RP07 Revote? [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Harbour Dweller

4th Jan 2007, 07:03

It's simple.

Vote "Against" Revised Company Proposal
Vote "Against" Original RP07

The revised company proposal is so bad it makes RP07 look ok. Why? CX desperately wants RP07. This is their bluffed attempt to get us to revote yes on RP07. They are not even prepared to meet us half way in making a decent offer. The revised company proposal is a complete slap in the face to the Pilot body. It demonstrates their total lack of interest in negotiations.

It is all take take take by the company and no give...

The pendulum is swinging in favour of the pilot body. Crewing levels are short, pilots are leaving yet the Jets are arriving. When you read all the company propoganda in the press it is all about Growth, Expansion, more Jets etc etc.

What we want is simple; Real negotiations dealing with real issues such a Salary and employment conditions. HKG is not going to get any cheaper to live in. Look at all the recent information regarding UPS, Fedex and even Virgin Atlantic payscales.

Do we really think CX is going to just roll over and give us a payrise when we have nothing to bargain with. It is time to stand strong and not give away all our bargaining chips especially when the company is so desperate for RP07.

The revised company proposal is a clear indication of what the company is prepared to give us, NOTHING!

What does CX want? They want RP07.

What do CX pilots want? We want the Fallback Position.

Lets return to the Fallback Position.

christn

4th Jan 2007, 10:57

LEMD

4th Jan 2007, 13:56

I seem to remember the vote on the crap deal for the 49ers was first voted down as well?
Turns our if you keep putting it forward it may get through! Keep pushing GC.
:D :D

Sqwak7700

5th Jan 2007, 04:12

I understand the political significance of a 'No to RP07' vote but we will have to live with the result. Will the fallback position (as interpreted by the company in response to our vote) give us a better lifestyle than RP07?

Yes, sometimes you have to fight for what you want. I don't think it will be a bad position. Call me a cinic, but I believe that anything the company does not want implemented must be for a good reason. I believe that the company will not get enough productivity and flexibility with the RP04, so that is why they are trying for this RP07.

I will be voting it down on principle. I'm still pissed that they even thought of proposing a pay cut in this day and age when CX is achieving record profits and numerous awards. :ugh:

As has been said before, lets discuss pay and overall improvement in our package, then I'll discuss better productivity for you so you can keep getting your record profits and big bonuses.

VOTE FALL-BACK ONLY!!!

Bograt

5th Jan 2007, 05:11

Online voting opened up about 90 mins ago and I've already said NO to BOTH proposals...

BusyB

5th Jan 2007, 07:08

Sqwak7700,
"anything the company does not want implemented must be for a good reason"
I suspect that if they had wanted it implemented they would have offered real improvements in the Mark2 version. As they haven't it seems that CX are happy to go to the fallback and expect to go to FTL's in a few years.
I've never watched lemmings before!!:ugh:

wombatatico

5th Jan 2007, 07:20

It's simple. Vote Yes for the Fallback Position.

Harbour Dweller, are you even in the union, mate? How does one vote "yes" for the fallback? That's not an option. One can only vote "no" against the RP07 versions if he or she prefers the fall back. If your had access to the motions you'd know this, no?

Forgive me, but I'm somewhat tired of non-union folks spouting off about what should be done whilst providing no tangible support...

If you are in the union, my apologies:ok:

Harbour Dweller

5th Jan 2007, 11:40

wombatatico,

Your apology is accepted. :ok:

You are quiet correct though in your thoughts. After reading the Unions lastest update today I have edited my post to reflect their voting options.

Numero Crunchero

5th Jan 2007, 15:46

Harbour Dweller,
I understand your cynicism over this 'revote'. BUT, ST et al are working for you, NOT against you.
Just so its clear...look at AFTLS...that is the fallback position 4 years from now. There are no RPs 4 years from now without an agreement...do you get it!? So NO 5-4-3, no monthly limits other than AFTLS...100hrs in 28 days, 900hrs in a year. Also, just so we are clear...700hrs only applies to a few people. That 700hrs are NOT the credit hrs we are currently used to. 700hrs on the 400/340 is equivalent to about 820+ stick hrs...remember the 2hr loading per ULR.
This issue has been ongoing since 1996...are RPs 'policy' or 'contractual'? RP07, whilst not being the best ever rostering policy, at least enshrines protections contractually. The fallback position is simply us saying that 'rostering practices' are company policy...ie subject to unilateral change by CX.
I have been waiting for the pendulum to swing for 14 years...will it be soon???? And guess what, CX can roster us without RP07...just remember we only have to be rostered for minimum G days and I think very few pilots actually only get the minimum G/O days.
I wish RP07 was better...I am still angry about no payrises. But voting NO on this is 'cutting off my nose to spite my face'. If that is what everyone wants, so be it. But just so we are clear...57% of people that voted wanted RP07 last time. A significant portion of 'no' voters have expressed their reasons for voting No last time...protest/better deal/want fall back. If 34% of voting members(or 51% of the total membership) want the fallback then we will have it and you can be happy being in the MINORITY that dictated policy for the majority. I am voting YES...not because I am impressed with RP07 but because after 14years here I want as much in my contract as I can get. I am happy to accept the outcome whatever it is...please just make sure it is an INFORMED vote, not a protest vote!

christn

5th Jan 2007, 23:09

Very well put!

jtr

5th Jan 2007, 23:58

NC, you seem pretty well versed on the topic. Good to see an informative post explaining the details.

Are you able to explain, or give a timeline on how we ended up in such a poor negotiating position. Perhaps after the MG case was won might be a good place to start, and work on from there?

Cpt. Underpants

6th Jan 2007, 00:01

cpdude

6th Jan 2007, 00:34

Having pretty much rationalised the fact that I do not want the falback, I too have voted FOR the original proposal. It is less than perfect and far from what I consider to be ideal, but it's a lot better than the alternative...I remember those days well - endless reserves, gross intimidation and overtime paying stuffall.
No thanks, I'll take the (original) offer.
I remember those days too but the economics of this time period is different...which makes me even more :mad: that the company would be so reluctant to give.

No...I'm on the fence for now. Maybe in the next 3 weeks I'll cool down and vote for the original but right now I'm too :mad: to vote anything other than no...so I'll defer my vote for a couple more weeks. :\

Numero Crunchero

6th Jan 2007, 01:28

CPdude
I was the same last time. I was going to vote NO cause I was angry. I ended up voting Yes as I thought fallback hurts me more than it hurts CX!

jtr
I am not sure of the timeline as I wasnt on GC and was just gettting on with life...but...MAG won his case. Then we had RP04 which effectively bypassed the win(my layman's terms!). Apparently we cannot use his case...we have to start a new one. Not sure why but thats what the legal types say.

So if we end up with either version of RP07 we have CONTRACTUAL protection in the future(albeit, not the best RPs ever, but better than what we had from 1994-2001). If both votes fail, then there are 3 ways out of fallback position: 1 we come to another agreement with CX(RP08/09 etc); 2 we take them to court and find out the answer to the 1996 question...are RPs policy or contractual (this court case has to be started from scratch); 3 neither side agrees to anything, the court case is ongoing and in 4 years our RPs become AFTLS only!

It isn't the end of the world if we end up in the fallback, but it does leave us in rostering limbo. I have heard that MAG has said that fallback was just put in there for the sake of having an alternative. It was never seriously contemplated as an option.

Like many here I don't think RP07 is that great...I have had my best and WORST rosters under RP04. But, in my opinion, it is better than the alternative...non contractual RPs.

The important thing is that everyone vote, even if it is to abstain. I do respect that there are different views on this issue. Its good to get all the pros and cons out there so we can all make informed decisions. I personally don't believe it will bother CX if we go to fallback.

Hey Titan 404...whats your view on this...I can't remember if we talked about it when we flew together.

Mr. Bloggs

6th Jan 2007, 02:12

No need to worry, CX know we are fools. Hence the revised agreement.

I can’t see the fallback coming. Me thinks the pilots will be scared of the boogyman that lurks in the Fallback position and vote for the original RP07. Playing into the companies hand yet again. Seems the DFO knows us more than we know ourselves.

I am happy to go back to the fallback , much can happen in 4 years. But then again, it’s the boogyman thing.
If the fallback is in, keep negotiating until something is agreeable to both parties. I guess we will see at the end of the month. Four years is a long time. Much needs to be done to grow and expand the airline in that time.

Just remember, the company is expanding and will be opening new routes and new destinations. The flying you have now at your base/or not will not be the flying you have in the future. There will be more shuttles in both Europe and North America on both the Freighters and the Passenger Fleets. I believe the freighters will be merged in the the next couple of years and volunteering for the Freighter will be gone. Any Freighter Pilots in the know about crewing levels?

London-New York will eventually happen and how will that affect your roster in the coming years on both sides of the Atlantic?

From my experience, think of absolutely the worst roster you can have and apply it to RP07. Will you have the protection? Will you be doing more ULH or more shuttles with less time off. Have a think about it. Do you commute? There will be more reserve on a base to relieve the 744 HKG pilots and other ULH fleets (340/777ER’s).

There will be more regional night flights due to slots restrictions, do you want to be called out off a 12 hour reserve to do a 11 hour duty through the middle of the night? Does RP07 have that protection?

However it goes, we will all have to live with it now and in the future, whatever it brings.

I think the AOA and the Company should sit down and have a more meaningful discussion about the whole COS. We are killing ourselves negotiating bit by bit in the hope of a pay rise.

A payrise is not going to happen. Ask yourself why? Why will the company give you a payrise? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Get real. It is known as the “Black Heart of Asia” for a reason. The DFO already said your yearly increments is your annual pay rise. Get used to it.

jtr

6th Jan 2007, 02:45

I am not sure of the timeline as I wasnt on GC and was just gettting on with life...but...MAG won his case. Then we had RP04 which effectively bypassed the win(my layman's terms!). Apparently we cannot use his case...we have to start a new one. Not sure why but thats what the legal types say.

