CX-What's news? [Archive]

Wilfred

16th Nov 2001, 11:49

The AOA have suspended their industrial action in a show of good faith towards the Cx management, and the two sides have had talks about having talks. The AOA say that while the reinstatement of the 49 sacked pilots will be a point for discussion, it is not a precondition.

However, the management want the AOA to drop the recruitment ban which is still in place, and, from what I last read, this could prove to be the next stumbling block.

The best sources of information are the HKAOA website and the South China Morning Post website. Sorry I am not able to create any links to the sites.

Cheers

Billy the Kid

16th Nov 2001, 15:20

Just two points:-
1) If CX have no need for new pilots and are operating a holding pool, then why bother with a recruitment ban? surely this would only work if a)the company had courses to fill. b) Selected candidates respected the ban over personal considerations.

2) How long can the dispute possibly last? surely the shares must be depressed due to the stalemate between the company and the AOA. Until a conclusion which has a certain amount of satisfaction to both parties is reached, then the threat of further industrial action is still very real.

Wilfred

17th Nov 2001, 12:08

A good assessment as evidenced by today's SCMP.

A Cathay Pacific pilots' union leader said yesterday members may be forced to consider a return to industrial action after the company refused to meet them.
The general secretary of the Aircrew Officers' Association, John Findlay, accused the company of bad faith for refusing to talk unless the union made further concessions.

The union had suspended a work-to-rule campaign and a demand that sacked pilots be re-instated, in an effort to get Cathay to return to negotiations over pay and rostering.

Cathay previously had nominated the measures as "steps in the right direction", but after one meeting also demanded an end to "blacklisting" of new recruits.

Mr Findlay said the union wrote to Cathay this week refusing to lift the recruitment ban. He said the union was still waiting for a formal response from Cathay, although the company's public relations staff had indicated in the media that they would not negotiate while the ban remained.

Mr Findlay said the demand for the ban to be lifted came as a surprise after their initial meeting with Cathay ended with talk of plans to meet again.

"It seems every time we meet one of their requirements, they set another one . . . We have shown our good faith. We have shown our sincerity but we don't see any coming back," he said. "Clearly going back to industrial action is an option. But we would rather get back to the table."

Any decision to reinstate the work-to-rule campaign probably would not be made without a vote of members at an extraordinary general meeting.

Mr Findlay said the recruitment ban was a response to the sacking of 53 pilots in July and statements by the company that new staff would be hired to replace them. Under the terms of the ban, new recruits are barred from the union for life.

A spokeswoman for Cathay, Lisa Wong Lai-shan, said the company needed its staff to work together in the current downturn.

The company yesterday released passenger figures for October, with traffic volumes down 18 per cent compared with the same time last year. She said the pilots had not convinced the company they had the level of commitment needed to negotiate.

"It's up to them to convince us they have the sincerity. They have not done so yet . . . That's why there's no meeting scheduled," she said. "The AOA leaders have to consider the real situation and if they are sincere about holding talks we hope they will make a sensible decision."

Dropping the recruitment ban would be a "step in the right direction" to re-starting talks, Ms Wong said.

Asked if she could guarantee the company would make no further preconditions to talks if the union took that step, she said it was up to the union to demonstrate its sincerity.

Ms Wong said the company would not meet the pilots without their union taking further steps, such as dropping the ban.

-------------------------

Surely dropping the ban would not be the end of the world, and show the Cx folks that they were serious. If they then balked at talks any bans and work to rules could just as easily be reinstated

