You can't make this stuff up!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Somewhere in the Four Corners
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't make this stuff up!
From a recent letter the DFO wrote to the AOA.
"However if in the course of his duties as an employee of HKAOA you should require your General Secretary to comment on sections of the Operations Manual he should refrain from doing so in any manner that can be interpreted as authoritative when it is only personal opinion. An official interpretation can be requested from the properly authorised, responsible and accountable manager should that be necessary".
So basically, interpretation is only allowed by a manager (and his opinion is not personal opinion
) so long as it only benefits the company. Their arrogance knows no bounds! 
And now from the GMA to the AOA.
"In relation to your members who are based in the UK and Germany I assume that to date the HKAOA have been fully compliant with all its obligations under relevant laws, for example Part (V) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992".
Really? They're going to try this sh*t when they for decades, flagrantly flouted the laws of various countries and jurisdictions and continue to do so! Ask the French Labour Tribunal what they think of CX's compliance of French labour law. Unbelievable!
"However if in the course of his duties as an employee of HKAOA you should require your General Secretary to comment on sections of the Operations Manual he should refrain from doing so in any manner that can be interpreted as authoritative when it is only personal opinion. An official interpretation can be requested from the properly authorised, responsible and accountable manager should that be necessary".
So basically, interpretation is only allowed by a manager (and his opinion is not personal opinion
) so long as it only benefits the company. Their arrogance knows no bounds! And now from the GMA to the AOA.
"In relation to your members who are based in the UK and Germany I assume that to date the HKAOA have been fully compliant with all its obligations under relevant laws, for example Part (V) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992".
Really? They're going to try this sh*t when they for decades, flagrantly flouted the laws of various countries and jurisdictions and continue to do so! Ask the French Labour Tribunal what they think of CX's compliance of French labour law. Unbelievable!
Last edited by Bo Wing; 13th Nov 2014 at 04:04.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear GMA,
Last time I looked, contract compliance in English law was compulsory. Here is an extract.
1. Overview
All employees have an employment contract with their employer. A contract is an agreement that sets out an employee’s:
employment conditions
rights
responsibilities
duties
These are called the ‘terms’ of the contract.
Employees and employers must stick to a contract until it ends (eg by an employer or employee giving notice or an employee being dismissed) or until the terms are changed (usually by agreement between the employee and employer).
As you may be aware, or not as the case may be. Cathay Pacific Airways has not been particularly successful in England when it comes to legal proceedings.
Seriously, your management style went out with the ark. Grow up.
Last time I looked, contract compliance in English law was compulsory. Here is an extract.
1. Overview
All employees have an employment contract with their employer. A contract is an agreement that sets out an employee’s:
employment conditions
rights
responsibilities
duties
These are called the ‘terms’ of the contract.
Employees and employers must stick to a contract until it ends (eg by an employer or employee giving notice or an employee being dismissed) or until the terms are changed (usually by agreement between the employee and employer).
As you may be aware, or not as the case may be. Cathay Pacific Airways has not been particularly successful in England when it comes to legal proceedings.
Seriously, your management style went out with the ark. Grow up.
Last edited by XFR8; 13th Nov 2014 at 12:49. Reason: clarification
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where I come from, a work contract must be written in such a fashion that it will be easily understandable, and thus 'interpretable' by all involved parties, lest it be of no legal value.
And I'm very curious to know who the company thinks these 'authorized persons' are, other than a labour court judge?
And I'm very curious to know who the company thinks these 'authorized persons' are, other than a labour court judge?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 47
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the letter about interpreting the ops manuals.
As many of our flights are conducted into the jurisdictions of the FAA, CASA and EASA, would it not be prudent for the AOA to show them this letter and ask what their interpretation is whilst operating to or from their areas so that we as flight crew know where we stand legally?
As many of our flights are conducted into the jurisdictions of the FAA, CASA and EASA, would it not be prudent for the AOA to show them this letter and ask what their interpretation is whilst operating to or from their areas so that we as flight crew know where we stand legally?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how long I'd have my house if I'd tell the mortgage company "I'm the only one who gets to interpret my loan contract and from the way I read it I only have to pay you half of what it says each month."
No one flying an airplane or at the AOA would ever try to exceed the FTLs or use them as an excuse to extend and/or do something illegal or unsafe; it's more of a 'no go' safety valve. Made by someone when a duty would be questionable in either legality or safety. So a lot of this is simply rhetoric but the premise is inconceivable. Piddly little stuff.
In any case, would it actually become an issue the whole thing would be adjudicated by a judge or jury anyway--who wouldn't be particularly moved by self-proclaimed authoritarians. With plenty of other folks providing their viewpoint as well (interestingly enough employing US nationals/residents and the L-1 visa trail could likely give them standing in a US arena as well would this come to pass). The letter IMHO is simply an attempt at intimidation for folks not easily intimidated.
Their rhetoric department could really use better writers.
No one flying an airplane or at the AOA would ever try to exceed the FTLs or use them as an excuse to extend and/or do something illegal or unsafe; it's more of a 'no go' safety valve. Made by someone when a duty would be questionable in either legality or safety. So a lot of this is simply rhetoric but the premise is inconceivable. Piddly little stuff.
In any case, would it actually become an issue the whole thing would be adjudicated by a judge or jury anyway--who wouldn't be particularly moved by self-proclaimed authoritarians. With plenty of other folks providing their viewpoint as well (interestingly enough employing US nationals/residents and the L-1 visa trail could likely give them standing in a US arena as well would this come to pass). The letter IMHO is simply an attempt at intimidation for folks not easily intimidated.
Their rhetoric department could really use better writers.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the land of chocolate
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since we are apparently not qualified to interpret the manuals, perhaps the company would be so kind to provide us with a toll free number to call.
What arrogance.
What arrogance.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you aren't qualified to interpret operations manuals then why do they allow you to operate an aircraft whose safe operation depends on you correctly interpreting the manuals??
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest nugget, re: the AOA's offer:
Offended when someone returns the ball, are they?
I suppose walking in the AOA's office unanounced with an 11th hour offer and blackmailing the GC to endorse it was considered 'normal practice' then?
Although this type of response is not in line with agreed normal practice,
I suppose walking in the AOA's office unanounced with an 11th hour offer and blackmailing the GC to endorse it was considered 'normal practice' then?