Yeh that was pretty much my take on it too. I still can't wrap my head around why we gave away the trump card having won the case. Can anyone explain that one?

slapfaan

6th Jan 2007, 05:54

MR BLOGGS...

Very well said!!!I'm happy to know that there are at least some other guys out there,who's got the balls...

As for the rest of the comments here: what a bunch a f@#&*@g idiots...

Slapfaan by day...slapfaan by night...

whodunnit2

6th Jan 2007, 06:17

The big selling point for RP07 is that it will end up in the COS. To be honest I'm not sure that that makes very much difference. Please tell me I'm wrong but this is Hong Kong - when the company feels like they need to change your COS they will.

On the other hand this is a time of expansion and dare I say it - the beginning of a pilot shortage. Rostering the Fallback will surely slow the expansion plans which the company obviously doesn't want. NR's has said that they don't mind which RP they have to roster but my guess is that was a pretty bad attempt at a bluff. They want to roster the system that is in line with their plans ie. RP07

We are giving everything away chasing the dangling carrot that is a payrise. That doesn't seem like the way to go.:ugh:

W2

Numero Crunchero

6th Jan 2007, 09:30

jtr
yeah I don't get it either. I just assume that the GC of the time thought it was the best path to follow! With 20/20 hindsight I think I would rather have taken them to court using MAG's case, than have RP04 and then fallback!!!!

W2
I have spoken to the AOA rostering egg heads. They are of the firm belief that fallback hurts us, not CX. If you can illuminate an alternative argument I would love to hear it.
No its not doom and gloom if we end up on fallback and yes they can do another 'sign or be fired' if it is in our COS. But I would rather have the choice to sign or be fired than have RPs as CX policy, unilaterally changeable by them. So if we go to the fallback we will most likely end up in a situation where we will never need to worry about 'sign or be fired' as they can change RPs right up to AFTLS limits...and even those can be changed with the approval of CAD. I would rather have 3man ULR in my contract than subject to collusion between CX/CAD!

What I would like to see is quantitative information. Not generalisations(of which I know I am guilty;-) of how the company will be unable to man the fleet on fallback. Why? What extra protections do we have in fallback? I know the initial position on May 1st is 6hr reserve(which I like) and 5-4-3. I don't understand the dynamics but I know that we lose 5-4-3 at some stage(within 4 years). Maybe someone in the know can explain it better.

Anyway, lets talk about 6hr reserve and 5-4-3.
There is no doubt that they will need to roster more reserve under fallback. On ULR fleets that is do-able. On the 777??? On the bus with its mixed fleet flying it is also do-able(IMHO). Have you been G/O days off limited in your rostering over the last 2 years?
5-4-3...this means 3 days off before a regional...so if you are bus or 777 from late this year you will get 3days off instead of the table X minimum of 2(or more). I can only go by my rosters and what I hear from others; none of us have been days off limited. I suspect the 777 may be. I think that will alleviate with the 777ERs bringing them more into airbus rostering. On the 400...hmmmm....some ULR patterns are 3 days, most are 4 and a few are longer. Take the average of 4 and you can do 3 1/2 patterns per month under 5-4-3 for about 84ish hrs. So, can't see where it hurts them. People wanting to commute will still waive their 5-4-3 for W patterns. The 700 'productive' hr limit applies to about 20 to 30 people..with the 14% loading for 2man crew on RP07 it equates to about 800 credit hrs anyway(close to what we do now!).

So I really can't see how fallback hurts CX in the short term and I know that they will be better off in the longterm under AFTLS!

The assumption that everything they offer is bad is understandable. But in 1993 they offered CPAPF in lieu of CPALRS (A scale PF) to any A scalers that wanted it. Well, 2 of my very financially savvy friends and I worked out that the new 15.5% scheme was better than the old A scale scheme for about 11-13 years. And in fact it is better for people that have done 17years than staying in CPALRS.

My point is not everything the company offers has to be bad for us, good for them.

I am curious as to what would happen in the fallback...whether a court would find our RPs contractual or CX policy, but I am not prepared to 'volunteer'(by voting RP07 down) for a few years of crappy rostering to find out.

I am still firmly a YES voter....I wait to read/hear information that would make me vote otherwise.

A/T less

6th Jan 2007, 13:01

cpdude

6th Jan 2007, 15:52

Cathay never really had any competition WITHIN Hong Kong. Now I see the ramp full of OTHER Hong Kong airlines. I see Cathay using that as a leverage to get us to TAKE PAY CUTS!! The dreaded "we need to get competitive" plea.
Enjoy that B scale while you can!

That won't happen! They still have to be competitive in this expanding market.
Korean Air is offering 12K USD (after tax) + annual bonus + per diems + overtime pay past 75hrs. They promise 12 days off consecutively and I understand that the salary may increase as they are not getting the numbers they want.
No, this is not "A" scale or even the higher "B" scale pay yet but the starting point is the same and currently they both go up with annual increments which would make it very foolish for CX to try and cut the "B" scale pay.;)

CYRILJGROOVE

7th Jan 2007, 00:32

I believe there are some serious misunderstanding of the fallback mechanism and the impact on the crew. Unfortunately the way the motions are structured a positive vote of 66% is required and last time although a majority voted in favour (56%) the rules meant the motion failed due mainly to 250 members not placing enough importance on the issue to take the time to vote. It is stretching the truth a little when it is claimed we rejected RP04/07last time, however the motion did not pass that is true.

If this happens again the INTERIM FALLBACK becomes RP01….a system imposed by the company and a system they are very content with. This would most likely trigger a court case on rostering and several outcomes are possible. A total victory would probably mean we would get RP94 as the default system, again another company imposed system that the HKAOA has been trying to dismantle since its inception. A loss would mean the company will use the FTL document as its basis for rostering in around 4 years from now.

The so called 700 hour system (RP94) is very agricultural and for example a North American pilot based in JFK or YTO in fact has to add 425 “funny credit” hours to his total as well as 2 hours per ULR sector and that averages about 30 sectors taking his productive hours to 760 and grand total to about 1185 per year, some 112 hours per month average before overtime. A HKG based ULR pilot has 760+93 resulting in around 80 hours per month.

Whilst productive hour overtime is voluntary it is based on an annual and quarterly basis and rarely was achieved, yet some months you could be rostered 110 total hours. The “funny credit hours” is not voluntary and it included DT/BT, simulator, and unlimited days of reserve up to 12 hours at a time. The overtime rate for these funny credit hours is a massive $300 HKD per hour!, for Captains and less for FO and SO’s.

Because the company attempts to avoid overtime the net result is a very uneven distribution of workload between crew with some crew on 30 hours and others on 100 plus per month scheduled. The live rosters were manipulated to keep overtime to a minimum resulting in massive roster disruption.

RP07 certainly has its weak points and my blood boils when is see comments from the company about “so called WORK STACKING”…….with the credit at 2 hours per day for leave it is simple….they work stack in months of leave and it is just simply not fair. Reserve needs work, however some control is possible over your schedule and lifestyle.

Whilst grossly annoyed at the contempt they show for their employees (the mind boggles at how they deal with suppliers, customers, Govt’s and aircraft suppliers), however on balance we must decide if we want the interim fallback and permanent results that a rejection takes us to. We must know exactly what 700 hours means…it certainly does not mean 700 hours…if you know what I mean! The vote is on rostering and not about pay, don’t cut off your nose on this issue.

Rejection pretty well puts rostering in the hands of the company with lifestyle provisions at their discretion, unlimited reserve and O days, no Joker days and the list goes on. if you are not members then become members and have a say, and if you are a member I hope you are not one of the 250 who failed to vote last time and allowed the minority to win by default.

jtr

7th Jan 2007, 03:37

"A HKG based ULR pilot has 760+93 resulting in around 80 hours per month."

Sounds ok to me. Was that meant to be a negative point?

CYRILJGROOVE

7th Jan 2007, 04:37

jtr

It was meant to be factual, the average of over 12 months is about 80 however that includes productive plus credit and no factoring. One of the points I was trying to make was that in a single month you could be rostered for up to 88 productive plus no limit on credit hours, ie you could DT for another 30 ( as part of your annual base limit 93-425) have your roster filled with reserve and not get any overtime. In fact you could do that for 2 months in a row then be given a slack third month to avoid quarterly overtime. With annual and quarterly overtime a stand alone single month with high hours generates no reward. In that system leave has zero credit even worse than RP07. In RP 04 73 stick hours flown 2 crew @ 1.14 is around 84 credit hours.

Mr. Bloggs

7th Jan 2007, 04:47

Cyril, Nobody wants the fallback but there is something better out there. There is just no incentive for anyone to go out and find it.

If we vote for RP07, what is the incentive to find something better. I think, with some time with the fallback, there will be incentive to find something better. It would not take much. The company just wants RP07and that will be the end.

It seems we always give in with the slightest amount of pressure. The DFO knows this(but very few pilots). Why are we afraid of the boogyman? Is it because this boogyman can fire you? I don't know.

How does one expect to get a payrise after this? What is CX's incentive to give one? No one leaves, lots of pilots wanting to join, the job gets done, and the pilots that complain about a payrise are the more accommodating to the company? Why would the DFO give a payrise.