Osiris

19th Nov 2001, 01:58

The ban was put in place in response to the sacking of 53 people, and would remain until they were reinstated. The company never suggested that anyone hired from then on would be to replace these people, in fact more than 53 have started since then and another 30 or so to come prior to the freezing of courses. Blind Freddy can see that a new SO is not going to replace very experienced FOs and CPTs.
The AOA has said that it will unconditionally return to the negotiating table. But hang on by virtue of the fact that the ban is still in place shows that all the good faith they are professing to is a load crap, there is a condition and that is that 53 people are reinstated.
The company invited these people to reapply for a position with the company but the union (not the people themselves) said this wasn't accepteable unless they were hired back enmass. The company responded by saying fine they cannot ever apply again end of story. The union, for a second time, lost these people their jobs, well done.
As a final show of cowardliness they then made the job of fighting the company, not theirs, but anyone who is not a member of the union and not even an employee of the company ie new hopefulls.
The union is a bunch of cowardly militants who are working for their own agendas and not the good of their members. They have made unbelievable decisions that defy rational, intelligent thinking, they will lose this one and hopefully the membership will see the management for what it is and get rid of it, it is doing far more harm than good.

wingedwarrior

19th Nov 2001, 03:44

The "Union" you speak of is 1250 out of 1500 pilots at CX. We voted over 90% in favour of the action we are now taking. Democracy at it's very best! If we the members don't agree with the path the leadership takes we'll tell them to change paths.
Are you angry because the recruitment ban gets in the way of your plans? When management finally decide to negoitate in good faith and stick to their agreements it will once again be a good place to work.

Osiris

20th Nov 2001, 02:29

WW no infact it doesn't affect my plans at all.
I am just amazed that the union cannot see the light and go towards it rather than stumble around in the darkness. The company can hold out as long as it likes to get what it wants, unconditionally. Hasn't the current world situation shown us anything ? Noone is indispensible, we are all very easily and quickly replacable. Go and ask the 53 if no job is better than what they had.
You respond well to your own statement. The company said it will return to the negotiating table when the union comes with no preconditions and stops the "industrial action" (which I might add most were not actually putting into practice). The only good faith shown so far is by the company in having the first round of talks when the union still had preconditions ie the recruitment ban. You cannot claim that you have done what was asked by the company and that they keep changing the conditions, you have decided (90%) that you would only satisfy part of the conditions and than cry foul when you are caught out.
The ban will only cause division within the company and give the hard liners someone to take their aggression out on, as can be seen by the number still starting and the numbers being added to the hold file, it is not discouraging people from joining.
As I said before it is a cowardly move by the union and a cowardly move by 90% of 1250 people. Fight your own fight don't get others to do it for you. You are the ones taking the position of 53 people by accepting an upgrade, not someone starting their career.
I am not angry just frustrated at the stupidity and what it is doing to our company.

Snake Hips

20th Nov 2001, 09:11

Can anyone tell me exactly how many AOA members have accepted commands/upgrades since the 49/53 were dismissed and what justification there is for union acceptance
of this? Really just curious.

Liam Gallagher

20th Nov 2001, 12:03

Orisis,

For someone who claims to work for CX you have allowed yourself to become remarkably un-informed about this dispute.

Following the AOA's vote in June to commence "Limited" Industrial Action in July the Company stated that it would not talk to the AOA under such threat. This is/was the company's precondition to talks. This was pre-49ers and therefore pre-IFALPA embargo. The AOA has formally suspended the "Limited" Industrial Action and the company has plucked out of the sky another precondition. Be in no doubt, the company has not done so because they really care about a IFALPA blacklist (they would prefer if all their pilots were blacklisted!). The company clearly believe they are in the ascendancy and the only words they wish to hear from the AOA is "unconditional surrender".

You state that the AOA has as a precondition the reinstatement of the 53. This is not true.

You state; " The company invited these people to reapply for a position, but the union (not the people themselves) said this wasn't acceptable". I assume this gem comes from the DFO's note headed "Talks about Talks" The heading said it all, they were general talks between low level representatives and could never be construed as a forum where proposals were made or rejected. KB wrote that yet another "generous" proposal was rejected by the "aloof" AOA committee; he clearly hopes that the gullible will turn against the committee.

The 49ers themselves are represented on the committee (much to the chagrin of company), so for you to infer they have no say is false. Moreover, the banter in the Foodhall is that the USA guys fancy their chances in the $100m litigation.

