As has been asked several times on this thread, Are you sure this is what you want"?
No it isn't. But for a lot of
members, it appears to be!
To pass on an analogy eloquently told to me by an SO who can't afford a car in HK: "Some guys have a Ferrari, but I dont have one, and even though I want one, the company wont give me one. I want the AOA to fund my legal case against the company so that they have to give me one. I know its
not in my COS, but so many other people have a Ferrari, that I want one too. Its not fair
"
It's unrealistic I'm sure we all agree, but you can't deny the similarities with the principle of the appeal/case in question.
Personally, I have nothing to lose or gain by this particular action, as I hope to leave soon before I am 55. You may therefore ask - why raise the issue? - I was interested to see a broader cross section of views, as almost all of those I had received previously were from SO's and FO's, and almost all were against. The whole aspect therefore seemed less than transparent and was perceived by many to benefit but a few.
An earlier poster, Raven IIRC, talked about the contempt of the younger members towards older guys. Surely that would only come around if we have lost their respect. It takes a long time to earn, but can be lost quickly. It is something which is earned through ones actions and by leading well. When it appears ones actions are selfish or self-serving, then the risk of losing that respect increases.
Do we need their respect? - I would humbly suggest that we dont, but it does our united cause as a whole no good to have a divided membership.
As a genuine question, if the appeal has such a high probability of success, would not costs be awarded to the appellant? Therefore why should the membership have to fund such a shoe-in case when the appellant will be awarded costs?..... However, if it's
not such a surefire thing, then why commit to a likelihood of wasting AOA funds when the result will remain exactly as it is now?
The bypass-pay issue you raised for those on a base is an interesting aspect. Like you, I don't believe the intent of the CoS clause was intended to cover those on a base, who, now they are paid as a Capt, have no intention of coming back to HK and are happy to wait xxyrs until their number comes up to do a cmd on the base. However it
is in the CoS, and perhaps could be used against the company as leverage by the AOA/membership for the NRA issue. We all know what they
meant to pay for, but hey they wrote the CoS, so now they have to live with it until we agree to change it.