Cpt. Underpants

7th Jan 2007, 07:07

Bloggs, you DID receive the newsletter from the AOA detailing the differences (substantial) in pay between a LON based VS crew and CXF crew at all ranks, didn't you? The numbers 43% and 20% spring to mind. I can assure you that if it went to the AOA membership, NR read it too - he knows the shortfall exists.
CX are struggling to find crew on bases, the wash rate on both interviews is staggering, and it's a little-concealed "secret" that many crew on the B74F are leaving or planning to leave...as soon as they get their call from UPS/FEDEX/UA/DL etc...
Our training machine is unable to keep up with aircraft deliveries. Oasis is draining whatever slack was out there and are grabbing many retirees, even calling guys at home - their DFO, AB, is mates with many potential OASIS new joiners. Don't forget that every 55-er that O8 grabs is one less extendee for Cathay.
Korean and Asiana are offering substantially improved contracts with major inducements like $$, days off and crew makeup. Rumour has it that even EK will have a much-improved package in the offering soon, as well as some bases becoming available. I can hear the stampede of hooves already.
I'll wager a significant proportion of my salary that there will be significant improvements on offer from NR soon - for the first time in my 27 year commercial aviation career, the pendulum has finally swung our way.
Just my 02c.

Nullaman

7th Jan 2007, 08:44

Cpt Underpants is right on the money - a very intelligent assessment IMHO

Kane Toed

7th Jan 2007, 10:22

I do wonder what impression we would be giving if we vote yes to the original RP07?

I need to make clear that I voted NO to RP07 first time round - not because I was making a protest vote, but rather because IMHO it was a pretty good first draft that needed a couple of minor 'tweaks' to be given a resounding YES. Moreover, I lobbied almost everyone I flew with before making my decision, and felt that I needed to support their compelling arguments to decline it with my vote.

Imagine my surprise (:hmm: ) when the amended version came back - to be clearly worse than the original offer.

The discussion is now about our voting yes to the original offer. If we do that, you can guarantee that every subsequent offer made by CX is going to as good as it gets. If we don't accept it, they will simply make the offer worse, and then we'll have to accept what they want. I can't see that we have any choice over this one. If we vote YES, having first blown it out of the water we have no credibility left at all, and we are actually making the task of the GC harder. We don't have enough people in the AOA as it is, if we can't even pull together then any vague chance that the company will take us seriously has gone.

Lets be honest too - whatever Korean (or any other airline) are paying, almost no-one is actually going to uproot their family and leave - it's simply not THAT bad. NR knows that as well as we do. I accept that US based guys who are being recalled off furlough are different matter - but still I would bet that the number of people who are actually going to leave will be pretty low.

Mr. Bloggs

7th Jan 2007, 12:04

CU: How many guys are leaving for Korean? Korean will have to pay much more to take away CX pilots. I can't see it happening. The only ones leaving are some US freither guys. Don't think it is a mass exodus. There is always someone to fill the space.

How many crew going to VS? None comes to mind. Until it happens nothing will happen here. It seems we will live in a fire for a long time before we jump.

There can be a washout on interviews, but pilots still show up. They pick from them. Do they lower there standards? All new joiners are a lower standard whatever there position. I know I was until I got up to speed in a new operation.

Oasis is taking some 55ers but are CX counting on the 55ers continuing their contract? I think they consider that they fall off the ladder at 55. I don't know the situation with the 55ers joining Oasis.

EK getting a payrise, I will believe it when I see it. They can promise much but until it happens.................. That may bring it up to just below B Scale. A Scale is still 30% more than B Scale and guys are doing the same job. There are Cat D'ed A scale F/O's making more than a B Scale Captain.

Don't think the pendulum has swung. But that is my 02C worth.

Numero Crunchero

7th Jan 2007, 12:14

Hey queensland frog
I was pretty certain the new RP07 mk2 would be worse as if the company made it better it would encourage us to knock back every deal, first time, in future.

CX has a very arrogant approach to deals it offers...it is almost always take it or leave it.
Back in 2001, the 'offer' on the table in early July(before the 49ers were created) was almost exactly what was subsequently imposed on us in late July. They offered it, we rejected it, they fired 49 people and then imposed the deal anyway.

So that is the culture we are dealing with. They do not like being dictated to by the proletariat(sp?).

So I agree that almost always the first offer will be the best. I don't know that voting No will change their attitude in future.

A/T less

7th Jan 2007, 12:36

CX has a very arrogant approach to deals it offers...it is almost always take it or leave it.

And why not? CX have always managed to hire people from countries with poor commercial aviation prospects.

Where are we going to turn to? Korean? Are you kidding me? I'd rather stay in Hong Kong and see my conditions getting chopped until I'll just get sick of it all and quit.

A Payrise? Now that's a whole different laughing matter!

The Management

8th Jan 2007, 04:28

Why would we ever improve our offer? It is going to pass.

You don't vote for this, we will make your life here intolerable and your rosters even more displeasing You think it will hurt us? We have the resources to bring YOU to YOUR knees much quicker. And we will do it. Most know we will and will vote FOR the motion. They know what we are capable of.

You have no where to go. We are still the best paying in the industry and very few are leaving.

Make is easy, just vote FOR. We will get what we want.

We can then move onto pay. We believe in Market Forces. We are the Best in the Region and we will be looking to adjust our pay figures inline with the pay scales in this region.

We have done quite well in the last few years in reducing your package, but is not quite over.

After changing your housing policy in 2001 we get better tax credits with Inland Revenue. More of the pilots are paying our tax bill. All your benefits are now cash allowances and YOU pay more tax and we get the credits. Thank you. You have done well. It’s the silent deal we have with the Inland Revenue Department.

We are working with the CAD to implement new AFTL's which will bring Europe to 3 pilot crew in both directions. This 15 hour duty and new 20 hour duty for ULH will help us immensely with our crewing. Pilots have demonstrated (by the use of discretion) that a 15 hour duty ULH is not fatiguing and we will be asking for that 2 hours of discretion taken out. Again, thank you for your input. With aircraft flying longer routes, we don't want to be limited with an 18 hour duty on crew. It is just not good for business.

We will be asking for an increase in Table A of the AFTL’s. We believe that normal tiredness will not be factor by increasing the Table A figures by 1 hour to start with. This will give us more productivity which will reduce cost, increase profits and more importantly our bonuses.

If any pilots have suggestions on how we can improve our quest for more profits and again more importantly our bonuses, please drop by to one of our many open doors.

The Management.

cpdude

8th Jan 2007, 05:26

The Management.

I was waiting for your return...down in Oz were you?:}

spongebob_pilot

10th Jan 2007, 06:48

After reading all of these posts and being a member of pprune and a pilot of CX for some time, I find myself disappointed with some of the answers I read when management puts out proposals. How spineless can some people be. Accepting anything that reduces Cos should be absolutely unacceptable....and the second time around on the same issue.....unbelievable. CX pilots should be fighting for better conditions, not trying to hold onto what they have. Is standing together as ONE such a difficult concept?? Do you think that management can arbitrarily impose conditions on the pilot group if it is not divided? There are 2000+ pilots here and 30+ planes arriving. They need us.....period. There cannot be an airline without us. With all of the growth and other companies hiring, they are not in a position to make any such demands. This is not SARs, or 11 Sept, or the asian economic crisis, or the gulf war. Is it that unclear that the company wants RP07, and if the company wants it, then it CANNOT be good for the pilot group as a whole. CX pilots need to start believing in themselves and acting together as a whole. We need to be ONE. The only facts that are present are, the company is making lots of money, we are growing, china is growing, revenue on the pax and cargo side is usually above target, etc, etc. With this blurb of info, how can anyone even ponder the idea of giving away anything??? Conditions need to improve in times like these. Listening to this management type, whoever he may be, makes my blood boil because he can define a typical CX pilot and believes he can see into their soul. He thinks he owns us!! and so does the actual CX management!!! Here's to putting a stop to this tradition of laying down, and accepting sh#t conditions, and starting to work as a whole. Individually the can fire us, but collectively they are powerless. That should be the spirit. We cannot stand for this type of abuse, and control.

BusyB

10th Jan 2007, 06:57

" Listening to this management type, whoever he may be, makes my blood boil because he can define a typical CX pilot and believes he can see into their soul"

Some people will believe what anybody says:ugh:

Work Force

10th Jan 2007, 10:41

I think we should vote it down so that there is more flexibility in the future. That way the excellent management team will ensure our future employment as the more flexible we can be the better the company can perform. I have no doubt that it will translate into a payrise for us or even a massive bonus.

Also voting it down will scare them senseless, they will be putty in our hands at the next vote I am sure.

Yes, might be some pain for us but registering our discontent will cause so much grief for the management they will not know whish way to turn and we will then be in control with all the backing of the Hong Kong labour laws!
Vote NO lets go back to RP04, let them know whos boss comrades. :ok:

Work Force :ouch:

christn

10th Jan 2007, 12:01

Err...................we won't go back to RP04!!!!!

Work Force

10th Jan 2007, 12:13

Can't believe we could get that wrong!

You know what I mean though. We are all well informed don't worry.

Also lots of us have registered our protest by not joining the AOA (me included)! The effect of that will start to dribble through soon too.

We will prevail!

BusyB

10th Jan 2007, 12:31

I like it:ok:

wombatatico

10th Jan 2007, 14:01

Also lots of us have registered our protest by not joining the AOA (me included)!

I think we should vote it down so that there is more flexibility in the future.

How does "we" vote it down when said "we" isn't even in the union. Complain all you'd like mate, however, please refrain from making suggestions as to which way the union should vote. Remember, you registered your vote by leaving the union, simple as that. Goodbye dear chap, you no longer have any input into this matter.

Numero Crunchero

10th Jan 2007, 14:28

spongebob
Firstly, how does voting in RP07 reduce our CoS...it actually takes out some gray area issues and firmly puts them INTO our CoS.

And who is this management type you allude to...not the guy posting as "management" I hope...that is very tongue in cheek.

I agree that if we all got together and acted collectively things would improve...that worked in 2001 until july anyway. This is simply a vote on RP07, not on our salary campaign. With the tighter rostering you envisage, they won't be able to work us as hard(without recompense) in RP07 like they can in the aftermath of the fallback. SO if things are going to get busy I hope we are smart enough to vote RP07 to protect ourselves.