As for the blacklist. Whilst the AOA does not condone acts of vandalism/ abuse, the AOA is essentially a private club and can pick and choose its members. If you do not obey the rules or meet the criteria, even though you may have justified objections to such rules, you can't join. But in such circumstances, why would anyone wish to join?

smallwing

20th Nov 2001, 14:56

Liam,

When the original (and the same) ban on recruitment came from IFALPA, it was targeted towards IFALPA members. You are so right concerning AOA as a "private club" and can choose their members, but if the new recruits were not IFALPA member, why the huss and fuss??

The main point us NON CX employees has it that your own fellow pilots are taking upgrades, thus filling in the spots of the original 49ers. If they had not been dismissed, there wouldn't be such an abundance in upgrade slots. Who is to actually blame, the new SOs or your "fellow mates" that are now captain or FO, right into the slots of the dismissed.

I hope nothing better than to see this mess sorted out before Xmas, as we all deserve a good holiday.

PS, AOA only has so many members now because the pilots are scared they will be sacked as well. Were it that the AOA is actually 100%, I would expect to see more than 98% members voting in favor of the AOA. So far, I have not seen such a thing and with this EGM coming up next month, we will all see how strong it is.

Cheers, and always the best of luck. :D

Liam Gallagher

21st Nov 2001, 00:40

Smallwing,

Thank you for the kind wishes.

The HKAOA is affiliated to IFALPA, therefore a new recruit joining in breach of the IFALPA ban, irrespective of his/her current union membership, is banned/blacklisted from joining any IFALPA affiliated union, including the HKAOA.

The point raised in the second paragraph is in my view valid. However, a cornerstone of this dispute has always been the survival of the HKAOA as a Union. Should the HKAOA fail to secure the return of the 49ers, then the HKAOA as a Trade Union in reality ceases; the members know this, and the company certainly knows this! Therefore in the context of CX, the ban becomes a non-event because as people disregard union/IFALPA directives, the union weakens and eventually fails; the buzz phrase is, "you get the Union you deserve."

I cannot agree with your views on the support level within the AOA. You must remember that CX pilots come from a host of backgrounds, cultures and each has an almost unique expectation of their CX "careers". It is human nature that not everyone will agree on a course of action. I have been surprised by the high level of support shown to the AOA (2 out 3 pilots within the company agree with the action)and I have been equally surprised by the tolerance shown by the membership to dissenters. I disagree that pilots are scared. I think the membership wishes to consider the consequences of 9/11 and whether this is the time to be engaging in any form of Industrial Action.

Time will tell.

keventate

21st Nov 2001, 04:36

Liam, I think your right about Sept 11, the rules have changed. Prior to ,your average recruit would have had about 3500-4500 hours, now its round the 10k over half on jet. CXmust be rubbing thier hands together.
Not a favourable posn for the AOA. Whats the solution ? I dont know, but I hope they sort it out soon , we NEED jobs.

King Kong

21st Nov 2001, 08:43

Lift the ban and then negotiate.

What impact has the ban had anyway? The freeze negates it anyway.

Negotiate and prosper. A job is better than no job. Ask Ansett, Sabena, Swissair, Flightwest, Kendells, Hazo's, Aeropelican, Delta, AA, Virgin Atlantic, and BA pilots what they think of preserving the privilige of having a well paid and respected airline flying position.

How much respect does a union create for hardlining their issues at the possible expense of it members in times of crisis, be it economic, military or terrorist/security.

C'mon people the rest of the industry looking in just shake their heads in amazement/disbelief at the direction your dispute is going in these world times.

I look forward to a mutually beneficial outcome for you pilots and your management.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Liam Gallagher

21st Nov 2001, 11:32

King Kong,

Your post indicates that you believe the AOA leadership is taking a petty stand at the "possible expense" of the membership. This is not so, the AOA has invested much time and money in forums (internet, meetings, video conferencing, Family support groups) by which the membership and leadership communicate.

