).
Since then the company has liked talking to pilots (much easier to control - why is that I wonder??????:ugh: )
I say bring back the professional negotiators. Bring in a tougher AoA team. Go forward in talks not backwards. Everybody should benefit from new CoS and RP07 not just a few select members. I'll be damned if I let the AoA dictate to me that these talks are beneficial to further growth. Who's growth?????

As aways.... thoughts and comments?

[BScaler]

Two Cocks

You express exactly the same sentiments as I am trying to get across.

CoS 07 is not good for New Joiners, not good for most of the presently employed pilots, (although it does have one or two 'inducements', particularly for freighter FOs who are way below market in their pay and CoS anyway), and we should not vote to allow the Company to be able to introduce them.

Profitable growth will still occur by bringing in FOs to the passenger fleet on current CoS. Increased profitability should not be attained at the expense of New Joiners.

[Mr. Bloggs]

We could certainly try to hire a Professional Negotiator but I suspect NR would state “we will not negotiate with a Professional”. He said the same thing when the CPU was formed. You could have 100% members in the CPU, but he will not negotiate.

Divide and Conquer, give a little to one group and take away from the other. It always works. Here anyway.

[baseddude]

Dear Commawnder BScaler:

I might have been imprecise with my earlier post. I WAS making a comparison of the current USAB freighter scale (combined with passenger scale Cos 99 pay at the appropriate longevity) to the Cos 07. Did you mean that I should compare Cos 07 with Cos 99 passenger rates??? For MY situation, and for similarly situated freight dogs, we can only look at current freighter rates, and assume transition to Cos 99 passenger rates at a later date (which I did). And Cos 07 seems to win.

I have a nagging feeling that I have not analyzed the pay terms correctly. And I hoped to elicit a correction from more knowledgeable CX pilots. Did I make a mistake?

To Commawnder Two Cocks:

You certainly have my respect for your anatomical endowment.:D :eek: And while it was likely not of your doing, you are to be congratulated!! I hope you can put both of them to meaningful use.

When a pilot earns $63,000 USD per year, and the Cos 07 offers $110,000 USD per year, that's hardly "a few dollars more". That's actually over a 74% pay raise!! (Sorry, not having a proper command of English after over 4 decades of practice, I just can't bring myself to call it a "pay rise").

Am I to take it that the CX freight dogs, who presently earn 54% of their passenger counterparts (not to mention the lack of the 13th month discretionary bonus, housing allowance, education allowance, etc. etc PLUS the 15.5% of the additional 46% of earnings) should one now "take one for the team" so that the entire group can benefit????? Come on! Even I can figure that one out! If one expects to be truly persuasive when telling a junior pilot to reject a huge pay increase in favor of “the good of the many”, it’s usually helpful to pat the junior guy on the head and promise him that “you’ll get yours someday, sonny (or for the Queen’s subjects, “you’ll get yours someday, 'my dear boy.'”)

While I'm hardly a management apologist, I'd say anyone would have a difficult time credibly blaming management for the PRESENT disparity in pay rates between the freighter and the passenger fleets.

In this business, "it's all about me". Unfortunately, I don’t know YOUR situation. However, I would be interested in hearing how Cos affects YOU going forward – particularly when you have the option of remaining on your current Cos.

Interestingly, as I think about the poor beleaguered new joiners who have to suffer under Cos 07, I think about my friend who has an upcoming phase 2 interview for freighter DEFO. Under Cos 07, his starting pay will be over $40,000 USD higher than under the current Cos – (and nearly as much in his second and third years). That money is worth FAR more than $120,000 received 10+ years from now when you consider the present value of money. Also, because of his age, my friend would never make it to the lofty heights of the top Cos 99 Captain pay at CX. So any discussion of current (Cos99) 17th year Captain pay rates is moot. Please explain why he shouldn’t be happy about the earlier payoff in Cos 07.

In the final analysis, Cos 07 is fait accompli. The only question to be answered is whether one should choose it as an option going forward, or not. And that answer hinges on two things: dollars and cents.

As I stated before, I remain open to the possibility that my reading comprehension is a little lacking with Cos 07. And I would be happy to receive a correction if I’m wrong.

baseddude

[BScaler]

baseddude

I am advocating that you should be on the same pay scale as your passenger counterpart, not the 'in between' CoS 07 step that the Company proposes. I hope I have made that clear in other areas I have posted.

Your current CoS and pay are below market and I believe that the Company recognises this. You, as well as New Joiners coming in as DEFOs, should be availed the same CoS and pay as we currently enjoy for carrying the same responsibilities.

I know it would be hard for you to vote against a deal that is going to give you a pay rise anyway. I personally think you deserve what we currently get paid on the passenger fleet - even moreso if your job description were to change to flying passenger aircraft as well.

I think New Joiners also deserve the same for bringing their experience and type-rating to the Company, and doing the same job as we do now to help with expansion.

[Five Green]

Baseddude :

I have done some math ( or more than one ie maths ) and cannot work out where you get your numbers ( or sums )

If you join on freighter USAB and spend your alotted time on the freighter and then move to a US base on current usab CoS. You will earn $786552.00

If you join on the freighter and transfer to the pax after two years (although if I have read the new DEFO currectly you are required to stay on the freighter until you are within 6 mos of your pax fleet trnsfr date) then transfer to COS 07 you earn $732 228.00

If you join on DEFO 07 after year 8 you have earned $745 776.00

That is $40776 less over eight years or aprox $5000 us per year pay cut.

However once on COS 07 you will now recieve COS 07 USAB Captains pay which is also considerably lower. You will lose another $4000 US per year from your Captain's wage or $31934 after eight years as a Captain.

Please correct me anyone if I have erred ! Still want to sign your pay away ?

Cheers

[baseddude]

BScaler and Five Green:

First, Commawnder BScaler: Thanks for the clarification. You and I are in agreement on this point.

However, any call to arms for the pilot group to reject Cos 07, and for the AOA to renegotiate it must also include the recognition of the AOA's impotence and ineptitude. (Here's where The Management stands and applauds. :D )

I'm not really in the mood to go on an AOA bashing rant today. But suffice it to say that I'm unimpressed. Most AOA members tell me that their main reason for membership is that it's a "get out of jail free" card should they become incarcerated in a foreign country after an aircraft accident or incident. I've not yet heard a pilot say they joined the AOA for the sake of unity, or to improve the lot of the Cathay pilots' lives, or to protect their job. I think everyone knows the AOA can't (or won't) do any of that. Frankly, I'm a little skeptical that the AOA/IFALPA could get a pilot out of jail!

The divisions within the pilot group are a creation of the AOA. Those divisions should be a source of extreme embarrasment for the Cathay pilot group. But nobody seems terribly bothered by the mishmash of conditions of service that govern the industrial lives of different members of the group.

(More applause by The Management :D )

Uh oh. I think that bordered on a rant. Sorry.

At any rate, thanks for the brotherly thoughts on the pay rates. Like I said, we're in agreement on this subject.

Commawnder Five Green:

Thanks very much for taking the time to do the math(s?) :confused: .

Language barriers notwithstanding, I think we might be onto something. Your reply was exactly the type of response I hoped to elicit. Allow me to briefly clarify my assumptions and method (such as it is).

First, because the current Cos requires 3 years on the freighter after qualification, I assumed transition to passenger F/O pay in year 5 (that is, the first full 4 years on freighter pay). This was partly out of laziness, but also partly out of recognition that there may be a delay between the bidding moratorium and the availability of a vacancy.

Second, because of my age (which is NOT 5, despite my pprune profile), I ran the numbers out to 13 years - not 8. This may explain the differences in our results.

Third, I'm in "pay year 1". So my assumptions only considered transitioning to Cos 07 beginning in pay year 2 - not pay year 8.

Maybe it's easier just to show you my scenarios. I've broken up my spreadsheet to give a side-by side comparison. Sorry about the formatting. After several attempts I couldn't get it to look any better than it does.

The asterisks by the Cos 99 column indicate the year of transition to passenger pay. First scenario: F/O for life. As you can see, Cos 07 costs me (or a similarly situated pilot) almost $17K. Again, keep in mind the present value of money as the higher rates are enjoyed early. If you don't like the present valuation, call it an $18,000 loss.

Cos 99 Cos 07
No Upgrade No Upgrade
Year
1 63504 63504
2 69504 110820
3 75504 113040
4 81000 115296
5 126840 * 117600
6 129240 * 119952
7 131640 * 119952
8 133680 * 119952
9 135840 * 119952
10 137760 * 119952
11 137760 * 119952
12 137760 * 119952
13 137760 * 119952

Total 1497792 1479876

Difference -17916

Scenario 2: Upgrade to Commawnd in year 5. For the Cos 99 numbers, I assumed freighter pay until year 9. Cos 07 pays nearly $90K more (again, considering the value of early higher pay rates, it's actually more).

Cos 99 Cos 07
Upgrade in yr 5 Upgrade in yr 5
Year
1 63504 63504
2 69504 110820
3 75504 113040
4 81000 115296
5 87036 117600
6 123996 155004
7 126480 158100
8 129012 161268
9 198120 * 164484
10 199560 * 167772
11 201000 * 171132
12 202320 * 174552
13 203640 * 178044

Total 1760676 1850616

Difference 89940

Scenario #3: Upgrade in year 3 (with recent Commawnd failure rates of 100%, I know this is a reach, but a fellah can dream, right?). Again, for Cos 99 I assumed transitioning to passenger Capt. pay at year 9. Cos 07 wins by nearly $100K - again, not including the "present value" discussion.