Kane Toed

10th Jan 2007, 14:28

uuuuh, wombatatico..... could be wrong but I think that might have been 'tongue in cheek' :hmm:

BusyB

10th Jan 2007, 14:33

If Darwin was right surely there wouldn't be that many left!!:rolleyes:

Mr. Bloggs

11th Jan 2007, 04:33

NC:

You and I have been around a long time. You know our COS is not worth the paper it is written on. So to have it in our COS means nothing.

We are supposed to have a D&G procedure in our COS. How many times have it been followed? Does peanut throwing warrant a D&G?

Two pilots just got fired over some housing fiasco. They got one letter stating they were fired. Then underneath the first letter were two more letters. The 2nd letter was his first appeal with the decision still to be terminated. The 3rd letter was his second appeal already written out with the same decision. They got all the letters at one time.

The Conditions of Service at Cathay Pacific is worth Sh!tt

Like I said before, it will get passed because the pilots of CX are scared of the boogyman that lurks in the Fallback. The pilots don’t want to fight for their conditions. We all know RP07 is not the best but are scared of what lurks.

This will pass, not on its merits but on the unknown. Don’t want to hear of ANYONE and I mean ANYONE complain about their roster and how hard they were done by. I want to see a big smile on the 15th of every month even though you are work stacked before your leave, etc etc.

A crap deal in our COS is still a crap deal.

BTW, CX has always worked in a “GREY” area. It is open to THEIR interpretation. You should know this.

Also want to see a big smile on the 26th of each month. Nothing is going to happen in that department either.

Numero Crunchero

12th Jan 2007, 00:23

Mr Bloggs
Selfishly, I would like RP07 as it suits me having those jokers and some lifestyle rostering. But if it gets voted down I am happy to live with the consequences. I would like to see the majority vote one way or the other, like the DEFO vote.
I am not scared of the consequences if we go to fallback. I survived the rostering of RP94 on the Tristar in mid 90s...terrible rostering.
But, I don't see the point in making rostering a legal battle. If we end up in fallback and go to court and win, we will end up with RPs in our contract...exactly what voting for RP07 will do, but obviously different RPs(RP94).

If I thought that fallback would put them under pressure to improve other conditions, I would vote NO. I have not been given any logical reason for assuming that so I am pragmatically voting YES. This is a vote on rostering, not on fairness of our contract, pay issues etc.

Loopdeloop

12th Jan 2007, 01:39

I've worked under three different RP's here and the one I like the best is the current one - at least we get some degree of control over trips and days off. It's not perfect but what is? I think it's better than the fallback and what we had under RP94 so on a simple "vote for what you want" principle it'll get my vote.
KISS!

spongebob_pilot

12th Jan 2007, 01:58

Mr. Bloggs put it very well. The CX pilot group is scared of what lurks behind the corner. They are scared now, and will be scared with every proposal management puts out.....and considering they will all be sh#t, not the position one would hope for. How spineless can we be, the ONLY strength we have is in our NUMBERS. So many speak of wanting an increase in pay......why would CX give ANYTHING to us when they know the pilot group will crumble at the first sign of resistance. They will continue to hand down and destroy what is left of the Cos until this pilot group realizes that this behavior is unacceptable. This company is too profitable for Swire to let it just dissolve, and that's what would happen if ALL of the pilots stood as one and started rejecting offers that were not in our best interests. They cannot fire us as a whole. And if one goes down....then they need to know....that the rest of us will follow. Voting YES for RP07 is a mistake because it lets them once again divide the issues. It is something THEY obviously want, and we need these rostering practices as a bargaining tool for more important pieces of the cake. If by some miracle, management does decide to open talks about pay, what will we have to bargain with??? What incentive would they have to pay us more??? Here's to not being so spineless.

Numero Crunchero

12th Jan 2007, 08:32

sponge bob
your excellent use of facts and logic has convinced me...I will vote NO.
damn, i broke my new year's resolution of not using sarcasm anymore!!!!!

Mr. Bloggs

12th Jan 2007, 09:27

If you are looking for better rostering and more control over you roster, I don’t think RP07 is it. Over 95% of our operations are scheduled. Why can’t I request/bid a flight/days off with some degree of accuracy? Sorry, I just scared the sh!tt out of everyone with the “Bid” work. Why do I have to request jokers 80 some days in advance.

We know we are on annual productive hours, so why don’t we know how many hours a month we should be bidding/requesting. Is it a big secret that scheduling must hold onto? Why does scheduling have to build our roster? If we are capable of flying a Multi-Million dollars aircraft, I think were are capable of building our own roster to the required 84 hours or the 54 hours with a weeks reserve or whatever the hours that Scheduling require. Give us the numbers and let us do it. Is it that hard? Are they are always undermanned.

Guess that will never happen as we will accept a crappy deal because not many pilots actually know what is out there or don’t think it can ever happen. Well one thing for sure “If you don’t try, it will not happen”. Where would we be at now if the Wright Brothers took that attitude?

Vote it down and let’s get on with some serious negotiations with regard to rostering. We will all have an incentive to get a proper deal when we have the fallback in force. We could be only into the fallback for a couple of months with a deal that works for both parties. Don’t think it is a moon shot with rostering.

If I were the DFO, I would give you absolutely “NOTHING”. Why? The pilots will sign a deal that works for the company and very little for the pilots. So why give them something when you don’t have to. Negotiations 101.

Like I said, when it is all over and done with, No complaining on the 15th and no complaining on the 26th because nothing is going to improve.
Why have we given so much and got absolutely nothing in return. No wonder we get nothing with this pilot force and their mentality.

Loopdeloop

12th Jan 2007, 12:33

777300ER

12th Jan 2007, 16:09

It's not a "crappy deal" by any stretch of the imagination. It's better than any deals I've worked under before here - I now actually get to arrange days off for weddings/birthdays etc and know that I'll get them off.
Why would we only be working under the fallback for a couple of months? The company are quite happy to roster to the fallback - they gain flexibility by not having to deal with any requests but lose flexibility by re-introducing 5-4-3 for those that select it. Do nothing for 4 years then it's AFTLs.
Of course there's that court case as well. They may win and get AFTLs sooner, or we may win and get......RP94 (possibly, or whatever the judge thinks is appropriate)
Is RP94 much better than RP07?
No
I have to agree with you there. The rostering could certainly be worse and compared to my friends at places like EK, GF, CI, etc. it could be A LOT WORSE. Unfortunately I think we as pilots will always complain. We tend to focus on the negative aspects of our jobs instead of the positives. It's what we do best. The question is, how are we going to find the time for the extra complaining that will result from working on the fallback agreement. :ugh:

Mr. Bloggs

12th Jan 2007, 22:11

I am not a scheduler but if 95% of our operations are scheduled, why 80 days to put in day off requests? I realize is it hard work for the schedules to put our requests into the computer, sorry we do that for them if it is a seamless system, OR better yet, why don’t we do it for them? We have our own IT department and we have some smart computer blokes paying union dues. What could happen if we got together?

Like I said before, not many know what is out there if you are comparing to EK, CI and GF.

I guess we will never know what could be achieved. We gave away 5 4 3 and reserve for the ability to request days off, 80 days in advance, 3- 4 times a year. I think we won that one. If you look hard at it, did you need to give that away to really request days off? No but the company wanted it gone.

“The company is quite happy to roster into the fallback”. Who made that statement, The Company? If you were negotiating, would you not say that even if you could not or chose not or simply don’t want to. One must learn to read between the lines when negotiating.

Does not help pilots doing W patterns or being called out off a 12 hours reserve to do a 12 hour duty with possibly two pilots, but, I can request those days off for the wedding, if you live that long. The days off are more important that safety I suppose.

This company is all about taking and the pilots are all about giving. If you keep giving the company with keep taking. When they want something, scare the pilots into giving. Don’t expect your roster to get better because CX will exploit all the deficiencies of any agreement, including this one.

Don’t think you realize all the new routes and increased services CX will be starting in the coming years. When they are undermanned your lifestyles request will be the last thing on their agenda and that will be for a long time. Revenue comes first at the expense of others including Safety.

Remember, money comes first and foremost for this lot. If you don’t have any protections like 543 or FDP starts on reserve, you will be rostered for some interesting patterns to say the least. You will get more fatigued and eventually call in sick and that will only perpetuate the problem. Any the famous words of all crew controller “It is legal” or “Are you refusing a duty”.

It’s not about now, look ahead. How many aircraft are we going to have in 3-5 years, what kind of new routes, how can this agreement be exploited?

It’s all about fatigue protection. How many ASR’s can be contributed to tiredness or fatigue?

Then again, it could be me not seeing the forest for the trees.:ugh:

cpdude

13th Jan 2007, 01:45

I am not a scheduler but if 95% of our operations are scheduled, why 80 days to put in day off requests? I realize is it hard work for the schedules to put our requests into the computer, sorry we do that for them if it is a seamless system, OR better yet, why don’t we do it for them? We have our own IT department and we have some smart computer blokes paying union dues. What could happen if we got together?
Like I said before, not many know what is out there if you are comparing to EK, CI and GF.
I guess we will never know what could be achieved. We gave away 5 4 3 and reserve for the ability to request days off, 80 days in advance, 3- 4 times a year. I think we won that one. If you look hard at it, did you need to give that away to really request days off? No but the company wanted it gone.
“The company is quite happy to roster into the fallback”. Who made that statement, The Company? If you were negotiating, would you not say that even if you could not or chose not or simply don’t want to. One must learn to read between the lines when negotiating.
Does not help pilots doing W patterns or being called out off a 12 hours reserve to do a 12 hour duty with possibly two pilots, but, I can request those days off for the wedding, if you live that long. The days off are more important that safety I suppose.
This company is all about taking and the pilots are all about giving. If you keep giving the company with keep taking. When they want something, scare the pilots into giving. Don’t expect your roster to get better because CX will exploit all the deficiencies of any agreement, including this one.
Don’t think you realize all the new routes and increased services CX will be starting in the coming years. When they are undermanned your lifestyles request will be the last thing on their agenda and that will be for a long time. Revenue comes first at the expense of others including Safety.
Remember, money comes first and foremost for this lot. If you don’t have any protections like 543 or FDP starts on reserve, you will be rostered for some interesting patterns to say the least. You will get more fatigued and eventually call in sick and that will only perpetuate the problem. Any the famous words of all crew controller “It is legal” or “Are you refusing a duty”.
It’s not about now, look ahead. How many aircraft are we going to have in 3-5 years, what kind of new routes, how can this agreement be exploited?
It’s all about fatigue protection. How many ASR’s can be contributed to tiredness or fatigue?
Then again, it could be me not seeing the forest for the trees.:ugh:

It's a difficult read but I agree...I'll just contribute it to tiredness or fatigue.:} :) ;)

Numero Crunchero

13th Jan 2007, 07:13

Mr Bloggs
Who said "the company is quite happy to roster in the fallback"? The aoa rostering team, thats who. I know some of those guys and I trust their integrity and their intelligence to make that statement. I thought CX would have trouble rostering us 6hr reserves in the fallback. I have been assured by the aoa guys that it will not be a problem for CX. These guys look at the rosters every month...they have the JRC feedback as well. If you know something they don't please email the GC!