It is not a case of lift the ban and negotiate (I wish it was). The signposts from the company are clear; they do not wish to negotiate: they only wish to hear of the AOA's surrender. The company continue to demote those who displease them (not a good time to misread your roster or get the squits 2 hours before sign-on!). Probably the most visible signpost was the company's reluctance/failure to roster the AOA's negotiators for the recent, abbreviated, talks.

IMHO this dispute is now about the company ripping the teeth out of the AOA before the gobal picture changes (again) such as to allow the AOA to use its fangs.

Traffic

21st Nov 2001, 14:23

Liam

Trust the nom de plume is not the result of a dustup with the real Liam on the flight from Perth a couple back!!

The thing that is still missing is trust. The old teaching the pig to sing problem again...

Noone doubts the important role the AOA plays in an airline the size CX has become. The pastoral issues are very important and, I repeat myself, ignored these days by the prefects.

I don't think the company is trying to de-fang the AOA. IMHO the table needs to be cleared and new faces need to talk. There is too much "invested" face at stake to make it possible for the current cast to make any real progress.Civility is possible but what is required is a hug and a kiss.

Clean the decks on both sides otherwise it will continue to be seen as a re-run of Oliver Twist.

Osiris

21st Nov 2001, 22:09

Liam, I'm sorry that you appear not to see the trees for the woods. I don't believe I am uninformed on the situation, just trying to look at the reality of the situation, sorry but it may not agree with yours.
In your second paragraph you say that the company would actually prefer all pilots to be blacklisted - so is this the unions idea of the goodwill that they are constantly spouting, ensure all future pilots are blacklisted and help the company?
You tell me that it is simply not true that the return of those that were dismissed is a precondition. However in your response to smallwing you say that unless those that were dismissed are returned the union will cease to exist. Therefore it is not a precondition that the union exists when the cards fall?
You fifth paragraph also is one that causes me concern. The union membership is being represented by people who are dismissed employees trying to get their jobs back. Are they really working for the good of the membership or themselves?
Your final sentence clears it up to all those deciding weather or not to join in these difficult times. This is certainly the only company in the world taking people on the rest are getting rid of them.
As is always the case in these discussions you refuse to even acknowledge smallwings request for information on those accepting upgrades so I will. SMALLWING - I don't know exact numbers but since July well more than 53 union members have accepted and commenced upgrade training (FACT), they will not be shunned by the "private boys club" nor will they be blacklisted, instead some poor unfortunate new joiner will feel the wrath simply because his number came up at an inconvenient moment.
Liam you say that the blacklisting doesn't really affect the union, why have it then? In your words it is only assisting the company in dividing the workforce - ever heard of divide and conquer?
You may say that I am being ignorant but I believe my opinions are a realistic view of the facts without the emotions. Angry no, frustrated yes. As many of us do, I have friends who are being put in the unenviable position, they are not deciding to reject the position, just concerned at the childish and unprofessional way they will be treated by a minority.

King Kong

22nd Nov 2001, 04:04

I believe that there is a definate role for unions in aviation. I believe that management also have to manage and not intimidate.

I have read the Internet Web site newsletter and press clippings of the union. My understanding is that the company is just asking for the ban to be lifted before negotiations take place. Why is this unreasonable. If it is the last step for negotiations to recommence why not do it. If then the talks do not proceed directly then why not reinstigate it?? Show the faith and see what happens.

It was easy to introduce so why keep it up as a block to talks? I do not understand the wisdom of this. Why is it seen as such a threat to talks?

The languauge used by the union is classsic chest puffing stuff that is used in times where groups need solidarity and support. As used by Preachers, dictators, politicians and terrorist leaders. Mentioning the Romans and the Aztecs......really..... please!

Pilots are pilots not Pontius!! Crucify the members past and future. Et tu Brute!

Hail reason!!

If you have a captured audience in a desperate situation one craves for direction and hope.

Unfortunately the words of rhetoric can be misleading and damaging. How is the Taliban feeling now. Remember the threats and jibes they made before the conflict as to how they will crush the USA and it's people. Mmmm.

I hope you guys work it out for yourselves.

Keep it up Osiris.

