Sfdog
nobody with a seniority number of 1004 is getting BPP. You would need to be about a 100 further down the list. If I am wrong then someone owes me some dosh.
The BPP is so convoluted and its interpretation of BPP by the company is so flawed it is almost impossible to unravel. Facts are the most junior passenger B744 captain in HKG has a seniority number of around 913. In the next 100 seniority numbers, approx 10 are already captains as they have taken “early commands” jumping the seniority list if you like, arguably there are no provisions in our contract to do so, without a FACA. There are some 55 pilots on extension according to figures floating around.
If seniority was followed allocating commands and according to the COS and those who decline a command are excluded along with those that failed the course, you would presume BPP would be payable to seniority number 978. That is 913 +55 +10. Presently many FO’s in the mid 700+ seniority range a getting the BPP and it is not being paid to those who are effectively next in line for the command.
As there is no freighter agreement because the company cancelled it unilaterally (in order to prop it up with pax captains before Oasis) most would agree that those holding a freighter command past seniority number 913 of which on the B744 alone there appears to be no less than 60 names a bunch even having phantom seniority numbers of 99950. All of the freighter Captains over 55 with seniority numbers 1-913 also would generate BPP according to the COS. There is probably 100 or so freighter captains that should generate BPP and that would nominally put approx seniority number 1078 in the BPP entitlement according to the current COS. The numbers have not even considered the Classic . Additionally the SO’s prior to 08 have BPP entitlements. Obviously this is why the AOA are taking the company to task in the Labour Tribunal for breach of contract and the cash amounts may be significant. SFDOG may get BPP and under the current COS would be entitled to it provided he had not declined a command.
Basically the entire system is an absolute complete mess when you have people (DEC’s )holding commands with seniority numbers of 2500+, folks being paid as captains with no intention of doing a course and others in the mid range queue jumping and taking so called early commands. I understand the frustration of the junior members not able to hold a command, however what most do not understand is that has been happening here in CX for the last 20 years and the company mostly resorts to half baked and poorly thought out solutions such as COSP94 and COS 99, ASL etc. I know CX have not a clue what to do if layoffs were needed; they have created a monster with no systematic process of last in first off. The B744 check and training system would collapse if all those over 55 were let go. Maybe the company is being mischievous in paying BPP in the manner it is at the moment to generate discontent, who knows?
BPP is a very valuable and potentially extremely expensive deterrent in the COS and it has some very real currency when seeking a resolution to RA65 there is no doubt about that but it may be of little value if CX acts in the manner it always has in the past when the bulk of newer pilots were not in the company. If the majority of those seeking to derail a complete solution, by not supporting Charlie are anticipating BPP for the long term then I would suggest they are misguided. It is a bit like holding on to a share to long and it becomes worthless, you wish you sold it when it had some value. There is some inevitability that RA will come in a some point, and BPP will be inextricably linked to a solution one way or another.
At the end of the day only a minority of crew receive BPP and the greater numbers do not see it however quite rightly the AOA is robustly defending the minority, something the leadership are happy to do for a minority at the other end of the spectrum, but some members do not support. This thread has a list of very worrying comments which would have you believe that some of our members actually actively support age discrimination to further their own goals.
As I said earlier, a defined benefit retirement scheme, pay rates, and all of the freighter jobs to those on our list in order, the old A Vs B scales are all issues worth resolving once and for all. Support the AOA and seek a complete and fair deal for all, do not support the petition.
Liam
I don't see Air India pilot's arriving at LHR and successfully claiming Age Discrimination....
But liam Charlie is employed in the UK and pays taxes there, The AI pilots are mostly employed in India and presumably all have the same opportunity of a unified retirement age throughout their company….and agreed it is convoluted and who knows the flow on effects, best to cut a legal deal one would presume,
FAC6
It's been said many times, when these guys joined CX they KNEW they had to retire at 55 with nice A Scale provident funds. Some say there has been a shift in society where the norm and RA is now 65... what rubbish, there has been no shift. The only change is that most of those saying it are now 54
OMG, misguided, misinformed missed the point, think this bloke would miss most things
Yokebearer
We accept RA65 without bypass pay BUT all extendees go on B scale
Sounds like you would be a top negotiator……….for the company!!
Loop
The only thing to come out of this motion is the pitching of one pilot group against another so I would urge the proposer to withdraw the motion on the following grounds:
1. The cost is not significant - The AOA can afford it.
2. The appeal will be heard anyway whether we pay for it or not.
3. The proposal will drive a wedge between many members of the union
Agree agree agree
Jumpseat
I would bet my house, pension, future lottery win , that anyone of the peeps backing the anti RA65 lobby or refusing to back Charlies, case would not, repeat not, refuse a change to their contract including RA65 after all the the pre 1993 employees have departed
.
Your correct jumpseat, and the company knows it as well, add my house to the bet!