Cos 99 Cos 07
Upgrade in yr 3 Upgrade in yr 3
Year
1 63504 63504
2 69504 110820
3 75504 113040
4 123996 155004
5 126480 158100
6 129012 161268
7 131592 164484
8 134220 167772
9 203640 * 171132
10 204960 * 174552
11 206280 * 178044
12 207600 * 181608
13 208800 * 185244

Total 1885092 1984572

Difference 99480

If you've actually stayed awake to this point, thanks very much for looking at this. As I said before, I think Cos 07 is fait accompli. I won't be voting for, or against it. I don't believe discussions about voting on it are at all relevant. Airline managements are clever enough to "do the math" on votes before even entering a tentative agreement with unions, knowing exactly what it takes to obtain a passing vote. And Cathay management is more shrewd than most. (Applause again by The Management :D )

For me, the discussion is one of strict economics. Is "this" worth more than "that", or vice versa? Your input is appreciated. And your mileage may vary...

baseddude

[dogleg]

baseddude,

I hate to burst your bubble, but I think you are looking at the "Senior First Officer" column under CoS 07. If you are a year 1 First Officer now, you have 4 more years before becoming a Senior FO. To quote CoS 99...
6.2 a. On completion of First Officer Year 4, eligibility for promotion to Senior First Officer is dependent upon the Officer holding a valid Hong Kong Airliine Transport Pilot's Licence and the performance of the Officer.
BTW, the is one of the most misunderstood items at CX. A lot of guys think that as soon as you become a RPIC, you are a SFO. This is not true -- You simply become a SFO after serving 4 years as a FO.

So, I think when you do your calculations again, and use year 2 "First Officer" (which is $74,304) and the other appropriate figures under CoS 07, you might see things a little differently...

[cpdude]

I don't know about all those scenarios or for that matter your numbers...but do you really want to stay a freight dog? Most actually transfer to the pax fleet in year 4 so lets look at a US based freighter F/O going to pax in year 4 and a command starting year 10. Here are the actual numbers!

Year CoS99 CoS07
1 63,504 72,852
2 69,504 74,304
3 75,504 75,792
Pax
4 113,160 86,028
5 116,040 97,644
6 118,920 110,820
7 121,680 113,040
8 124,320 115,296
9 126,840 117,600
Total 929,472 863,376 (-66,096)

Cpt Pax
10 181,560 155,004
11 184,800 158,100
12 194,880 161,268
13 198,120 164,484
15 199,560 167,772
Total 958,920 806,628 (-152,292)

So a 15 year career with a year 10 promotion to Captain will gross you $218,388 more on CoS99 than CoS07!

They give you a little up front for the first 2 years but then they take away for a lifetime.:=

[baseddude]

Dogleg and Cpdude:

Dear Commawnder Dogleg:

You are absolutely correct. I am indeed looking at the senior F/O rates.

As you say, this is misunderstood. And evidently Cos 99 is not the only place to find clarification on this point. Hmmmm...

I did as you suggested, and here are the results:

For scenario #1 - No upgrade. F/O for life :ugh:

Cos 07 = $-163956 as compared to Cos 99 - Ouch!! :ouch:

For scenario #2 - Upgrade in year 5

Cos 07 = $-33048 as compared to Cos 99

For scenario #3 - Upgrade in year 3

Cos 07 = $+25716 as compared to Cos 99

As I studied this, the Master Warning and Too Good to Be True lights were both flashing. That's why I brought it to pprune.

So if what we're saying here is true, you didn't burst my bubble at all. You provided just the sort of correction I was looking for. Thanks for that!

And if this is the best the AOA can manage after MONTHS of discussion with the company, I have even less faith in them than before!!!

I'll keep reading both Cos's for illumination. But in the absence of the type of benefit we've discussed here, two questions arise:

1. What current CX demographic WOULD benefit measurably from Cos 07?

2. Why would ANY current CX pilot, much less a majority of AOA members vote to approve Cos 07?

Call me crazy, but CX management isn't stupid. They wouldn't throw a stinking !!!! on the plate if they didn't believe that at least 1/2 of us would eat it.

I believe in the final analysis management could just impose Cos 07, and the AOA would sit in the corner sucking its thumb.

I still have the feeling I'm missing something...
(sound of shuffling papers):(


Dear Commawnder Cpdude:

It appears dogleg has shown me the error of my ways. And I agree with the rates you detailed for your sample progression. Mine was a pretty fundamental error - and a very critical one, at that. Any ideas on the two questions I posted above to dogleg?

baseddude

[cpdude]

1. What current CX demographic WOULD benefit measurably from Cos 07?
2. Why would ANY current CX pilot, much less a majority of AOA members vote to approve Cos 07?
Call me crazy, but CX management isn't stupid. They wouldn't throw a stinking !!!! on the plate if they didn't believe that at least 1/2 of us would eat it.

1. Direct benefit...NONE! Indirect benefit...see below.

2. ...because it doesn't affect them and it will create good/better relations with the company for negotiations of other issues. (very bad reason to accept):=

You're right, CX management isn't stupid just sly. If this passes they will save money and the word on the street will be "starting salary has increased to $72,852 from $63,504".:*

[BScaler]

I know that most of the discussion here recently has been about USAB pay, but here is another general point about CoS 07 that not many people appear to understand.

CoS 07 have taken the top two FO pay steps out of what we have across all other current CoS pay scales.

A little history. If you look at A Scales, you will see that FO pay has about 18 steps (from memory). When B Scales were brought in this was reduced to 12 steps. Now, under CoS 07, the Company want to reduce it still further to 10 steps.

And this has been achieved in a very subtle manner...

Under current CoS we have JFO1 to JFO2; FO1 thru FO4; SFO1 thru SFO6; making 12 steps in total.

CoS 07 starts at FO1 thru FO4; then SFO1 thru SFO6; making 10 steps in total.

It thus appears that the bottom two steps have been removed in making up CoS 07 FO pay, but since JFO1 pay equals FO1 pay in CoS 07, it can be seen that it is the top two steps that have been eliminated.

What this means is that while expansion is ongoing, there should not be a problem, as time to command should mean most guys are upgraded before running out of pay steps. But if a slowdown were to occur, or a guy fail to make the grade to command, then Officers would miss out on two salary steps as a result.

This situation is admittedly evident from comparison of the pay scales, but it has not been 'spelled out' by the AOA GC as such, and I am disappointed that the membership is not being given this analysis straight up. We are being made to ferret it out by ourselves.

It is yet another clear degradation of CoS for New Joiners, and provides more justification for this agreement to be voted down.

[baseddude]

Dear Commawnders Bscale and cpdude:

Looks like the beer's on me next time I'm in the gay bar. Thanks for your insights.

baseddude

[BScaler]

baseddude

I would not characterise CX management as stupid either. They are experienced, canny negotiators and they never give anything back that they claw from an agreement. Of this we need to be cognizant.

I think that the Company believe that they can get away with having this agreement ratified because they think that the majority of those voting will be apathetic, and seeing nothing overtly threatening to their own circumstances, will vote this agreement in. We need to fight apathy through education and discussion of the issues.

The AOA GC support the Company stance by holding out the mirage of pay negotiations when, as I have said before, it would be very unlikely, going off the Company track record, that these would materialise. And even if they did, we would have just shot ourselves in the foot by agreeing to new CoS with a lower pay scale that the Company could now claim as 'market'.

The AOA membership needs to send a very clear message to the Company and AOA GC alike that this agreement falls well short of the mark.

[Five Green]

Baseddude:

The other major ooops you are making in your third scenario, is that the pay scales for Captain on CoS USAB 07 are aprox $30 000 US less per year. That's right $30 000 less per year look it up. So if you transfer to CoS 07 you will make considerably less over your career.

The company has wanted to reduce USAB for a long time. Now they are doing it under the premise of affordable expansion. Well if that is they case maybe we cannot afford to expand.

On the subjuect of the AOA. Are you even a menber ?

I am really tired of people bashing the AOA. Get in there and help. Do your part sign up for the forums and go to the meetings. This is the only way to have any representation whatsoever in China/Hong Kong/CX.

It may be weak compared to N. American associations/unions but it is all we have. We the AOA members make it what it is. We make it as strong or as weak as it is.

Also just because a motion or policy is being brought to a vote, that does not mean that the GC is completely in favour of it going through. All they have said is that it is as far as the company is willing to move on the offer. It is now up to us as AOA members to decide if we accept it. This deal may well get voted down. If you are not in the AOA you really have no say. No say over what could possibly, for you, be the biggest change in your career at CX.

Stop bitchin and start contributing.

One ammendment to current AOA policy I would like to see, is for the negotations with the company to go something like this :

1. negotiate, negotiate, negotiate
2. reach the best deal possible,
3. put info out to membbership
4. take input back to company and tweek/re-negotiate
5. bring final deal to the members for voting

Now this might seem like splitting hairs as compared to current practice, but it is very important to have a look at the deal in full detail, and then put it back to the company when all the input has been recieved from the members. The reason being is that as savy and intelligent as our GC might be (no sarcasm these guys work extremely hard for us) they cannot always consider the pilot body as a whole. There is also a great wealth of intelligence out there that is then tapped to work the scenarios out as we are here. Albiet a rather public forum to do so. The other major advantage is that re-negotiating a deal does not always have to involve moving the company away from it's objectives. Sometimes the changes are of an organizational nature. So you would thereby remove the negative conotation of voting something down and be guarenteed the ability to tweek/re-negotiate the deal without the all important loss of face and worries about "what if we vote no" .

So help us out. Sign up. It is the only way to afford to increase the measures the AOA can take to protect what we can protect. The more representative of the pilot body the AOA is the more effective it can be. By sitting on the sidelines and complaining you are only bringing about the very scenarios that seem to upset you so much.

Soap box off

[cpdude]

One amendment to current AOA policy I would like to see is for the negotiations with the company to go something like this :

1. negotiate, negotiate, negotiate
2. reach the best deal possible,
3. put info out to membership
4. take input back to company and tweak/renegotiate
5. bring final deal to the members for voting


Aside from the echo here...:E

I think the AOA is doing exactly what you are suggesting. The only way to get input back to company and tweak/renegotiate is for the AOA members to vote it down.