Now how about an upgrade for everybody here.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ 22 November 2001: Message edited by: King Kong ]

Snake Hips

22nd Nov 2001, 09:20

Thank you Osiris. So 50+ paid up AOA members accepting upgrade training since July. I still don't really understand how this will help the 49ers get their jobs back???

Spineless - the 'fools' that run this airline have overseen virtually uninterupted success, with profit margins the envy of 99% of other carriers, since the 70's and yes EVERYONE played their part in this success.
We are still a well run airline with an excellent product and a debt/equity ratio which means we can survive the current downturn, this is not by accident!

Please do not confuse the current poor relationship between management and aircrew with an ability to sucessfully run an airline. Unfortunately a desire to drive down crew (and other) costs has led to this
state of affairs. I have no doubt crew could have been managed better but the fundemental objective, to drive these costs down, has inevitably led to an erosion of previously enjoyed benefits = unhappy bunnies.

With rumours of the DB brigade strirring up again I despair. I like Traffic's idea of new faces but sadly don't think it will happen.

Is there any light at the end of this bloody long tunnel?

jobe

22nd Nov 2001, 11:58

Given that CX have stopped recruiting at the moment,drop the ban & see what happens.It couldn't hurt.

Snake Hips

22nd Nov 2001, 12:49

Spineless, I don't disagree at all. Most sensible people in the airline realise it takes two to tango. The perception (repeat perception) of many in the rest of the organisation is that the AOA are determined to undermine the airline for their own purposes. They will argue negotiation failed thus they were left with no alternative. The vicious circle then begins, and we end up with the entrenched positions we now see.

One thing which has the rest of us non flight ops types a bit puzzled....

Maybe simplistic but..... A scales have had significant pay cuts (okay in exchange for stock options which everyone who has them thinks worthless but the rest of us would like)...the B scales have had nothing but good news in terms of pay and conditions. Why is it then we are told the B scale are the most unhappy and seeting in DB. Words of one syllable please.
Thanks

Liam Gallagher

22nd Nov 2001, 14:12

Snake Hips,

It is an excellent question you ask regarding the B-Scalers. The strength of feeling seems to be with the HKG based guys and I note that after you talk to them for a while and they get the "whinge element" out of the way (hell..we all feel like a whinge now and then) I think Spineless is spot on; the thing that really grips the guys is the way all staff are managed; DT's treatment of HAECO is often quoted.

In all the whinging, you will rarely, if ever, hear complaints about the Airline; most guys struggled to make it here and once here want CX to be the best; best service; best maintainance; best profit.

It is the frustration of not witnessing the airline realise its potential that has lead to intelligent and articulate guys like Nigel Demery being cheered on by hundreds of pilots (A, B and C scale) as he plots ways to constrict CX's profit. If only that effort could have been harnessed to maximise our profit and constrict the profit of SQ, VS, ... very sad.

Traffic,

No nothing to do with the Oasis fracas. Comes from my ASL days when I was also "banned from Cathay". Love the analogy regarding the prefects. However, I fear the Board of Govenors have stepped in and expelled a few errant children (and a few good ones just to keep the inky swots on their toes). I fear more expulsions and the occasional flogging if any more talking after lights out..

King Kong et al,

I cannot see how a temporary lifting of the ban would work. However, given the ban is actually an IFALPA ban, have you put your arguments to them either directly or by way of your own Union?

King Kong

22nd Nov 2001, 14:15

Who are the real people 'stealing the jobs of the 49ers'??

A couple of questions for you: What do the 49er's think of the upgrades in Cathay at the moment. Can the upgradee's look these guys (the 49er's) straight in the eyes?

What has been the experience so far?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Liam Gallagher

22nd Nov 2001, 23:50

KK,

The "real people that stole the jobs of the 49ers" is the management of CX. Moreover, they have "stolen" the career of every CX employee. Our contracts of employment can be changed on the whim of the company on 3 months notice.

When the 49ers were terminated the company did not advertise or advance 49 upgrades. Bear in mind CX the Roster Practices imposed at about the same time generated a lot of extra crews.

