Firstly it is not desperation that drives my postings on this forum; the desperation comes from those who continue to argue that we all signed to 55 and that it, end of story, game over, disregard all else. Despite all of changing laws and social attitudes to discrimination in the world, it counts for nothing. Are we in a moral and legal vacuum in CX?. Does the expectation of our FO’s and SO’s negate all of that? The company even has a brand new found mission statement that says we are a socially responsible company, 27 contracts and differing age retirements makes the statement a little hollow; however I believe they are striving toward that goal. It is the total disregard for the basic principle of equal opportunity that the junior membership is displaying by not being prepared to acknowledge or compromise on that draws continuing comment. It is the denial to acknowledge that even in our own company we do not all have equal opportunity to retire at a unified age. It is the denial to accept the inevitable and get the best out of it that drives comment. It is frustration that the younger members are going to get outsmarted and their selfishness may cause them to lose a great deal more than BPP that causes me to post. Egalitarianism? very wide off the mark and missing the arguments.
A considerable number of vocal first officers have a vested interest in continuing the status quo in collecting as many $$$$$$$ for as long as possible. To be a bank teller and collect the manager’s wage would be a fantasy too good to believe in other professions. The original intent of BPP was not to promote a culture of a free ride.
.
It is not a red herring who is getting BPP, it is the driver and motivator to the appalling motion and it will also be fundamental to a resolution of a fair RA65 deal. Those getting the BPP or anticipating it are the thrust behind the motion.
Further more it is a disgraceful concept that newly joining crew members who have RA65 in their contracts will be able to vote on this issue, as they could deny long serving pilots the same opportunity on RA as they enjoy. It appears elements of the membership thinks denying the funding will enhance their ability to hold onto BPP or shorten promotion time if you do not get BPP in the case of new joiners. This motion does not have a shred of democracy associated with it nothing could be further than the truth.
I have been laboriously promoting a negotiated settlement for the entire membership and freely acknowledge there will be some short term pain for some long term gain. Given that there is a certain amount of inevitability the RA65 will be implemented now or in the near future it would be a logical move to attempt to achieve the most amount of payback as possible.
The pay increments and salary would be a good place to start, after all would you rather the cash goes to those who are actually by passed or it to be given to those NOT truly affected. A defined benefit retirement scheme has never been more essential than over the last year, and also the end to the divisive A and B pay rates simply has to be sorted. The DEC crewing of the freighter is costing the FO’s years longer waiting for those commands, to lock them back up into the seniority list is essential and would offset some of the effects of RA65. These are worthy causes to strive for in a settlement and would have the support of the entire membership.
However to continue to defend the morally indefensible and continue paying those sitting on a beach in Brisbane and all over the world, who are refusing to move to HKG for their command, yet banking Captains wages whilst voluntarily remaining an FO whose seniority number does not entitle them to a Captains slot, is going to end in grief sooner or later.
I
The proposers of this motion have clearly misidentified whom to pick a fight with, it is not their senior fellow aviators, the proposers have no Plan B should the company impose a choice as they did in 94, 99, and 2001.The company have done their homework on what you will do if presented a choice, you have clearly told them you will take RA65. The sweeteners will not be there if the company imposes a choice. Unresolved issues will remain.
By going ahead with the motion against the express wishes of the GC the plotters have demonstrated they are amateurs in planning strategy, undermined the GC’s well thought out strategy of a multi pronged approach. The plotters have severely underestimated the wrath of their peers they attempt to abandon, and they risk ending up with nothing.
The GC have recommended not to support the petition, be guided accordingly don’t jump off the cliff following a mob who cannot think for the overall benefit of all members and who are getting a free ride to Captains Pay and want it to continue forever and ever..
As the more reasoned posters have said let the AOA and the company sorts this out properly. The new GMA should welcome the opportunity to set thing right after years of mismanagement. Well said Raven
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 19th Jan 2009 at 17:21.