Remember, the AOA was bad-mouthed for negotiating and sometimes turning down offers in secrecy. Now they negotiated what they believe is the best deal possible and it's up to the membership to accept or turn it down. I would much rather have this situation then the GC deciding on it's own to turn it down.;)

[Mach75]

Hey guys, based on the opinions and posts you've read on the AOA forums and from other AOA members - any speculation on which way the vote will go?

[Mr. Bloggs]

6.2 a. On completion of First Officer Year 4, eligibility for promotion to Senior First Officer is dependent upon the Officer holding a valid Hong Kong Airline Transport Pilot's Licence and the performance of the Officer.

At present, after 4 years SFO is automatic with RPIC. The above statement makes me very nervous. “Dependent” on HKATP and this is the big one “the performance of the Officer”. I can ensure you that CX will exploit this.

What is considered performance, arguing with a crew controller because you just got shafted or by another section of CX. It could be speaking at AOA meetings, which got a couple of pilots fired several years ago. This will be considered “performance” by the review board when it is time to upgrade.

We have “Performance” with JFO to F/O’s and the review board holds some back. Automatic progression within CX is not guaranteed. A score of 3 on a check will clearly be a reason not to upgrade if you were one to speak up.

Free thinking is not allowed at CX.

[Five Green]

I know the logic behind the current procedures regarding negotiations.

At the moment the GC does not put out all the info by way of a completed proposal so all discussion up to the final draft is done with incomlete information. Once the complete info is available we are then required to vote.

I am saying this is too late. There needs to be a step in between that allows review of the proposals in entirety and then back to the negotiatin table.

The reason this is not done currently is that the GC feels that they are getting the best from the company and that is all they can do. It is apparent from this proposal (DEFO) that it can be better if sent back for clarification, and possible inclusion of areas not thought of etc. In the case of the DEFO programme there may be areas in the transition period, and pay scales, that may not have been considerd during the negotiations. I am not saying the negotiators are slack, rather that they cannot percieve how policies and proposals will affect every member. If they did cover all the bases, great then the intermediate consultation time is only a double check. Or, it is posssible valuable insight might be gained prior to the pressure a vote brings. It defines the process. At the moment it is a big question mark as to whether there is any chance for renegotiating/tweaking or not. An agreement to have a consultation period after the completed policy/proposal is put to the members guarantees that there will be review. Saves the companies "Face" as they do not have to decide whether to negotiate or not. Any changes do not have to be feared by the company because they might fall under the heading re-organisation and clarification, for example, and thereby save time preventing another drawn out negotiation and subsequent vote. Then, when the company says that is it, we won't change XYZ, now vote, that vote will be done based on a more finite set of possibilities. As it is now we are just guessing.

In the flying game we rely on checks and balances on redundancy, why not in our negotiation process as well. Hey it is only our careers we are talkiing about.

Cheers

Five

[baseddude]

Dear Commawnder Five Green:

Please understand that my motivation for jumping on the thread was to understand Cos 07, and its implications for a newbie freight dog.

And thanks to you and others on the thread, I understand the ramifications MUCH better than when I entered.

The bottom line for me is that given the choice, I'll stick with the old Cos.

Regarding your and BScaler's encouragement to get involved in AOA, I've "been there, and done that" with another pilot union - for years. I'm not going back there.

One of the most unsettling memories of my son's early years came from his kindergarten. His teacher gave each child the opportunity to talk about their parents' professions. When my son's turn came, she asked, "and what does your daddy do for work?" My son replied, "My daddy talks on the phone." His teacher replied, "No, your dad's an airline pilot. He flies airplanes." My son responded, "No, he just spends all day talking on the phone."

My family paid a very high price for my involvement in union work. And that will never happen again.

And as I look back upon the literally thousands of hours I spent "helping my fellow pilots", I realize that none of it amounted to a hill of beans.

The other realization that finally dawned on me after many years is that pilots are very self-interested people. They look at virtually every aspect of their industrial lives through one perspective: that perspective? "How does this affect ME?"

Call me jaded, or call me selfish. But after years of carrying the water for other pilots, worrying about THEIR jobs, THEIR pay, THEIR benefits, THEIR grievances, THEIR discipline problems, I decided finally to look after myself, my interests, and the interests of my family - just like every other pilot.

I respect union volunteers who do the work for righteous reasons. And I didn't mean to denigrate AOA volunteers. But the facts of CX industrial relations can not be ignored: The AOA has no leverage, no collective will, and no legal basis for fully representing its membership. One need look no further than CX's unilateral ability to terminate pilots without consequence to realize this.

And if one prefers not to examine the ugly affairs of termination, perhaps one could look to CX training failure rates - particularly for Commawnd positions. I don't have the data, but I have a sneaking suspicion that these failure rates are the highest in the industry worldwide! From all appearances, the AOA has no ability to change this horrific (and costly) fact.

I'm confident these problems stem from Hong Kong labor (sorry, I just can't bring myself to spell it l-a-b-o-u-r) law (or the lack thereof), management's union-busting with the 49ers, and other factors that I haven't even thought of. But you have to admit that it is all a bit unsetlling.

In any event, I truly do appreciate all of the ppruners' hand-holding through my journey of understanding of Cos 07. :ok:

baseddude

[Five Green]

Based:

I too worked for a former airline's union. Went through industrial action and the resultant heavy handed tactics from the company. Guess what we were legally allowed to form a Union and there are better labor laws in N. America , no question. It dod not help. In fact the outcome was far worse than the 49errs here.

The reality is that in all airlines save the flag carriers of the US and UK you are subject to company intimidation and quasi-legal industrial pressure. No different than here. Some say you get better protection elsewhere. I think that is only marginally true. having been through such legal avenues in N. America I can tell you that is not the case. Perhaps it is better in the UK and Australia dunno. Either way it makes sense to work with the AOA and do what we can.

Now thaat you understand your enviroment do you throw up your hands and give up ? Hopefully, No. Even in this enviroment you have a chance to keep the company talking. To have input into proposals and policy. These may seem trivial to some but to me they are the difference between an acceptable job and perhaps down the road an unacceptable one. Now Cathay is actually a very good job compared to the rest of the industry. Not the best, but pretty good. So we need to keep it that way. The AOA is the only thing looking out for you.

I can understand your industrial fatigue. All we are asking is that you sign up and support the AOA by membership alone. Join the forum discussions on the AOA site and attend a meeting or two. With your subs we can challange the company in court, research areas of our proffesion as new changes occur, over the pole flying and radiation as an example.

Membership in the AOA does not put you in the bad books with the company. On the contrary there are more non members that are likely to vote pro-company than there are AOA members. So it would actually behove the company if all of them were in the AOA.

If you are already in congrats, if not please consider it and use this vote to express your opinion either way. Using the past to justify not supporting our own futures is very weak. The AOA is not perfect. It needs to learn from people like you with valuable experience. It is still a very young entity, as associations go, and has made and will continue to make mistakes. They get alot right though. As with anything, you get out of it what you put in.

Cheers

[Harbour Dweller]

Hey guys, based on the opinions and posts you've read on the AOA forums and from other AOA members - any speculation on which way the vote will go?


Out of speaking to about 40-50 guys so far ALL have said they will vote NO.

The biggest concerns being;


CoS07 is a bad deal for current & future pilots,
What benefits do current pilots get from voting yes?
Why not discuss increases in Salary, RP04 and CoS07 as one and have some bargaining power?

[18Flyer]

Dear BasedDude,

Are your calculations based on upgrades at year 3 or year 5 based on getting a freighter command on $155k/yr for year one captain?

My understanding is that freighter commands will still be on the freighter pay scale (ie year one captain pay = $123996USD).

The new CoS07 combined payscale is for pax captains who can also fly the freighter.

[Mach75]

Well, that's good to hear. That seems to be the general opinion - at least on this forum anyway. My big fear is that it will be voted down, but the company will decide to go ahead and proceed with it anyway. Would there be any implications for the company if they were to do so?

[The Management]

Baseddude, thank you very much for your encouragement. We at Management can and will do whatever we can to enhance our bonus. If that is at the expense of our employees (whatever group that may be), it is a small price to pay for our benefit.

I know you have problems in the US with unions but in Asia, The Management rule. Pilots of Cathay Pacific are self-thinkers and do not nor will not see the big picture of what we do in Management. If some do and speak out, we punish. This will show the rest of the pilots what we are capable of and don't speak out. Rule by fear.

I dare say we have done a very good job over the last 15 years to divide the pilots and at the same time lower their conditions of service. My bonus speaks for itself.

These agreements will go through. We have changed the AOA voting rules to ensure this. If it does not pass, it will be only by a small percentage so we will know the pilot group is still divided and we will ask the AOA to have a revote to push it through.

With the pilot group still divided and if we decide to re-negotiate there will be very little we will change because we have satisfied most of the voting AOA members.

Freighter Pilots, do you really think the Cathay Pacific Mainline pilots really care about your well being? If they did, you would be flying both passenger and freighter aircraft on much better pay. New Freighter agreements in 1996 didn’t affect them, so they let it go through. Again in 1996, we used those same pilots to train THEIR replacements (ASL), so do you really think things have changed. Smart Freighter and Based pilots see this.

Our Freighter Business is over 30% of our revenue and we have you working for peanuts. Please don’t blame us, it is your mainline pilots for doing nothing about it, they are the ones you should blame.

That “rubber dog-!!!!” comment in Top Gun has everybody running to us.

Your AOA mainline pilots gave us the right to fly wide body AHK Freighters to be employed by even lower conditions. We at Management adore this AOA, so please stop your bashing of this fine establishment.