Any response from IFALPA yet?

Osiris

23rd Nov 2001, 02:42

Spineless, actually the ruler of the underworld, god of furtility (both human and crop wise) which also made him a God of the Nile. Son of Horos and husban of Isis - thank you on your compliment. As for you moniker.....
I don't profess to have been here since the dawn of time but perhaps alittle longer than 5 minutes.
Please don't get me wrong I'm not against everything the union does, if you look back at my comments they are specifically about the ban. Which I have no reservation in saying is a cowardly act. Somone said it above it was the company who dismissed these people therefore, it is the company's fault. The ban has no affect on the company so I say it again the wrong people are being punished. The new joiners have done nothing other than want to work for what was and will be again one of the best airlines in the world and their opportunity to do so has been in the middle of all this - it is simply unfair.
To rub salt into the wounds of anyone struggling on this decision and probably making their minds up for them, is the fact that union members have and are accepting upgrades to replace these people. If their former work mates don't give a flying ... about them why should anyone else ?

Snake Hips

23rd Nov 2001, 06:18

Spineless/Liam thanks for the enlightenment re B scale unhappiness. I'm not still not 100% convinced life is SO bad for this group but then again I don't work their rosters.
Based on what we were told yesterday about parking 6 (I think) aircraft in January I suspect roster stablility won't be an issue at least for the first half of 2002.

A recurrent theme is how aircrew are managed. IS it simply the old one of a lack of 'people skills' from individuals who maybe good operators but when office bound
have no idea how to manage staff? Surely there are some stars? What would you do differently? A mass clear out and start again? Maybe JF/ND could reciprocate?

God this is depressing. There really is very little reason to be optimistic is there.
SH

Obscurum per obscurius

23rd Nov 2001, 11:25

We can't change management but we can change the AOA 'leadership'. The company will never negotiate in good faith with the likes of JF or ND. Time to move forward.

Liam Gallagher

23rd Nov 2001, 11:46

Orisis,

"If their former workmates don't give a flying..."

Anyone of the 1200 or so guys giving up 4% of their salary to support the 49ers, or indeed the handful of guys recently demoted for practicing MSS could take real offence over this comment.

Glad I don't have your sense of "reality".

P.S. Before you start preaching to us how it really is at Cathay, don't you think it would be a good idea to finish Ground School?

[ 23 November 2001: Message edited by: Liam Gallagher ]

Osiris

24th Nov 2001, 02:22

Liam, well and truely out of ground school, thanks. The extra 4% is simply the cost of union membership these days, I know you'll say but we all voted on it, which is fine but if you listen around the cockpit you may hear alot of people regretting that decision (I know I have).
Frankg, I am very sorry for not updating my profile for many years, its nice to know you care so much to look me up. I am not a member of the AOA nor have I ever been a member of any IFALPA union, actually no union at all.
Obviously a post 89 hothead, please a little advice if I may - it was 12 years ago get over it get on with your life, theres not that long left and you shouldn't spend the rest of it so bitter and twisted. Once again, a scab is someone who crosses a union line ie during a strike or it is dried blood that helps mend a wound, neither of these definitions make sense in your context, so I think a poor choice of word. Thank you once again for your invitation to join your happy little club but for about the sixth time no, sorry I forgot exclusive. Now take a couple of deep breaths.

chuckleguts

24th Nov 2001, 05:01

Osiris,

200 pilots too many by May 2002, eh? I wouldn't wanna be on the bottom of the seniority list right now... :eek:

[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: chuckleguts ]

cisco

24th Nov 2001, 05:16

The reading of the posts just confirms the state of affairs at Cathay. Sad really. The 90's seemed to slowly ruin the once greatest flying job. The quality of new recruitment seems to have fallen as well. Emirates looks like it might be the next best thing. Good luck to all.

Liam Gallagher

24th Nov 2001, 15:02

Orisis,

In late August you stated that you had an offer of employment from CX, so at best you spent September in Ground School, October in the Sim and you have probably done 6 or so training sectors.

