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.