The Freighter pilots should sign this deal, as it is more money in your pocket now, not later. You have to do what is right for your family, now, and not the promise of some mainline pilots going to negotiate you a better pay scale when you turn this down. Think about it and look at the history of mainline pilots. It speaks for itself. Freighter pilots and based pilots will be much better with these agreements, so you may as well sing, sorry sign.

If every pilot joined your AOA, it will not be much difference. In the spring of 2001 the AOA had a good membership percentage of overall pilots. They actually voted over 90% in favor of industrial action. After we fired the 49ers, they scattered like the rats they are. You or the AOA have no power, so you may as well take what we are offering.

For those who asked friends on how they vote, remember, Cathay Pacific pilots say one thing and do another. Watch this space.

Some mentioned a Professional Negotiator. We do not negotiate with “Terrorists”. Enough discussion on this matter.

The Management

[Five Green]

The new CoS07 combined payscale is for pax captains who can also fly the freighter.


Other than the USAB Captains (who will take a $30 000 US hit per year), the Captains pay remains relatively or exactly the same as it is now. However I presume once you agree to, as a first officer, you will be required to fly the freighter although that is not specifically spelled out as the document only covers the DEFO case. I think that as any COS 07 Captains will be a few years away. Assuming that a few senior FOs are forced onto CoS 07 to get a base, we might see one or two CoS 07 Captains in two or three years. The roster will probably stay as is for the next few years. That being that a few mainline FOs outside of training do fly freighter trips but they are the exception to the rule. Where as the DEFOs who are granted a base not designated "freighter only" will be rostered both (read crap schedule!)


Cheers

[BScaler]

Five Green

There is a rostering element to the introduction of CoS 07, should it be introduced, as you point out.

The ability of the company to roster CoS 07 pilots on both the freighter and the passenger fleets may introduce more disruption to a pilots schedule, (just talk to the current freighter guys and ask them when they plan to get home off their current pattern...).

We have not even been presented with any sample 'integrated' based rosters for perusal, although you can be sure the Company will have been working on it in order to evaluate 'increases in efficiency' in this area.

In agreeing to allow the company to present CoS 07 to New Joiners, we would be agreeing to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for greater increases in efficiency.

[BScaler]

Mach75

I have replied to your post regarding Bypass pay on this thread intead of the other DEFO thread since what you refer to can easily be referenced to the first post I made here.

1. A FO who is currently serving with the Company, who wishes to take up a base, will retain his current CoS.

However, an ineligible freighter FO, (an FO outside six months of being eligible to bid for a passenger position, as they can under present CoS), wishing to transfer to another base, can still do so but under CoS 07 terms and conditions.

For current Officers, read: no change.
For ineligible freighter FOs, read: possible slight improvement on their current pay, but reduced CoS.
For New Joiners read: joining the Company on lesser CoS for doing the same job as current Officers on the passenger fleet.

I contend that the current freighter CoS is below market, and such Officers should get an increase in pay and CoS anyway. If they are to fly both passenger and freighter aircraft as the Company proposes, then they should be paid at least current pasenger fleet pay, and availed at least current passenger fleet CoS.

CoS 07 falls well short of what is fair and it would be remiss of us as an aircrew body to vote to allow the Company to introduce CoS 07 for New Joiners.

2. Bypass Pay is payment that the Company pays an Officer for promoting someone over the top of them.

There is no period, under current CoS, before an Officer is eligible for Bypass Pay, However, in order to be considered eligible for Bypass Pay, a SO has to be assessed as 'suitable for upgrade to FO'. To reduce the amount of Bypass pay disbursed, the Company could simply assess SO's just before their upgrade course. (A loophole for avoidance of payment of Bypass Pay)

Under CoS 07, an Officer must wait 42 months before being eligible for Bypass Pay, but then it is paid out regardless of whether an Officer is assessed or not.

The argument as to which arrangement is better depends on your point of view, however, I would say that the 42 month eligibility provision is a degradation in current CoS, which has no such stipulation.

The Company currently has the ability to use administrative means to limit Bypass Pay disbursement, but the scheduling of assessments in this way must be a burden on the system. As a result the Company would like to get rid of the current provision as it stands.

I see what the Company is trying to do here as part of a long-term strategy to dilute Bypass Pay with the eventual goal of removing it completely. We simply should not agree to allow the Company to bring in lesser CoS for New Joiners for doing the same job we currently do.

[Mach75]

Another significant degradation to the current CoS has just occured to me:

With the new proposed salaries being significantly lower (almost 30% lower in some cases) this equates to a significantly lower contribution to your provident fund. This is a pretty sneaky move - not only does the company save money by imposing a reduction in pay from what is currently offered but what many people probably overlook is that, as a result, new joiners will also be subject to a reduction in their pension.

[BScaler]

Mach 75

I believe the AOA GC has an obligation to explain every section of this agreement to the membership fully, including the more subtle implications as the one you just mention.

It took me some time to realise that the Hong Kong CoS 07 pay scales have been altered in subtle way that represents a degradation to current Hong Kong pay scales.

1. There are 12 FO pay steps under current CoS, but only 10 FO pay steps under CoS 07. The top two steps have been removed.

This has implications for Officers who do not make their Command, or suffer the effects of an industry downturn leading to an increased time as FO. These Officers would miss out on two pay steps compared to current CoS.

But what follows is an even more subtle change. I will make it as clear as possible, but you may have to read this over a couple of times to grasp the concept...

2. Currently Officers who are upgrading to FO, usually spend about nine months as JFO1 (=CoS 07 FO1) before completing their 'QL' line check and becoming a full FO (=CoS 07 FO3). Currently there is quite a pay jump once an Officer completes his QL, as the JFO2 pay step is skipped.

Under CoS 07, Officers who upgrade to FO move to FO1 pay (=current JFO1). There is no pay jump once an Officer completes his 'QL' line check. He simply continues up the pay scale and must pass through each step.

It will take a CoS 07 SO upgrading to FO 2 years to get to the same pay that a current SO upgrading to FO typically takes 9 months. This would rob New Joiner Officers of even more pay.

This is yet another degradation to current CoS. I cannot vote to allow the Company to present this to New Joiners under CoS 07.

[iflylow]

When does the vote take place?

[BScaler]

I believe the members of the AOA will vote on ratifying this agreement on 9th October. Online voting will, of course, be open prior to that date, but I am not sure when online voting will commence.

I am hoping that this agreement will be voted down by as comprehensive a margin as possible.

[geh065]

COS07 voting online has already begun.

[BScaler]

geh065

I just checked the AOA website and I see that voting is open for the AGM, but voting has not begun yet for CoS 07. I will make enquiries.

[geh065]

Sorry, right you are. Voting is for the AGM and the RP07. Getting confused with the bombardment of info recently....maybe thats the strategy...to overwhelm us into missing something and voting yes!

[Sqwak7700]

Mach 75

It will take a CoS 07 SO upgrading to FO 2 years to get to the same pay that a current SO upgrading to FO typically takes 9 months. This would rob New Joiner Officers of even more pay.

This is yet another degradation to current CoS. I cannot vote to allow the Company to present this to New Joiners under CoS 07.

Don't forget about New Joiners that later decide to come to Hong Kong. Under the proposal, not only do they have to wait 4 years to come to HK, but they will also join at a lower SFO yr 1. This pay grade is 2 years lower than the current agreement pay scale if you come to HK after 4 years.

Not once did the company say to the membership that HK was gonna take a pay cut. But sure enough, there it is. Unless you read and compared the pay scales and scrutinized the agreement, you would have missed it. Not to mention the fact that they also put a provision in that allows them to hire right to HK. That would put someone on COS7 at higher pay than a COS99 based FO (including all the expat package).

:(

[BScaler]

Having just talked with a member of the AOA GC and checked the AOA website, I believe that voting for the AGM and RP 07 is now open online.

Voting for CoS 07 will not commence for some time and they are as yet unsure when voting will open online, but it will not be until a further newsletter on the subject has been issued.

It does sound a little like stalling to me.

Just a reminder that under the new voting rules, 51% 'against' will sink the motion. I am hoping for a comprehensive vote 'against' allowing the Company to offer lesser CoS for New Joiners.

[Mr. Bloggs]

If you are going to knock back the DEFO/COS 07, you may as well knock back the rostering agreement. I am sure there are issues in there that can be improved.

Like haggling in Beijing, never take what they first offer, unless you are an idiot.

Negotiating 101, but seems many CX pilots were absent for that class.

[Arcla]

Sorry for repeating the obvious......But.....
I have just read that SAA have received a large pay increase (20%)
Also read that UPS received a large pay increase (20%)
And Cathay wants to degrade our COS...what a load of bollocks!!
I have voted NO to RP07 and will do so for DEFO and Age 60.
Most guys i have flown with have indicated they will do the same so i really hope this gets voted down by a large margin!!!
Hopefully that will send some shockwaves thru the management pond and bring some realistic negotiation aimed at BETTER Cos and pay NOT worse!!!

[BScaler]

The AOA GC assert that if the Company simply brought in CoS 07 unilaterally, they would be unable to represent New Joiners as they are not yet employed by the Company nor are they current AOA members.

Yet we are being asked to represent these same people by voting to allow the Company to bring in lesser CoS for them - our future colleagues and AOA members!

In my view, bearing in mind that the Company have employed New Joiners since 1999 on our current CoS, (CoS that include the provision for the employment of DEFOs), the Company cannot arbitrarily introduce new CoS simply because they do not wish to employ future Officers under the terms of our present contract.

I would ask whether life has got any better for A-Scalers since the introduction of B-Scales. Clearly they have not. It follows that life would not get any better for us if we were to allow the introduction of CoS 07 - in effect C-Scales.

We should not vote to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners.

[BScaler]

The AOA has just brought out a newsletter detailing some of the rationale behind it coming to agreement on the DEFO/CoS 07 issue.

This is a reply to that newsletter and should be read in that context, but it is fairly self-explanatory.