I don't know why people are getting emotive about this. Its really simple...do you want RP07 or do you want to take your chances on the fallback. What this has to do with collective bargaining, US bid style rostering and how much spine each pilot has is beyond me.

I wish you No voters would give me something to work with here...all I have been reading from you so far is emotive threats and doom and gloom. Please quantify it for me so my simple logical brain can decide to change my vote your way!

SOUTHPAC

13th Jan 2007, 10:31

Bloggs,
Thanks for mentioning the two pilots fired recently, its a shame we can forget it so quickly. You are right their D&G, appeal, Final appeal was an absolute joke but you heard it first here there is about to be some major headlines on this one!, Standby

Just to show you how the company is sticking to your COS Mr Rhodes proudly anounced at a C & T meeting ( I was there) two weeks before JR's final appeal that he was fired. Natural Justice I dont think so!!

spongebob_pilot

13th Jan 2007, 12:47

Number cruncher,

Sorry about your new years resolution. I'm not sure what type of facts or reasoning your looking for, nor for what purpose you have in hearing them. It's not important to publish a report to show what the CX pilot group has GIVEN up over the past decade, because one word encompasses it all......EVERYTHING. This group has not maintained one thing that has been put before them. Maybe you're too close to tell the difference, but this group has no idea of what negotiating is all about. In the CX pilot handbook the only definition I find is....to accept what management proposes. So given your sarcastic remark....you are planning on voting YES to RP07.....and the what have you achieved??? A better roster for the time being? And when do you think management will come to the table to talk about long overdue, inflation adjusted pay raises? And what would be their objective of doing such a thing? To take away from the bottom line because you deserve it??? Maybe you shouldn't throw away your cards before the hand is dealt. Maybe it would be a sound idea to negotiate rosters and raises at the same time. Maybe we should educate our new pilots on the important issues that concern their futures. Maybe the union should come and introduce itself to new pilots to increase numbers and its stance against the company and their demands. I would imagine with a little marketing and some union leaders taking some time, numbers in the union would increase dramatically with new pilots. Maybe you should gain more knowledge of union matters from outside the AOA, to improve the AOA, because this union is pathetically ineffective. My whole point has been to work together as ONE, and as we ALL want an increase in PAY, why should we conclude an important piece of negotiations prior to even speaking about PAY. According to our chairman Chris Pratt, we are acquiring 43 aircraft over the next 3 years, and without any disposals, that will require a huge increase in pilots, and obviously their productivity given the downfalls in our CT systems with upgrades and movement. WHY should we make it easier for the company to roster us after spending (correct me if I'm completely off) nearly 10 years without an increase in pay. You're looking for hard facts and detailed research, but the disadvantages are painfully clear when you're not blinded by the bullsh*t.

cheers

BusyB

13th Jan 2007, 13:09

Spongebob,

Yes, you're right, there are too many inaccuracies for me to bother with.

"Maybe the union should come and introduce itself to new pilots to increase numbers and its stance against the company and their demands. I would imagine with a little marketing and some union leaders taking some time, numbers in the union would increase dramatically with new pilots. Maybe you should gain more knowledge of union matters from outside the AOA, to improve the AOA, because this union is pathetically ineffective."

You'll have to keep imagining as you're obviously not prepared to be a member and put your money where your mouth is. IF you join you'll find out about many of the items you're wrong about.:ok:

Numero Crunchero

13th Jan 2007, 15:01

spongebob,
I like your sense of humour at least;-)
I just don't see the point in past anger affecting future decisions. You bring up lots of disparate but relevant issues. Union membership is down...but I see no excuse for not being a member today. So if people want to save 1.25% thats fine, but don't complain about me making decisions for them with my vote! I have been here for a while so have endured lots of changes and degradations of my CoS. But I just don't see how voting for RP07 is bad for me. Spongebob, what am I missing here? I will be putting 'policy' items into my CoS...how is that bad? If I vote no and go to court, at BEST I will end up with RP94 as my rostering practice, at worst AFTLS. So how is that a win?
I know there is this underlying belief that anything they offer must be bad for us, good for them. Did it ever occur to you that it might be good for both?
The facts I want are not about past injustices...I was on the GC a few years back and saw the injustices at close quarters..I want facts on what is bad about RP07. Not paranoia, not revenge or retribution....just the plain facts as to what is so wrong with Rp07 VS the fallback!

The premise for your no vote seems to be that RP07 is worth something to CX and by holding it back we can use it in negotiations about salary? Is that about right? I don't see that it does lead to productivity/cost savings for CX so I am voting yes from that viewpoint. If voting down RP07 would put them under pressure, I would vote No. I just don't see that it does!???

Mr. Bloggs

13th Jan 2007, 22:59

Is it the GMA or the head of Cx scheduling that told the AOA rostering blokes that it is not a problem. Yes the AOA looks at the roster every month, but do they know all the details of the task at hand. You have a bunch of dedicated AOA blokes on a base with families. Do they know the roster as good as Cx.

I am sure Cx can and will roster 6 hr reserves, they will have no other choice. Will they like it, certainly not. It cuts down on flexibility and Cx needs and like flexibility. I don’t believe in having 30 days free reserve but what we really need is at some point in a 12 hour reserve, our FDP needs to start. In the name of safety, we cannot do a 12 hour reserve and then a 12 hour duty. You could be up for over 20 hours when you F it up and kill over 300 people, then the rules will change. Is it then we come to an agreement.

I simply cannot believe the HKCAD will allow this.

5-4-3

Oh yes, I just filled out my Cx survey last week telling them I wanted 5-4-3. I can only assume you filled yours not wanting 5-4-3. Now the company can roster accordingly. You see everyone is happy.

Just trying to point out the facts. Do you know what our route structure will be in 1-5 years with all the new aircraft coming. It certainly will not be as it is now. Do we have the protection in RP 07 or will you be just more Knackered (Yes dude, you are correct)?

Ask yourself why Cx is willing to put RP into our contracts? They know it is contractual if the court case continues. If our contracts are worth anything.

CX has done some great work with its IT Department in the past and continues to do so. Why not send me an email stating I have 55 hours and 6 days reserve. Have them publish all the reserve that is needed and I will just pick one. What I want and you want are different.
The task gets done and we have some control. Hell at least produce the lines and then request the lines. There has to be some flexibility on both side but you know CX. They will exploit it all to the nth degree.

Some of the problem is with people on the JRC i.e. Scheduling and the GMA. Their only experience is with CX and the way they do it. If you learn to swallow, you can rise to the top without much experience. That is what we face. They are worried, if we can have any control over our roster, then they will lose control. Control is something Cx holds very dearly.

It is up to us if we want a better agreement or not. We all have to live with the outcome.

IMHO, if RP 07 is available now, it will be available in the future.

If only I had a crystal ball or balls.

These 3 day all nighters to OZ, Karachi’s , Beijing and ULH are just killing me. As time goes on, it will be all back to back.

Mr. Bloggs

13th Jan 2007, 23:05

NC, its about flight safety and fatigue issues. Maybe in my difficult read you could not see it.

As with most pilots at CX, it’s all about ME. I’m all right Jack.

If the pilots can work themselves silly and then get time off to commute to OZ, Europe or NA then I guess safety has nothing to do with it.

Those guys work themselves silly now to get time off but in the next year or so that will not be the case. They will still be worked silly by the way. The aircraft have to be crewed and reserve needs to be flexible. These two issues alone are big safety issues. Those are the facts.

Do we have any fatigue protection in RP 07? If your answer is no, then don’t vote for it.

If the company cannot be flexible in rostering and their reserve, it is a huge cost item. Why did Cx want it out? They don’t what 5-4-3 or the FDP to start on any reserve. It will cost them. So Yes there is a big cost and productivity for the company in RP07. I’m not an accountant but it is not that hard to see.

As long as you are able to bid for those long jokers it must be a good deal. For next couple of months anyway. I'm alright.:ugh:

Cpt. Underpants

14th Jan 2007, 00:03

Bloggs, what you're missing here is that if does get rejected, then it's back to litigation. Litigation is time-consuming and expensive, and whilst on-going (failing an injunction - which is not likely in Hong Kongs' post-handover anti-labour environment) CX can do what ever they wish.
Now this may not seem to be such a big issue with you, but like NC, I do remember the "old" days of punitive rostering, next-to-F-all overtime and DT'ing till I was blue in the face. Cathays' lawyers have the (proven) ability to delay interminably whilst nit-picking through procedural issues (ask MG), so a two or three year "interim" arrangement is entirely possible.
The second issue is that litigation is expensive. I do not know what the AOA's reserves currently are, but they are bound to be inadequate. More subs rises will mean the inevitable flight of some due to financial pressures, forcing subs increases, causing more to flee...
I have been here for over 17 years now, and the current (RP04) system is the best I have ever experienced in terms of MY control of MY life and leisure time. I can request (and get) super-compacts, "G" days when I need them and more days off. I will concede that 5-4-3 is an issue, but I am getting twice that between (requested) "W" patterns.
Put this to bed and lets on with the bigger issue - our diminishing pay packets and salary differentiation.
I have voted FOR RP07 - and I urge all to do the same.