So next time you are flying with a BIF TC or TFO (ie.. not one from the USA..ho ho) say to him the following (you will recognise all these words)...

"I have been here longer than 5 minutes; you are obviously a post 89 hothead; please a little advice if I may - it was 12 years ago GET OVER IT"

If the guy has an AOA tie pin or 100% AOA sticker on his Nav Bag, or better still a yellow ID holder or biro; weave into the conversation that he is a coward and has deserted the 49ers and the extra 4% of salary he pays to the union is "simply the cost of union membership these days".

I suggest you do it early in the sector, perhaps in the crew bus. Let us know how you get on...Debrief should be real exciting!!

Cheers,
Liam

[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: Liam Gallagher ]

Phlap1

25th Nov 2001, 06:40

Why is it so difficult to drop the recruitment ban for just two weeks to assess
the company's motives. The ban is currently
meaningless, so give them a chance to talk.
If they don't come to the table sensibly,then
re-instate the ban with MSS LIA CC whatever.
Whose faces are being saved by the current
impasse, certainly not the 49ers, maybe the
AOA committees?
Better still drop the ban for a week, no talk
fine, vote for full LIA and further action at
the EGM. Sitting/waiting is not progress.

Ed Roddington

26th Nov 2001, 01:08

I speak as an outsider looking in, but it seems to me that a lot of what is going on between CX and the AOA is pretty well based on personal vendettas, rather that the cold facts. The current climate isn't a great one for anyone, pilots or management, so why can't both sides put their differences aside for long enough to sit down and talk.

As a recently redundant pilot myself, I would have no hesitation in taking a job with CX; when it is a choice between being banned from a union, and feeding my family, there is no choice.

Grow up guys.

Liam Gallagher

26th Nov 2001, 02:13

Rod Eddington and others,

We understand the need to feed one's family. However, unions are private clubs and vet prospective members because they want to be certain that come the day of industrial action (and there have been a few in CX), the member is not going to pretend to support the union and then quietly not participate because he realises he may (or in case of CX will) be fired/demoted.

I make no judgement on a person who choses to ignore a union directive so long as they do so openly and if necesary resign from the union, or in your case, understand that you will not be welcome in the AOA. Essentially, do what you have to do openly and front up to the consequences.

The current empasses is not due to personalities. It is due to one or both sides feeling their position at the table is not yet strong enough and the ban is but a convenient excuse.

It has been suggested that the ban could be temporarily lifted. I am not saying it wont happen, but I do struggle to see how this would operate. Can someone flesh it out? Would it also apply to the guys suspended/blacklisted for not following AOA directives other than the IFALPA ban?

[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: Liam Gallagher ]

Snake Hips

26th Nov 2001, 06:15

For what it's worth, I don't believe IFALPA will lift any ban whilst the 49ers remain unemployed. Anyone disagree? Sadly, a return to sensible negotiation therefore seems unlikey whilst the lifting of any ban is a pre-condition.
The EGM on 12th is clearly going to be key. The DB B scale 'nothing to lose' brigade and the comittee will probably want to up the ante but at a time of (hopefully temporary) surplus. Others I have spoken to simply want an 'end to it all' but with some gurantees on rostering. Tricky one eh?
I personally believe any serious (re)introduction of action which 'hurts' the company in the current climate, will be met with a)incredulity and b)a draconian response. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

The Prisoner

28th Nov 2001, 06:21

Cathay are parking 8 a/c over the coming months, so why worry about the ban? No recruitment, as they already have far too many moaning Aussie pilots! Think laterally, I believe they(personnel) were seen in London recently, interviews?? (200+ replacement pilots, with good attitudes, hard to resist, I guess)

411A

28th Nov 2001, 08:16

Replacement of ALL the malcontents would be welcome, i'm sure. The AOA guys just do NOT get the picture. Their "cause" is d-e-a-d (expired, kaput), pure and simple. When will they wake up I wonder?