It's a long one...

Initial Company Plans
The list of improvements that the AOA President asserts were made to initial Company plans for expansion, must simply be seen in the light of an initial negotiating position. The AOA start point could equally have been an improvement on our current set of CoS – CoS which have remained untouched for seven years. The ‘improvements’ stated are moot points – we can only consider what the agreement presents us and our future colleagues with as it stands before us.

Should We Be Endorsing Yet Another CoS?
The ideal of a single CoS on the best terms possible may be a challenging goal, but it will only become more elusive if we agree to yet another set of CoS in the manner now suggested. Surely the onus rests with the Company in this time of expansion, in coming to us with a carrot, rather than the stick that CoS 07 represents.

Company’s Ability to Recruit DEFOs on CoS 99
In his newsletter, with regard to the current recruitment streams, the AOA President states:
‘As the established entry route of the last decade is successfully attracting the necessary calibre of pilot then it is reasonable to compare fortunes and opportunities for new joiners under CoS 07 against the benchmark of SO or FO(F) entry points under CoS 99.’

It is fair to say that this assumption forms the basis of my disagreement with what the AOA is presenting to the membership. I hold a different view.

The Company is about to undergo a significant and unprecedented expansion, for which it needs a different type of pilot applicant than has been applying for the SO and FO(F) thus far. With a DEFO(P) entry stream, I contend that the Company would like to see type-rated and experienced pilots enter the Company to assist with a smooth rapid expansion. This is not about the calibre of the pilot per se, so much as the relevant experience that he can bring to the airline, thus reducing training costs and facilitating more rapid expansion. These type-rated and qualified pilots would not be currently applying for a SO or FO(F) position, as these positions would not represent career progression from where they currently stand.

I therefore do not believe it is valid to make the comparison between CoS 07 New Joiners and current SO and FO(F) entry points under CoS 99. In this context, the relative charts laid out in the AOA ‘DEFO – Analysis and Perspectives’Newsletter are meaningless.

My perspective is simple. The Company wish to employ DEFO(P) pilots but not pay them current pay, despite the experience they would bring to the Company to help facilitate expansion. I will not vote to allow the Company to do this. And even if I were completely wrong about the particular attributes of pilot the Company is targeting for recruitment, it would still be wrong to vote to allow the Company to bring in lesser CoS for pilots carrying the same responsibilities in the same rank as we do at present.

The Company has brought the case for DEFO(P)s. They want them. Their introduction will save the Company considerably in training costs and efficiencies. Whilst it is also preferable for the pilot community to have this elevated recruitment stream, I do not believe it is in our best interests to reduce CoS and pay for New Joiners, as the price for its introduction.

Our present CoS have been applied for the last seven years to New Joiner recruits. They allow for DEFO(P) and I believe we are within our rights to expect the Company to recruit DEFO(P) New Joiners under these terms if a suitable alternate agreement cannot be reached.

I do not think the Company would have gone to such lengths to negotiate an agreement if they felt they could arbitrarily introduce a new set of CoS for New Joiners by right, as the AOA GC infers may happen if this agreement is not ratified.

Pay - Is This a C-Scale?
I contend that, quite clearly, CoS 07 is a C-Scale. There is no point on the CoS 07 salary scale that exceeds our current pay scales for doing the same job. They are equal to or degraded from what we currently enjoy. With the possible exception of Freighter FOs, who I contend are below market rates anyway, CoS 07 pay scales would not be attractive to any pilot currently employed. And their structure hides further subtle degradations.

The Hong Kong CoS 07 pay scales, for example, have been altered in subtle way that represents a degradation to current Hong Kong pay scales.


There are 12 FO pay steps under current CoS, but only 10 FO pay steps under CoS 07. The top two steps have been removed.

This has implications for Officers who do not make their Command, or suffer the effects of an industry downturn leading to an increased time as FO. These Officers would miss out on two pay steps compared to current CoS. But what follows is an even more subtle change.
Currently, Officers who are upgrading to FO, usually spend about nine to twelve months as JFO1 before completing their 'QL' line check and becoming a full FO. Currently there is quite a pay jump once an Officer completes his QL, as the JFO2 pay step is usually skipped upon normal progression.

UnderCoS 07, Officers who upgrade to FO move to FO1 pay (equal to current JFO1). There is no pay jump once an Officer completes his 'QL' line check. He simply continues up the pay scale and must pass through each step.

It will therefore take a CoS 07 SO, upgrading to FO, 2 years to get to the same pay that a current SO upgrading to FO typically takes 9-12 months. This is a significant degradation for an entry stream that was previously portrayed as being little affected by CoS 07.In the fullness of time, after the Transition Period, when DEFO(P)s may be recruited to a Hong Kong base, these Officers will also be affected in the same way.


In the AOA ‘DEFO – Analysis and Perspectives’Newsletter, the justification for agreeing to cuts in USAB salary is complex and difficult to follow. From what I can see, it amounts to the Company ‘making a mistake’ in awarding the salary scale in the first place. In any case, the original salary scales were constructed along the same lines as other base areas. While 9/11 did have a marked effect on the airline industry in the US, there is clear evidence that the industry is picking up at present, with significant pay rises for pilots.It is commonly known that furloughed pilots from legacy carriers can choose the date and time of their re-entry to the airline at their original seniority position. I do not know how many pilots the Company plans to hire from the pool of furloughed pilots in this position, but one way to force their hand into returning to their previous Company would be to reduce their salary expectations for the future.

I do not think we as an Association would have much chance in achieving a pay rise, if we intimated to the Company that we had ‘made a mistake’ in say determining the UK base salaries in the past and needed them adjusted upwards accordingly. Likewise, agreeing to a very large salary cut for New Joiners in a specific base area at a time when the Company is not in extremis by any stretch of the imagination, and the base area in question is experiencing a commercial aviation renaissance, seems inappropriate.

Leave
New Joiners under CoS 07 will be denied current leave entitlements. And once again, in a similar vein to the pay structure, the degradation is subtly worse than at first glance.

Currently, Officers who are upgrading to FO, usually spend about nine to twelve months as JFO1 before completing their 'QL' line check and becoming a full FO. There is a change in leave entitlement once an Officer completes his QL. In effect, upon normal progression, an Officer spends only nine to twelve months with an annual entitlement of four weeks before progressing to a six week entitlement.It will therefore take a CoS 07 SO, upgrading to FO,4 years to get to the same leave entitlement that a current SO upgrading to FO typically takes 9-12 months.

In plain terms, a CoS 07 New Joiner stands to lose approximately four weeks leave over four years compared to a current New Joiner. The increased annual G-Day entitlement for lesser leave does not mitigate this in any way. G-Days are G-Days and leave is leave.

Bypass Pay
I believe that the Company is embarking upon a long-term strategy to dilute the present Bypass Pay system with a view to reducing its effects in time. We should be vigilant for any attempts to reduce our present entitlement. The Bypass Pay provision in our CoS is the only reason the Company is engaging us on talks regarding employment beyond age 55. The CoS 07 Bypass Pay provisions should be seen in this light.

The Bypass Pay arrangement for SOs under CoS 07 mandates a 42 month period before an Officer becomes eligible for Bypass Pay. This dilutes the intent of the Bypass Pay system, so that it may be possible for Officers to be bypassed without penalty to the Company.Currently, Bypass Pay is only paid to SOs assessed as suitable for upgrade to FO. An Officer not yet assessed will not be paid Bypass Pay, and once again, this situation may allow Officers to be bypassed without penalty to the Company.

Both systems have their flaws, but I contend that living with the present system would be preferable to agreeing to a flat 42 month ineligibility period for future New Joiners.

Conclusion
I can see several areas in this agreement where talks would surely have broken down between AOA negotiators and the Company, as the AOA President asserts occurred on a number of occasions. The AOA’s decision to remain engaged and return to the table after each breakdown, has in my view, resulted in a poor agreement that does not, despite the great effort involved, deserve ratification.

The Company cannot, as the President suggests, unilaterally develop and implement its own solution for growth. It requires the cooperation and collaboration of its employees. We have a set of Conditions of Service that have been in operation since 1999 and their standing has been tested in court. I cannot see how the Company can justify a decrease in CoS at a time of rapid expansion, when our cooperation and collaboration are required, and I cannot agree to vote to allow the Company to bring in lesser CoS for New Joiners.

The growth of the Company does stand to benefit current and future Officers alike, but I cannot take that glib assessment and simply run with CoS 07 on that basis. Should this agreement be ratified, CoS 07 will be with us, growth or no growth. These talks were not about growth. These talks were about allowing the Company to make more money and attain greater productivity by changing Conditions of Service for future employees. Growth or no growth.

The case is sometimes put that we cannot represent Officers who have not yet joined the Company. Yet here we are being asked to approve lesser Conditions of Service for these very same Officers – our future colleagues who as yet have no voice of their own.

Personally I believe that we as an Association should embrace the challenging goal of working toward the ideal of a single CoS on the best terms possible rather than endorsing further fragmentation.

I cannot vote to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners.

