What reazasassain said.
Xwindlndg you need a history lesson.
Why would you sign an inferior contract? For the "priveledge" of working an extra 10 years it would have cost FOs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Something anyone in the left seat even for a day at the time got absolutely free? It's not right and the majority of COS99 FOs and some captains did not sign based on principle and what most countries deem LAW(age discrimination in first world countries), not to mention loss of income.
Based officers in the USA were compensated for lost bypass pay because they were forced onto an inferior contract which, in the states, is against the law. Details were not published because of a gag clause. UK and NZ won their age discrimination cases, settlements were paid, but again no details because of a gag clause. Tells you something about how far behind HK is with labor law.
The point is, the way the company went about it was just wrong and we could'nt fight it because in Hong Kong we have weak labour laws. Some got an improvement for no cost. Others had to pay for the improvement. I don't see how that is not discrimination??
If the AOA is infact discussing age retirement 65 then they are trying to right a wrong for those members who were affected.
I fault no one for signing COS08. It worked for some people and some people it didn't.
Xwindlndg either you weren't here in 08 or you signed over. If you signed over I get it, but you should be rooting for all your colleagues to get what they are owed regardless.
If you were'nt here in 08 and you are concerned your upgrade will be delayed because a group ahead of you is awarded their legal right to work to 65, I also get it, but please be honest. When you signed did you even know some had to retire at 55? If so did you calculate your upgrade time based on how many would leave at 55? Would you have signed anyway? Anyone that leaves before 65 is simply a bonus to any junior officer because legally you can work to 65. If this were a first world country the contract your colleagues are on would be irrelevant.
Big question is....the way this company is headed, will people want to stay until 65? Very doubtful all would if they could. Even guys on the new "A" scale aren't staying to 65. I don't see that trend changing.