BIG MACH

29th Nov 2001, 18:00

My guess is, if CX decide to get rid of 200 pilots by May 2002, the boys and girls at the bottom of the seniority list will not be the first to go. In the current climate, given the state of relations between the AOA and the company, the management would probably incline to divesting themselves of the malcontents. Could be some good housing deals to be had in DB soon.

BMM389EC

29th Nov 2001, 23:00

Union issues aside. What is the latest with regard to the state of the airline? I refer to the origional post. Loads, parking aircraft, hiring etc?

jtr

30th Nov 2001, 07:03

Loads, personally haven't flown with less than 80% in the last 6 weeks, though the company is saying LF is closer to 60%

Parking A/C, anything between 7 and 14 depending on who you listen to, but doubt thee not, A/C will be parked

Hiring, in light of the above I would say not a lot.

BankAngle50

5th Dec 2001, 04:53

There is an inconsistency with the AOA’s "black-listing" of new SOs, whilst people are upgrading to FO or CN. With respect to the goal of getting the 49'ners back (FOs & Capts),in my opinion blacklisting new SO’s displays an enormously hypocritical stance to be taking.
Why bother to blacklist new SOs, while we are doing upgrades. :rolleyes:

ronnie123

5th Dec 2001, 05:06

THANK YOU 50 !
At last some one speaks his mind and makes sense of it all, would not the SOs be even more loyal to AOA if they are helped by them to build a good career as an airline pilot. :cool:

smallwing

5th Dec 2001, 09:24

been there, what 50 said was said by a lot of us from day one.

the best reply from aoa members were IFALPA produced the recruitment ban so nothing can be done.

as far as ban or no ban, CX will continue to hire, whether union like it or not. another issue (and you can take it up with IFALPA itself) is the restriction is on members. were you not a member of any union, what control do they have over your lives? well, besides not being in any union when you come online.

we will see all on the next EGM.

cheers

backspace

6th Dec 2001, 09:15

Well, if you ask IFALPA the reason that the ban is only on recruitment you get refered to the AOA and they refer you back to IFALPA so who in the **** knows what is going on!!

411A

6th Dec 2001, 20:21

Wonder when CX will sack another 49+ malcontents? Much deadwood needs to be cleaned out I suspect...

Phlap1

7th Dec 2001, 02:58

People, the recruitment ban serves no purpose except to stop any chance of talks.
There are 1500 Ansett pilots in the market
for our jobs.My guess would be around 1000
of these potential recruits are already on
the IFALPA blacklist.Grow up and vote to
dump the ban and get the 49'ers and all of
us back to normality.
How many of the ex-Ansett pilots will stop
for one microsecond to consider joining CX.
Give me a break, the bulk of them are scabs
from 1989. They will be happy to take all
your seniority numbers in an instant,after
all they have experience in defying IFALPA.
Lets not let history repeat,especially with
the same union busting scab pilots AGAIN!!

backspace

7th Dec 2001, 04:23

Phlap1.

While I understand where you are coming from lets get the numbers right. There were only 800 Ansett pilots and only 350 (I think it may have been 300) were on the so called list. The remainder of the 800 were employed after the AFAP lifted the ban, so dont group the whole lot in one basket.

I still raise the question, if IFALPA are so against employment into Cathay to preserve the 50+ jobs why are pilots already in the company accepting upgrades. Surely this defeats the purpose of the ban.

ronnie123

7th Dec 2001, 18:47

On the Flight Intl' web site.
It sure looks as CX will be making a big profit next yr.So have they started cutting of 13'th month's salary of the staff.

The A340-500/600 programme has suffered a serious of blows in recent months, largely as a result of the 11 September attacks. SIA has recently negotiated a nine-month delay of its A340-500 deliveries to late 2003, while the orders held by Swissair/Flightlease, another 2002 customer for the -600, have been cancelled.

Cathay Pacific, which has three A340-600s on lease order from International Lease Finance due from September, now looks set to become the initial operator of the type. The airline is thought to be unhappy about this, with sources saying that if it wanted to be a launch operator it would have signed up as launch customer.