[Tornado Ali]

B Scaler. Your analysis is superb. One is left with no doubt that this proposal deserves an overwhelming NO vote. Furthermore, the company has recently proved that there is NO benefit in 'working' with them on 'advancing' the company's interests, as the insulting and unjustified non-payment of any meaningful profit sharing demonstrates that we will NOT share in the company's success. It is unbelievable that the management expects us to blindly agree to this ridiculous proposal, when they have been taking us for granted these past few years. As you so ably explained, nearly every facet of COS 07 is flawed, in particular the rational regarding the USAB scales (the US airline pay scales suffered cuts only AFTER seeing double digit percentange increases between 1999 and 2004). Needless to say, USAB saw NO pay rises during this same period. Arguably, USAB is no further ahead or behind the datum point established in 1999 when the COMPANY unilateraly set the USAB scales. It is also worth reminding everyone that prior to 1994, ALL officers had 8 weeks of leave, and prior to the early 80's, every pilot enjoyed 'long-service' leave , 6 months (yes...months!) off WITH pay every 10 years!. Needless to say, there is NOTHING to recommend COS 07, and it is high time that the company made serious IMPROVEMENTS to ALL payscale and benefit packages. I am sick(:yuk: ) and tired of this management always expecting to TAKE from us. During a time of rapid expansion, the expectation is always that the pilots are rewarded for co-operating with the needs of the expansion. Somehow, CX management twist this into thinking that the pilots should 'sacrifice' to the benefit of the expansion. Are you people serious. If you haven't voted, vote NO. If you can't vote, join the AOA. Regardless of the issues of the past few years, it is blindingly obvious that your participation in the coming months is critical. A unified, representative voice is necessary to let CX know that you will NOT sacrifice your earnings, benefits and lifestyle for the sake of the next few rounds of management bonuses. JOIN, VOTE.

[cpdude]

Be it coincidence or not (I suspect the latter) but the benchmark used by CX to negotiate/substantiate the CoS 07 salary versus US carriers was the 2005 US carrier salaries. This period could be characterised as the lowest point in the pendulum swing.

What actually motivated CX to even discuss a change to the CoS? They would have been better to pull back and re-think given the changes in global airline economics over the past 6-12 months.

It will be very interesting to see how CX plans to drive forward with its aggressive expansion plans while looking in the rear-ward mirror.:oh:

[jobe]

This how the initial talks should have gone(but obviously didn't);

Phil;-"Lets talk about growth,Steve"
Steve;-"Ah,so you wish to talk about changes to CoS in conjucntion with pay increases.That's great news,Phil"
Phil;-"Just one step at a time,Steve.We don't want to get ahead of our selves now do we?We'll get to pay at a later date I promise but we need to sort CoS first.
Steve;-"But thats what you said after the 49er deal and the housing deal"
Phil;-"But this time I really mean it"
Steve;-"So no pay talks at this round then?"
Phil;-"Just think of it as a seamless lead in to pay talks.Remember,we are all on the same team."
Steve;-"Ok,bye.Regards to your family" "scrape(chair),clonk(door)" :ugh:

[fire wall]

B scaler, your reply is well thought out and I agree on all points. Now lets get a drive on to increase the member numbers and put this to the vote.... and show the negotiators and company alike that this proposal is not acceptable.

[Team America]

Bscaler, Can it be summed up that you would like to see DEFO's starting on the same money as an F/O who is already on a base?
The DEFO starts in MEL he should be getting the same T&C's as his fellow CX F/O who is on the base?
Makes good sense, same job same pay.

[cpdude]

Bscaler, Can it be summed up that you would like to see DEFO's starting on the same money as an F/O who is already on a base?
The DEFO starts in MEL he should be getting the same T&C's as his fellow CX F/O who is on the base?
Makes good sense, same job same pay.

But that won't happen because the same qualified F/O is also recruited to fly freighters at less money.

CX has created a real pickle with this freighter only fleet.:confused:

[Drunknsailor]

Unfortunately they(the management) are trying to solve that pickle and pass through a hose job at the same time, a bit ambitious!! Hopefully they will fail and then maybe a simple solution to the pickle will be hammered out!!

[cpdude]

The funny thing is if they just recruited the DEFO Pax into CoS99 FO1 pay and ammended the freighter FO pay to match the pax FO pay everything would probably be just fine. It would be easier and better received. Really, how much do they think they will save with this new CoS07? Somebody is not thinking.:ugh:

[gluay]

Innocent question. What percentage of the CX pilot body does the AOA represent these days?

[BScaler]

cpdude

...and what you propose is, in a nutshell, what should happen in my view.

But CoS07 is not penny-pinching. It's introduction would stand to save the Company alot of money over the years - even moreso if it were voted in by the AOA membership because the Company could rightly claim that we had just agreed to what represented 'market rates'.

As a result, the chances of future pay rises for existing Officers, despite there having been no pay rise for B-Scalers since 2001, would be slim.

Accordingly, some people view this issue as a defacto pay negotiation, and I cannot fault this argument.

It is wrong and counterproductive to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners and I will not vote for it.

[dogleg]

Can anyone speculate as to why the start for the DEFO voting keeps getting pushed back? First it was listed to start on the 22nd, then the 25th, and now the 26th. Is that because the GC is trying to get a bit more time to convince us that it is a decent deal?

I'm chomping at the bit to vote, "NO!"

Cheers.

[Five Green]

Doesn't really matter when the vote opens. It is more important when the vote closes as you can change your vote right to the end. The vote is not meant to be tracked so means nothing until it closes and is counted.

You could try posting your question on the AOA site forum and you will get an answer direct from the GC.
Cheers

[BScaler]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Online Voting is NOW OPEN.

I have already sent my NO vote in as firmly as the punch of my keyboard would allow.

I have given the AOA President and GC fair notice from the beginning that I will work to see CoS07 voted down by the most comprehensive margin possible. However, I would ask everyone, no matter how you intend to vote, to get it in either way.

We had one of the highest voter turnouts for the recent RP07 vote, and I would like the CoS07 turnout to surpass this, by way of demontrating to the Company and the AOA GC alike the level of engagement on the issue.

I maintain that it is not in anyones interest - neither the Company, the present aircrew complement, nor future colleagues - for us to vote to allow the Company to introduce CoS07.

[BScaler]

Five Green

Just a small one.

You may not be aware, as most people are not, that the monitoring of the vote is allowed under the new rules. The President of the AOA can thus gauge the level of support for the issue under consideration at any given time.

If your mind is made up one way or the other, I would urge you to vote now. If the CoS07 vote goes the way I hope it will, then the President of the AOA should read the writing on the wall earlier than later.

[Harbour Dweller]

My "NO" vote is in.
:ok:

[Night Watch]

My vote is in..... NO

[oriental flyer]

What guarantee do we all have that the online voting numbers will be correct?

[ALPHA FLOOR]

Mine's in and SAYS NO TOO!!!!!!!!!!!

[oriental flyer]

If as it appears the AOA is sold on this new RP07. Just who is monitoring the electronic voting? How easy would it be to delete a few no votes and the resolution passes .

To all the A scalers reading this I trust that you all realise the the new pay scales offered in RP07 are B scales so if this passes expect a pay cut

[cpdude]

If as it appears the AOA is sold on this new RP07. Just who is monitoring the electronic voting? How easy would it be to delete a few no votes and the resolution passes .
To all the A scalers reading this I trust that you all realise the the new pay scales offered in RP07 are B scales so if this passes expect a pay cut

???????????????:confused:

[Loopdeloop]

More than 50% of voters were sold on RP07.
Monitoring is not "tampering with".
Join the union, they furnished members with the details of the independently administered voting process before voting started and I'm sure they'll send you a copy.
Why am I responding to an ill thought out post by a newbie probably just put there to see if he can get a bite?

[BScaler]

Loopdeloop,

No, monitoring is not tampering with, and it is completely above board as far as the rules go. But I don't think that many people do really know that the President can access the current state of play regarding the vote on any issue.

It does give him an important tactical advantage as to how many resources to deploy to advocate the merits of the motion to the members.

Just a thought.

[Glass Half Empty]

might have his work cut out with DEFO etc!

[Hugh Gorgen]

Any news on the outcome of the vote ?? :confused:

[Night Watch]

Hugh Gorgen

Vote on DEFO Pax is not due until the 9th of Oct....

[Yeager]

Hong Kong and Cathay Pacific is a very "interesting" place to live and be employeed. Further more the AoA is a very interesting association.
There are so many cultural and human differences. But in many ways this association appears so desperate to get agreements with the "company" woowoo.. the "company"..
RP07, DEFO 55+ (CoS07). Face the fact, dear union. Its not good enough. In desperate times - like these. With the Asian shortage of pilots you need to get "things" in return for what you give. By the way you also need to do that in desperate times of the opposite. But dear union, you are selling out on our CoS in good time and that is so very wrong. The RP07 isolated is alright, but the problem is that you are getting f.u.c.k all in retur. You are giving without getting (or attempted to). I dont know which negotiation courses the committee have attented - but it seems to me you should attend some better ones.
Negosiate RP07, DEFO/55+ AND improvements to CoS (here under pay increase WITHOUT productivity increase!) as ONE deal - and NOT seperately - as you are doing now! Otherwise the membership will get NOTHINING in return.
Better luck next time.
Y

[BScaler]

There are only a few days left before voting ends on the issue of DEFO/CoS07.

The message needs to be very clearly sent to the President and GC of the AOA that this agreement is unacceptable.

It appears that the GC does not wish to abide by the voting rules of the AOA and instead wishes to interpret the outcome of votes in accordance with it's own rationale, (look at how the GC interpreted the RP07 vote, and what action it took when it didn't like the outcome!).

If you haven't voted on th CoS07 issue yet, then get it in - either way. Personally, as I have laid out at length in this thread, I believe that we should not vote to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners, and therefore this agreement needs to be voted down comprehensively.

Perhaps then the GC will actually listen to it's members.

[cpdude]

There are only a few days left before voting ends on the issue of DEFO/CoS07.

The message needs to be very clearly sent to the President and GC of the AOA that this agreement is unacceptable.

It appears that the GC does not wish to abide by the voting rules of the AOA and instead wishes to interpret the outcome of votes in accordance with it's own rationale, (look at how the GC interpreted the RP07 vote, and what action it took when it didn't like the outcome!).

If you haven't voted on th CoS07 issue yet, then get it in - either way. Personally, as I have laid out at length in this thread, I believe that we should not vote to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners, and therefore this agreement needs to be voted down comprehensively.

Perhaps then the GC will actually listen to it's members.