404 Titan

14th Jan 2007, 04:33

Cpt. Underpants

I have to agree with you and NC 100%. Personally I feel that the company wants us to vote down RP07 and RP07 mk2 because they want RP’s in company policy and the thing to go to court. Why would that be? Maybe they think they can win it? This isn’t and won’t be the same case that MG fought and from what I can see won’t have the same outcome either. RP’s must be kept in our CoS. In my opinion voting down RP07 and RP07 mk2 won’t achieve this and will probably sr*w us for ever.

Numero Crunchero

14th Jan 2007, 09:43

Mr Bloggs,
I agree with you on the fatigue issues. The 12hr reserves/18hr FDP are a killer. And it is possible for them to work us much harder without 5-4-3. But my understanding of this is that we would only have 5-4-3 until the end of the interim agreement? As I said many posts ago, I have had my best and WORST rosters under RP04 so I know the weaknesses. I haven't been senior enough to get the great rostering that others have enjoyed. Like any deal, there are good points and bad points. For me the good outweighs the bad...for you the other way around. Thank you for at least arguing with logic...I kinda get sick of the doom and gloom arguments. Fatigue is, and will increasingly become the biggest issue if we become undermanned. Maybe they will do so deliberately to make age 60 look good from a manning point of view...now I am getting paranoid;-)
cheers
PS I think you underestimate the rostering team. They do their own numbers and calculations. I trust the guys doing it...I know by the way my questions were answered that they know this stuff backwards. I can assure you they don't accept at face value what is said to them by management! There was a time when we trusted AOA GC members...

Loopdeloop

14th Jan 2007, 12:10

I agree that fatigue could be an issue with RP07 although probably no more than with the fallback and at least this fact has been recognised and a couple of tools have been introduced to alleviate the problems.
At para 16.4
"other than in abnormal circumstances, crew members on reserve duty will normally be notified of a callout as soon as is practicable"
This has 2 expressions that I hate to see in such a document: "other than in abnormal circumstances" and "normally", both possibly subject to abuse. However, my experience so far is that we normally do get good notice of a callout and it's important as we move forward for everyone to flag up to the JRC when they're called out late so that the controllers are kept in check, neatly bringing me to the other tool used to alleviate the possible fatigue issues: The existance of the JRC. A sensible liasion between the pilots and the company regarding rostering has never existed in Cx before. This is a big step forward and something that we need to keep going.

In reality I think that the new reserve scheme is less tiring. If you've a 4 hour evening reserve to cover the long hauls for say 4 days on the trot, are you really going to have a sleep every afternoon just in case, thereby messing up your own body clock, call out or no? Probably not.
I'd rather have the 12 hour reserve with a commitment to let me know early if i'm going to be used, but I do realise this is just my own personal preference!

Mr. Bloggs

14th Jan 2007, 18:04

With that attitude no wonder B Scale was introduced and your conditions have worsened over the last 17 years. But I think that is a different thread.

Capt. Underpants you logic makes perfect sense, what was I thinking. When it all gets too hard or expensive, just give it away. It can’t get much worse.

You have to be right, you have seniority.

At least I can still request my days off. We won again.

Your diminishing pay package is much better than most here, so don’t expect guys to be jumping in to help you better your conditions. Go talk to some of your older 17 plus year Captains extending on lower conditions. But again, that another thread.:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Cpt. Underpants

14th Jan 2007, 22:35

When it all gets too hard or expensive, just give it away
The colour of my AOA pin is yellow...whats' yours? I put MY job on the line in 1999, were you even here? Do not accuse me of cowardice.
The sky won't fall, jets will continue to take off and land, you'll have your 5-4-3, and the turd floor will laugh for weeks.
Go ahead, cut off your nose to spite your face...you're proving nothing except how short-sighted we are. Go ahead, show all TT's mates at the club that we are "million dollar morons".
:ugh:

spongebob_pilot

15th Jan 2007, 01:06

How short sighted??? That's an interesting comment from someone that voted in B scale and then has seen his Cos reduced incrementally since. How was that move for your future earnings underpants? And loopde must have a lot of FAITH in his superiors to give it up for the team in his comments about the words "normally and abnormal circumstances". To me it sounds like the word....discretion. What does that word mean here at CX? Is it an accurate picture of what the crew really wants to do? or another decision that could be scrutinized by those above....that brings unwanted attention to oneself? maybe similar to not having to contractually fly cargo planes, but for the sake of ones career and upgrade potential, necessary? And your spiff about the color of your pin underpants, yes it may be yellow, but I wouldn't suggest that your part of the same team that have an entire career to deal with here at CX. I suspect your looking for a way to better the last few years of your career here rostering wise, without any interest of the potential downside. Do you care about the people below you and their career? no need to answer, we have already seen proof, and actions tend to speak a little louder. In conclusion....for those simple minded folk out there....if A scale is pro RP07, you have a pretty good idea that it is not the best plan for the rest of us long term. Some other ideas to ponder......most A scaler's truly believe (or want you to believe) that extending the retirement age to 60 will allow the rest of us to upgrade quicker!!! I'm still trying to figure that one out. And how many times have I heard that having DEFO for the pax fleet will not have any negative impact on upgrading our current SO's? As if spending more time on a lower payscale is better for their career earnings. I've said it before and I'll say it again...How many times has CX management actually came before the AOA with a proposal that actually benefits the pilot group? How many times? And how many proposals has this pilot group accepted, and then seen their Cos go down the sh*tter? Have we not learned anything?

Cpt. Underpants

15th Jan 2007, 02:34

voted in B scale

WRONG. B scale was imposed.

your part of the same team that have an entire career to deal with here at CX

WRONG again. I have at least another 9 years to go at Cathay.

Do you care about the people below you and their career

Don't presume to know anything about me or my priorities. I answered the call when it was made, and did more than asked in helping a great number of the 49'ers find alternate employment through my (substantial) contacts in other airlines.

extending the retirement age to 60

The alternative is DE Captains on all fleets. Trust me, this is a great truth. The jets WILL fly, with internally promoted crew or without. Now, what would you prefer to see? O8 is already in CX's sights as an immediate 3+ aircraft and all crews that go with it...

How many times has CX management actually came before the AOA with a proposal that actually benefits the pilot group

You clearly haven't been here that long or you don't receive any AOA mailings...why aren't you a member? Bitching all you like will not get your vote on the ballot.

Have we not learned anything?

It's about time you learned to recognise a better deal when you see one.

cpdude

15th Jan 2007, 02:47

what you're missing here is that if does get rejected, then it's back to litigation.
That is one scenario but litigation is not necessarily required or warranted.
CX can do what ever they wish.
Yes they can but do you think they will given the recruitement required to fill 43 airplanes? Who will come if it trully gets that bad? Yes the time is on our side.
I will concede that 5-4-3 is an issue, but I am getting twice that between (requested) "W" patterns.
Good for you but not everyone wants "W" patterns!
I concede that "A" days are good for commuters but realise that the company is getting 2 for 1 reserves with "A" days. Also, most commuters are ULH drivers and the fallback will pay you credit for reserves to go on top of your current 84 hours a month schedule so how many reserves do you think you will get?

that's right! No longer on the fence, it's No/No!:ok:

kenfoggo

15th Jan 2007, 04:23

This is all so funny , I have a needle and thread on standby for when my sides split. Since joining this company I have consistently been required to do MORE for LESS. I fully expect this equation to continue until , just before I retire (or expire through exhaustion), I will be paying the company for the privilege of coming to work.
All this has occured whilst the AOA has been looking after my best interests!
The AOA ,when it did nothing after the 49 ers were sacked, threw the rope over the rafters , put its' head in the noose and kicked away the stool. All this voting for RP07 mark one or mark two or the fallback is just the reflex foot twitching of a corpse that has already had its' neck snapped.
Vote away, will make not a jot of difference. May make you feel as though you have some influence over your future.
No, I do not have a vote. But I do have an opinion.
No thanks, wouldn't want a vote with this association.

Cpt. Underpants

15th Jan 2007, 04:24

...if only you had a vote...dude.

cpdude

15th Jan 2007, 05:02

...if only you had a vote...dude.

I do and I have already!:)

Vote away, will make not a jot of difference. May make you feel as though you have some influence over your future.

Now that sounds like a guy who doesn't have the ability to vote!:}

spongebob_pilot

15th Jan 2007, 05:12

WRONG. B scale was imposed.

and obviously accepted by A scale pilots!!!

Don't presume to know anything about me or my priorities. I answered the call when it was made, and did more than asked in helping a great number of the 49'ers find alternate employment through my (substantial) contacts in other airlines.

yoohoo!!! You deserve that yellow medal you speak so fondly of. You're absolutely right, I don't know why I ever doubted the solidarity and strength of the AOA. The outcome has certainly been desirable for those involved. Usually a UNION is ABLE to get the company to re-employ the unfortunate in getting their original job back, and keep it from happening again. Here at CX, everyone skirts around with their d@ck between their legs scared of what can happen next, and thus always accepting these sh*t deals.

The alternative is DE Captains on all fleets. Trust me, this is a great truth. The jets WILL fly, with internally promoted crew or without. Now, what would you prefer to see? O8 is already in CX's sights as an immediate 3+ aircraft and all crews that go with it..