BScaler I have listened and agreed with most of what you have been saying but I don't see the problem with extending RP04 a few months to get a better deal.

Sure, a vote is a vote and I have asked it here before but does anyone really want RP01 back? People say they want 5-4-3 back but attached with it is RP01.

So rather than bitch and moan about the GC why not give constructive ideas on what we should be doing. I don't see trying to improve RP07 as a bad plan!

[BScaler]

cpdude

I agree that we should be constructive about things, so here is my suggestion as to how to proceed as far as RP07 is concerned. (It is based upon the membership having voted to either; i) accept RP07, or ii) revert to the fallback agreement. In this case, the membership voted, in accordance with the rules of the association, to revert to the fallback agreement.)

Firstly we advise the Company that the outcome of the vote was to revert to the fallback agreement from January 07.

Secondly we commence negotiations to arrive at a Rostering Procedures agreement that the majority, in accordance with AOA voting rules, can live with.

Simple.

The fallback agreement is not ideal, but I believe that it is a worse proposition for the Company than it is for the average pilot. Consequently, I believe that the Company would be more motivated to negotiate better Rostering Procedures if the spectre of the fallback agreement were hanging over proceedings.

Agreeing to simply extend RP04 as an arbitrary measure does nothing to help force the issue. It simply gives the Company more breathing space and takes the pressure off them to negotiate. I don't think that is a tactic that will produce the best outcome for the aircrew body in the long run.

The negotiated outcome so reached could well be an improved version of RP07. There is no reason why negotiators should start with a blank sheet of paper. But taking the heat off the Company in a way that was not voted on, and which takes the heat off the Company to negotiate meaningfully, does not seem to me to be a good idea.

As far as being constructive about CoS07 is concerned, I cannot be, because it represents an attempt by the Company to have the aircrew body ratify the introduction of lesser CoS for their New Joiner colleagues. That is just plain wrong and it should be seen for what it is and voted down accordingly. I am very disappointed that this agreement was even put to us in the first place.

Is the AOA GC going to 'interpret' the outcome of the CoS07 vote in the same manner as it did the RP07 vote? Is there another option out there that we are not voting on that the GC has up it's sleeve as a contingency so it can bulldoze CoS07 through?

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Dear B scaler, I cannot agree with your thoughts on the fallback and I further believe that a significant (but not majority) number of the HKAOA membership has not fully understood the ramifications of the rejection of RP07 and the poor rosters which will most likely result if the fallback position is implemented. The rosters will be far more biased to what the company wants rather than what the pilot wants because simply put, we will have agreed to forfeit all of the lifestyle provisions in RP07 in exchange for one re-inclusion namely the 543 rule, which only benefits those undertaking exclusive ULR flights. The old reserve system to be implemented with the fallback is unlimited in the number of days that will be rostered and for example a 6 hour reserve period you will get only 1.25 hours credit if not called out.

Whilst RP 04/07 is far from perfect it does have the basis of a system that delivers considerable lifestyle and roster choices that a minority of the membership may have thoughtlessly jettisoned forever if the AOA leadership did not take the recent sensible approach it has . The situation is…. The President has delivered the letter terminating RP07/07 however he has asked, and the company has agreed to extend RP04 for a few months with a view to reviewing the contentious issues with the company.

There are certainly areas RP07 can be improved upon and leave credits is one of them. The company were just plain greedy by not agreeing to a credit value for leave which prevented work stacking. The correct value is in the order of 2.7 – 2.8 hours per day a figure that would give 42 hours work and 42 hours leave credits for a month in which half the month was leave, totalling 84 for the month.

My own experience with the new reserve system was that it was much better than previous year’s system and I only did 18 days each year of the trial. I was nearly 100% called out well in advance and never sat 12 hours of reserve with ULR callouts late in the duty. I know this was not universal and did not apply to 744 Captains who are well under the required manning levels and they do have a genuine reason to complain about the amount of reserve, regrettably the re introduction of the old system will not reduce the amount of reserve it will increase the number of days on reserve significantly due to the 4 hour FDP clock limiting the use of the pilot. The company are also greedy when cancelling a split duty and replacing it with 2 days of 12 hours reserve and I do not know of anyone who had a cancelled duty replaced with O days. They (CX) need to take some responsibility for the motion failing.

I fail to grasp the view of some…. that by rejecting RP 04/07 and enforcing the fallback with the 543 rule is going to hurt the company to such an extent and force them to negotiate a better deal because it will leave aeroplanes on the ground in the interim. RP01 is their imposed system and they lived with it for several years. Without all of the lifestyle requests, Jokers, W patterns, unlimited reserve and O days they will be easily able to schedule the task and our rosters will be poor to say the least. In fact the company may argue that it may be better placed to expand without the restrictions of lifestyle components of the rostering request system. There could however be mass discontentment throughout the pilot body for whatever impact that may have.

I am content that logical heads prevailed with both our AOA leadership and the company in extending RP04 for a short while.

This is my understanding of the process of the fallback following the failure of the RP04 vote or any renegotiated proposal.

From May 07 we will go back to an interim fallback position which is basically RP01 with a version (there were several) of 543 for pax fleet, the old “unlimited reserve” system with 3 man ULR with a reduction of 7% credit. The lifestyle inclusions of RP 04/07 may or may not be included as policy as the company sees fit, there is no agreement to do so.

Should the AOA decide to activate a court case and we had a total victory we could expect to return to RP94 a system which was unilaterally imposed by the company and a system the AOA has been attempting to dismantle for well over a decade. The fallback of RP01 will run for a maximum of 4 years with the only protection the AFTL’s thereafter, failing an agreement or win for the AOA in court.

RP01 was also imposed by the company and it lacks all of the lifestyle features incorporated into RP 04/07. None of the credit factors will be included in our COS. At the end of 4 years the credit values could be unilaterally changed adversely. RP07 was going to have all the credit values in the COS.

The 3 man ULR factor will reduce from 1.14 to 1.07 adding a 7% workload increase to those on an AKL base and those undertaking those duties.

There will be no credit if you change your positioning duty.

There is no agreement/requirement to roster A days a feature that many crew on a base voluntarily choose to do.

There is no agreement to have JRC involvement in rostering issues. In fact there will be no need to monitor anything because there is nothing to monitor, only a set of previously imposed credit values and 543 for those on ULR pax fleets.

There is no requirement to give 6 jokers per year. At best it would be “Policy” a very distant second fiddle to manning the task.

There is no provision for lifestyle rostering i.e. W patterns for those who choose them and if the company did elect to allow them there is no agreement to limit them if they are adversely affecting other rosters by taking all of the ULR flights for those on W patterns.

There are no protections (even the wishy washy ones in RP04) to prevent work stacking under the fallback agreement.

There is no requirement to give any seniority or any other consideration to flight/days off requests; it will be at total company convenience, if at all.

There are no limits on the number or placement of O days in the roster; likewise there are no limits on the placement or amount of reserve days in a roster. Expect more of both due to the reintroduction of 543 and just because “they can do it”.

The minimum G day count will reduce by 10, and this is probably what you would get after the roster is filled with reserve and O days. Most of us will have 92 G days and 42 leave days and that will be it.

Regards

Cyril

[cpdude]

The fallback agreement is not ideal, but I believe that it is a worse proposition for the Company than it is for the average pilot. Consequently, I believe that the Company would be more motivated to negotiate better Rostering Procedures if the spectre of the fallback agreement were hanging over proceedings.

Here is the problem I have with your statement.

1. What if you're wrong and it's not worse for the company? They did roster under RP01 for several years!
2. Even if it is worse for the company we have seen many examples where the company will take a hit just to show they will win regardless of what it costs them.
3. It takes a fair amount of work to switch over to another RP so what if the company gets pissed about having to do that and doesn't want to negotiate a new deal?
4. Why the rush? Why can't you and others wait 4 months and try to get a better deal? Why do you want RP01 SO BAD!

Cyril, Great Post Dude!:ok:

[DropKnee]

We are all acting as though we have no choice. Don't forget that if CX chooses to make the COS uncompetetive. Than you can choose to look elsewhere for employment. I believe as pilots we have reached the end of our ropes when it come to a reduction in COS and pay. Stop underselling your skills. Do you think CEO's approach companies and say they will work for less$$? CX is a world class company that make a very good profit. It's time to share that $$ in better COS and more $$....:}

[BScaler]

Cyril,

First of all, let me say that I voted FOR RP07, (definitely NOT for CoS07 - let me make that clear). Personally, I agree completely with your rationale as to why RP07 is better than the fallback agreement. Well summarised.

But as FCUX put it, my issue is with the process. The membership did not vote to extend RP04. The President and GC took it upon themselves, precipitously and without mandate, to do so. They thus disregarded the consequences of the vote that had just taken place. Will they do the same when and if CoS07 is voted down?

The President and GC appear to insult the membership by assuming that some of those that voted did not fully understand the issues. If this were in fact the case, then they should share some of the blame for this. Having both RP07 and CoS07 considered by the membership coincidentally, after months of complex negotiations, was not ideal.

They should not be surprised by members objections to their actions, and though I personally would like RP07, or an improved version of it, I also respect the members right to vote as they choose. As should the President and GC.

cpdude, all your arguments were mulled over in the leadup to the vote on RP07. So the vote went the way it did. And now you trot out the same arguments justifying the subsequent actions of the President and GC when they didn't like the outcome. I have sat and watched votes not go the way I liked in the past on various issues, but I didn't continue to try to have my view imposed after the vote, and I didn't spit the dummy and leave the AOA either.

Rightly or wrongly, we vote, we accept the outcome, we go from there. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work?

[cpdude]

all your arguments were mulled over in the leadup to the vote on RP07.

Rightly or wrongly, we vote, we accept the outcome, we go from there. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work?

Actually, no one has answered the question "do they want RP01 back or something better than RP07"?

BScaler I agree we accept the outcome if that is the only choice. What wasn't voted on was the option to go back and get more. I'm sure the company said that's it and we went to a vote on RP07. I also think that they thought we would accept RP07. We didn't and I'm sure they are very surprised.

Maybe now they will now loosen those purse strings and give a little more, it's worth a try. This kind of back and forth happens all the time in workers negotiating a new contract so why can't it work now with Cathay?

I think everyone wants more and I guess a few are just getting hung up on the technical approach or path to that conclusion. In a few months it just won’t matter as we will either have more or much less!:bored:

[404 Titan]

I suspect like most in the AOA that voted “No” to RP07, I didn’t vote it down because I wanted RP01 in. Far from it. I voted it down so improvements could be made to RP07, in particular leave credits and reserve credits. I will reserve my decision on the AOA’s request for extending RP04 by four months until I see the results of any negotiations that may take place.

[Striker58]

I'm with 404TITAN.

I voted NO because of the free Reserve and insufficient Leave credits?

Fix these 2 issues and I'll be a YES voter.

[cpdude]

I suspect like most in the AOA that voted “No” to RP07, I didn’t vote it down because I wanted RP01 in. Far from it. I voted it down so improvements could be made to RP07, in particular leave credits and reserve credits. I will reserve my decision on the AOA’s request for extending RP04 by four months until I see the results of any negotiations that may take place.
I believe that is a very reasonable plan. If they come back with nothing or almost nothing then I guess we go back to RP01.

[Team America]

Voted No for the same reasons as 404Titan, Striker58 and others, and like them will be a yes voter if those issues are fixed.

ST did what he did because a lot of members have told him why they voted No and what the GC needs to do to get a yes vote from them.

Unfortunatly for ST he should have run this extention past the membership first.

That said it is done (better not do that again ST := ) so lets ammend RP07 and get on with it.

[octanecolt]

BScaler,

I can only commend you on your outstanding contributions to this forum regards COS07.... Well done and thanks.

Most surprisingly however, is that I (as no doubt many others also) have learnt more from your explanations than from the missives sent out to us from the Pres and the AOA in total.... and we are just two days away from the close of voting..... Actually, the Pres's last missive was a JOKE if it is expected to be a comprehensive comparison of the pro's and con's....this is not withstanding that he closes with an endorsement that we vote in favour of the COS07 proposal.... How short are they trying to sell the new joiners and as you have clearly stated, ourselves in the future.

If the company want the experience and the convenience afforded by recruiting DEFO's, as well as a unified salary base, then they can jolly well pay them the same as the rest of us.

There is no debate on this proposal... My vote has been in for some time and the vote is NO.

[BScaler]

I have just read the latest AOA newsletter outlining pros and cons.

It has come out three days before voting on CoS07 closes and finally acknowledges many of the objections that have been presented by email to the GC and laid out in the AOA forum, as well as Pprune. I think this should have been presented to members alot earlier in the process, not at the last minute like this, as it still contains points open to debate. The newsletter continues to promote the agreement using what I consider to be skewed logic.

Here are a few examples of how the current Newsletter promotes the agreement in erroneous ways:

i) Facilitates recruitment as First Officer to a Passenger Base and encourages future recruitment of DEFO to Hong Kong following the Transition Period.
This could occur under the present CoS that we enjoy, with no leave or pay penalty for New Joiners. We do not need new CoS to facilitate recruitment in this manner.
ii) Will eventually permit First Officers to be based at 'Freighter Only' ports on Passenger terms.
This would be because under the new agreement New Joiners would be obligated to fly freighters and passenger aircraft. Officers joining the Company since 2002 have been asked to sign a waiver allowing them to do so anyway. The Passenger terms mentioned relate of course to the lesser pay and leave provisions in CoS07, not our current CoS.
iii) Improves utilisation of Freighter C&T resources.
Surely this is a plus for the Company, not necessarily the aircrew body. Who exactly is this agreement being plugged at here?!
iv) Common salary structure across base areas. Consistent relationship between CN and FO pay.
And except for a few minor examples, at generally lower rates! In the case of USAB, significantly lower rates. How can a common salary structure be seen as an advantage if we are giving New Joiners pay away at the same time?
v) Elimination of JFO HDP rate. FO rate paid from starting in the right hand seat for SO upgrading. 15% increase.
Considering that this particular candidate would be paid current JFO1 salary to start, with no chance of skipping JFO2 step as most current Officers do, it is a pitiful 'hand back'. The 15% increase referred to, is 15% of approximately 5% of an Officers salary. Read less than 1% difference in take home pay! Why are we given such misleading numbers?

These are a few examples and in the interests of brevity, not exhaustive.

In my view, even if, as a result of the successful passing of this agreement:
1) the scheduling of pay talks were guaranteed;
2) we stood to gain better industrial relations;
3) a few current (mainly freighter) Officers stood to gain from it;
it would still not be worth voting to allow the Company to introduce lesser CoS for New Joiners for doing the same job as we do now.

We would shoot ourselves in the foot with regard to future pay negotiations because we had just agreed to lesser pay for New Joiners, and of course industrial negotiations would be excellent if we rubber-stamped everything the Company wanted from us! New Joiners, however, would be less thrilled.

Our current CoS allows for the hiring of DEFOs, the Company is not in extremis and does not require relief at this time, and unless something better can be negotiated, I believe we should stick with what we have.

[BScaler]

LAST DAY TO VOTE.

If you are an AOA member reading this today, Monday 9 October, and you have not voted on CoS07, then get online and put your vote in either way.

Only 75% of members voted on RP07. It is in everyones best interest to see close to a 100% voter turnout for CoS07.

If you are not sure how to vote, then call the AOA office and they will guide you through the sign-on and voting process.

Just do it.

[tifters]

And if anyone abstains we will hunt you down with a bottle of dettol and a wire scrubbing brush!!!!!!:ok:

[Loopdeloop]

So, 86.8% against.
I'll be interested to see how anyone plays with those figures to show them in a different light!!

[tifters]

great stuff, 8 abstainers....lets get em

[Harbour Dweller]

I've got the Dettol.. :)

[octanecolt]

v) Elimination of JFO HDP rate. FO rate paid from starting in the right hand seat for SO upgrading. 15% increase.
Considering that this particular candidate would be paid current JFO1 salary to start, with no chance of skipping JFO2 step as most current Officers do, it is a pitiful 'hand back'. The 15% increase referred to, is 15% of approximately 5% of an Officers salary. Read less than 1% difference in take home pay! Why are we given such misleading numbers?

Because the AOA GC has AGAIN been trying to "White Wash" the members into signing up to a poor agreement.....Just like the First Housing Agreement, the 49'ers and RP07..... No amount of "sugar coating" in the President's missives can convince otherwise....It's so obvious it's pathetically transparent !

This agreement (DEFO) should have been vigorously endorsed by the GC as "UNACCEPTABLE" and shouldn't even have gone to a vote.... The fact that it did should have elicited an endorsement by the GC, to the members, encouraging to vote in precisely that manner.

Who exactly are they representing here ?

The vote is "NO CONFIDENCE" !

[Loopdeloop]

Calm down Mr Octane.
The AOA have been heavily criticised in the past for turning down supposed offers and the concensus of opinion is that the members would like to be asked their opinion in the future. CoS 07 was put to the members as it was the best deal they could come to with the company at the time. It was given to us as something to vote on. Recommended, but without a particularly glowing endorsement.
We have voted, as we're entitled to do.
They have the result.
I have every confidence that they are looking after my best interests in a democratic fasion.

[octanecolt]

So, 86.8% against.
I'll be interested to see how anyone plays with those figures to show them in a different light!!

Standby to standby !..... I'm sure some joker will euphmise the results.

[octanecolt]

CoS 07 was put to the members as it was the best deal they could come to with the company at the time. It was given to us as something to vote on. Recommended, but without a particularly glowing endorsement.


And I quote the last of the Presidents letters to the membership

"In broad terms, we have substantially achieved that objective and added to it with benefit for
pilots in the eventual extinction of the Freighter FO CoS, partial dismantling of the ‘junior fleet’
concept as well as encouraging the re-opening of the DEFO route for Passenger FOs.
Moreover, there are clear financial and lifestyle gains within the proposal for many current and
future Officers. Progress towards overdue discussions on remuneration was also a top priority
and acceptance of this proposal clears the way for that process to begin. Therefore, there are
many sound reasons to support this Agreement."

LoopeyLoop.... Do accept my sincere apology, as it is not my intent to make rebuttal to your comment by way of a slinging match.....though I fathom how you might say that this is a statement "without a particularly glowing endorsement "

[Harbour Dweller]

Therefore, there are many sound reasons to support this Agreement."


Any MANY more sound reasons to reject it.

The overwhelming result of 86.8% NO proves how sh#t a deal this really was.

:ok: :ok: :ok:

[Loopdeloop]

Thanks Harbour Dweller, that pretty much underlines my point. "Many sound reasons to support" is a long way from "The best CoS we've ever had in Cx". I guess it's all in the way in which each individual interprets the written word.
I don't need either a slanging match or a semantics competition so I'll agree to disagree over this.
By all means try to force an EGM for a vote of no confidence, but I doubt you'll get the minimum numbers required as most can see that the AOA are doing their best for us and are fairly well led.

[HUD Cripple]

I was given the thumbs up for an Australia DEFO Pax in early 2007. Likely course date early 2008. The documentation at the time indicated normal $120k pay. This new CoS looks like being 90k for the 1st 3 years and an extra year on base, making it 4 minimum. It applies 1 Jan 08 - ie to me.

As new joiners we have no right of reply except not taking the job. I think that is exactly what I'll do.

Very dissapointing given the amount of time and effort it takes to jump through the HR hoops.

If you are in a similar situation to me, please knock back the job! It's the only way we can let them know that CoS08 is crap.

HC