And this is a better option than transforming a ridiculous CT department? Its a great idea, hire people with little or no experience in the CX system, and think they somehow are better qualified and more suitable to do the job than someone from within!!! Another brilliant idea that makes so much sense.

You clearly haven't been here that long or you don't receive any AOA mailings...why aren't you a member? Bitching all you like will not get your vote on the ballot.

AOA mailings? are you serious. What proposals are you receiving that appear to be so lucrative and beneficial for the pilot group?

It's about time you learned to recognise a better deal when you see one

Once again....a better deal for who???

And a little off topic, but how can a union and pilot group ACCEPT pilots that brake union bans....like the 140 or so that currently wear the uniform. Why should these scabs be able to enjoy their jobs, when it's by their actions that makes this union so ineffective. They should be treated like traitors, not colleagues. We need to stop acting like castrated, spineless, cowards and start protecting our careers, profession, and Cos. The only current direction started well before my time, is to try ineffectively to HOLD on to what we have, only to see management chip away, while watching record profits, growth, and awards pass before us on a constant basis. If this isn't a time to start the improvement......WHEN? Ambitious plans and hard work call for proper compensation. Another bit that has yet to be observed, and could be just paranoia on my part (however I seriously doubt it) is how profit sharing is going to pan out this year. My guess is that the old percentage would have been triggered; however, with the new plan where we get something every year is in effect and pay out LESS than what we would have gotten. But I guess we should just be happy that they won't just go and by another DC3 to rig the numbers. It's just a guess, as I do not spend time crunching numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me the least. Another possible example of managements desire to take care of us. Smoke, mirrors and a crustacean like pilot group......utopia for the swire princes.

Team America

15th Jan 2007, 05:33

A quick question in response to your off topic comment, could you tell me where you stand with the 51 guys who took upgrades during that time?

Thanks

spongebob_pilot

15th Jan 2007, 06:11

I find it unbelievable....and pathetic, and NEVER should have happened. It's just another clear sign of the solidarity of the union and its pilots..... managements wet dream. However, as similar as it may appear, they didn't accept employment when an BAN ON EMPLOYMENT was in place Judging by your remarks, you may be one of those turds that crossed the picket lines? If not, what do your think of them? I can only say Well done! Super job in making it past the interview! Maybe they can sign up to continually cut the legs from the group that they now belong! I can only say, that this UNION needs a serious overhaul. I'm sure the only response that they may have is they were only looking out for THEMSELVES, and was their only opportunity to get out of a turbo prop or a baron or whatever they may have been flying, and they'll look for nods of encouragement because now they have a better life and fly better equipment......but if it wasn't for uneducated, self absorbed, scabs this airline would be better off. Unfortunately people here don't view crossing the lines as serious acts, as elsewhere. Scabs should be ignored and treated accordingly on the flight deck and labeled as black sheep. It should be unbearable coming to work....period. Even though they will maintain their job, they should not be able to enjoy it. That is what I hope for their type.......pure misery for the rest of their career at CX. Whether that can happen or not is a pure mystery, for it takes leadership and principles to foster an effective UNION. These are obvious components missing at the present time. And if you are one of the few and from America, as your name implies, and are looking to get on with Fedex or another ALPA carrier, hopefully they will do their research on when employment was taken and under what conditions. Then, and probably only then, will you continually regret your prior career decisions.

Why does this happen one may ask. Something like solidarity and one for all, should not seem like such a foreign abstract idea for what was once a respected, educated profession. Is it that difficult to comprehend that these are our only strengths as a group? And I emphasize group!! And since the AOA has a terrible track record, maybe its time for some change, because the obvious direction is IMHO not very promising. I don't know, maybe its just their definition of NEGOTIATION vs mine, or their idea of a good deal vs mine. Or maybe, and I doubt that I'm alone, the union is currently a pathetic example of what should be driving our wages, rostering, and lifestyle in a positive direction. Not this sit down, roll over, and play dead nonsense, with a few letters that then try to convince the majority that this is the BEST deal that we could arrive at.

Team America

15th Jan 2007, 06:46

The comments you make have been done to death on previous threads so I will not continue them here.

You must live a very unhappy life in CX, do yourself a favor and either become president of the AOA or leave and work for a company that doesn't screw you like you say CX does.

I will now have to vote yes for RP07 :}

Harbour Dweller

24th Jan 2007, 04:23

If CX management was happy to return to the Fallback position why did they agree to an extension of RP07 and a revote on the issue.

Why not enforce the original vote result and return to the Fallback if this is what they really want?

I still believe the company wants RP07.

VR-HFX

24th Jan 2007, 08:56

Sponge,

Far be it for me to try to increase your powers of absorption...but..

One does not have to be a great student of history to realise that the AOA is not a union, never has been and never will be. It was only when it thought it should be that this whole convoluted mess got out of control.

As alluded to...well covered in posts going back years.

I did enjoy your policy statement though. Problem is you need to find a unionised airline..and CX is not one.

History is history. Most of us have moved on. Doesn't mean we forget what happened but you must realise that preventing further detrioration in T&C's will not come from any form of militancy.

It will not be easy given the current CEO and a number of senior management with guilty consciences.

What we had, came about by simple supply and demand and a need Swire had at the time to keep people in uncertain times.

The stars are aligning again. Rattling the cage will not help...only reasoned debate.

I agree with you on the solidairity bit but suspect that is too much to ask of Generation Y.

I hope all that bile doesn't give you an ulcer.

Numero Crunchero

24th Jan 2007, 15:54

Harbour dweller,
exercise your democratic right and vote NO then!

Just for the record, the AOA GC asked for the extension and the chance to vote again, not the company. They believe that they were acting in the best interests of the majority of the AOA membership. Remember that 57% did vote yes. They were given sufficient feedback from no voters to presume that many of the no voters were hoping for a better deal but had voted no to facilitate getting this better deal. Well, we saw that tactic didn't work.

Anyway all will unfold after Jan 31st...get your mates to vote!

Still firmly a YES voter (or technically No then Yes;-)

kenfoggo

24th Jan 2007, 22:42

Harbour Dweller

25th Jan 2007, 03:37

Numero Crunchero,

Just for the record, the AOA GC asked for the extension and the chance to vote again, not the company.

Yes you are correct. However if the Company really want us to work under the Fallback then why did they agree to this extension?

Why do you think this is?

I have read all of your posts & I agree with most of your points regarding RP07. What I don't agree with is that it is the best deal possible for us under the current times.

At the end of the day we all want what is best for the pilot body.

CYRILJGROOVE

25th Jan 2007, 06:51

I am sure the company would be happy with the interim fallaback and then eventually the AFTLS, they may however have taken a lot of flack if they went straight into it after the last vote of 56% voting for RP07.

But what they would absolutley love is for the AOA membership to vote for the fallback and any time anyone complains about the roster....well I can almost hear Hoyland and Walker saying "Don't blame us , blame the AOA, we were happy to give you RP07"

As I have said before the AOA has been trying for years to get RP's into the COS and whilst RP 07 is not totally enshrined into the COS the major components of the 84 hour threshold and credit factors, EFP rates etc will go into COS if the vote is succesful. Problems do exist with WORK STACKING and RESERVE management, however on balance RP 07 offers more control over ones lifestyle than any other system CX has ever had.

3 man crewing on ULR is cleary defined in RP07 and agreed at a factor of 1.14. I would bet my home that come the end of the fallback agreed period all those unlucky enought to working at CX then will be doing 3 man ULR with no 543 protection and no RP negotiated agreement.

Vote on rostering on the issue of rostering, not a protest over the lack of a pay rise, you will be hurting yourself more than the company, they can live with RP 01, RP94 or the AFTLS as they imposed all of them on their terms....RP 07 at least has some or our terms in it.

I hope the dopey 250 members who failed to vote last time put one in this time, if it is not to much trouble!

Cyril

Mr. Bloggs

25th Jan 2007, 11:14

Having RP07 enshrined into our COS makes perfect sense and I would vote YES regardless if it is good deal or not.

But then again, we have a Discipline and Grievance Procedure enshrined into our COS, but is it ever followed?

Ask anyone who has been terminated in the last 10 years if they had a D&G procedure. Let me see, the Peanut Thrower, the 49ers, the most recent Command Trainee and the First Officer, the Freighter Captain...................

Is our COS worth the paper it is written on?

Numero Crunchero

25th Jan 2007, 14:15

kenfoggo
yes very insulting to the 57% that wanted RP07 and to the 'no' voters who sought a better deal. We have another vote...same issues, same proposal. What damage has been done? The GC will abide by the vote. So if 34% don't want RP07 then you will be happy. If 67% do, then the MAJORITY will be happy. Would you have been so enraged and indignant if you had voted yes?

Harbour dweller
I don't think that every deal has to be win/lose. I think CX would like to have us 'onside'. There are no major rostering impediments within RP07 vs the fallback. We will get more lifestyle rostering and eventually contractual protection.

Mr Bloggs,
I understand your cyncism as I have seen 2 of the incidences you refer to at first hand. However, CX stick to the contract D+G 'technically'..ie they have already decided what will happen but will go through the motions. The difference is that a contravention of our contractual rostering rights would be defendible in court, a subjective viewpoint on a D+G is not defendible.

So yes the peanut thrower and the FOs had a D+G...I can guarantee that. But I agree it was a 'kangaroo court'.

kenfoggo

25th Jan 2007, 14:33

NC - nope, neither enraged nor indignant. But curious to know how the GC managed to extend the current RP without reference to the membership when it had no mandate to do so. Quite the reverse.
It was you who brought up the notion of democracy.

CYRILJGROOVE

25th Jan 2007, 21:34

NC, the membership have ALREADY exercised their democratic right on this subject. The vote was for the fallback position. We should already be being rostered to that RP.
But because the vote was not what the GC or the company wanted, the GC extended the current rostering deal WITHOUT reference to the membership. How democratic is that?
How insulting to the membership?

Dear KEN
It is stretching the facts a little that the membership voted for the fallback. The fact that 250 members entitled to a vote did not take the time or effort to vote meant that the RP vote needed 67% of those whom voted, to pass. If they (the 250) had voted in the same ratio then the motion would have passed as over 50% of the membership voted FOR the proposal. The way it turned out a CLEAR MINORITY of 43% by default would have taken us to a position that many crew did not fully understand. Given the fact that the AOA received plenty of feedback from both YES and NO voters I think it was a sensible decision to attempt to fix the areas of concern.

I also understand the cynacism of those regarding the D&G procedures and how they have been handled, however apart from the 49ers they have followed the COS procedure and not everbody has been sacked.

Having the basic numbers of your rostering system in your COS is a positive for you and it is a lot easier and quicker to defend than a vague D&G that the court has already pre decided!

Again on balance RP07 whilst far from perfect,it is far better than the alternatives and I have yet to hear any logical unemotive argument that makes me think that the interim fallback is going to make the company come cap in hand and offer a better deal.

Five Green

26th Jan 2007, 00:19

C Groove :

The reason it takes more than 50% to vote in a change is to make sure that the change is wanted without any doubt. It is also to ensure that change is not brought about by the minority. This is not to be confused with maintaining the status quo by minority. If all votes were 50% (of voters who vote)+ 1 to change then you would have a minority making change. As it stands our voting set up is more than fair as there are the two thresholds (60% +1 of votes and 50% of total voting members). You cannot presume to know how those who did not vote may have decided. In fact it has been shown that the lack of voting in itself represents a choice, ie if you do not care enough to vote then you are happy to add weight to the NO side or in other words you are happy with the status quo (as is usually represented by a NO vote).

So you cannot say that the vote was a majority vote for RP07. We did not get 50% of the membership voting for RP07.

This is in no way an endorsement for or against RP07 by Five Green.

Cheers

CYRILJGROOVE

26th Jan 2007, 01:46

C Groove :

if you do not care enough to vote then you are happy to add weight to the NO side or in other words you are happy with the status quo (as is usually represented by a NO vote).

Cheers

Unfortunatley in this case by not voting you do not maintain the status quo (RP04/07), you could by default end up with the AFTL as your rostering system in a few short years. If everyone votes then it is clear what we as a group want. If the AOA put the question "Do you want to revert to the Fallback" to the membership do you think that would get over the line......I do not think so.

Five Green

26th Jan 2007, 04:52

C Groove :

When we voted in RP07 we only did so on a trial basis. Therefore the status quo was and still is RP04. While I agree that CAD limits are a likely outcome they are, by no means, a certainty. So this is still a vote about the status quo. Only now we will be returning to the status quo or in other words to the system before the trial change. I am leaning towards voting for RP07, however if the vote results in both rp07s being turned down then so be it. I will accept the results of our voting mechanism and will be happy to live with them, regardless of the turn out for the vote.

I can also say that should this job ever be reduced to CAD maximum limits for flight and duty times we will be loosing more than 2 pilots per month !!

Numero Crunchero

26th Jan 2007, 07:54

Five Green,
I agree that I am also happy to live with however this vote turns out. I wish more people would vote so that we can know one way or the other what the majority want. It is statistical guesswork to predict what the non voters would have voted for. In very small sampling(like me asking why guys didn't vote) the most common answer is that they didn't care what rostering system we had. But in most cases these gentlemen were not aware of the consequences of a no vote.

kenfoggo.
I was incredibly indignant at the GC decision to extend RP04 and have a revote. But on cooling down and talking to people I can understand why they did and I can assure you it was done in the best interests of the membership, not a petulant attempt to 'win' a vote. If the GC was truly manipulative, the motion would read "BIRT the members vote FOR the Fallback Agreement. Should this motion not pass, we will revert to RP07". Now it would take 67% (or 50% of majority) to have the fallback. Instead they have stuck to the original wording and motion. Doesn't seem like it is too manipulative to me?

The GC has the mandate to act in the best interests of the membership. I have been told that this is the 2nd time in about 10years when a GC has 'self-mandated' an action. In this case, the only harm done is a delay of 4months for Fallback, if the vote fails, or the chance for 250 more voters to actually have their say. If no one changes their vote and no new voters come along, you will have your fallback soon enough. In the meantime you get to 'enjoy' 12hr reserves, jokers, and bids;-/

kenfoggo

28th Jan 2007, 11:46

NC- sadly , you are wrong when you say that "the only harm done is a delay of 4 months".

The real harm done is that the trust between the membership and the GC has been shattered. A vote WAS held. The required majority was NOT achieved. The GC refused to abide by the vote.

BusyB

28th Jan 2007, 11:58

NC,
Very well explained.

Kenfoggo,
After a clear explanation like that if your trust is shattered its because you want it to be regardless of all else. I take exception that "the membership" feels that. I don't recall me asking you to represent me!!:suspect:

cpdude

28th Jan 2007, 13:44

NC- sadly , you are wrong when you say that "the only harm done is a delay of 4 months".
The real harm done is that the trust between the membership and the GC has been shattered. A vote WAS held. The required majority was NOT achieved. The GC refused to abide by the vote.

Sorry your "shattered". I guess that means you will be leaving now.:}

CYRILJGROOVE

28th Jan 2007, 19:30

NC, the membership have ALREADY exercised their democratic right on this subject. The vote was for the fallback position.
How insulting to the membership?

Well at least he now says

"A vote was held and the required majority was not achieved"

Ken, my confidence in the membership is shattered when 250 members do not vote and a clear minority dictates the path we take.

Also Ken please tell us why the fallback is a good position to take? and how you will progress from there

kenfoggo

29th Jan 2007, 03:51

BusyB - Ooops, sorry. Wouldn't dream of pretending to represent you. Just my own opinion , not asking you to jump on board.

Cyril - I am not advocating the Fallback position. Just wanted to know the process by which the original vote was not accepted.

Cpdude - not sure really what to say to you.

NC - thanks for trying to explain.

SOUTHPAC

30th Jan 2007, 02:01

Apart from all the obvious reasons why we shouldnt vote for RP07 here's another one.

You can prevent Mr Rhodes from getting another 5mil bonus like he did when RP04 was introduced, lets face it how much is he going to give us

SOUTHPAC

404 Titan

30th Jan 2007, 04:38

SOUTHPAC

As much as I don’t like any manager getting large bonuses, one should never make such an important decision based on such an emotional reason. One should use their head to see the BS through the trees and that reason, I’m sorry, is a BS reason not to vote for RP07.:yuk:

Arcla

30th Jan 2007, 05:57

Like it or don't like it...BUT... RP07 it is...

SOUTHPAC

30th Jan 2007, 06:13

Agreed, Just sarcastically pointing out that if it's such a good deal for us why did he get that massive bonus and secondly how about a pay rise for us before we throw the kitchen sink

404 Titan

30th Jan 2007, 11:04

SOUTHPAC

I would say it was more to do with the fact he stopped or at worst delayed any future court cases on RP then any perceived gain in productivity.

As for a pay rise for us? You’ll get no argument out of me on that one.:ok:

Sqwak7700

31st Jan 2007, 04:09

Couldn't agree more, SOUTHPAC.

It really is negotiations 101. So sad that so many of our members don't understand that. Voting with emotions? sorry, but the pit of my stomach says that RP07 doesn't favor us. Just follow the money. Who stands to profit from RP07 if it is voted in, and then ask yourself why.

How silly we will look if the original RP07 proposal is accepted after being shot down the first time arround. :p

Against/Against is really our only option. :D

But don't worry folks. Either way, we'll never go to fallback. Even if everyone voted Against/Against, I'm sure the AOA would find another reason to extend us for maybe having another go at the vote. :ugh:

cpdude

31st Jan 2007, 05:05

How silly we will look if the original RP07 proposal is accepted after being shot down the first time arround.

When I look at the date/time you posted this reply you either don't check your email or you're a non-member. I suspect the latter!

Join and have the option to really have a voice!:ok:

Sqwak7700

31st Jan 2007, 17:39

I am a mamber and did vote, but thought it closed tomorrow.

And I still don't see anything telling the results on the AOA website. :rolleyes:

404 Titan

31st Jan 2007, 18:24

Sqwak7700

You're not looking too hard. Have you checked your e-mail? I received two telling me the result.:rolleyes:

HeavyWrenchFlyer

1st Feb 2007, 02:41

So what is the result???:confused:

Numero Crunchero

1st Feb 2007, 03:17

Ladies and Gentlemen

RESULT OF THE VOTE ON ROSTERING PRACTICES

At 12 noon today, voting closed on the motions on Rostering Practices.

First of all, I would like to thank all those Members who participated in this vote. Out of a total of 1042 members entitled to vote, 950 did so; this is a 91% turnout and is a very good response by any measure.

A summary of the votes cast is as follows:

Motion 1 For Against Abstain
To accept the Revised Company
Proposal for RP 2007 Policy Agreement 28 894 28

Motion 2
To accept the Original Rostering
Practices 2007 Policy Agreement 700 239 11

The Association’s Rules require that for a motion to be carried, it needs to attract either more than 50% of the total Membership voting in favour or more than two-thirds of those voting in favour. In this vote, both requirements were exceeded in the case of Motion 2.

Therefore, Motion 1 is lost and Motion 2, be it resolved that the Membership of the HKAOA accepts the Original Rostering Practices 2007 Policy Agreement, is carried.

I will now inform the Company of the Membership’s decision and make arrangements to sign the Rostering Practices 2007 Policy Agreement which will take effect from 1 May 2007. The administrative arrangements and COS improvements that form part of the Agreement will follow in due course.

Again, on behalf of the General Committee, I thank you for exercising your entitlement to vote in determination of your future and demonstrating support for your Association.

Regards

http://www.pprune.org/forums/cid:[email protected]
Steve Turner
President
30 January 2007